Posted under Immigration & Political Correctness & Survival of the West & Western Civilization
Dr. Michael Hill, League of the South President
Eventually, amnesty for millions of non-white illegal aliens will become reality. Many think this is the beginning of the end of Western Christian civilization in North America. Why have the elites sold us out? Why are they committed to the destruction of the West by the promotion of multiculturalism? And why is multiculturalism the poison that will ultimately prove fatal to Western Christian civilization unless an antidote is quickly administered? Unless we understand exactly what we are dealing with when we bring up the subject of multiculturalism, The League of the South and our allies can never hope to successfully combat the enemies who are sworn to our – white Southerners–destruction as a people.
What exactly is multiculturalism (which, for short, I will simply call MC)? Its advocates cast it in innocuous terms, claiming that it is merely justice and the recognition and celebration within the borders of the West of non-Western peoples and cultures. A proposition based on simple fairness, they say. Moreover, the MC crowd claims the superior moral mantle of anti-racism (which is really only a coded term for “anti-white”). The white, Christian West, they posit, bears much guilt for having built its prosperity and civilization on the backs of the poor, dark-skinned races of the world. It is only just, then, that the West share its wealth – including its land and produce – with its myriad poor brothers and sisters from the Third World. Pity and sympathy have become their most potent weapons turned against a West that has lost its ability to think correctly about the question of its very survival.
In our day, virtually every Western institution – church, government, the academy, the media, big business – mimics the cry of left-wing utopian humanism. From the Civil Rights movement in America to the Universal Rights of Man, the demand is the same: “Western man, give up your ill-gotten Kingdom for the good of all.” We Westerners are browbeaten in the name of MC to take in millions from the Third World in order that we not only might share our wealth and way of life with them but also to prove that we are not “racists.” In short, we are asked to sacrifice all we have at the altar of egalitarianism.
But MC is really not about ushering in equality among all races, religions, and cultures; rather, it is about destroying Western Christian civilization, the world’s premier unmitigated evil. And because the South is the strongest enclave of this civilization, it finds itself square in the crosshairs of the MC crowd. Why do you think the Feds are not willing to lift a hand to stop our dispossession by a floodtide of illegal immigrants? It is the continuation of Reconstruction to the ultimate degree. We are being replaced as a people.
Any attempt by Western man to defend himself and his civilization is called “racism,” and is designed to paralyze him completely (even when no malice is shown toward any other group). This agenda points up the fact that the proponents of MC seek not fairness, justice, or equality but demonization and destruction of the white, Christian West. Only whites, and white Southerners in particular, are not allowed to have a country all their own. Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, but no South for white Southerners!
All indications point to the success of the MC agenda of paralyzing the West through guilt manipulation. Though we never had any sort of debate about whether we wanted to be a MC polity, it has been forced upon us anyway. Anyone who protests is silenced by the usual epithets. Even opposition to illegal immigration is enough to get you called a “racist” or a “xenophobe.” If you don’t believe me, check out the Southern Poverty Law Center’s rants on the subject.
Why do we allow this to happen? I suppose the bigger question is: why are we voluntarily swallowing the poison of MC and committing suicide? Former President Bill Clinton was effusive in his praise for the coming day – around the year 2050–when whites of European descent would become a minority in North America. Well, if getting rid of the white majority is such a good thing, why wait until 2050? Why not just drop all pretence of enforcing immigration law and roll out the red carpet for the Third World? If all men are brothers and America is indeed a Proposition Nation, then what are we waiting for?
If the scenario of the South (and the rest of America) being overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants does not appeal to you, then how is this disaster to be averted? By the people who oppose it rising up against their traitorous elite masters and their misanthropic rule. But to do this we must first rid ourselves of the fear of being called “racists” and the other meaningless epithets they use against us. What is really meant by the MC advocates when they peg us as “racists” is that we adhere to ethnocentrism, which is a natural affection for one’s own kind. This is both healthy and Biblical. I am not ashamed to say that I prefer my own kind and my own culture. Others can have theirs; I have mine. No group can survive for long if its members do not prefer their own over others.
If the South – the most important remaining bastion of Western Christian civilization – is to survive the MC onslaught, then it must fight doggedly against everything that threatens its existence. If we cannot do this, it is proof that we are a dying civilization. To live, we must re-cultivate our common cultural bonds that historically have made us a distinct people, repent of our sins, and pray to God that he will spare us for ever letting things get this bad in the first place.
J. Michael Hill
Killen, Alabama
T. Chan on 04 Aug 2012 at 5:12 am #
Curious that he seems to be focusing on whites. Isn’t LoS open to white and black Southerners?
Ernest on 04 Aug 2012 at 8:10 am #
Why is it ‘curious’? About time someone did.
Chris Hewlett on 04 Aug 2012 at 11:26 am #
Dr. Hill asks “Why do we let this happen?” We let this happen because of numbers. If we stood up we would simply be stomped and killed.
thaddeus on 04 Aug 2012 at 2:22 pm #
Brilliant and powerful speech. I wouldn’t agree with the reliance on “biblical” tenets, as Christianity can be twisted to serve the enemies of Western Civilization as much as the proponents of it. Also, I think that these days, Hungary is doing a better job than the South at preserving Western civilization, at least at the governmental level.
But those are minor quibbles. Some particularly trenchant analyses:
Exactly so.
It would have benefitted Mr. Hill’s piece to have identified exactly which group enacted this all-too-successful plan to destroy the West. For that, read Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s work at the Occidental Observer . . .
Feltan on 04 Aug 2012 at 3:32 pm #
I don’t buy it.
The argument is not very compelling. What, exactly, is the outcome the author seeks?
Take a look at this article at vdare: http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-legal-asian-student-s-letter-to-pat-buchanan
The guy in article is someone that I would want for a neighbor and friend. And, to boot, I can think of a lot of WT that I would just as soon see pack up and leave instead.
I can buy the discussion on values and culture. However, simply lumping all ills under the banner of “race” is both illogical and non-productive. There are deeper issues, ones that trancend race, that the author simply ignores.
Regards,
Feltan
Savrola on 04 Aug 2012 at 3:37 pm #
The speech would have been archaic in the 1970s, so what we have here is a case of, if a tree falls in the woods…
The worse thing about multi-culturalism is that it cannot exist in society such as ours, which is dominated by Anglo-Jewish political-theory.
Multi-culturalism works fine for the dominant culture, if the dominant culture is strong enough to maintain itself and respect the other cultures about it, as well. The Austro-Hungarian empire lasted for centuries with these principles.
However, Anglo culture has never had any respect for other cultures, and now it is unable to defend its own.
Hence the whining and complaints we here from Anglos about emmigration and multi-culturalism.
One of the clauses in their alliance with the Jews, gave the Jews carte-blanche to become arbiters of culture. The Jews are fully aware that races and cultures rise and fall, and they have always survived these historic trends by acting accordingly.
The Anglo-Culture is week, and cannot stand up to the onslaught of other cultures.
The Anglo blood is thin, Anglo-women are no longer attracted to Anglo men, because the men have lost their reason to exist.
Now the Anglos are preparing to bow before the Chinese. but it is doubtful that the Chinese will be the next global superpower or that there will, indeed be another global superpower.
It will be very interesting in the ensuing decades to watch the Anglos distinguish themselves from the Germanic stock, by their willingness to accommodate and ingratiate themselves with whoever appears to be rising dominant world power.
As I’ve pointed out in the past, Southern Europeans and Slavs no more fit the Founding Father’s ideal of racial stock, than Mexicans and blacks do.
Jefferson’s citizens and yeomen were not made up of such as these.
Franklin wasn’t even keen on English being the language of this nation, but the bankers overruled him there.
The Constitution was written for men of homogeneous Nordic origin. It cannot apply to the vast majority of Americans.
America has always been multi-cultural, but those cultures have always subordinated themselves to American nationalism.
No longer.
racialism always will trump nationalism. Racialists lose because of their devotion to white-nationalism. Instead of focusing on another hyphenated theory of government, they would be better served to improve their diluted bloodlines.
I am, like Whitaker Chambers, a voice in the wilderness, explaining that no one is going to charge any beaches for “the white race” or “western values”
At this point there may be as many as 5, 000 Southerners left in the South. Of the Native stock who haven’t been Americanized.
I would imagine that they are mostly Kinists or members of other racial-religious sects, who remain in their enclaves and do not partake of the worship of gluttony, Negro football players and MMA fighters, and professional wrestling, as those in Paleo-circles are apt to do.
Savrola on 04 Aug 2012 at 3:41 pm #
Marry your daughter to him then, and leave the racialists to racialize in peace.
The fact is that we simply don’t need any more emmigrants of any kind or color.
We have enough, thank you. This the successful argument that any one is seriously anti-emmigration can make. Anyone who has been in traffic lately is susceptible to it.
Since it’s a good argument, conservatives don’t use it.
Matt Weber on 04 Aug 2012 at 5:13 pm #
I think almost everyone has given up on blacks and whites in America ever getting along. Blacks should just be given their own autonomous governing region and have done with it.
Kirt Higdon on 04 Aug 2012 at 6:56 pm #
Nobody likes to hear the good news, but in fact most blacks and whites, indeed most of those of all ethnic groups get along most of the time. There are individual exceptions to this and some group, area, or situational exceptions, but what do you expect in a country of 325,000,000 people? That everyone will get along 100% of the time? But most people live in peace most of the time. If every last inhabitant of the US was a white of north European ancestry, there would still be some social, cultural and criminal problems. The history of Europe shows this.
roho on 04 Aug 2012 at 10:49 pm #
“Why do we let this happen?”……………….Naivity and Christian Gullability. The three opposites of the Trinity must be Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Political Correctness?
As FDR once said, “Nothing politicaly happens by accident.” (Comming from a US President determined to be attacked by Japan, and hiding the fact that he knew they were comming, that was an understatement!)………We Southerners must move on from our rampant POLITENESS as much as the French need to move away from RUDENESS. Nobody cares that Chhristians are being slaughtered during this ARAB SPRING extention, in Egypt and other countries. What a deal!….Not only are Sunnis and Shia muslims killing each other, but Christians are caught in the crossfire. Sound familiar?…….Kind of like them poor Jews in the crossfire when the CRUSADES marched against the Muslims?…..And, how about that really good job of killing Christians in the Bosnian/Serbian conflict, the same week that MONICA LAWENSKY surfaced with a sex stained blue dress?
As Christians, we are stupid compared to the original Church of Rome, Russia, Constantinople, and Martin Luther!…….End game will be a Christian Diaspora/Galut for America, living in ghettos, working as serfs, but not for Roman Catholic Royalty, but Jewish Talmudic Royalty.(Oh no! I just went PC stupid!)……..Ha-Ha!…..I just read this week that we are now 31 in the world on education? FDR would laugh, and ask if you thought that it was an accident?
“A Man that believes in nothing will fall for anything.”(A MODERATE).
Other than the BIBLE BELT of the Southeast, where would one find more Christians?(That are actually politicaly active.)…….Western Europe?……Not hardly……The 20th Century was a bastian of death with Christians killing Christians over there, in the name ECONOMICS for two World Wars!…………..And now, we can tell honorable, dead, German soldiers, “You were right about this multiculturalism shit!”
We will be dead and gone when our grandchildren are cleaning toilets in a Jewish Synagauge for chump change……………And, they will know it was our stupidity!
T. Chan on 04 Aug 2012 at 11:42 pm #
Ernest: Curious because as far as I can tell, the LoS has been claiming that it is not another white nationalist group up until now.
RedPhillips on 05 Aug 2012 at 6:23 pm #
Sav, see you are able to make arguments when you try, even though I don’t agree with all of it.
However, saying the article is archaic is unnecessary and wrong. Folks are always complaining that people let themselves be censored by political correctness. Hill stops censoring himself and you gripe.
Also, what do you have against MMA?
Savrola on 05 Aug 2012 at 10:43 pm #
Hill is not relevent, he risks nothing by making such pronouncement in 2012. One he might have considered making 1980.
I’ll deal with MMA in an upcoming column, as I’ve only just become a student of it.
RedPhillips on 06 Aug 2012 at 5:05 am #
The SPLC sure does think Hill is relevant.
Bruce on 06 Aug 2012 at 12:37 pm #
I agree with Matt. Kirt, it’s true that we’re not literally at each other’s throat but it’s ridiculous that we share a political body. The following scenario illustrates why I think this way.
I ride in a carpool with a black female coworker. She’s a nice, middle class Evangelical Christian of the black Southern type i.e. not a megachurch multicultist. She interpreted Romney’s speech to the NAACP (you know, the one where he groveled by respectfully addressing an exclusively black organization dedicated to the advancement of their race that by a 99-to-1 margin won’t vote for him!!!) as “blocking” the black vote. She thinks that Romney was telling blacks that he’s going to “block their vote.” She kept yelling this and wouldn’t listen to counterarguments. Amazing!! By saying he’s disagreeing with Obama he’s trying to take blacks’ civil rights.
What Romney really said is that he’s not Obama and that he has different ideas. Duh! What’s he supposed to say to prove that he’s not “blocking” the black vote? “Obama’s right on everything?” Why would he say that – no one would have any reason to vote for him if he agrees with Obama. She genuinely thinks that Romney is hostile to blacks – she gets real excited and yells and goes all black. This is a middle class, socially conservative Christian black with a good job in the defense industry. She has atypical (for a black) incentives to at least consider the Republican message. But like 90+ percent of blacks, she’s on Team Black first and foremost.
We shouldn’t share a political body with them. It’s ridiculous.
Bruce on 06 Aug 2012 at 2:15 pm #
By the way, I don’t claim that the only important fault lines in contemporary America are racial.
Thanks for posting this excellent piece by Michael Hill.
Kirt Higdon on 06 Aug 2012 at 3:04 pm #
Bruce, I’m not sure what you mean by “share a political body” with someone. My political opinions are very much opposed to those of the vast majority of immigrants, but then they are also opposed to those of the vast majority of natives. But I consider political views of little to no importance in day-to-day relationships. If I should “share a political body” only with those I’m in substantial agreement with on most issues that probably cuts it down to my youngest brother, Ron Paul, and maybe a couple of other people.
Bruce on 06 Aug 2012 at 3:44 pm #
I guess I was adding to what you said Kirt, not so much disputing it. I don’t think it makes sense to share a democracy when you have the types of differences I describe. Such political differences may not make a whole lot of difference in day-to-day relationships (although they can) but they very much effect our future.
That goes for white leftists too as I think I hinted at in my second comment.
Kirt Higdon on 06 Aug 2012 at 4:16 pm #
I’d just as soon not have a democracy to share with anyone, but I’m stuck with it, although US democracy, like most, is basically a disguised oligarchy.
roho on 06 Aug 2012 at 7:06 pm #
Bruce…….I had to laugh when you explained that the middleclass, black female, works for the defense industry, yet supports Obama out of race basis………….That is amazing that she can’t grasp that her job security is tied to AIPAC and neverending war?……..LOL!
Kirt Higdon on 06 Aug 2012 at 8:02 pm #
Actually it sounds like her race preference for Obama fits right in with her job security given that Obama is a tool of AIPAC and a practitioner of never-ending war. Seems like she grasps that very well. Not, mind you, that Romney would be any threat to her job security.
Bruce on 06 Aug 2012 at 8:32 pm #
Romney’s better for the defense industry. Obama’s not a peace-nick but he’d rather spend money on the people that are more likely to vote for him.
Feltan on 06 Aug 2012 at 11:30 pm #
“RedPhillips on 06 Aug 2012 at 5:05 am #
The SPLC sure does think Hill is relevant.”
Well based on the article, I can see why. On the other hand, he seems to be tip-toeing along the “kook” fringe, so they probably aren’t all that interested.
Regards,
Feltan
RedPhillips on 07 Aug 2012 at 1:32 am #
“Well based on the article, I can see why.”
Feltan, whether you agree with him or not, expressing ethnocentrism should not be a thought crime. Ethnocentrism is the historical norm. The SPLC is not writing Intelligence Reports on the NAACP or La Raza. As it stands now ethnocentrism is OK for Blacks and Mexicans but not for Whites. Surely you see the problem with that.
Feltan on 07 Aug 2012 at 4:20 am #
Red,
I see ethnocentrism as the problem. It is not a thought crime; however, I don’t have to like it even if it is not a crime. I, probably like a lot of readers, detest when other races practice it in this country — I see no reason to like it more when a white guys does it; especially when he supposes to do it on my behalf.
The author is Don Quixote tilting at windmills. What on earth does he hope to achieve except the opportunity to publically lament what never was and never will be. The South (or America as a whole) was never some pure homogeneous racial Garden of Eden; and to what end does he aspire with his argument? I mean really — does he hope to eject all non-whites from Dixie?
I read his article, and read it again. I read it a third time to make sure. I don’t agree with him. Not at all. Not even a little bit.
Regards,
Feltan
thaddeus on 07 Aug 2012 at 2:18 pm #
Feltan,
Then Israel’s ethnocentrism must be detestable to you too, and you must not agree with it. Not even a little bit.
Right?
Let me guess: “Oh, but that’s different.”
A-ha.
Feltan on 07 Aug 2012 at 2:43 pm #
thaddeus,
Please re-read what I wrote: “… I, probably like a lot of readers, detest when other races practice it in this country…”
My concern outside of our borders is minimal to begin with, and mostly concerned with non-intervention in foreign affairs. I really don’t care what other countries practice inside their borders as far as domestic policy.
Regards,
Feltan
Filmer on 07 Aug 2012 at 6:52 pm #
“… I, probably like a lot of readers, detest when other races practice it in this country… I really don’t care what other countries practice inside their borders as far as domestic policy.”
Feltan, then aren’t you endorsing Proposition Nation logic? The idea that America is a special raceless nation unlike all those other ethno-states.”
Feltan on 07 Aug 2012 at 9:17 pm #
Filmer,
I don’t necessarily buy into the sematics and the associated taint of certain words or phrases. However, largely, the answer is yes. I think what separates America from much of our European heritage (including the Slavs and Italians as Sav points out), is the fact that we swear alegiance to a document.
When I was an Army officer, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I didn’t swear to defend this or that tribe or some specific enclave.
I think that makes us different. Call it a proposition nation if you want, but the U.S. is not merely a collection of extended families and racial identity groups. I believe we are much more.
Regards,
Feltan
Bruce on 08 Aug 2012 at 12:11 pm #
Feltan, you wrote:
“the U.S. is not merely a collection of extended families and racial identity groups. I believe we are much more.”
Your use of “not merely” and “much more” implies that these things* are a necessary-but-insufficient condition to there being an America. So they are also a insufficient but necessary condition to there being an America.
A white advocate like Jared Taylor would also say that idenity is necessary-but-insufficient / insufficient-but-necessary if we want America to be something more than a name on a map.
*I’d argue for “an” identity group not a collection of idenity groups – I think that idenity group at its most inclusive should be Anglo-European. I agree with Taylor.
Feltan on 08 Aug 2012 at 2:59 pm #
Bruce,
If you argue for “an” identity group, meaning a defining identity group for America based on race (white Anglo-European), what do you do with the rest of the souls in this country who do no identify with that group?
According to the census bureau:
White persons, percent, 2011 (a) 78.1%
Black persons, percent, 2011 (a) 13.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2011 (a) 1.2%
Asian persons, percent, 2011 (a) 5.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, percent, 2011 (a) 0.2%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2011 2.3%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin, percent, 2011 (b) 16.7%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011 63.4%
So, if I understand you correctly, the American Anglo-European identity group consists of 63.4% of the population, about two thirds. What is the fate and status of the one third who do not qualify for that group?
I ask, because I think trying to racially categorize what an “American” is becomes a foolish game.
Regards,
Feltan
Kirt Higdon on 08 Aug 2012 at 3:11 pm #
Actually white is not co-extensive with Anglo-European non-Hispanic since people of Middle Eastern origin – Arabs, Israelis, Armenians, Iranians, Turks, etc. get included as white in census figures. I suspect that Anglo-European non-Hispanic whites would probably come out to less than 60% of the total US population.
Bruce on 08 Aug 2012 at 3:57 pm #
I think and have thought for some time that we should break the country up into at least several soverign nations. Race aside, a continental sized country with 300+ million and counting is too big.
And as I said in another thread some of the fault lines aren’t racial. I say give the left their own country so we can sit back and watch them wreck it.
Savrola on 08 Aug 2012 at 11:00 pm #
People once swore allegience to monarchs, now they swear allegience to constitutions.
In the future, when human biodiversity becames a reality and not an idea, we will laugh at both as asinine notions.
Savrola on 08 Aug 2012 at 11:04 pm #
The Nation-state was a temperary concept that has now out-lived it’s usefullness to everyone concerned.