Southern nationalists at Ron Paul event

Matthew Heimbach, the founder of the Towson University White Student Union (TUWSU) and a frequent guest on the SNN podcast, shared the following picture of the sign his group took to a recent Ron Paul event at George Washington University. It certainly conveys a positive, pro-South message which is tailor-made for a Ron Paul crowd. It should also be mentioned here that Heimbach recently proudly announced that his group has finally been recognised for their hard work in opposing the anti-White USA system. They were rewarded by being placed on the infamous ‘Hate Map’ which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) operates. The SPLC is an anti-White and anti-Southern organisation based in Montgomery, Alabama which promotes Leftist causes and attempts to defame patriots and conservatives. This is quite an honour for the TUWSU; it’s recognition that they are making a difference. Congrats go out to Heimbach and his friends for all that they are doing!

Bavarians & Southerners share similar concerns

The independence movement in the Free State of Bavaria, the largest of the States which form the Federal Republic of Germany (note: Bavaria makes up 20% of Germany and is nearly the size of nearby Austria, another German country, and twice the size of Switzerland, a majority German confederation), is gaining more media coverage and public attention. Der Spiegel, one of the most influential German media companies, has highlighted this movement. Der Spiegel is certainly not alone in covering the story. A recent RT news report (see video below) on the story interviewed some Bavarians who favour independence and noted that the ideas of theBavaria Party are gaining more influence in the State, though the party itself has not yet become a major political force.

Note that one could easily substitute the word ‘Southern’ for ‘Bavarian’ and most of the report would make perfect sense to Southern nationalists. Like Bavarians, we are are concerned about our tax dollars being wasted by an out-of-touch central government which has none of our values. We are also concerned about our identity and culture being undermined by thedemographic replacement which Washington, DC (much like Berlin) strongly supports. In general, we are a different people with our own world-view, values and identity. The Bavarian secessionists would likely echo these sentiments.

Update: Perhaps this is in part why Bavarians want independence from Berlin. It’s increasingly a foreign city. Notice that in this RT report that the Italian real estate agent at the end who promotes Berlin properties to foreigners praises ‘progress,’ ‘development’ and ‘multiculturalism’ as if they were good things (and not the replacement of native Germans from their own neighbourhoods and city). Notice she equates such things with Berlin itself. I wonder what the local folks who actually built the city and made it a major world capital would think of this real estate agent and her ideas?

Rhett: Abstractions & fanatics against the South

Early Southern nationalist leader and South Carolina statesman Robert Barnwell Rhett understood well the crusading spirit of the moralists who have always been aligned against the traditional South. He also understood that the world-view of the South’s enemies is based upon abstractions (such as ‘human rights,’ ‘equality’ and universalism) while the Southern world-view is grounded in the natural universe. He is quoted by Dr William C Davis on page 115 of Rhett: The Turbulent Life and Times of a Fire-Eater as saying: All the inexperienced emotions of the heart are against us; all the abstractions concerning human rights can be perverted against us; all the theories of political dreamers, atheistic utilitarians, self-exalting and self-righteous religionists, who would reform or expunge the bible, – in short enthusiasts and fanatics of all sorts, are against us. …Born in atheism, and baptized in the blood of revolutionary France.

American Revolutionary War in the Caribbean

By the League of the South As discussed in past articles, the English plantation colonies of the Caribbean and Lower South were both part of a broader agrarian civilisation that was developed first by the Portuguese and Spanish in the sugar isles of the eastern Atlantic, was transferred to Brazil and was later spread throughout the Caribbean and the mainland South. English colonists in the Southern and Caribbean colonies shared the same culture, values, economic institutions, political views and often had family ties with one another. In fact, the Lower South was essentially the colony of a colony; English colonists from Barbados colonised South Carolina in the 1670s and brought with them their culture and worldview, which in turn was carried throughout the emerging mainland South. The American Revolution in the 1770s divided the English plantation societies in half. The wealthiest colonies (those in the Caribbean) remained loyal to London while the poorer colonies (those on the North American mainland) separated from the Empire in a long, bloody war. The war itself cut off the islands from their primary source of food and supplies in British North America, leading in some cases to starvation on wealthy sugar islands. Ultimately, the political division of the Caribbean from the South led to the downfall of both halves of the English-speaking plantation civilisation. It halved the number of slaves in the British Empire, thus greatly weakening the political position of plantation colonies at a time when moral crusaders were beginning to emerge as a political and social force in England. In the 1830s slavery would be outlawed in the Empire and the formerly wealthy and productive English colonies in the Caribbean would quickly descend into poverty as democracy and equality took their toll (the same thing happened in the French Caribbean where democracy and equality were imposed, leading to White genocide in the case of Haiti and the total collapse of civilisation there). As well, the political division of 1776 led to the ill-advised union of the Southern plantation with the poorer but more densely populated industrial/financial North, and in particular New England. As early as the 1820s this led to a political crisis based on the cultural, economic and political differences between the agrarian and prosperous South and the industrial and less prosperous (but more populous) North. In the long run it led to Southern secession from the Union and the subsequent Northern/US invasion which largely killed off the planter class, reduced the South to a subjugated province of the US and destroyed half a million lives as well as many Southern cities and plantations. Clearly, the South paid an enormously high price for ‘union’ with the North. Several factors led to the English colonists of the Caribbean not joining their mainland brothers and sisters in rebellion. One was what professor Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy in his book An Empire Divided: The American Revolution and the British Caribbean describes as a ‘garrison mentality.’ This was the result of the demographics that the monoculture of the sugar isles created, leading to a small White minority and large Black slave majority. As O’Shaughnessy notes on page 154 of his book, ‘The garrison mentality of the white island colonists intensified in the aftermath of the Jamaican slave rebellion and contributed to the backlash against the American Revolution.’ Due to their smaller numbers and more vulnerable position, English colonists in the Caribbean tended to be much more supportive of having the imperial military nearby ready to defend them – not so much from foreign invasion as from slave rebellions. The only Southern mainland colony where this garrison mentality could be considered at all similar was South Carolina. In the Lowcountry region of that colony the demographics and culture most closely modeled that of the Caribbean. Yet, even in South Carolina as a whole Whites roughly equaled Blacks in number and felt secure enough to risk rebellion in the 1770s whereas Barbados, Jamaica and the rest of the English Caribbean did not. Another factor was the economic dependence of the English Caribbean colonies on the Empire as a whole. They prospered by receiving wood (necessary for the refinement of sugar) and food from the mainland and manufactured goods from England. They also enjoyed a government-enforced monopoly on the sugar trade in England. The Empire made them wealthy. Therefore, as much as they may have disliked some of the legislation that came from London, they considered it economic folly to secede from the Empire. One last factor we will consider is that the harsh environment (especially for Europeans who died at very high rates) in the Caribbean and the fabulous wealth that plantations produced created a situation where absenteeism was quite common, especially among the more prosperous planters. There was less of an attachment to the land and willingness to stay in the New World permanently. Many planters made their money and moved back to England to live out the rest of their lives in luxury. The division of the English-speaking plantation societies caused, in at least some cases, ill feelings to emerge between people in the South and the Caribbean who were essentially the same as far as ethnicity and culture. This rupture was made all the worse by the way in which some American revolutionaries waged war upon and carried out terrorist actions against the English colonists of the Caribbean. O’Shaughnessy writes on pages 154-157 of his book: The posturing of the white island colonists on behalf of the North Americans in 1774-75 also ceased in 1776 because of the effects of the American War in the Caribbean. It became treason to openly avow sympathy for the North Americans after the king proclaimed them in rebellion on August 23, 1775. It was not safe to express political sentiments in correspondence. The North Americans were no longer fighting a war for the redress of grievances but a war of independence that was less comprehensible to the island colonists, whose self-interest dictated their loyalty to the British Empire. American privateers intercepted the trade of the islands, which “naturally incline[d] those who were their friends to become their enemies” in the British West Indies. In November 1775, Massachusetts led the other provinces by issuing commissions to privateers and by setting up prize courts. In March 1776, the Continental Congress also began to issue commissions. It initially tried to exempt the property of the British Caribbean from seizures but found the distinction unworkable. In July, it passed a resolution for the confiscation of the property of the British “and particularly the inhabitants of the British West Indies” taken at sea. Congress sent agents to neutral islands in the Caribbean, the most distinguished of whom was William Bingham. Arriving at Martinique in late 1776, the twenty-four-year-old Bingham was instructed “to feel the Pulse of the French Government, to know whether to beat towards American Independancy” [sic] and to procure “if possible… 10,000 Musquests, [sic] well-fitted with Bayonets… for General Washington.” After his disembarkation, Bingham watched his ship, Reprisal, engage in “the first battle fought by an American ship in foreign waters” against H.M.S. Shark. The fort guns at Martinique fired on the British naval ship, which was forced to disengage. O’Shaughnessy goes on to write about raids and pirate activities that American revolutionaries carried out against their fellow English colonists in the Caribbean. He writes about the many American privateers (primarily from New England) which: cruised among the British islands where their names became infamous. They were armed and refitted in North American ports and in the French West Indies. A privateer like Governor Trumbull was crewed by a 150 men with 24 guns. They hovered off the popular sailing routes near Martinique, northern Cuba, and the southern coast of Florida, and they even awaited the West India trade in the English Channel. Some American privateers were bold enough to launch raids on the outer ports of the British islands where they cut merchant vessels and fishing boats from their moorings “in sight of the inhabitants” and where they mounted landing parties. They briefly invaded Nassau in the Bahamas in 1776 and twice tried to capture Tobago in 1777. St. Anne’s Bay in Jamaica experienced almost daily alarms of an imminent enemy landing and several ships were snatched from their moorings. A raid against Speights Town in Barbados netted fishing boats and slaves valued at £2,000. John Piney of Nevis was stunned to witness, from his own breakfast table, a St. Kitts-bound brig being taken by a privateer off his plantation wharf. He protested that the islands were “subject to be pilfered and robbed by Pirates in the night, who may, with ease, carry off our slaves to the utter ruin of the Planters.” It was all the more galling for the British planters that American privateers found sanctuary in the islands of rival European colonies in the Caribbean. …In February 1776, the British admiralty revived the convoy system to protect the West India merchant fleet against American privateers. …West Indian merchants pursued their own solution to the problem of privateers in a hostile backlash against he American revolutionaries. They soon began to annoy “his Majesties Rebellious Subject.” …Disdainfully known as “pirateers” in the United States, these West Indian vessels “made amazing Havock [sic] among the Rebels.” Also see: The American Revolution & the Golden Circle, British troops in the Southern colonies & Caribbean, Stamp Act divides Southern colonies & Caribbean in 1760s, The American Revolution & Caribbean starvation and Division of Golden Circle: Aftermath of American Revolution