Michael Hill’s South

For those of you interested in such things, here’s Michael Hill’s address to this past weekend’s League of the South meeting in Alabama:

Dr. Hill elaborated on his vision on the League’s Facebook page:

The League of the South should have as it primary objective the preservation of our people—kith and kin—on their ancestral lands. Independence will do the South little good if we fail to preserve ourselves as a distinct people group inhabiting a certain piece of Creation. Once we secure our future as “the Southern people,” then, and only then, can we be about the business of gaining our independence. Therefore, we support a return to a society and civilization based on allegiance to kith and kin rather than to an impersonal state wedded to multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, the rights of man, and other similar leftist abstractions. The leaders and the rank-and-file of our organization must be hardliners who insist that quite apart from political ideals, we take our stand in the historic South and for the people—white Southerners–who made the historic South what it is. The South is not a universal idea anymore than, say, Scotland, France, or Serbia. Instead, the South was and is a true nation built on the realities of place and kinship that we must revitalize if we are to survive and prosper.

Note … white southerners.

It’s rather challenging for people accused of being “rainbow Confederates” to claim that they side with the League when the League rejects their pretenses to repudiate racism; indeed, the League now thinks that exercise is simply nonsense:

If you are a rainbow, politically correct “Southerner” who worries about being called “racist,” “xenophobe,” or any other epithet thrown at us by the left, then you don’t belong here. This Facebook page is for truly unreconstructed Southern nationalists. If you fit the description above and are not open to change, then you need to go elsewhere. You are not among compatriots here.

This change in professed position seems to be in reaction to the outbursts of a few so-called “rainbow Confederates” this past weekend.

I think you should take these people at their word.

21 thoughts on “Michael Hill’s South

  1. Brooks D. Simpson July 24, 2012 / 11:47 am

    And, just to remind us that there is some diversity in the movement, I present to you the ponderings of Pat Hines:

    I do not support miscegenation laws because it grants power to state government.

    What should be done to discourage that practice is to refuse to sell or rent housing to miscegenating couples, refuse to hire them, refuse to school them and so forth.

    That’s how you discourage many bad practices legitimately, without resorting to state power.

    How might one discourage such practices? Well, listen here to another loyal LoS member:

    How to handle miscegenation is not as important as how to view miscegenation. My home state of Tennessee used to have miscegenation firmly controlled by means of social fabric and, when necessary, lynching. It is the elimination of the Leviathan that must remain our focus. After that, let the various sovereign states come to their own settlements about how to foster a local Christian culture that can lie peacefully with its neighbors.

    A return to lynching? Make of that what you will.

    • Hunter Wallace July 24, 2012 / 2:10 pm

      In poorer societies, lynching was used to maintain the social order and deter criminality. To my knowledge, lynching was a Scots-Irish custom that thrived in Greater Appalachia and goes all the way back to Britain.

      Hard as it is to believe, there were plenty of Whites who were lynched in the Old South. We also used to have duels. The Wild West is full of stories of outlaws and vigilantes. Justice used to be a lot rougher back then than it is today.

      Well, that’s unless you live in a place like Chicago which is more violent than Afghanistan.

      Instead of lynching criminals, America is a lot wealthier today and can afford a massive criminal justice apparatus. Rich societies can dispense win their criminal element in such a way whereas poorer ones don’t have those resources.

    • Brooks D. Simpson July 24, 2012 / 12:02 pm

      This remains unclear. Race-based enslavement would reintroduce non-whites into the population. However, how else would one recruit a work force?

      • Hunter Wallace July 24, 2012 / 1:59 pm

        In 2012, 2 percent of the population works in agriculture. 98 percent of them are White. No one is interested in bringing back slavery. We’re not interested in bringing back sharecropping or tenant farming either.

        The closest thing we have to slavery in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida are farmers who exploit illegal aliens to pick sensitive crops like onions, oranges, blueberries, and tomatoes.

        As it happens, the Left supports this practice even though it drives down wages for American worker, whereas the Far Right is vehemently opposed to it and supports state based E-Verify laws.

  2. Hunter Wallace July 24, 2012 / 1:51 pm

    Hill’s view on “racism” is the same as my view: the term “racism” was coined by radical European leftists in the 1920s, probably by communists, and it made its first appearance in America in the 1930s in an “anti-fascist” pamphlet.

    The Left has made up all kinds of bogus sins since then: homophobia, nativism, sexism, anti-Semitism, heterocentricity, and so forth. None of these sins against the Left were even known until the twentieth century.

    • Eric J. Wittenberg July 29, 2012 / 4:07 pm

      Really? There was no anti-Semitism before the 20th Century?

      Well, that’s certainly a new one on me. My grandfather left Russia to avoid the pogroms of those anti-Semities.

      The acronym STFU comes to mind, pally. Live it. Learn it. Love it.

      • Hunter Wallace July 29, 2012 / 10:04 pm

        The term “anti-Semitism” was coined in Germany in the late nineteenth century. The idea that “anti-Semitism” and “racism” are moral failings became mainstream in the United States after the Second World War.

        So yes, the idea that “anti-Semitism” is immoral is another modern belief. It is on the same level as believing that “homophobia” and “xenophobia” are immoral. The fact that these beliefs are now commonplace in America says more about the distribution of political power in the United States than ethics.

        • Brooks D. Simpson July 29, 2012 / 10:14 pm

          Whether or not people at one time found a certain prejudice acceptable is different than saying it didn’t exist. Besides, we can draw from the Civil War an example that someone at the time did not find discrimination against Jews on the basis of their faith to be wrong … Lincoln’s revocation of Grant’s order banishing Jews from his department. Even Grant came to characterize it as “that obnoxious order”; he seemed truly embarrassed by it.

          • Hunter Wallace July 30, 2012 / 11:32 am

            I’m not saying that it didn’t exist. Obviously, racism and anti-Semitism and homophobia and xenophobia and the like existed before there were terms to describe these things.

            I am saying that morality has a history, too. The existence of racial differences used to be seen as a scientific question, not a moral one, or to the extent it was seen a moral question (as in the CSA, for example), the predominant view was the opposite of the dominant view that exists today.

            The idea that “racism” is immoral is closely bound up with the Second World War. It simply never occurred to most moral philosophers before WW2 that “racism” was immoral.

            Moral qualities were virtues like integrity, bravery, honesty (or vices like cowardice and mendacity) and so forth that were components of character.

            In the twentieth century, the Left began to use television and film to define morality as political positions that have nothing to do with morality.

            In the USSR, people who were “anti-Soviet” were considered immoral and were dismissed as lunatics suffering from a mental illness.

            The parallel in the United States is the idea that “racism” and “anti-Semitism” are immoral … both of these concepts became “immoral” after WW2, and the transformation of morality was closely bound up with shifts in political power in the United States, and the power of privileged groups to stigmatize and demonize their political opponents through control of mass media like television.

    • Hunter Wallace July 24, 2012 / 5:41 pm

      It is not exactly clear what any of these bogus sins, all of these various -isms which were unknown to the world a century ago, have to do with morality.

      Bravery is a moral virtue. Honesty is a moral virtue. Integrity is a moral virtue. What does “anti-racism” have to do with morality? Is morality what people on television are saying?

      An “anti-racist” is someone who would have us believe that (1) it is immoral to tell the truth and (2) that kin selection is immoral. The idea is preposterous.

      • Andrew Karnitz July 24, 2012 / 8:35 pm

        “What does “anti-racism” have to do with morality?”

        I think of anti-racism as intelligence, but you’re right: It has little to do with morality. But neither has bravery

  3. Andy Hall July 26, 2012 / 10:56 am

    I was really hoping we’d hear from Aaron Kidd, an occasional commenter here who is a Cherokee from Oklahoma, on his thoughts about Hill’s assertion that the South is the “ancestral land” of white folks.

  4. Pingback: Find your way back

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s