American Renaissance
Home      Previous Story      Next Story     View Comments      Post a Comment


AR Articles on Southern Heritage

The War on White Heritage (July, 2000)

Poetic Justice (Aug. 2001)

The Long Retreat (Jul.1997)

More news stories on Southern Heritage

Cathy Young, Boston Globe, Mar. 4

Conservatives often complain, with good cause, about America-hating left-wing radicals in academia. Yet in recent weeks, a college professor who co-founded an organization that refers to the United States as an “alien occupier” in its manifesto — and whose 2001 essay blaming the “barbarism” of American policies for Sept. 11 was picked up by Pravda, the Russian communist newspaper — has received gushing praise on the conservative media circuit.

Meet Thomas E. Woods Jr., assistant professor of history at Suffolk County Community College on Long Island and author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.” A main selection of the Conservative Book Club, it has been propelled to the New York Times best-seller list with help from talk shows such as Fox News’s “Hannity & Colmes.”

{snip}

If there are any American heroes in Woods’s book, apart from the Founding Fathers, it’s the Southerners who fought for the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln is on the villain side of the ledger.

{snip}

The full extent of that extremism is camouflaged in the book. The author’s official bio leaves out the fact that Woods is a co-founder and member of pro-secession League of the South. Here’s a sample of the League’s views, from a position paper: “Today’s white Christian Southerners are the blood descendants of the men and women who settled this country and gave us the blessings of freedom and prosperity. To give away this inheritance in the name of ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’ would be unconscionable.” While generously urging “Christian charity” toward blacks, the paper denounces the idea that “Southerners should give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants.”

Woods’s own writings for publications such as The Southern Partisan are revealing. In a 1997 essay, he writes that the Confederacy’s defeat was the “real watershed from which we can trace many of the destructive trends” in modern America. He vilifies abolitionists and endorses a Southern theologian’s description of slavery’s defenders as “friends of order and regulated freedom.” There’s a lot more, collected by University of North Carolina professor Eric Muller at www.isthatlegal.org.

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on March 4, 2005)

Top      Home      Previous story      Next Story      Post a Comment      Search Untitled Document

American Renaissance

Comments

“While generously urging ‘Christian charity’ toward blacks, the paper denounces the idea that ‘Southerners should give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants.’”

What a charmer this Cathy Young must be in person? So we are left to ask this burning question, so Comrade Young since you find this to be so “shocking” a position on Dr. Wood‘s part, do you feel that the reverse is a desirable outcome? That is, should Southerners be expected to rapturously just hand over to “native blacks” and “Hispanic immigrants” control of their civilization and its institutions? I know, I know, that is not what you meant; you just want everyone to hold hands and sing “we are the world, we are the children” and buy each other a Coke, right? Unfortunately, this is not how the world works Comrade Young! Never forget that while you are wringing your two left hands, over Dr. Wood’s “covert racism” keep in mind, that there are groups such as the Nation of Islam and La Raza who want nothing more than to destroy this country and the race that built it. That would be the USA and the white race, regardless of regional distinctions; funny, how these groups never bother to urge “Christian charity” in our direction?

Indeed, some idiots are useful, but in all the wrong ways.

As always, God help us all!

Posted by John P. M. at 5:47 PM on March 4

Mr. Woods brings to mind several questions I have about Amren and it’s readers. First what’s the point of this magazine? If it is to raise race conciousness among whites, well I don’t think it’s going to happen. Also do the readers of Amren support repatration of all non-whites? That also will not happen. The bottom line is that the apparent goals of this magazine will never ever happen. Blacks won’t return to Africa, hispanics are here to stay, and whites won’t (or can’t) do anything about it.
Folks you can complain all day long about other races being here in America, but nothing you can do will change the country so that it’s 90 to 100% white. The only thing whites can do is leave, and that may really happen. That this article references the Confederacy may be appropriate because The Confederacy was known as “The Lost Cause”.

Posted by Thompson at 6:35 PM on March 4

Every poster here should purchase 1-2 copies of this work…I have just purchased 2 on Amazon…

Who cares about ‘who’ this man is…as long as NY Bestseller can see where the interest lies…

Posted by hrgoethe at 7:35 PM on March 4

She is playing to a small audience, conservatives that hate whites. She would do better if she were a leftist playing to their mob of white hating “minorities” and other social misfits. For the most part I’ll bet that establishment conservatives wish Wood’s book would go away because they cannot deny that white men with purpose created a great country and in their time were not so worried about the feelings of non-whites as today’s “ditto heads.” That said the real message of Wood’s book is that their is a huge market for books like these and to hell with liberal and nonwhite sensitivities.

Posted by D M Simmons at 7:40 PM on March 4

The poster, Thompson, refers to the Confederacy as “the Lost Cause”, which it surely has been and is called. After all, the Confederate States did lose the War. But, the Cause is not lost. Self government, in a system of ordered liberty, is a Cause which will never be lost. That is the Cause for which the Confederacy was fighting. I highly recommend DiLorenzo’s book, The Real Lincoln, to any who want insight into the Cause. There are other books such as, When in the Course of Human Events whose author’s name escapes me at the moment. People are beginning to escape 140 years of propaganda about the War to understand that Lincoln’s War destroyed the Constitutional Republic, and slaughtered close to 1 million “white” americans. I think that is reparations enough, more than enough!!

Posted by Noneknown at 8:44 PM on March 4

Thompson, you wrote:

“First what’s the point of this magazine? If it is to raise race conciousness among whites, well I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

Whites will never REGAIN the sense of racial consciousness they once had as Germans, Swedes, Italians, Greeks, Irishmen, etc. (and lost through assimilation) unless someone starts speaking out for the premise that whites, too, have group interests — just like blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Semites (Arabs & Jews).

I disagree that whites are incapable of having their consciousness raised. Unfortunately, things usually have to get pretty bad before most whites will speak candidly about what is causing their communities and schools to go downhill.

People are more likely to stand up for themselves if they see others doing it without the sky falling on them. After 14 years it hasn’t fallen on Jared Taylor, who gets more and more exposure as time goes by.

“Also do the readers of Amren support repatration of all non-whites?”

I, personally support the deportation of all illegal aliens and a stop to all non-white immigration, even for “family reunification”.

“Blacks won’t return to Africa, hispanics are here to stay, and whites won’t (or can’t) do anything about it.”

Whites won’t begin to assert THEIR group interests if everyone takes a defeatist attitude. Blacks and Mestizos are not going to disappear, but that does not mean whites should allow themselves to be exploited.

“The only thing whites can do is leave, and that may really happen.”

It already has. In the 1950’s the city of Detroit had a population of approximately 2,000,000, and a stable, mostly white, middle-class. Today the city’s 70% black population is down to 950,000 and Detroit is a basket case.

Move to the burbs? With open housing laws and Section 8 blacks may eventually follow.

Whites cannot keep moving away from the problem indefintely. Without a strong sense of racial consciousness they will never have the moral, physical, and political will to stand up to the lesser races that would devour them.

Blacks are tough in a group. But one-on-one, out in the open, facing a white man who is sick and tired of all their BS, it’s a different story.

Ditto with our amigos from south of the border.

The reason blacks and Mestizos are so brazen in their demands is because too many whites do nothing when somebody takes a leak in their corn flakes. In the LA riots back in 1992 the blacks and Mestizos didn’t fear the LAPD.

They feared the Koreans — who were armed to the teeth and made it very clear they would not hesitate to kill anyone who threatened their neighborhoods.

Unlike the Confederacy, the race that made Westrern civilization is not a lost cause — just a race that needs to begin to look out for #1.

Posted by Howard Fezell at 9:20 PM on March 4

Wouldn’t any state be so much better off without any federal authority over them? and the reason for this web-site in case you haven’t noticed is most of the stories here are suppressed by main stream media.I which this site would put up more minority crimes against whites so people could really see who commits most interracial crimes.

Posted by Billy Kuykendall at 9:24 PM on March 4

“Woods’s own writings for publications such as The Southern Partisan are revealing.”

Yes, and they are great. Thanks Cathy Young of the Boston Globe for revealing to us what the rest of the major media has not.
How did that old rebel cry go?

Posted by t&h at 9:48 PM on March 4

“The bottom line is that the apparent goals of this magazine will never ever happen. Blacks won’t return to Africa, hispanics are here to stay, and whites won’t (or can’t) do anything about it.”

Our five-month long winters would easily kill many blacks and hispanics without whites to pay their utility bills and put out their fires. And let’s not forget that the SW is a desert totally dependent on a fragile system of dams and aqueducts.

Posted by rAD at 9:49 PM on March 4

Cathy Young, contributing editor to Reason magazine, writes, “Unfortunately, whatever solid arguments this book has can only be tainted by association with Woods’s [sic] ultra-reactionary extremism.” Solid arguments can be tainted? Unfortunately Young’s logic is tainted by her stupidity.

Here’s a piece of Lincoln that every school child should commit to memory instead of the vacuous Gettysburg Address. From page 66 of Woods’ work,

“[t]hat I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters and jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equally. And inasmuch as they can not live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Posted by P Noctura at 10:41 PM on March 4

Never be too quick to make predictions about what will “never happen.” Years ago, people probably thought what we read about on amren “would never happen” i.e. affirmative action, massive immigration, etc. So I don’t discout the possibility of angry white mobs appearing on the horizon one day.

Posted by Cato at 11:27 PM on March 4

Justin Raimondo nailed Young’s hide to the wall quite brilliantly in his Feb. 28 essay at Antiwar.com. Check it out!

In response to “Noneknown”: Jefferson Davis said after the War of Yankee Aggression that the South’s cause would return at some future time, though in a different form. That time is now! And the author of When in the Course of Human Events Was Charles Adams. I also recommend everyone read The South was Right! by James & Walter Kennedy.

Posted by Dave at 11:39 PM on March 4

Thompson: I would venture that almost no Amren readers seriously treat a 90-100% majority, or the relocation of hispanics and blacks as a feasible goal. Raising white consciousness to a level where Whites act collectively in a way that is not suicidal, is feasible however. Whether Amren will have an appreciable enough effect is another matter. I personally feel the prospects are much more promising than you do. Which leads me to ask, if it’s all so hopeless, why bother posting to tell us?

Posted by spectre at 12:44 AM on March 5

You guys that love the Confederacy and hate Lincoln, calling him the great killer of White Men, are so blind as to be frightening: the South was evil, slavery is horrible, and the Southerners then and pro-Southerners now are hypocrites….America is a free enterprise, capitalistic civilization; slavery is anti-American, not paying a man for a day’s work is demented and disgusting. Lincoln did not kill all the Civil War mortalities, lazy Southerners did. If you guys don’t like our way of life, why don’t you guys move to Africa where slavery is legal?
Has nothing to do with Black and White. This is not a race issue, it is a soul issue.

How can a real human sleep at night knowing someone else is chained to the other side of the wall?

Posted by at 1:49 AM on March 5

No Thompson, our main goal is not to repatriate all Blacks to Africa nor is our goal to leave our country, this is after all “our country”. Instead, we would like to see people like you or better yet, YOU experience up close and in person racial realities caused by such things as unrestricted illegal immigration, suicidal asylum policies, forced integration, promotion of underclass criminal popular culture etc. We would like to see you stuck in a crowded subway car and have TB infected Haitians coughing on you, or monitor your smug, know it all heart rate as you notice the dark, hateful looking Arab passengers sitting across the aisle from you on an airplane - Oh, looks like the minimum wage minority airport screeners didn’t seem to catch the Arab’s box cutters - but, hey - those box cutter knives are just a part of the Arab Muslim culture and you’re all for multi culturalsim, just keep telling yourself it is all for the best and only evil white racists are against multi culturalism, mass immigration, gangster rap music etc Hey Thompson are you familiar with the phrase - “ye shall reap what ye have sown” - the Hindu Indians call this concept “karma”. You have some bad racial karma coming down on your body and soul.

Have a nice day.

Posted by JR at 2:47 AM on March 5

“Here’s a sample of the League’s views, from a position paper: “Today’s white Christian Southerners are the blood descendants of the men and women who settled this country and gave us the blessings of freedom and prosperity. To give away this inheritance in the name of ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’ would be unconscionable.”

I’m SHOCKED that she’s SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!

Posted by The Dalry Lama at 5:18 AM on March 5

Noneknown: “Lincoln’s War destroyed the Constitutional Republic, and slaughtered close to 1 million “white” americans. I think that is reparations enough, more than enough!!”

I think we have to get completely away from the idea that the Blacks are owed something for slavery. The Blacks that the slavers missed. What happened to them? They didn’t spend a few generations being well fed on planatations, getting a good grounding in music and basic hygiene, then learning how to manipulate White liberal guilt. No sir, most of them died horrible deaths of cannibalism, disease, starvation, or just being hit on the head with a knobbly stick.

Africa couldn’t support its excess population, so the slavers were actually saving lives! Not intentionally, of course, but saving lives nonetheless. As slavery saved a large part of Africa’s excess population from dying, it can rightly be claimed that it was nothing but good for Blacks. Africa had limited food resources and no means of settling its excess population elsewhere. Slavery probably saved more Black lives than decades of Western aid has done. It also spread Black DNA (with its criminal and anti-social tendencies) across much of the World.

https://groups.yahoo.com/group/Universal_Fascist_Party_II/

Posted by The Dalry Lama at 5:40 AM on March 5

Thompson wrote: “Folks you can complain all day long about other races being here in America, but nothing you can do will change the country so that it’s 90 to 100% white.”

Not so fast. There are plenty of events that could precipitate an out-migration of non-whites: war, legislation, economic conditions, disease, natural catastrophes, etc. Who knows what will happen 10, 15, or 20 years from now. Demography is not fixed.

Keep in mind, too, the current demographic changes underway in America are not a natural phenomenon, but are almost entirely the result of government legislation. Which means, they can easily be reversed by government legislation, if the power elites found the will to do so.

The key is, whites need to remain hopeful. One way or another, we will take back our country.

Posted by Willy at 10:23 AM on March 5

Thompson really reinforces the true ideology of non-whites, doesn’t he? In fact, he’s very explicit about his goals. Everyone should copy his remarks and send them around the internet…let as many whites as possible read for themselves what we’re up against.

Posted by Xenophon at 11:29 AM on March 5

Why is it that whenever I read articles about the noble South, the writer always seems to leave out the pertinent point that it was the Southerners who wanted to have blacks in the US?

The people of the South refuused to see two things: 1. Slavery is wrong. and
2. There was no way the society they created would last forever. In other words, the slaves would one day be free and what would that mean?

Well those of use today are reaping what our ancestors have sown. For their short term gain, they sold our futures down the river - much as the pro-immigration crowd is doing today. That’s why I like to refer to the pro-immigration crowd (especially the corporate interests, see the Home Depot article) as the Modern Day Slave Trade. They’ll make their money and live well in their life times, but what do they leave to their decendants?

The South, unfortunately, is guilty of the same shortsightedness. They even wanted to annex Cuba so they could bring in more slaves and some violated Federal law by importing more slaves directly from Africa.

Had they South succeeded we might be even worse off today. Jefferson had seen years before the war that the slaves would one day be free. Everyone should have known it, acknowledged that fact, sacrificed, and planned for a better future for their descendants.

They didn’t and that is one of the reasons we are on this forum today facing the problems handed to us from past generations.

Posted by David at 11:35 AM on March 5

Poor Thompson, he sees an awakening taking place and hopes that it is too late for whites to stop that which he and his ilk have long prepared and hoped for. The ‘Great Dark Hope” has always been about the “colored peoples” of the world rising up to cast out whites wherever they may be.

Problem is, is that most people are waking up as from a dream, looking around them and saying to themselves “what the hell…..?”. They just haven’t found the intestinal fortitude as yet to publicly voice their dismay over what has been done to their countries. But they will. One cannot run from crime statistics forever, now can one? We can all see who the majority of criminals are in this country and you see, that is where the problem truly lies. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that there is this slow dawning of eventual reality coming into play here- “what’s it going to be like when whites are at numerical parity with these people?”

Posted by RobertB at 12:46 PM on March 5

the sooner the doo doo hits the fan, the better. that is when all of us will find out what each of us is made of…. there are different types of battles and different types of battle fields, just as there are different definitions of victory and different lessons learned from combat.

Posted by jim at 5:29 PM on March 5

While Mrs. Young’s slander is terrible, I would make sure not to interpret Prof. Woods as a white nationalist of any sort. He is a principled conservative libertarian and hence takes a very strong stand against both Lincoln, as well as the Civil Rights revolution; but I would not take them as evidence as him supporting the Agenda of American Rennisaince.

Here is his take on the league of the south

https://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007450.html#more

With the passage of time the League has begun to emphasize the importance of preserving Anglo-Celtic heritage, a position I am expected to repudiate. As an Armenian and not Anglo-Celtic at all, I nevertheless see no reason to: why should every group except Anglo-Celts be allowed to preserve their culture? (As for the group’s “racism,” a word that is thrown around at anyone who looks cockeyed at Jesse Jackson, I find it revealing that white supremacist organizations have repeatedly and vocally condemned the League.)

Posted by Marcus at 6:05 PM on March 5

Very well put David…anyone who honestly looks at the past will see this, exactly.
It is my sincerest hope that we ‘are’ able to re-invent the social mechanisms which propelled us in the past; and will aid us in the time ahead…

Posted by HrGoethe at 7:18 PM on March 5

I agree with Willy. Not so fast — many thing can happen in the future — things that may be “unimaginable” to your typical liberal reporter.
The amrican civil war was not only or primarily a war to preserve the institution of slavery. It was also about preserving the consitution and the rights of the states versus the federal government. There is no question that Lincoln was a dictator responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his fellow citizens, that he regarded blacks are inferior to whites and not able to live in white society as equals, that he effectively destroyed the constitution and is responsible for the greatest and most systematic violation of civil rights in the North and that his own solution to the black question was forced repatriation.

If you would like to learn more about good old Abe I sugest reading The Real Lincoln.

In regard to views of blacks inferiority you can add every one of the founding fathers. If you think that blacks and whites are equal, I suggest you do a bit more reading and perhaps visit one of the black enclaves in one of our inner cities on your own without a gun.

Posted by PJ at 8:24 PM on March 5

Amren is a community of thought that uses reason and facts to arrive at racial reality, and is made up of all those who are puke fed up with the swill of the pc multicultists afrocentrist hoodlum scam.

The african tribal rulers sold africans to Europeans and arabs, and butchered unsold slaves during ceremonies and festivals.

Most slaves from africa went to south america, brazil and cuba, 500,000 were landed in the USA. Now there are 35 million descendants of the atlantic slave trade in the USA. They were cared for as prized property and been coddled ever since.

Other negroes owned slaves also, and white people freed them all. That is the unforgiveable sin for which whites are paying the price.

Posted by Hector at 8:41 PM on March 5

he South was evil, slavery is horrible, and the Southerners then and pro-Southerners now are hypocrites….America is a free enterprise, capitalistic civilization; slavery is anti-American, not paying a man for a day’s work is demented and disgusting. Lincoln did not kill all the Civil War mortalities, lazy Southerners did. If you guys don’t like our way of life, why don’t you guys move to Africa where slavery is legal?

1)”the south was evil”-this is the most absurd comment to come my way in quite a long time; the south was an agrarian econmy which produced such evil individuals as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. The average southerner was not a slave holder. The condition of the average slave in the antebellum south was significantly better than that of the white working classes in most of europe and in many places in the US at the time. The southerners were forced to pay taxes to support protective tarrifs for northern industries. As a result of the fanatic abolisionist in the north they were increasingly attacked, their constitutional rights denied, and politically dispossesed. The south supported the constitution and the supreme court — the north did neither. The moral code of the southern gentelman was the same moral code of Thomas Jerfferson, et a. and decidedly superior the that of the comercial north.
2)”slavery is terrible” — slavery was a universal institution in both Greek and Roman antiquity; as an economic institution in the south it was resonably efficient; most slaves were contented with their lot which was far superior to that of their fellow tribsemen who had sold them in the first place.

3)”southerners were hypocritics” — southerners beleived in the constitutionally founded states rights doctrine; they believed in a federal system in which the states, as the parties to the constitutional convention, were prior both temporally and in theory to the federal government; they believed, along with the vast majority of all americans at the time that blacks were inferior; when they were threatened by Lincoln’s election and his subsequent mobilization of 70,000 troops they succeeded from the union and established their own militias for purposes of self defense — remember no southerner wanted to invade the north — southerners just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves — for that desire, they had their teritory invaded by armed troops and they fought back — hardly hypocritical; they fought for their beliefs and died for them.

4)”slavery is anti-american”: this is another comment that could only be made by one totally ignorant of history; slavery was present at the founding of this country; southern slavery was protected by the constitution — remember Dred Scott?, remember the Fugitive Slave Act? — slavery was an american institution until 1865.

5)”Lincoln did not kill all the war mortalities”: the South desired to succeed, a principle universally recognized as a valid state perogative at the time; it did not declare war on the north; Lincoln declared war on the South and raised an army to invade and destroy the south — Shermn’s march to the sea was one part of the new northern concept of total war — I live in central Virginia and the effect of Lincoln’s war are still evident in the central valley; all the south desired was to be left alone — the war which went contrary to the constitution was begun and ended by the Lincoln administration — so, no, it was not the South’s fault; the responsibility for all of the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, for the widespread devestation was that of the North alone

6)”lazy southerners” responsible for the deaths — the north initiated the war and had quite a difficult time winning it, even though it was superior in financial power, manpower and industrial capacity and systematically suspended civil liberties in the north — remember Manassas and all the other southern victories against numerically superior opponents; remember Stone Wall Jackson, Robert E Lee and so many others — call them what you want, but “lazy” is not one of the things that can fairly be said about any of the confederate soldiers

7)”if you guys don’t like our way of life why don’t you move back to Africa where slavery is legal” — no one is endorsing slavery and none of the southern groups such as the league of the south endorse slavery — so that is what is called a “straw man” agrument — as far as “our way of life” goes, whose way of life are you referring to? — the northern way of life or the liberal way of life or the would have been a comunist but was too stupid to understand Karl Marx way of life? For your information, the south is part of the United States, unfortunately, and “our way of life” encludes southerners too. I would be very happy if it didn’t and if we could finally succeed from the rest of the country so as to have a chance to preserve our culture, but I don’t think our northern masters would like that too much.

Finally, I would suggest that you finish elementary school and then do a little reading before expressing opinions which reflect so poorly on yourself, your gross ignorance and your purile arrogance.

Posted by PJ at 9:28 PM on March 5

Regarding folks like “Thompson”…
Don’t let them get to you. They’re just the poor-man’s version Lord HawHaw and Tokyo Rose. Lots of stuff can happen in the next 50 years. Incidentally, Egyptian Civilization lasted almost unbroken for 5,000; Rome lasted for about 1,000…America is only less than 300 years old, if you calculate from 1776. So, we have alot more life in us yet, to the consternation of the “Tokyo Roses” out there.

Posted by at 10:01 PM on March 5

I checked the price of this book at Amazon, and voila, the other books mentioned in the comments above also appeared. For those who are interested, here are complete titles, author names, and prices of the books.

1. The Real Lincoln : A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War — by THOMAS DILORENZO, New: $10.17 — Used from: $8.95
2. When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession — by Charles Adams; New: $16.47 — Used from: $13.68

3. Myths of American Slavery — by Walter Donald Kennedy; Hardcover New: $15.72 — Used from: $15.50

4. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History — by Thomas E. Woods Jr.; Paperback New: $13.97 — Used from: $12.79

5. The South Was Right! — by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy; Hardcover New: $15.61 — Used from: $14.95

6. How Capitalism Saved America : The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present — by THOMAS DILORENZO; Hardcover New: $17.13 — Used from: $14.95

Posted by Reader-1 at 10:51 PM on March 5

Thompson, you wrote:

“First what’s the point of this magazine? If it is to raise race conciousness among whites, well I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

I read once where “The White Race are like the stars, the darker it gets the brighter they shine.”

Posted by Lynn at 1:40 AM on March 6

Cathy Young (nee Ekaterina Jung in Russia in (ca.) ‘63) has a weird history. She has her own site:
https://p201.ezboard.com/fcathyyoungfrm1

and writes for Reason:
https://www.str.org/index.htm

I’ve read a ton of her stuff and it ranges from mildly/moderate
left to feminist neo-con and everywhere in between. She’s not a real big fan of her own race and decries ‘racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia’, etc.; but in other columns, points out the double standard when OTHER people put down whites or males or heterosexuals or citizen, etc.

Sometimes she contributes to FIRE:
https://www.thefire.org/index.php

(which is a great org. trying to reclaim REAL free speech on college campuses)

But then again, she writes for the Boston Globe, which is a notorious left-wing paper.

She tries to be a ‘safe’ middle of the roader (like a Mort Kondracke type) and winds up ticking off both sides.

Anyway, as I always say to do, contact the source and ask her how she really feels about all this:

ladykate2004@aol.com
or

cathyyoung2@cs.com

Posted by Mike B. at 4:17 AM on March 6

To David: The people of the South, for the most part, saw slavery as wrong. All of the Founders, Jefferson for example, saw slavery as wrong. R.E. Lee saw slavery as wrong. You must view history in context, as much as possible. Slavery was a long-standing institution (by the way, Yankee traders brought most of them across.) No one I know who defends the South today, does so to defend the institution of slavery. Slavery was/is abhorrent! Defenders of the South are defending the Constitution, the right of self-determination, the right of States, as sovereingn entities to manage their own affairs without federal intervention. Understand that the Constitution granted the federal government ONLY certain powers, those ENUMERATED in the Constituion itself! No other powers were granted to the federal government, an entity created by the STATES! For those reasons, and others, I claim that the War for Southern Independence, being lost by the Confederate States, also saw the destruction of the Constitutional Republic as it was envisioned by the Founders. In place of that Republic, was ensconsed a Central Government whose power continues to grow today. Where that growth will end is anyones guess.

Posted by at 11:54 AM on March 6

This is a bit off-topic, but whatever happened to [b]Southern Partisan[/b] magazine? I used to buy it at my local newstand. It’s not there now, and hasn’t been for the last few years or so. And I can’t find it on the web. Is it still being published?

Posted by Willy at 3:22 PM on March 6

David.
Excellent post. Wake up to reality folks. Human nature will always want more. The slave will always yearn for and seek freedom, no mater his deficiencies. Feudalism (Pax, Richard Weaver) is a flawed system - defying human nature and thus doomed to collapse. Had it not been the dictatorial Lincoln, it would have been something or someone else.

Westward expansion was making civil war almost unavoidable (though I, perhaps foolishly, cling to the belief that it could have been avoided).

It is the South, ultimately, who bequeathed themselves and their fellow white bretheren (Yankees) the overwhelming majority of todays “African Americans”. Blame Lincoln for “Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men” as the book title * says, but not for recognising (as quoted by “P Noctura”, above) the utter disastrousness of the Southern system of African slavery.

Jefferson, Monroe and all the other founders of Liberia saw it.
I have to believe that pure greed for gain blinded those whites most involved in and committed to the mad project. I don’t mean Lee or Jackson or any other superb hero, great or small, of the Confederacy. I mean the money boys, whose influence and power led to very good white men, great and small, being pulled their way. I see the same thing today in good whites supporting open borders and free trade “conservatism”. (Interestingly, the South was totally sold out to free trade, while Lincoln despised it.)

White people feuding, waring, bloodletting one another and working against the interests of one another, sometimes even against the interests of all of mankind, down through European/American/Western history, is a profound tragedy. For all our great accomplishments and abilities, we have this very human habbit of self inflicted trauma.

It is Aristolean, if one can speak of a mass of mankind of great character and stature (rather than a single person) having a fatal flaw.

By the way, “The Dalry Lama” brings out a dichotomy that is a hidden truth about the slavers. In spite of the horrors and death that were taking place, a providential hand worked out physical (not to mention spirtual) salvation, through this abominable human trafficking for perhaps millions of otherwise doomed Africans.

The state and condition of Africa and the (even unintended) benefits of almost any intercourse with whites is bitterly, blindly denied or ignored by almost all black people; certainly by almost all of their intelectual class.

Gratitude for any blessings from whites, be those blessings past or present, is absent from all but a handful of black folk.


Neo confederatism, as I see it, denies the lessons of both flawed human nature and history.

What did Dr. Francis call neo-confederatism? Something like a silly affliction.

* Libertarian author Jeffrey Rogers Hummel.

Posted by DTF at 3:42 PM on March 6

Dr Francis called it “an infantile disorder”. Here is the link to his ingenious article of that name, totally germain to the subject article of this discussion.

https://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/sf_infan.html

Also, the word is Aristotelian. Duh, sorry. I spell like Moe from the Three Stooges.

Posted by DTF at 11:10 PM on March 6

From my studies on the Civil War, I had to conclude that the biggest contributing factor was - slavery.

As DTF pointed out, westward expansion virtually sealed the deal, as did our victory in the Mexican War. The South was afraid of having slavery voted out of existence and was demanding equal amounts of slave states to free ones – not exactly a “just leave me alone” attitude.

The South, and in particular Robert E. Lee, was hypocritical. The South did not mind Federal intervention when the decisions were the ones they approved of. When Federal courts ruled that former slaves found up North must be returned to their owners, the South had no problem with Federal soldiers walking into the courtrooms of Northern states to retrieve those slaves and escort them back to the South. I believe Lee participated in escort duty himself. He also acted as a Federal in the Harper’s Ferry, VA incident involving John Brown. He didn’t see a conflict of interest in these cases because they favored the Southern view, but when offered the command of Union forces he declined and took up arms against the Federals.

It’s also important to note when secession actually took place. South Carolina seceded just because they didn’t like the fact that the nation as a whole elected Lincoln as President. He wasn’t even given a chance to govern. Then they fired on Fort Sumter because it was being re-supplied.

The bottom line is that had slavery not existed in the US, we would not have had the Civil War. Slavery and how and where it would be implemented was the pivotal issue.

One last thought - it is an irony of history that both the South and Nazi Germany, through their actions, facilitated the advancement of exactly what each feared. In the South’s case, the slaves were freed, integration and interracial marriage occurred, and the Federal government became enormous, dominant, and overly intrusive. In Germany’s case, the World War II generation is not even gone and yet Germany is smaller than ever, will never again be a world power, and is overrun with non-white foreigners. With patience how long could the South have preserved its culture? With patience, how long would Hitler’s Reich have lasted?

Posted by David at 11:26 PM on March 6

Southern Partisan magazine is alive and well; I just re-newed my subscription! I’ll post the address if you like.

Posted by noneknown at 8:28 AM on March 7

Everyone else has said most of what’s needful, but it’s useful to keep tabs on just which “conservative” outlets and pundits engage in dishonest attacks on this book. The internet and, surprisingly, cable news networks have had quite a bit to say about Woods recently. Naturally, the jacobins at National Review and the Claremont Institute are leading the charge, but Woods, having the advantage of truth on his side, has beaten them all back so far.

Posted by Cassiodorus at 10:37 AM on March 7

Cassiodorus: I admire your use of the term “Jacobins” when referring to National Review. I used to subscribe to NR until I became completely disenchanted with their support of the neo-jacobins, as I call them, or, more conventionally, neo-conservatives. I am extremely disappointed with the conservatives who cannot/will not make the important distinction between neocons and “real conservatives”.

Posted by noneknown at 12:03 PM on March 7

Cato wrote
” Never be too quick to make predictions about what will “never happen.” Years ago, people probably thought what we read about on amren “would never happen” i.e. affirmative action, massive immigration, etc. So I don’t discout the possibility of angry white mobs appearing on the horizon one day.”

Say no more. The Soviet Union did collapse, so may collapse the anti-white governments in Europe and America, too.

Posted by aatu at 2:56 PM on March 7

DTF:

I have trouble believing Sam Francis would have accused neo-Confederates like James Ronald and Walter Donald Kennedy (The South Was Right!, 1991), Michael Andrew Grissom (The Last Rebel Yell, 1991), or Gordon Thornton (The Southern Nation, 2002) of exhibiting some “infantile disorder.” But regardless, I’d like to read the article you referenced if I could find it. Are you positive of the link? Or might I find it in some of Francis’ archives with V-Dare, Conservative Chronicle, or elsewhere (surely not in CofCC’s Citizens Informer)?

All you good ol’ Rebels:

Please see my comments attached to the AmRen article “Remebering Sam Francis” (March 1), and remember to keep the Faith; our northern bretheren are yet coming to the realization that they were betrayed by the Black (Radical) Republicans too!

Deo Vindice.

Posted by KonfederateKarl at 4:51 PM on March 7

One last thought - it is an irony of history that both the South and Nazi Germany, through their actions, facilitated the advancement of exactly what each feared. In the South’s case, the slaves were freed, integration and interracial marriage occurred, and the Federal government became enormous, dominant, and overly intrusive. In Germany’s case, the World War II generation is not even gone and yet Germany is smaller than ever, will never again be a world power, and is overrun with non-white foreigners. With patience how long could the South have preserved its culture? With patience, how long would Hitler’s Reich have lasted?

It’s easy to read history written by the victors recording their claims that their defeated enemies acted irrationally, but I caution against believing it whole cloth. The truth is that both the Third Reich and the American Confederacy probably had a hell of a lot better grasp of the facts on the ground than you, I, or any historian ever will have. I find all the historians who second-guess this or that sweeping movement of history (not details, but the movements of nations and empires) just as compelling as any other Monday-morning quarterback; that is to say, not at all.

That’s not why I wanted to comment. I wanted to comment to find out just what the hell is “ironic” about the fact that the Third Reich and the Confederacy opposed something, lost, and now we see those things they opposed running amok? That isn’t irony, that’s cause and effect.

Posted by Svigor at 10:08 PM on March 7

Svigor, hope you looked for a reply.

First of all, my point was that the actions of the Confederacy and the Third Reich accelerated what they opposed or feared.

No Monday morning quarterbacking at all on these points: It is obvious that the South’s way of life was “Gone with the Wind” and it was even worse for Germany - just look at the sadness of what was once Prussia. Every German was forcibly removed and the country is now officially part of Russia.

The only Monday morning quarterbacking would be on the timeline or methodology the South and the Third Reich chose. In the case of the South, I think their entire outlook was skewed. Slavery and bringing Africans to the US was a bad idea for the future of America.

The Third Reich is more complicated. It appears that Hitler had the insight to see that if Germany remained as it was, eventually, she would be vulnerable to the larger nations of the world. He saw the only solution was for Germany to ensure it was one of the big players too.

I have to agree with some of the commentary I’ve read on Hitler that says he became like an out of control gambler. Had he stopped short of invading the USSR, he may have been able to hang onto what he had. But not only did he invade Russia, he declared war on the US. Perhaps war with the US was inevitable, but as Japan had attacked the US not the other way around, Germany was not under obligation to declare war.

Speculation about the invasion of Russia could take pages which as you said is Monday morning quarterbacking. However, it was a huge gamble and he knew it was a gamble.

Posted by David at 8:26 AM on March 8

David: While I see the danger of internecine bickering amongst ourselves, I also put a good bit of stock in the adage that “those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it”. You are profoundly ignorant of the history of the War for Southern Independence. I suggest that you do some serious research before you do any more posting on that subject; you do yourself and all of us a disservice by exposing your disturbing lack of knowledge.

Posted by noneknown at 8:49 AM on March 8

Noneknown: You make me laugh.

You accuse me of not having studied the Civil War with no idea how much time I have put into it. For one, have you ever read “Battle Cry of Freedom”? Almost half of its 944 pages concern what led up to the Civil War.

Also, it is weak to make accusations of ignorance without stating facts yourself. Of course, if you lack facts, your baseless accusations are transparent to all.

Posted by David at 12:47 PM on March 8

KonfederateKarl,

So sorry, much apoligies. I am an internet novice really. I copied the address and pasted it to my AOL address thingy and hit go. It went right to the article on the STALKING THE WILD TABOO site. Also, If you go to VDARE and page down to the article on the left side from February 26, entitled: “His legacy will live on” Sam Francis RIP by Marcus Epstein you will find the link clearly highlighted in the article as the words “infantile disorder”.

The article is brilliant and deep. I don’t believe Dr. Francis was attacking anyone. He acknowledges that he is alone among his CHRONICLES colaborators in non membership in the League of the South.

I hope the article is helpful. Best regards and to all my beloved “Rebel” white brothers.

Posted by DTF at 7:59 PM on March 8

David: I have neither the time nor the inclination to re-fight the War with you on this forum. I can tell from the remarks you made that your understanding is limited.

Posted by noneknown at 8:32 AM on March 9

What you mean noneknown is that my understanding of your point of view is limited.

Ever consider the possibility you may not have every answer?

If you wish to point out where I have erred and offer evidence to the contrary, have at it.

Posted by David at 2:57 PM on March 9

DTF:

Thanks for your considerate reply. I likely erred in transcribing the lengthy web address provided, but with your patient instructions I had no trouble locating the article at VDARE. No wonder you recommended it. He wasn’t just preaching to the choir; but making an earnest appeal to our concerted vigilance. God rest his soul.

Posted by KonfederateKarl at 5:37 PM on March 9

Always enjoy these informed speculations on great matters of social and historical importance, and like to add my 2 cents in.

Being from South Georgia over 60 years old from the post plantation time called share cropping shared alike by all poor people, worked in tobacco and picking peas drinking rcs and eating moon pies and toms peanuts.

The red-dirt red neck salt of the earth white scotirishenglish coexisted with blacks, dual societies and respectable right thinking people in each. Colored people was a term of proper respect.

But the reality: Like it or not, africans were imported as livestock and property rights is the fight root of the civil war. No White would fight to own negroes — what do think white flight is all about!

Blacks today are in revenge mode, hyped by the hucksters in full hate whitey braying, serious pay back for melanin not being the prized coloration in social status, worldwide for all time.

The lucky American descendants of the Atlantic slave trade get bonus points in the struggle for life, extra money and extra help, not like the cubanos and brasileiros, where today’s bruthas and sistas could have been.

Altruism is an idea that works with europrotestants, but not within animist tribal politics.

Posted by Hector at 10:45 PM on March 9


Top      Home      Previous story      Next Story      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)