Until then I have absolutely nothing to discuss vis-à-vis the preposterous claim that “Catholicism is liberalism.”

Even if the clergy in France is an arm of the state, that doesn’t explain how the clergy in so many other countries ends up being so liberal. The state of Massachusetts doesn’t negotiate with the Vatican over who will be bishop. I was watching TV and on a PBS show they stated that the majority of Hugo Chavez’s support comes from areas where the Catholic church is active. I believe that the Catholic church is a major promoter of social liberalism and it is wrong on the National Question, that doesn’t make me a Nazi.

If you go to this page it shows the percentage of each states population that is Catholic and summarizes the results in a map.
You will have to scroll down to the section marked ‘Catholicism by state.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_the_United_States

Looking at the map Dixie stands out as the only major region where the largest denomination isn’t Catholic, with South Carolina and Mississippi being the two least Catholic in the region. It should be obvious that the only region where the Catholic church does not have a plurality is the most conservative.

To put it more directly Catholicism is Liberalism, and this liberalism leads to support for immigration, both legal and illegal.

And a perfectly legitimate desire it would be, but even Dr. Wilson believes that “a genuine American nationality was in the process of forming in the WW II era, but the imperialists destroyed that when they fostered the 60s social revolution.” The preceding decades precipitated that social revolution: the Depression, the FDR courts, the wars themselves, suburbanisation, and so forth.

Another problem: most Americans are *not* Southerners and there are a few scattered decent people outside that region. So even if we do imagine that a separated South would successfully fend off McWorld-Coca-Colonisation (which I doubt), we’ve still got a bit of work ahead of us.

“If you read this article you will find that the bishops in France are nominated by the Vatican after negotiation with the French state”

The key here: “after negotiation with the French state.” Anyone familiar with the history of France would not be surprised. The whole modus operandi of the Enlightenment was the destruction of the Catholic Church, and this was best done by removing or reducing the influence of the Pope, seizing Church property and so forth.

Thus we should not be surprised that when a solid cleric like Marcel Lefebvre (who, FYI, is said to have expressed off-the-cuff support for J.M. Le Pen) does make it through he is relegated to a less significant bishopric. The atheist French state and the liberal clergy it creates will not stand for anything more.

What to make of this? I conclude that the Republic of France is complicit in the destruction of the French people, and not merely in the nature of its particular politicians but in the very existance of laws like this designed to asphyxiate the traditional institutions that define the nation.

“Since so many of Europe’s churches are liberal and state run good nationalists retreat into atheism as a way of fighting off the fecay of their country. I believe, but do not have a link to prove it, that the anti-immigrant Swiss People’s Party is dominated by secular Germans.”

You’ll get no argument from me that the post-conciliar Church is philosophically indistinguishable from soft-core atheism. Where we disagree is on the point that religion should be subordinate to “good nationalism.” That thinking, in its most benign form, leads to Maurrasianism, or in its worst, Naziism.

As far as I see it we have three options for the future:

1. Flight
In this scenario the White population flees the US for somewhere else, leaving the territory behind. Of course where would 200 million people find refuge? This also ignores that since the problem is with us, we may well end up taking it with us. To put it another way, you can’t run from yourself. If we flee we may repeat the past, with a successful America swamped with waves of people from the third world claiming they are refugees from our actions or from some suffering that they did not bring on themselves.

This option may also come about after a loss in civil war 2.

2. Fight

If we do this we need to name the forces in the US body politic that are retarding our efforts to fence our southern border and who are promoting bilingual education. In order to kill bilingual ed we may have to end foreign language education in the public schools. Instead of ending second language instruction we could replace it with an inoffensive language such as Latin that has no ethnic constituency to back it.

Also, we would have to confront the liberalism in the Roman church head on, since it is the source of so much trouble to the US. This may require the laity to ask the Vatican to fire those bishops who are playing politician instead of bishop. A simple project to get this rolling would be to list the American bishops and next to their names note whether they are liberal or conservative.

Above all we need the will to confront this, instead of putting it off.

3. Failure
In this scenario the historic American nation passes into history and our traditions of free speech, property and the common law become footnotes to history. We go on to become an English speaking minority among poor Spanish speaking peasants who despise us. In failure we would be like the Jews of Western Europe, a people without a home who must wander with only their language and a record of the laws they once had.

It is worth noting that the illegals are entering through a hole in our heads not a hole in our fence. And that hole in our heads just happens to be shaped like a communion wafer.

If you read this article you will find that the bishops in France are nominated by the Vatican after negotiation with the French state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briand-Ceretti_Agreement

Since so many of Europe’s churches are liberal and state run good nationalists retreat into atheism as a way of fighting off the fecay of their country. I believe, but do not have a link to prove it, that the anti-immigrant Swiss People’s Party is dominated by secular Germans.

I think Southerners would claim that while it is fading, it still has some presence in the South. Hence I sympathize with their desire to preserve their culture.

My point was that if there was a distinct Anglo-American civilisation to preserve with restrictionist immigration policies, there no longer is. It may or may not have been too late in 1924, but in the forty-three years following Johnson’s disastrous signature it has certainly degenerated to that point, and not JUST becuase of immigration.