Defending the South

Defending the South

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 1989.]

    Many Southerners who might otherwise favor or be indifferent to an independent South oppose independence because they believe that the United States armed forces are the only thing stopping Soviet domination. Many Northerners, primarily conservatives, who might otherwise be indifferent to Southern independence oppose independence because they rightfully see the South as the bulwark of conservatism in the United States. They also see the South as a primary source of soldiers, officers, and materiel in the war against communism. (In spite of their platitudes about self-government, Northern liberals oppose Southern independence because they have an insatiable compulsion to rule, reform, rape, and rifle the South.) That the United States are defending the South from Soviet militarism and that the South needs the United States to defend her against the Soviet Union is one of the great myths of the latter half of the twentieth century.
    Ninety miles from Florida is one of the largest military camps in the world. Soviet bombers routinely fly along and occasionally over the coast of the eastern Southern States. What kind of defense does the United States provide the South against this threat? None! No effective anti-aircraft defense system is protecting the South. There are no anti-aircraft missile batteries. Very few fighters are available to intercept the Soviet bombers. The few available fighter squadrons are mostly part of the national guard, and only a few of them have the most recent fighters. There are not even any AWACS to observe this Soviet threat. If the Soviet Union were serious about dropping nuclear bombs on major Southern cities, they would meet little opposition. Would an independent South stand so naked before such an awesome foe? No!
    Coastal defense is perhaps even more dismal than air defense. With the largest Soviet base outside the Soviet Union just ninety miles from Florida, one would think that a significant part of the United States navy would be in the Gulf of Mexico and along the southeast Atlantic coast. But where is the bulk of the United States navy? It is in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea, Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and Arabian Sea. If the Soviets were determined, they probably could land several divisions along the Gulf Coast encountering nothing more threatening than a Coast Guard cutter or two hunting drug smugglers. Again, would an independent South stand so naked before such an awesome foe? Again, the answer is no.
    One of the most terrifying aspects of the latter half of the twentieth century has been the potential for nuclear war. What have the United States done to protect the South from nuclear war? Nothing! There is no civil defense system. There is no antimissile system. While the Soviet Union has built an elaborate civil defense system, the United States plan to rely on an untried, unworkable mass evacuation of panic-stricken city dwellers into the countryside where no shelter, food, or other provisions await them. While the Soviet Union has developed and placed in the field antimissile defense systems, the United States continues to draw elaborate schemes on paper. In short, the United States’ defense against Soviet missiles is to hold the South hostage to nuclear annihilation. Would an independent South have ever made herself so vulnerable? Of course not!
    The United States government is striving to turn Central America and Mexico into Soviet colonies. (Southerners will be fortunate if Congress prevails over the President. Perhaps then Southern blood will not have to soak the grounds of Central America before it becomes part of the Soviet Empire.) If (when?) Mexico were to become a Soviet colony, would the United States increase and improve their defense of the Mexican border? If it did, such increases and improvements would be mostly for a show with little substance. Most likely they would do nothing.
    The United States have virtually no control over their southern border now. There is little hope that they would be able to control it as millions of Americans from Central America and Mexico flee their Soviet conquerors. Along with the refugees will come Soviet agents, who will come as saboteurs, terrorist, and spies. Would an independent South have lost control of her border with Mexico as have the United States? No! Certainly, an independent South would put forth more effort to defend herself from a communist force in Mexico than the United States ever would. [Editor’s note. By substituting agents of drug dealers, Chinese Communists, and Middle Eastern terrorists for Soviet agents, one has a good description of what is happening today along the Mexican border.]
    History of the twentieth century has shown that the United States are no threat to communism in general and none to the Soviet Union in particular. The United States entered World War I to make Russia safe for communism. In World War II, the United States made Eastern Europe safe for communism. (One of the ironies of World War II is that one of the professed reasons for fighting the war was to rid the world of fascism. All of the noncommunist countries that fought Germany and Italy had already adopted a semi-fascist economic system and have since adopted a semi-fascist social system.) The Korean War and Vietnam War were fought to make China and Indo-China safe for communism. (These statements of fact are not intended to castigate the brave soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who fought or thought that they were fighting to defend their homes and loved ones and for what they considered noble ideals. They are intended to castigate their political leaders, who knew that the real purpose of these wars was to advance communism.) Now it appears that the United States are trying to start a war to make the Middle East safe for communism. First, they tried to goad Lybia into war. Now they are trying with Iran. If they can succeed in getting Iran to sink one or two United States warships, they will have the old “Remember Fort Sumter, the Maine, and Pearl Harbor; they fired the first shot; we are innocent” battle cry that has been used so successfully so many times to dupe the gullible American into useless war.
    Even a cursory review of how the United States have treated in the past and continues to this day treat anticommunist governments shows that the United States have no animosity toward the Soviet Union or communism. The United States have tried to overthrow nearly every anticommunist government there is. They have probably overthrown more than the Soviet Union has. The more an anticommunist country has tried to be friendly with the United States, the harder the United States have endeavored to overthrow the government of that country and to turn that country into a Soviet colony or an impoverished socialist dictatorship allied with the Soviet Union.
    With such a record of defending against Soviet aggression and communism, can the South really depend upon the United States to defend her? Only a fool or someone oblivious to the history of the twentieth century could possibly believe that the United States would defend the South. The only hope that the South has of defending herself against communism and the Soviet Union lay in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1989 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

The Democratic Party

 The Democratic Party

Thomas Allen

Today, the Democratic Party is America’s version of Europe’s social democratic parties. It is a party of progressive egalitarianism. Like these parties, the Democratic Party promotes a cradle-to-grave welfare state, diversity, unlimited third-world immigration, multiculturalism, multiracialism, and globalism. Also, the Democratic Party advocates indoctrination through government schools and a social system where perversions, libertinism, hedonism, narcissism, and wokeism are encouraged and traditional values are suppressed. In economic matters, like the European social democrats, it espouses a form of democratic fascism with government-business partnerships, i.e., managerial capitalism and the managerial state (a social justice-welfare state with a regulated market economy — welfare capitalism). Like all left-wing parties, the Democratic Party forcibly takes the property of others, often enslaves them, and at times kills them to satisfy its lusts, desires, biases, and prejudices. However, unlike the European social democratic parties, the Democratic Party pursues foreign intervention (imperialism) to impose its ideals on the rest of the world. Yet, the Democratic Party has not always been a fascist or semi-socialist party.

The neoconservatives and most of the alt-right claim that the Democratic Party is the party of racism, slavery, segregation, and “Jim Crow.” This is a highly misleading exaggeration. Racists (whatever that now means — see “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen for more than 700 definitions of “racist”) and segregationists dominated both the Republican and Democratic parties until after World War II. All parties in the United States presided over slavery until 1865. (Even President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation protected slavery in areas under the control of the Union army when Lincoln issued it.) However, today, the Democratic Party is free of these charges except it fosters discrimination against and racial hostility toward Whites.

(According to the argument of the neoconservatives and the alt-right, today’s Democrats are racists, segregationists, and advocates of Jim Crow because some Democrats were racists, segregationists, and advocates of Jim Crow in the past. If their argument is correct, then today’s Republican Party is the party of repatriationists and eugenists because Republican President Lincoln wanted to repatriate the Negroes and Republican President Roosevelt was a eugenist.)

Unfortunately for the neoconservatives and most of the alt-right, their assertion that the Republican Party is the party that advocates freedom and civil rights for the Negro is flawed. Following Lincoln’s War, Republicans supported civil rights, voting rights, and privileges for Blacks not because they cared about the Negro. Even the abolitionists only cared about Negroes in the abstract; they did not care about them as concrete individuals. Republicans wanted to use the Negro to retain power and to finish genociding the Southerner — to finish what the Union army failed to do.

Later the Democratic Party usurped this endeavor to finish genociding the Southerner from the Republicans. In the 1950s with the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights and related laws in the 1960s, the Democratic Party earnestly sought to complete the work of the Republicans to genocide the Southerner. In this drive to exterminate Southerners, the Democratic Party has sought to genocide all Whites despite Whites controlling the Democratic Party. Like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has never cared about the Negro per se; both parties have always used the Negro to genocide the Southerner and to gain and retain political power. To them, the Negro is just a useful tool.

In the nineteenth century, the Democratic Party was the party of “the old republican American tradition: resistance to unconstitutional powers and a proper relationship between state and general governments; strict economy in federal expenditures; opposition to corporate welfare in all its manifestations; sound money and a stable currency; peaceful neutrality and the cultivation of international trade; and more broadly the spirit of personal and political independence.”[1]

Under the leadership of William Bryan, the populists captured the Democratic Party. Then, with the election of Woodrow Wilson, the progressives gained control of the Democratic Party. Under Franklin Roosevelt, the progressives morphed into fascists. President Lyndon Johnson transformed the Democratic Party into the social democratic party that it is today. Thus, the Democratic Party now stands for the opposite of what it stood for 130 years ago.

Endnote

1.  Brion McClanahan, “Rejecting the ‘Proposition Nation,’ Chronicles, April/May 2021, p. 21.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Conservatives

 Conservatives

Thomas Allen

Conservatives divide into two groups: Rationalists, who are faux conservatives, and Traditionalists, who are real conservatives. Rationalists include neoconservatives and establishment conservatives, which include Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, big-government conservatives, and the typical Republican politicians. Traditionalists include principled conservatives (Jeffersonian-Calhounians, paleoconservatives, traditional Southern conservatives, fusionists, and the Old Right) and Enlightened conservatives (the New Conservatives of the 1950s as represented by Russell Kirk and who subordinate the individual to society, subordinate freedom to virtue [for them, virtue is freedom] and rights to duty, subordinate reason to undifferentiated tradition to the point of rejecting reasoning, scorn reason and principle, reduce virtue to prudence, and depend heavily on Providence).

While Rationalists claim that America is a proportional or creedal country dedicated to the ideas of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights, i.e., American Exceptionalism, Traditionalists reject this notion. Instead of advocating loyalty to abstract ideas as do the Rationalists, Traditionalists adhere to loyalties to one’s own race (or at least they used to, but now most are racial nihilists), ethnicity, culture, and traditions, that is loyalty to one’s nation. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Being universalists, cosmopolitans, globalists, imperialists, multiculturalists, and multiracialists, Rationalists believe in loyalty to humanity and abstract concepts.

Another important difference between Rationalists and Traditionalists is their view of capitalism. Rationalists promote managerial capitalism (as Sam Francis terms it). Managerial capitalism is a market system where managers of capital are not the owners of capital. Under managerial capitalism, the managers prefer a protected market instead of a free market for themselves. However, managers prefer a free market for their suppliers, workers, and independent contractors. This is the economic system of the United States, Western Europe, and much of the rest of the world — but usually without a free market for suppliers, workers, and contractors. Instead of relying on a free-market economy, this system relies on government-business partnerships, i.e., a coalition of managerial capitalism and the managerial state (a social justice-welfare state with a market economy) — thus, a form of democratic fascism. (This is what Rationalists commonly call democratic capitalism.) Perhaps, the most appropriate name for this system is “welfare capitalism.”

Traditionalists promote a decentralized free-market, free-enterprise system where the owners of capital manage their capital. Under this system, most people own their own businesses, farms, etc. and are self-employed. Factory workers are often the owners of the factories where they work. Large corporations are rare. The welfare state is nonexistent since aid provided by the welfare state is provided by private charities and local governments. Unlike Rationalists, Traditionalists do not believe in corporate welfare.

Another major disagreement between Rationalists and Traditionalists is their view of the founding of the United States. While Rationalists claim that the United States were founded as a propositional or creedal country, Traditionalists claim that they were founded as an ethnic (genetic) country.

The Rationalist view of the founding of the United States tends to fall into two groups. One group argues that America was founded on the principle of individualism and rational self-interest. It was founded with the modern commercial economy, managerial or democratic capitalism, in mind. Consequently, a homogenous citizenry is unnecessary because America is a creedal country. A person only needs to accept the creed. Thus, citizens are abstract, universal individuals instead of concrete people defined by race, class, religion, culture, language, etc.

Another group argues that America was founded on the concept of natural law and Judeo-Christian values (despite Judeo-Christian being an oxymoron). America was created on the proposition “that all men are created equal.” Thus, America was established for religious and virtuous people who sought justice, liberty, equality, and moderation. Consequently, adherence to this creed makes one an American and not race, ethnicity, class, religion, etc. Accordingly, both groups assert that the United States are a creedal country.

Traditionalists argue that the United States were founded on the principles of race and ethnicity, that is, America is a genetic nation. It was not founded as a creedal country. America was founded as a racially and culturally homogeneous country. The historical record supports this conclusion. Consequently, a multicultural and multiracial citizenry is anti-American.

Philosophically, Rationalists are in the same camp as liberals, progressives, socialists, and other left-wingers and libertarians. All are globalists and promote multiculturalism and multiracialism. All adhere to the notion that the United States are a creedal country although they disagree about what this creed is. None appreciate traditions. Therefore, Rationalists are not true conservatives.

Appendix. Traditional Southern Conservatives

A traditional Southern conservative adheres to kinship and ancestry and has an attachment to his ancestral land and community. He advocates States’ rights and stresses the importance of the Christian religion. Like John Calhoun, he believes that the US Constitution is a negative document; it greatly restricts the powers of the federal government. Further, he is a proponent of a community-oriented individualism that offers its members liberty and independent self-sufficiency within a hierarchical society regulated by tradition. Of great importance to a traditional Southern conservative are localism and coexisting with other communities and with other States in a federation.

Moreover, a traditional Southern conservative reveres the Confederacy and its symbols because it fought for the underlying principles of the US Constitution, which died with the defeat of the Confederacy. With the defeat of the Confederacy, the United States became an exceptional nation and a creedal country, whose creed is equality, democracy, and universal natural rights. The United States became a managerial state with managerial capitalism.

(On the other hand, neoconservatives and most establishment conservatives hold that America’s founding principles began with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. But it will not be completed until the genocide of the last Southerner, whom they blame for nearly all of America’s problems.)

Reference

Gottfried, Paul, editor. The Vanishing Tradition: Perspectives on American Conservatism. Ithaca, New York: Northern Illinois University Press, 2020.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.