The Jena Six—and Other Scams
"(S)ome Americans do not understand why the sight of a noose causes such a visceral reaction," declared President Bush to the White House gathering for Black History Month. As the Washington Post rushed to remind us, President Bush was "responding to news coverage of such episodes as the 'Jena Six.'" But if history is about truth, not myth, that news coverage deserves another look, before the Jena Six enter the history books alongside Emmett Till and "the Scottsboro Boys."
By now, most folks know the media story. White students at Jena High in Louisiana hung nooses on a tree to warn black students not to sit under it. After a fistfight over this racist outrage, black kids in the fight were indicted for attempted murder, while the white racists who hung the nooses walked away with a verbal spanking.
Last September, 20,000 traveled to Jena to march against this prosecutorial outrage. Fortunately, however, there are still a few real journalists around. Among them are Craig Franklin, assistant editor of the Jena Times, whose wife teaches at Jena High, and Charlotte Allen, who wrote an extended piece for the Weekly Standard. According to Allen and Franklin, here are the facts and chronology you have been denied by the Mainstream Media.
There never was a "whites-only" tree at Jena High. Both races sat under it, though whites congregated there. The nooses, or lariats, were the work of three young teens, who got the idea from watching Lonesome Dove on TV, where rustlers are hanged.
Franklin says they were a joke aimed at white friends on the rodeo team. As they were painted in Jena High's gold and black, Allen reports that the kids said the nooses were directed at a rival school's Western-themed football team.
When school officials confronted them, all were remorseful. All had black friends, and none knew the nooses were offensive to blacks.
Far from being let off, they spent "nine days at an alternative facility, followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court and evaluations by licensed mental-health professionals."
They were not prosecuted for a hate crime because none of those who investigated the incident believed they committed a hate crime. Hung on Aug. 31, 2006, the nooses had been taken down instantly. Only a few students ever saw them. Case closed.
September, October and November passed at Jena High with no racial conflict emanating from the noose incident of August.
On Dec. 1, however, Robert Bailey Jr. tried to crash a party at the Fair Barn in Jena. One Justin Sloan, 22, not a student, put a fist in his face. So witnesses and Bailey reported to police. And Sloan was prosecuted for battery.
On Dec. 2, Bailey and two friends jumped a white male entering the "Gotta Go" grocery. When the latter ran to get a shotgun out of his car, they wrested it from him and took it. So two witnesses at the "Gotta Go" agreed.
Two days later came the "schoolyard fight." Only this was no fight. Black students barricaded an exit to the gym and lay in wait for Justin Barker. As Barker went for another exit, he was struck in the head from behind by Mychal Bell. Multiple witnesses say Barker fell unconscious as a gang of eight or 10 blacks stomped and kicked him in the head. The assistant principal who reached Barker thought he was dead. Barker's emergency room bill ran to more than $5,000.
When the six were arrested and charged with attempted second-degree murder, none of them and none of the witnesses mentioned the noose incident. It had had nothing to do with this vicious racist assault.
After the charges were reduced to battery, Bell, tried as an adult, was indeed convicted by an all-white jury—because no blacks answered the summons to the jury pool. Why was Bell prosecuted as an adult? Because he had four prior convictions for crimes of violence.
After his conviction was overturned, Bell was ordered retried as a juvenile. Rather than face the same 17 witnesses, he pled guilty in December to hitting Barker from behind, slamming his head into a concrete beam and kicking him in the head. Sentenced to 18 months in juvenile detention, he agreed to testify against his co-conspirators.
While some $500,000 has been raised for the Jena Six defense, its whereabouts is unknown. Bailey did pose on the Internet grinning, however, with $100 bills in his mouth. Bell's mom is said to be driving a new Jaguar, and Bailey's mom a new Beamer. Two other Jena Sixers, Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis, appeared in rapper attire on Black Entertainment Television as presenters of a Hip-Hop Award.
A week ago, 6-foot, 6-inch Purvis, who had transferred to Hebron High in Carrollton, Texas, was charged with assault, choking a student and ramming his head into a bench.
And that's the Saga of The Jena Six. It belongs right up there with the Rev. Al's other classics: Tawana Brawley and the Duke rape case.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
@48
Yes, I actually don't think the New Testament permits slavery in a positive way so much as tolerates it. So Paul/Saul could say to slaves -- obey your masters, but I don't think that is really a ringing endorsement of slavery. I wonder what the actual practice was among early Christian communities. I don't think they would press the issue a la Abolitionists, but I don't think holding large numbers of slaves would have been accepted. But I am not a church historian, or even much of a Christian.
While I have enjoyed the comments by Drs. Fleming, Peters, and Wilson--and learn much from them every time--I fear that this conversation is turning into "Nah-uh, uh-huh!"
However, concerning the old European order and as to who really represented the old order. Karl Marx, at the advent of the war, wrote gleefully to his friend F. Engels saying, "This marks the beginning of a worldwide revolutionary movement." He was correct. In the preface to my copy of Communist Manifesto, Marx is praised for toppling the ancien regime, the old Christian European order.
Suffice to say, Marx was thrilled with the prospect of a Jacobin-Abolitionist victory.
There was no chattel slavery in the traditional European order, certainly not chattel slavery involving taking a vastly differing (genetically) population from their homeland and sticking them . Even the worst forms of Serfdom has shallow roots, being a response by large landowners in the European periphery to the beginning of industrialization. So, not for the only time , Marx was wrong.
The Civil War pitted one aspect of modernity -- industrial interests coupled with a freeholding farmers, against large-scale commodity producers using as a workforce large numbers of humans transported long distances against their will. Slavery, as practiced on a large scale in the antebellum South was just as much an innovation as industry -- and indeed was a response to industrial development (remember the effect the cotton gin had on demand for the chief product produced by the South's slaves)
"Thank good the North, representing the true culture of northern Europe, won."
Yes, thank god the North won the War Between the States. If it were not for Yankees, we would not have the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1871, and 1875, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968, and 1991, the Voting Rights Act, the Immigration Act of 1965, the IRCA Amnesty, and the Immigration Act of 1990. It was the North that pushed all of the above through Congress.
Check this out:
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/geography.htm
The North was practicing integration and racial equality on the state level by the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. As far back as the 1840s, a negro in Massachusetts was "free" to marry the white woman of his choice. In contrast, the American South had the most elaborate race regime in the history of the world. Thank god we are a part of this Union - this disgusting dollar country - with Hollywood and Wall Street. Go USA!
"He might also refresh his memory on the circumstances regarding the Kansas-Nebraska act. In the US before 1860 two systems were in competition — the traditional northern European pattern of settlement by ox and plough, and the innovation of chattel slavery, which brought aliens and alien genes into our national bloodstream."
There was nothing whatsoever "traditional" about the hyper liberal capitalist democracy Yankee regime in the American North. Europeans certainly didn't see it as "traditional." It was a novel social system at the time.
"And as for white southerners, what would their society have looked like after another 100 years of slaveholding, slave importing and yes, slave breeding. No doubt something akin to Jamaica or Haiti, and we all know how functional those societies are."
Please tell me something. What does America look like today thanks to Yankee liberal capitalist democracy? What does Western Europe look like now that their social system has been transplanted there?
The settlement of our Western lands was a deeply traditional phenomenon, echoing the settlement of South Africa by the Boers and even the settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain. Ox, plough, wife, family.
Had the south prevailed, America would look like Haiti or the 'black belt' of deep South. It was unwise in the extreme for the Southerns to allow African slavery, it was unwise to preserve the system.
The difference between a white supremacist like Prozium and a nationalist like myself is that we don't want to dominant, we want to live completely apart. In 1840s Mass there weren't enough blacks to matter. Oregon actually banned settlement of blacks, as did Illinois. (As pointed out in Chronicles, like it was a bad thing). No, where there were not blacks there was no necessity for an 'elaborate racial regime' -- which in any case wouldn't have broken down. Look at Haiti
One of the reasons that Europe, esp. UK is being colonized by Third Worlders now is precisely the 'blow-back' from slavery and empire. Had the Brits not brought Africans to the Caribbean to work their plantations, there would have been no mass influx of Jamaicans and others into post-war UK. I am not saying that is all there is to it, but it played a big part. Stop blaming Yankees, blame the early 'agribusiness' that were the large slaveholders in the South and the Caribbean.
White Americans-Souithern and Northern varieties-do not have to chose between the Aristocratic slave owning South where there was a large population dirt poor Whites with no future or the Aristocratic North with a large White wage slave population goverened by the homosexual Linclon.
White Americans can take a pox -on -both -of t-hem view of things.
It is revolting to see Clyde Wilson portray the old South as a paradise for lower-caste Southern Whites. Life was nasty and brutal for these people. And it continues to this day. The south was and conitnues to be a low wage labor market beloved by Japnases and German industrialist. You can't blame the Yankees for this. Attempts at labor organizing and unionization on the part of White Southern worker class has always been met with brutal repression.
Why does it bother you TJF when White Husbands and Fathers "whine" about having to train their H-1B visa replacement from India who will go on to to join his fellow "Hindu" Americans and politically organize around their racial/ethnic interests? Are we to organize politically around the reading of the classics?
A few questions for TFJ:
1)Are you opposed to White Americans politically organizing around their legitmate racial interests?
2)Do you believe White Americans have legitmate racial interests?
3)Would you like to see White Americans remain a racial majority in America?
A decade ago, I attended a book reading by that other Thomas Flemming. Your name came up and the other Thomas Flemming proceeded to trash you TJF. I rose up from the audience and gave and verbally thrashed the other TJ.
"While I have enjoyed the comments by Drs. Fleming, Peters, and Wilson–and learn much from them every time–I fear that this conversation is turning into “Nah-uh, uh-huh!” " -Jacob Aitken
I agree. Except if you know what's going to happen and what did then leaving it out more or less tends to highlight what remains that's more telling, yet usually overlooked otherwise? (Basically it's the Hemingway theory for writing a novel.)
But I understand that this is only a magazine and website of culture and so the endless rehashing and parsing of the minutiae of the past and relative present as if endlessly fascinating is par for the course. It's important and as well rather feminine, which is good. Although women themselves tend to take such splitting of hairs to the deparment stores. Needless to say there are mensches here or in the making.
Albeit occasionally one of the actual women - will indeed leave their husband, and run away with a miniature painter. Not that that's anyone's motivation?!
Alas I think it was the sad fate initially of Robert Cohen before another dame fatal took him in hand. Whom he let go of for a nymphomaniac, until she let him go, and moved to the next.
I apologize. Carry on.
__________________________
To Clyde Wilson: I consider myself a proud southerner who is well read in the culture and history of the South. I greatly admire your work in helping define what makes the South so unique, and have read many of your books and essays.
Nonetheless, I have a few bones to pick. Insofar as there is a "yankee problem" the three most irksome things the Yankees did was 1) Invade the south at the behest of the Radical abolitionists, encourage slave revolts etc. 2) Reconstruction which empowered blacks and 3) the Civil Rights Invasion.
I agree with you that the Northerners were not always guided by a concern for blacks in these cases, but if there is a "yankee problem," they certainly have used negroes as a weapon.
Furthermore the pot is certainly calling the kettle black if you agree with Fleming's complaint that the White Nationalists are whiners who just want a new victim group. Have you not testified in civil rights cases to try to argue that Southerners can be considered a protected minority group?
If I may close with a question?
Who would you rather your daughter marry? a "southern" black or a "yankee" white.
Aside from Jared Taylor, Sam Francis (prior to his death) and Sam Dickson have been the only men to address every American Renaissance Conference, and they both welcome have spoke at the Randolph Club. I don't know exactly why Tom Fleming hates Jared Taylor so much, but it seems arbitrary and perhaps personal, not based on Aristotle's Logic.
Contra Fleming, I have plenty of allegiance to real culture and community. I am a proud Southerner who can trace 7 confederate ancestors on both sides of the family tree, not a "Lincoln-loving Yankee." Far from being and "uneducated and illogical anti-Christian pro-white racists" I am a practicing Presbyterian--the same church my parents and grandparents belonged to-- and have graduate and law degrees from the most regarded schools in the South.
That said, I work as a lawyer in a big city, I sent my kids to an upscale public school, and I am not ashamed to say that I use the car, the internet, and the telephone.
I did my best to inoculate my children from pop culture garbage and indoctrination at school. I passed down the values that my father taught me. Whatever my failings, I am glad to say they are all married to other conservative white southern protestants of the opposite sex.
Frankly, I think this is a lot more rooted than the counterculture hippies who convert to a traditional catholicism that the Vatican has rejected for decades, the new yorkers who suddenly become agrarians, and people who homeschool their kids to become socially isolated who inhabit the paleoconservative movement and constantly remind us cosmopolitan racists about what community really means.
Finally, it is almost comical that Fleming is somehow blaming us mean old racists for giving "fund-raising material" for the Southern Poverty Law Center and kept the supposed droves of paleoconservatives who want to have an honest talk about race. Since Sam Francis died, I can't recall seeing a single article in Chronicles that actually tried to have an honest discussion of race, ethnicity, or genetics.
You sound just like David Frum and Jonah Goldberg when they claim that they've wanted to advocate immigration reform for years, but they can't because Pat Buchanan and Peter Brimelow poisoned the well.
There was no such thing as the "slavocracy." It was an invention of European revolutionaries who entered the U.S. after 1848 and found the South an obstacle to Revolution. The Kansas-Nebraska Acts were engineered by Northern political machinations, not by Southern demands. It is true that some Southerners, in retaliation for immense proviocation, talked about expanding slavery, but the majority of Southern opinion never backed this, which is why the Confederate Constitution banned slave importations. Antebellum Southern whites were as democratic and prosperous as Northerners, likely more so. The planters ecercised far less control than the financiers and industrialists in the North. It is true that the South is now a low-wage colony---that is the result of the scale of death, invasion, destruction, "reconstruction," vastly unequalled in any other American experience and decades of discriminatory legislation.
The idea that the South was dominated by a "slavocracy" was used and is still used as a pretense for killling off the Southern population and depriving them of their self-government in violation of the Constitution and every American principle.
Suprised no one in Chronicles has written a piece on the expected and illegal declaration of independence of Kosovo on Sunday.
TJF wrote:
So rather than crying about discrimination and focusing on hatred, the emphasis ought to be on how wonderful the South is and on love of the Southern people and culture. You might be right.
It's interesting that when the Irish whiners finally won their justly deserved freedom from the English (though perhaps freedom from the EU should be more desired) they turned and allowed massive immigration into their country. Once the great goal was accomplished, there must not have been enough culture and love of nation there to provide a reason to resist the massive invasion. The Irish then don't seem to have seceded out of love of nation so much as hatred of the English.
This is so true of a certain type of racialist. However, a man who loves his own people and comes to think a certain way as a result might also come to expect others to think in such a manner as well, e.g. I love the South and with good reason, and I rather expect the Japanese to love their people too.
Those who have nothing and turn to loving the white race(s) as a result are respectable if they turn to such out of an honest emotional connection rather than out of a theoretical reading of whoever it is who preaches love of evolutionary theory and such things as the eugenic value of war and the promises of genetic engineering.
I probably fall into the category of theoretical racist since I believe race is an important foundation for a society, though I'd like to think I'm not too abstract. Whatever my faults, I certainly recognise an inhuman abstract tendency among the racialist "right" and am intrigued by the notion that, ah, right wingers oughtn't whine and complain. I'd come to think they ought to both whine and be proud of their past, and this is an important issue if Obama becomes President.
Clyde Wilson, I take it that you are refereing to the German revolutionaries who lost out in the German Revolution of 1845. Did you have mind Carl Shurz?
The issue isn't all that complicated. Either you are for Whites/Euro-Amerians remaining a racial majority or you aren't. If you are, you must be in favor of of an immigration policy that completely excludes hispanics.asians,africans and muslims. In others, you must be in favor of a national origins immigration policy which every Asian "American",Nigerian "American", Muslim "American" and Hispnic "Amerian" is in favor of for their own country of origins.
If White/European Americans do not organize wround their legitimate racail interests they will,over time, face complete racial and economic dispossession.
The ENEMY TJF does not want this issue discussed among White Americans. It is their worst nighmare. "Whining" is a necessary step to development a powerfull racial conciousnesss among White Americans. White Americans can not develope a race based political movement unless there is a heightened racial conciousness among the White American population.
With all this bickering, I forgot that this has all been in response to PJB's masterful article.
It is well worth noting that he quotes the Weekly Standard--who's piece was actually quite good. Heather MacDonald also had a great piece on Jena in the City Journal . I have yet to see anything in Chronicles, Lewrockwell.com, or The American Conservative.
Horace Grady,
I think Dr. Fleming is suggesting folks focus more on the culture, land, and actual people they are defending rather than on what they oppose.
Politically, you're right that the choice is currently but between mass immigration or no, but what is it that is to motivate Americans to take a stand against mass immigration?
LOL!
Once again, there was nothing whatsoever "traditional" about the hyper capitalism of the American North or the land speculators and railroad barons who drove the colonization of the American West. Why are you repeating this legend? Have you checked the demographics of Massachusetts or New Jersey? What happened to the Yankees who originally settled those states? They were overwhelmed in their own lands by the millions of Irish and Italian immigrants who settled in the Northeast to work as cheap labor in Northern manufacturing industries. "Anglo-Saxons," or more broadly "Americans of British ancestry" (otherwise known as real Americans), are predominant in the South, Utah, and parts of the Deep North like Maine and Vermont.
Had the South prevailed in the Civil War, the Confederacy would have expanded into Northern Mexico and the Caribbean, and the negro population of the south would have followed their masters to more fertile soil in the tropics. South Carolina was already losing tons of slaves to Texas before secession. The Upper South had long been ridding itself of slavery as well.
We know what happened when the North won the Civil War. It's called "history." We got racial equality and forced integration in the form of the Reconstruction amendments and the civil rights legislation passed by the Black Republican Congress. The Grant administration was the most corrupt regime to ever sit in the White House.
It was unwise in the extreme for Southerners to remain in a Yankee dominated Union. Virtually every sick perverse idea in American history from abolition to gay marriage has fallen on fertile soil up there in the enlightened Northeast. From there, this garbage has been imposed on the rest of the country through the federal courts. I would rather live amongst suppliant negroes anyday than those self-righteous, condescending, materialistic hypocrites.
The major difference between us is that I reject Yankee laissez-faire capitalism, probably the most destructive economic system in world history, at least from a nationalist standpoint. Nothing chews up nations and spits out mongrels like good ol' free market capitalism.
Oregon and Illinois repealed their black codes. They outlawed segregation in transportation, education, public accommodations. Both enfranchised and extended full civil rights to negroes. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law as far back as the eighteenth century. Negroes and whites had been intermarrying in Pennsylvania for almost 200 years before the Loving decision struck down South Carolina's anti-miscegenation law.
All the bilge about "civil rights" and "equality" which now pollutes the South, not to mention Western Europe, was pioneered by the fanatics of New England. The "Civil Rights Movement" was nothing but the North extending its sick, degenerate social system across the rest of the country.
That makes no sense at all. Slavery was abolished in the West Indies, what, almost 130 years before the British Nationality Act of 1947 allowed non-whites in the Commonwealth to settle in the U.K. No, the major reason why non-whites started pouring into Britain after WW2 is because the victory of the Allies in that war was identical the complete triumph of LIBERALISM which, as Chronicles readers should know, is the ideology of the Yankee.
Stop blaming Yankees? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a lopsided majority of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the teeth of a Southern filibuster in the Senate. It was one of the most sectional votes in American history. As Dr. Wilson certainly knows, that is only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, every major piece of federal "civil rights" legislation now law in the United States came into being in the same way.
TJF,
If you are indeed serious in your complaint, you will of course want to reproduce your comments in an upcoming issue of Chronicles, so that all of the remaining Sam Francis conservatives still reading will see how you feel about them, and respond in the way you have hoped - by cancelling their subscriptions. My concern is that not all of them read this online version, and some may have missed what you said here.
I'm sure you will agree that the support of such people for your magazine is no more appropriate than their comments here.
Just write it large across the cover - "There's No Such Thing as the White Race." I can hardly wait to see it.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the entire rest of the country united to impose a second Reconstruction on the South---coerced integration across vast areas of the rural South where whites are a minority. Where were these brilliant and brave "white nationalists" then? Cowering in fear of their small black population and fleeing to the suburbs, while hoping to buy safety for themselves by strutting about preening about their moral superiority to Southerners. We did not hear much from them until "civil rights" moved North. Stari is even so bemused by Marxist class conflict history that he blames Southerners for causing the problems that appeared first in Northern cities. He thinks Southerners were so stupid they fought on the wrong side. First they blamed us for being "racists" and now they blame us for not being "racist" enough. In other words, all their problems are caused by the South, whatever the poroblems may be. The truth is that all the problems are in THEIR national character---i.e., childish, short-sighted selfishness posing as wisdom and benevolence. Why would any sensible Southerner want to link his fate with such people? I take TJF's main point to be that the survival of worthwhile societies rests on a good deal more than abstractions. Those who need IQ charts and crime statistics to tell them what common sense and history have made evident for centuries are dubious allies.
And what "white nationalists" have offered any solution to our current condition? None that involves culture, religion, or tradition. Only control of state force by a different group.
I do not blame Southerners for the problems in some nothern cities, except to the extent that Southerners -- specifically the southern largerholding class -- that provided the 'market' and 'demand' for Africans (and yes I realize that some Yankees were involved in the slave trade , but markets are driven by demand) thus bringing millions of them into lands we conquered. And yes, I use Marx's analysis at times, the man was very perceptive on some issues -- its not for nothing that Hofstedter (sp) called Calhoun the Marx of the Master class (which he no doubt meant as a compliment). And quite frankly I don't see why Prof. Wilson is upset; hasn't he himself expressed dismay that white, rural southern boys are again fighting and dying for the very 'empire' that oppressed the South? These boys may not be stupid, but they do seem blind to their own interests just as their great great great grandfathers were
Here is a difference between Southerners and Northerners. The southern small holders let themselves be gulled by their betters, or were too weak to overthrow the largeholder rule in the South. On the other hand, when the functional equivalent of the Southern aristocracy in the north started importing Chinese coolie labor (for railroads etc), northern white folks put a stop to it , first through direct action and then through gaining political power, culminating in the Chinese Exclusion act.
Oh, and race is not an abstraction. It is physical and quantifiable on many dimensions.
On community see http://www.amren.com/communities/community.html and work by Robert S. Griffin
The strange thing about these run ins are their total pointlessness. I admirer most southern white folk now -- Jeff Sessions did heroic work in stopping the McCain amnesty. I go along with Chronicles 'localism' in that localities are leading the fight against demographic displacement (that confederate stronghold of Hazelton, Penn , for example) I don't even mind a little trimming of the sails of those who seize every possible occasion to proclaim the 'fourteen words'. But it is strange that those such as Prof. Wilson, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Zmirak should have such antipathy towards people with whom they share many points of agreement and a common cultural and genetic heritage from Europe. Sorry, but in a world of mass transportation, mass mobility, and mass politics, adopting the moonlight and magnolias attitude, being bitter about the end of a regime that would have eventually ended badly for southern whites in any case(again, look at Haiti, or even Rhodesia and now in slow motion South Africa)
I know Mr. Fleming spends most of his time immersed in the classics, so perhaps he missed his state's junior Senator speaking in front of Southern blacks in Atlanta -- blacks festooned with kente cloth, blacks who are going to vote for Obama not because his is a longtime member of their 'local community' or even because his ancestors shared the same trials and tribulations as his did. No, they are going to vote for him because of his race. Examples could be multiplied for 'Asians' or 'Latinos' in the US. Advising that whites retreat into localism, or nostalgia for the lost cause, under such circumstances is sheer folly.
...that racial loyalty is as natural as family loyalty..
And that, Mr. Taylor, is why this Irish-Algonquin so frequently gets drunk and scalps himself.
As a Christian Catholic I think the recent racialist rhubarbs breaking out all over the web are truly bizarre.
Racial loyalty? T'Hell does that even mean? I swear, America is falling apart and the idea that focusing on race is an answer to our decline into tyranny is an idea so wildly insane that anyone who thinks that is an individual I will do my best never to befriend.
On a thread teeming with hatred twixt whites in the north and whites in the south the idea race is the answer is hysterically funny.
Clyyde Wilson, Frank and TJF
I don't accept your characterization of White Nationialist. First of all your comments are in the vague,general and broad-sweeping realm which is just another way of saying that the comments have no merit.
If you read the articles and comments section at the White Nationalist website American Renassaince there is a lot of discussion about Language, Culture,Economics and connection to the Land. One ofthe most devasting things about post 1965 immigration policy-in addition to reducing White Americans to a racial minority in the nation they founded and created- is that it it causing a massive uprooting of the majority Euro-American population. This a major complaint in the comment section of American Renassaince.
Clyde Wilson, you can't blame ordinary White American Northerners for the New South. Southern Business elites and their propagandist at places like the Atlanta Constition and the Cahrlotte Observer, were, and contiune to be, the biggest cheerleaders for the New South. You can blame them for making Atlanta and Charlotte a friendly place for the degenerate homosexual Elton John and his fellow Euro-trash pals. And While I'm at the blame game, you can also blame the pinhead raptue Evangelicals. There is definitely something in Southern Culture that is corrupt and evil and it needs to be rooted out before WW3 starts in few weeks. This Rapture pinheads may have doomed the whole human species. They vote for EVIL year in and year out. You know it and I know.
The racial transformation of America is happening much more rapidly than most people realize.
What I find more than a bit nuttly about your comments anf TJF's comments is that many White Nationalist do not see the cultural sensibilities of the Chronicles staff as being incompatible with White Nationalism.This why a lot of White NAtionalist are probably shocked by TJF's venom.
I think the big difference between Many White Nationialist and Paleoconservatives is over the issue of free markets and goverment protection of workers rights. My sense is that many White Nationalist do worship the free market and would like to see power transfered back away from the bossman and back to White American workers.
stari_momak,
yes slavery was a mistake, even R. E. Lee admitted this, and yes the North won the war... Well, now here we are - the invasion continues... Why didn't the North put an end to it? After the Civil War is when immigration started getting bad. We got in floods of Eastern and Southern Europeans, and it all went downhill from there.
Another point I want to make. White Nationlaism is the only way to confront t post-1965 Asian "American" aggression towards Euro-Americans. There is no point in beating around the bush about this. White Americans are completely defenseless against Asian "Americans" agressioj at the represent. The only defense is for White Americans to politically organizing around their legitimate racial interests. Asian "Americans" are actively participating in the deskilling and destruction of thousands of years of collective scientific,engineering and medical experience that resides in the brians of White Americans. The Asian "American" demands that White Americans accept passively their economic and racial dispossession in the nation they founded and created.
It galls me every time Jared Taylor states in public that he believes Asians in America ae smarter than White Americans. With friends like this who needs enemies.
Racial loyalty? T’Hell does that even mean?
Self-preservation? If every other ethnic group and race acts collectively against whites putting their group interests ahead of other concerns such as religion, how should whites respond, if at all?
All this South v North stuff would matter if Southerners beyond this website cared about it. They do not appear to. They are the biggest USA flag-wavers. While opposition to the neocon war was/is strong in the 'Yankee' areas Southerners overwhelmingly supported going to war against the harmless 'eye-raqis'. They care more about foreign adventurism than they do about Jena Six incidents and immigration. According to Michael Lind Southerners were the most belligerent Americans during the two wars against Germany. So Stari Momak's comment about poor Southerners also being conned into fighting someone else's war in 1861 is worth considering.
Horace Grady,
I was only referring to a specific tendency in white nationalists. This can be seen at The Occidental Quarterly and The Scorpion as well as Stormfront and other assorted virtual locations: they worship genetic progress so that they become progressive geneticists. There is no love of anything then but progress, and it's sickening. Their white nationalism doesn't seem to stem from a love of whites but rather from a love of perfection or at least of superiority, which is totally different. TOQ still produces a few good articles though, which baffles me.
Race is important as a foundation for a society, or else a society ought to become homogeneous over time. Blood, soil, and religion ought to be the center of a nation from which it draws its direction. From that though ought to rise real communities with families, real art, real living ancestral traditions, real architecture, real ties to the fauna and flora, and real ties to the land even. I think of race as a genetic tradition.
Such particular ties keep a man sane and grounded in reality. They can also help to guide him, and man is guided more by the irrational than the rational.
---
I'm not a great thinker like Dr. Fleming and Dr. Wilson, more of a casual virtual scribbler with very limited time who tends to confuse which thinker said what..., but this importance of real ties that they continue to stress ought to be heeded. And higher respect ought to be given men who've dedicated their lives to their civilisation and people, and who have risen up to become greats as well. If 100 of each had been produced rather than just 1, what would the US look like today? I admire Jared Taylor's efforts as well to be sure.
I should say that TOQ and other assorted contain such views, not that they exclusively express such views. How the two radically different views can exist side by side though baffles me, as does the libertarian and traditionalist (I'm probably a traditionalist) pairing that is so common among the right.
Western civilization is in peril from spiritual and intellectual confusion---caused in part by reliance on "scientific" theories and the politicization of things that belong to society rather than the state. The question at issue here, I think, is whether or not we can be saved by different abstractions and a different political power?
Self-preservation? If every other ethnic group and race acts collectively against whites putting their group interests ahead of other concerns such as religion, how should whites respond, if at all?
I am a communicant in a large Parish in So. FL We have a lot of Hispanic and Vietnamese members and not a few Blacks and Jews also.
If those brothers and sisters of mine are acting collectively against me they are adept at masking their actions.
I do not ever recall reading about "racial loyalty" in the writings of any of the Early Church Fathers or any Ecumenical Councils, or any Papal Encyclicals or any Universal Catechisms etc.
I 'spose one response to racism is to adopt racism as a tactic but modeling one's behavior based upon another's malign actions doesn't seem either reasonable or morally defensible.
Me and The Bride will be writing a check today to the Annual Diocesan Services Appeal. Part of our money will be used by the Diocese to financially, emotionally and spiritually support the women and children of migrant workers (few of whom are white) who travel all over (picking apples in Ogdensburg, NY for example) and part of the money will be used to support retirement homes caring for elderly Priests and Religious (few of whom are black).
I suppose some racialists would think me an enemy of my own race because I do not base my actions upon the question - What is best for whites?
And the idea my children might marry a Black, Hispanic or Vietnamese Christian? Oh, the horrors !!!!!
I am not Spartacus,
Jim Kalb's The [Previous] Pope on immigration is a good reply I think:
---
I think Mr. Kalb is insufficiently schooled when it comes to what the Church teaches about immigration, for starters. Maybe that is what accounts for his poor response. He errs badly in thinking what the Church teaches is open borders.
From the Catechism:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
How Mr. Kalb thinks that equates with Open Borders is beyond me.
(( I hope this comment elicits the response I am expecting because it will enable us to block the whiners–white in face only–from our site. ))
In my opinion, people who post inflammatory comments are often looking for attention. The best way to discourage them is to ignore them. The second-best way is to moderate the comments, but that has the unwanted side-effect of hampering lively discussions.
I suggest that we simply ignore inflammatory comments. That seems to be what we do on this site most of the time, and it seems to work well. The "flamers" post one or two messages and then stop when no one takes the bait.
The Immigration Act of 1965: The congressmen of both parties from all sections of the U.S. except one voted large majorities FOR this act. Guess the one section of the country whose congressmen (of both parties) voted large majorities AGAINST the act? You people invent regimes and impose them upon us. Now some of you have turned against your invention. You revert to your long-established historical excuse: blaming the South for the problem when all we are doing is trying to make the best of your folly (which we are doing a much better job of than you are). And now you want us to join you in imposing another of your invented polities as a correction to your previous one. No thanks.
Mr. Kalb wrote I suppose the question I would put as a citizen is whether something that involves the Way of the Cross — whatever its spiritual benefits for a man like the Pope — can be justified as public policy.
What the Pope said: The path to true acceptance of immigrants in their cultural diversity is actually a difficult one, in some cases a real Way of the Cross.
Mr. Kalb's error is evident. The Pope is addressing the individual and his response to immigrants not the public policy of these United States.
I'm not a Catholic; I'm a Presbyterian/Calvinist. I don't know what the Vatican tells y'all.
What I do know is that aliens can't magically be made over into natives; aliens do not possess the same ancestral ties. Man does not live by bread alone, but he doesn't live by religion alone either.
Rather than welcoming in migrants, native Christians ought to preserve their communities by remaining separate. Feed the poor and the hungry, but don't welcome them into your communities... Yes, the Christian has a duty to the stray sheep, but the duty to one's own people is higher, and to the social order as well. By continuing to welcome in new additions, there is incredible transience and diversity - perpetual revolution that prevents any natural order from arising.
I don't know if Vatican II is to blame, if the US branch has always been open-borders (and make no mistake it largely caters to the invading hoard), or if it is just infected by the same global Marxists who have taken over my own church; but open borders Christians are destroying everything good in this world, and with an oblivious smile on their unquestioning faces. I wonder if they even care about this world in the least in their hurry to get to the next...
The solution to the diversity problem isn't destroying our own communities and remnant foundation upon which our civlisation might be restored but simply... sending them back from whence they came; bagged lunch, carton of water, and Bible in hand.
---
Anyway, I should go before I get pulled into defending my people once again... I try not to comment too much, especially when off topic, but it's difficult to stay out when such things are discussed. Abstract Christians, abstract WN, abstract libertarians... a world gone mad.
Frank
I Agree with you. The geneticism I can live without. It is tactically foolish. Making the case against post-1965 immgration policy is much stronger if argued in terms of the racial composition of America, threat to Euro-American culture,the English language and the attack of a sense of place and connection to the land.
A good way to sidetrack a discussion of the harmfull efects of post-1965 immigration is to talk about which race is the smartest and which race is the dumbest. This is Jared Taylor's and Virignia Abernethy's debating achilles hell.
Clyde Wilson
Whatt abstractions are talking about? The fact that post-1965 immigration policy will radically change the racial composition of America? The fact that post-1965 immigration policy has radically transferred power away from White workers to the bossman? Spanish speaking and foriegn miami,LA and Houston?
Almost immediately after the Civil War,Southern elites developed an appetite for Southern European labor to fill their apetite for degraded labor. It didn't work out. The Southern Europeans weren't intetested in being degraded wage slaves in the American South. They quickly fled North.
Southerners vote for their own racial and economic dispossession-whether they understand this or not-year in and year out. You can't blame Northerners for this. No one is putting a gun to their heads to vote this way. Do you want to keep giving them excuses Clyde Wilson?
It should read: debating achilles heal
We have a lot of Hispanic and Vietnamese members and not a few Blacks and Jews
Well, that's a first, a Catholic parish with Jews.
But I am not Spartacus exhibits the typical attitude of superiority of those who deny whites the right to their own lands. He help 'migrant workers' who both lower the wages of the poorest and increase stress on social services in the United States. He mocks those who wish to see racial continuity, but I wonder if it really came down to it -- if his grand children and great grandchildren end up resembling him as Obama's children resemble the people that brought up Obama and paid for his privileged life. Moreover, I do remember conflicts with the Vietnamese when they arrived in the Gulf, as they disrupted the carefully balanced fishing and shrimping ecosystem. My own county experienced an influx of these 'enrichers' -- driving white working class out of the area. And yes, they do work against us -- recently they elected a county supervisor of their own kind -- voting as a ethnic block (or actually a split block, there were two Vietnamese candidates -- but almost all Vietnamese voted for one or the other). Power is a zero sum game, and they one by demographics.
You know Spartacus, there are what, 15, 20 overwhelmingly Catholic countries to the south , mestizo countries at that. Why don't you migrate and thus dissolve yourself , your family, and your genes in all that wonderfulness.
I just want to be part of the "body of Christ", and thus answer when called by my Lord and saviour, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords.
Should the call occur soon, I would prefer to live on this earth under liberty and freedom, and not neomarxist democracy under a new world order of obediance to the god of materialism, socialism and matriarchy.
All are brothers who hold Jesus Christ as King of Kings. This is my new heritage. It will be better when Christ establishes his Kingdom on this earth, and then the societies of this world can hold banquets in warmer confines.
I don't know a thing about oxen, but I'll take my family and move on sharing the gospel of salvation.
"White Nationalism" didn't exist as a movement until the 1990s.
Horace Grady,
it's not that Southerners aren't suicidal, uprooted, and loyal to abstract entities, it's that the rest of the country is usually more so.
However, I'm elated to see a Yank defending his own people. Bitter bad they may be, they're your own... and yes the same can be said of my own as well - I prefer mine, but I'm not looking to refight the war.
I see the takimag debate was quite lively; it's a shame I missed it. Welcome to the boobus Americanus movement! If you can stomach us rednecks, I think you'll find us worthy allies. I haven't met many Yankees who don't consider themselves more members of Earth than America, so it's a privilege and an unusual honour to meet one who's still human.
This is incorrect. Southerners care about many of the same issues that we do: immigration, affirmative action, multiculturalism, civil rights, etc. They still have a sense of being "white." In 2004, as you should know by now, a proposed amendment to strike segregationist language out of the Alabama State Constitution was defeated in the general election. I voted in that election. Millions of Southerners are still "racialists" to some degree.
There is a reason for that as well. White Southerners are almost uniquely descended from the original colonists. The rest of the USA + South Florida is the "nation of immigrants." The South is not. That's why Southerners told the U.S. Census that they are "American" by ancestry.
True.
The military is a big employer in the South. I don't think you will find anyone here who supports the Iraq War out of Southern patriotism.
Not really. Immigration is the #1 or #2 issue in many Southern states right now. I know for sure that is the #1 issue in Texas. In Alabama, it was #2 behind the economy. Iraq and the "War on Terror" are generally further down the list of concerns here.
It seems non-Southerners are always saying that. From a racialist perspective, this makes no sense. If the Confederacy had won its independence, 99% of the crap we despise about America would never have happened.
This discussion should probably have ended a long way back, but some things are so egregious and yet so typical that they should not go unanswered. Sari, I presume, is one of those advocating that people engage in political action on the basis of being white. In his peculiar history, Southerners were stupid and misled to resist the destruction of their lives, property, and self-government by invading Northern armies that designed to force them under black rule. You see, the invading army was really saving the South and the white race because it was destroying a "slaveocracy" (an imaginary concotion of Marxist class conflict theory) who were trying to spread slavery and thus threatened, if they succeeded, to inflict miscegenation at some unspecified time in the future as well as poverty on the white population. And who are this "slaveocracy"? The class of Washington, Jefferson, and Lee who provided all the best leadership in the founding of the U.S. Under this class, the black population were on the whole peaceful and productive peasants who contributed greatly to the economic growth and prosperity of the country---until disrupted by invasion by those Northerners who used them against their Southern fellow ciitzens---who people like Sari apparently despise, feel superior to, and blame for their own mistakes. And then we have another writebacker of the same ilk blaming the South for the U.S. becoming "a nation of immigrants." It is true that there was some effort to bring European labour into the South after the war---something which you folks should approve of since it was an attempt to increase the proportion of the white population. But this was a very minor part of the "nation of immigrants." You really should not be making comments about subjects on which you know nothing, or the little that you do know is wrong. Your good white Republican masters of the 1860s created a "contract labour law" along with their tariff, national bank, national debt, corporate subsidies, etc. The purpose of this was to bring in low wage, bound Eastern and Southern European workers to man the industries. This, of course, severely cut into the prosperity of the native American workers of the North---many of whom had been stupid enough to fight to help the corporate socialists crush their Southern opposition. These workers were deluded by abstractions about Union, national glory, emancipation, etc., an all too prominent feature of their national character. I cannot begin to fathom why those who preach "white solidarity" persist in absurd denunciations of their Southern fellow countrymen. The U.S. has a black/white history of almost four centuries now, all but the last half century pretty much confined to the South. You people are totally ignorant of this history and have certainly learned nothing from it. You act as if the black/white question did not exist until you noticed it. And you propose to address it by newly invented theories. In this respect you are exactly like your leftist fellow countrymen---ignorant of history, culture, and common sense.
I do not contend that the South is immune to the acids of modernity, only that it has been resistant to them while they have triumphed among the rest of Americans.
In all fairness, the modern architect of "White Nationalism" was Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) who advocated the deportation of the negro to Africa in Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization. Bilbo spent much of the late 1930s/early 1940s trying to persuade Congress to support his plan.
The idea that America is a "white man's country" and should remain that way indefinitely has been floating around for centuries, although only recently has a movement emerged out of it. Jefferson in his Notes wrote about deporting the negro to his "native clime." Madison and Monroe were involved with the American Colonization Society. In the 1790s, there was a strong movement in Virginia to resettle negroes abroad.
Free Soilism had strong "White Nationalist" overtones. Wilmot advertised himself as the champion of the white working man. His famous proviso was about preserving the West for the white race. Lincoln, as you know, was in favor of deportation. Jefferson Davis had similar thoughts in his memoirs. He wanted to ship them to Latin America. During the late nineteenth century, Sen. John Tyler Morgan (D-AL) toyed with the idea of resettling the negro in the Belgian Congo and supported Protestant missionaries in Africa like William H. Sheppard to advance this agenda.
Historically speaking, "White Nationalism" (in its various incarnations) has never been a "Southern" or "Northern" idea. It was least popular at the extremes: in the Lower South with the labor needs of its plantation based economy and in New England where it was criticized on moral grounds. It tended to fall on fertile soil in the Upper South, Border States, and Border North: a belt of states that stretched from Virginia to Missouri.
The revolutionary changes to immigration law, federal civil rights reform, and the spread of television has nationalized the race issue in a way that wasn't the case previously. Northern and Southern racial attitudes have converged significantly since the end of segregation. There are now Northerners who sound like Southerners on race and vice versa. The South has imported some of the worst aspects of the North (evangelical Christianity, super capitalism, democratic fundamentalism, anti-racism, etc.) and been deformed by them.
Northerners who finally get the race question should be applauded for doing so and welcomed as allies. They are certainly less of a threat to our interests than the McCain voters which we are producing domestically.