League of the South to Protest Southern Demographic Displacement in TN

After 40-50 protesters showed up in tiny Uvalda, GA this past weekend, the League of the South is making plans for a more ambitious protest in Murfreesboro, TN in October.

league-of-the-south-murfreesboro

 

The League’s objective is to create a “resistance movement in the South working toward the goal of a free and independent Southern homeland.” The belief among League leaders is that the federal government is deliberately displacing white Southerners in order to wipe out resistance to federal power. The clunky slogan, “It’s wrong to replace us” represents this belief. League president Michael Hill said it this way:

Every people must have a homeland, and this is ours. Throughout history, men have challenged each other for territory. Just because we live in what is called the “modern” world does not mean that the forces of history have been rendered inoperable. If you think so, you have not noticed that a Reconquista is taking place before our very eyes. Millions of Hispanics, Mestizos really, are reclaiming land for themselves and their progeny. How is this different, say, from any other aggressive migration in history? That’s right—it isn’t, except perhaps for the fact that it is being encouraged by the government that claims control over the invaded lands. Washington, DC, is bringing in a new, more compliant population from the Third World to overwhelm and replace us.

Murfreesboro has been the scene of protests before largely focusing on the Muslim population. Protesters in the past have expressed their resistance to the influx of Muslims into the region with the associated building of mosques. Those protesters waved American and Israeli flags. According to Hunter Wallace, a white nationalist and League member, the protest in TN is not about preserving Israel or America:

Needless to say, the League won’t be singing “God Bless America,” or waving the US flag and Israeli flag in combination.

According to Wallace, the League is getting off the web and into the streets. Some might scoff at this and point out that any movement for secession which aims for a white homeland is a non-starter. However, as I keep pointing out, the League now has as a board member Michael Peroutka, who has been making significant headway in the mainstream evangelical world (e.g., National Religious Broadcasters and Liberty University).  According to Mr. Peroutka, his Constitution course is designed to help create sentiment favorable to Southern secession.  I wonder if it is working.

Print Friendly

  • Palmetto Patriot

    This is encouraging to see!

  • Palmetto Patriot

    This is encouraging to see!

  • Mary

    “Uh, yeah, it’s our homeland – since we took it away from the natives who were here first.” I can just hear them saying.

    I mean, this is so outrageous and ridiculous.

  • Hrafnkell Haraldsson

    Thank you for covering this Mr. Throckmorton. It is part of a disturbing trend. When they say “Southern” of course, they mean “White” so this is, in effect, a call for a “White Homeland.” I imagine the new “national” paper will be Stormfront.

  • Tom Van Dyke

    It is part of a disturbing trend.

    No, it’s a handful of cranks. Sort of the obverse of the New Black Panthers, who aren’t a “trend” either.

    The Confederates are coming! The Confederates are coming! No, they’re not. They’re of far more interest and usefulness to critics of the right than to the right itself. They make for a good bogeyman.

  • photoshock

    This is part of a disturbing trend of balkanization of the U.S. We the people cannot abide the kind of separatist movement that the League of the South is promulgating in the name of racial purity and Southern Heritage. The Civil War decided the question of whether or not states can legally secede from the United states.

    Besides which the 10th Amendment was never intended to give states the legal basis for secession. The League of the South is promoting not only secession but insurrection against the government for the purpose of enhancing the “white” demographic and privileged place in society. I cannot imagine that any reasonable thinking person would actually propose this kind of traitorous action. America was founded on a principle of accommodation and compromise not like the far right wing proposes a non-compromising stance where someone who doesn’t believe my way is the enemy and not worthy of me listening to their ideas.

  • Hunter Wallace

    There are hundreds of articles on Occidental Dissent, Dixienet, and Southern Nationalist Network which explain the ethnic, cultural, and historical origins of White Southerners, especially of the Lower South, and how we differ from Yankees and why we have clashed with you for centuries.

    Of course, you can save a lot of time by reading Colin Woodard’s book, American Nations:

    http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029

  • Hunter Wallace

    The League of the South is an ethnonationalist organization like Golden Dawn in Greece or Vlaams Belang in Belgium.

    Quite simply, we are nationalists: we believe that White Southerners are a distinct people, ethnically, culturally, and historically from other “Americans,” and we are staking a nationalist claim to the Southern states. We do not buy into the theory that we are “represented” by “majorities” of racial, religious, ethnic, ideological and cultural aliens in the US legislature.

    My country was conquered by the USA in 1865. We were forced back into your “Union” at gunpoint. The USA is founded on the same “principle” – violence – as the Soviet Union.

    The outcome of what you people call the “Civil War” didn’t settle the question of Southern independence anymore than the Prague Spring settled the question of whether Czechoslovakia would remain communist.

    • Tom Van Dyke

      Dude. you were more interesting back then.

      http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/02/16/old-soldiers/

      There is a White American Homeland. We call it Alaska. Bundle up. We’ll miss you.

      BTW, Hunter, and I say this sincerely as a mainstream conservative and a student of history–”white” Europe sucks and always has, which is why our ancestors fled it for America. I have a lot more in common with black Americans, even liberal ones, and more in common with black conservatives than liberal white ones. It’s about culture and theo-philosophical principles, not “whiteness” or “Europeanness.”

      If you want this to be a better country for future generations, you’re barking up the wrong tree. The enemy is multi-culturalism, not multi-ethnicity. Mend your heart, and mend your ways, brother. This is not the way.

      • bman

        TVD: “If you want this to be a better country for future generations, you’re barking up the wrong tree. The enemy is multi-culturalism, not multi-ethnicity. Mend your heart, and mend your ways, brother. This is not the way.”

        —-

        I think your comment was spot on.

        It does not seem Hunter answered it either.

  • Tom Van Dyke

    Warren, since my comments are being moderated I’ll just park this here FYI re that preacher being sued for his anti-homosexual agitation in Uganda. if I read this right, the suit can’t succeed.

    earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S. Ct. 1659, 1668–69, that the Alien Tort Statute does not give U.S. courts jurisdiction over controversies arising from actions that occurred entirely outside the U.S. (NYLJ, April 18, 2013).

    Read more: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202616498707&High_Court_Decision_Cited_in_Rejection_of_Apartheid_Liability#ixzz2dJE6kziY

  • Hunter Wallace

    The future envisioned by US “mainstream conservatives” is essentially Brazil with low taxes for Miley Cyrus. No thanks.

    In the US, a “mainstream conservative” is a liberal. The debate between the US Right and the US Left takes place entirely within the boundaries of the liberal tradition. They define their beliefs in terms of liberal abstractions and position themselves within the political spectrum on the basis of whether they lean more toward “liberty” or “equality.”

    I don’t believe that “liberty” or “equality” is necessarily the solution to every problem. I feel the same way about “democracy.” It seems to me that the US in 2013 is the inevitable result of a society with a political system that is always shifting between two gears: tear down and level.

    Are we a better country now that celebrities like Miley Cyrus, Michael Jackson, and Kim Kardashian have replaced aristocrats? Are we better off living under democratic politicians like Barack Obama than a monarch like King George III? Are we better off living in a degenerate country where MLK is compared to Jesus Christ?

    I don’t think so. I don’t believe that a “majority” of Yankees, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, and blacks – people with whom we lack a common race, ethnicity, religion, culture, history, and ideology, the traditional components of a “nation” – have any legitimate right to “democratically” rule my people.

    The future existence of our people and our right to rule ourselves in our own land isn’t subject to any “democratic” election. I’m sick of seeing Southern cities like Birmingham, New Orleans, and Memphis being transformed into Detroit under the failed US system.

    The US is a failure. It represents everything we despise and why we are pushing toward the goal of independent Dixie.

    • Boo

      In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld, “Well… good luck with aaaaaaall that…”

    • Tom Van Dyke

      Hunter, as a student of history I assure you whatever country you’re speaking of does not exist and has never existed. Further, I am no left-progressive nor “liberal” in any sense that doesn’t fit classical liberals like “the father of conservatism” Edmund Burke. I’m an admirer of the American Founding, of religion in the public square, and of free enterprise and capitalism.

      And free speech: I defend your right to blather on and make fools of yourselves because everybody has the right to believe stupid shit. But believe me when I tell you, if you and your pals ever make the slightest attempt to establish your ideal government by force, I will shoot you myself, my Caucasian brother.

      In the meantime, your foolishness serves only to drive the weak-minded to the other side and it’s hard to blame them. If the alternative is you, I’d take my chances with Barack Obama meself.

      Hell, Al Sharpton. I mean that.

      • Zoe Brain

        Hunter, as a student of history I assure you whatever country you’re speaking of does not exist and has never existed.

        I think Zuid Afrika came close.

  • Hunter Wallace

    Re: Tom Van Dyke

    1.) As a “student of history,” I suppose you never heard of the violent conquest of the Confederacy, the dissolution of the Southern states, the establishment of military rule, and the forced incorporation of the Southern states back into the “Union” at gunpoint by puppet governments.

    2.) The type of “Union” imposed on the CSA by the US was essentially no different from the one that was imposed on Poland by Russia. That’s why Tsarist Russia supported the Lincoln administration.

    3.) A “classical liberal” is still a liberal: someone who believes that society should be organized on the basis of liberal abstractions – “liberty,” “equality,” “human rights,” “democracy,” etc. – rather than other sources like blood, soil, culture, religion, tradition, history, etc.

    4.) The argument between “classical liberals,” “neo-classical liberals,” and “libertarians” who favor “liberty” vs. the “reform liberals” who believe in using state power to advance “equality” takes place entirely within the liberal tradition and has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism.

    5.) It’s your government that routinely uses force to violently impose its agenda – whether it was in Arkansas (1957), Mississippi (1962), Alabama (1963), or more recently on Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Panama, or possibly Syria by the end of this week.

    6.) There’s no difference between “mainstream conservatives” and the likes of Al Sharpton and Barack Obama.

    “It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

    - Robert Lewis Dabney

    • Richard Willmer

      But I suspect that the ‘white supremacists’ would be perfectly happy to use force to impose its agenda (the rhetoric from the LOSers does point to this) on those they deem to be ‘inferior’. The only reason it does not is that they is too weak to do so; and they are too weak because not enough people support them.

      In a sense, it is true to say that ‘mainstream conservatives’ are ‘liberals’. Democracy is essentially a ‘liberal’ thing. ‘MCs’ and ‘libs’ might disagree on aspects of policy, but they can agree to agree to disagree … peacefully. That is what unites them.

      • Hunter Wallace

        It is the US federal government which wantonly attacks foreign countries, uses drones and nuclear weapons, and kills millions of people, not the League of the South.

        • Richard Willmer

          Most governments do these kind of things I’m afraid. And so would a LotS government if it were to believe that its interests would be served by so doing.

          Like many in the both the US and the UK, I oppose military intervention in foreign lands, although I can understand – especially given recent events – why some believe that it might be right to become militarily involved in the Syrian Civil War … though my view is that this would be a big mistake, and lead to more, and not less, suffering.

          • Hunter Wallace

            The League of the South isn’t trying to “rule the world.”

            It is the US Empire which tries to rule the world and which attacks foreign countries like Libya and Serbia without provocation. It is the US Empire which invades the privacy of foreigners and which poses a military threat to the sovereignty of foreign countries.

          • Richard Willmer

            I didn’t say it was. And if you dropped all this racism, I would entirely respect you view that there would be nothing wrong with seceding if that is what people wanted.

            I know it’s ‘heresy’ in LotS-type circles to say this, but the Civil War WAS about slavery.

        • Richard Willmer

          I wish to qualify a statement I made here, by saying that ‘generally-speaking’ I oppose military intervention in foreign lands. One can conceive of certain scenarios where such intervention might be the least worst option.

    • Richard Willmer

      An aside: this ‘Anglo-Celt’ thing one is hearing from the LOS types makes me scream with hysterical laughter; the Anglo-Saxons and Celts have been at each others’ throats for centuries!

      Talk about ‘knowing one’s history’!

      (Obviously, this ‘Anglo-Celt’ nonsense is a spot of ‘political positioning’ – possibly a punt for the ‘Irish vote’? I doubt Irish-Americans are particularly impressed, if they’ve even noticed at all.)

      • Hunter Wallace

        “Anglo-Celt” is an obvious reference to the settlement of the Southern colonies by peoples from the Celtic fringe of England: Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Ulster, western and northern England.

        • Richard Willmer

          So Scotland and Wales are the ‘Celtic fringe of England’?

          Just wait till I tell my Welsh and Scottish friends that, They’ll be thrilled.

          • Zoe Brain

            “The rottenist bits of these islands of ours,

            we’ve left in the hands of three unfriendly powers

            Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot

            You’ll find he’s a stinker as likely as not.”

            - Flanders & Swan “A song of patriotic prejudice”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdY1Y5XNJBY

  • JCF

    “In the US, a “mainstream conservative” is a liberal.”

    HA hahaha HA hahaha HA! Stop, dude, you’re killing me! LMAO!

    Too bad you’re such a racist little creep—you could have such a great career in comedy.

  • Patrocles

    And in fact, educated and civilised nations allow for secession. After the fall of communism, the Czechs allowed their Slovak neighbours to secede and build their own state.

    International law also allows persons to form different peoples and to strive for autonomy. Obviously, there are cases in which secession and nation-building cannot be executed without damaging other people’s rights, but that’s no reason to deny the principle.

    • Richard Willmer

      I agree. And if Scots choose to leave the United Kingdom, that too will be a peaceful process.

      Personally, I would prefer that the UK remains as it is (I won’t bore you with reasons why … but some might surprise you). However, an independent Scotland is a prospect I would regard with equanimity … precisely because the ‘social contract’ between government and people in such a polity would be an enlightened and progressive one (and not some kind of vile racist nonsense).

  • Patrocles

    Hunter,

    honestly, I don’t think that philosophical ideas are tokens for parties.

    It’s of course galling that liberals try to use the words “democracy”, “equality” or “liberty” as tokens for their party, even if they have so often abused the ideas.

    But let’s separate the ideas from the words. In fact, there are problems and even solutions which all men share. And everyone who shuns the words will some day have to reintroduce the concepts with other words (which may or may not be useful).

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    To all – I recognize that conversations about race raise strong emotions. However, I want to remind everyone of the commenting guidelines. Namecalling, threats, etc. violate the guidelines. I have let everything through so far because I want to encourage discussion but I will start deleting comments if need be. Generally I moderated comments I consider to be racially insensitive. However, in this case since I am referring to the League of the South in my posts, I believe I should allow their sympathizers and members to have a say. I have allowed Hunter Wallace’s comments for that reason, not because I agree or approve of his views (I don’t).

    • Tom Van Dyke

      Kind of a walking argument disproving white superiority. ;-P

    • Zoe Brain

      However, in this case since I am referring to the League of the South in my posts, I believe I should allow their sympathizers and members to have a say. I have allowed Hunter Wallace’s comments for that reason, not because I agree or approve of his views (I don’t).

      Freedom of Speech is most important when the speech is saying something you don’t just disagree with, but consider odious and evil.

      Mr Wallace has been unfailingly polite, which does him great credit, and reflects well on him. His patience is admirable. His philosophy, not so much.

      I happen to agree that under the spirit of the US Constitution, secession was the right of any state. Lincoln was not a great moral leader, he was a master of Real Politik who knew that if the United States became the Disunited States, outside powers would destroy this noble experiment.

      My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

      — A Lincoln, letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862.

      That the South fanatically supported property rights – the rights of humans to own other humans, and their offspring – meant that they were Enemies of Humanity. As are all slave-holders.

  • Patrocles

    I wrote:

    “Educated and civilized nations allow for secession. After the fall of communism, the Czechs allowed their Slovak neigbours to secede and build their own state.”

    And that’s “racially insensitive”?????

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

      Pat – It is not analogous to the US but not racially insensitive; why do you ask?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren