Five Questions for a Southern Nationalist on Little Vladimir Putin

I. The Five Questions


Five to seven hundred Russian protestors in the Putin Khanate have been arrested, including anti-corruption activist and immigration restrictionist Alexei Navalny - and the 'conservative', 'Southern nationalist' site Occidental Dissent applauds it! Shame!

Here are a number of questions I'd like to ask Hunter Wallace and any other Southern nationalist who supports Putin:

1) How do you reconcile Russian imperialism with a principled support of the Wilsonian right to secession? If you read Ukrainian nationalist and libertarian Roman Skaskiw's blog, you'll understand that Russia - or rather, Muscovy - has always sought to annex smaller nations and incorporate non-Russian ethnicities in an amorphous, all-embracing Russian 'identity'. Muscovy conquers, and then declares to the conquered, 'You hence are Russian'. And woe betide any country, such as Chechnya, which attempts to leave; Russia waged a terrible war in the nineties to keep the Muslim state of Chechnya  within the Russian orbit. Putin is Russia's Abraham Lincoln. Now, like the South in 1861, Ukraine wants to leave the Union - the Soviet Union, that is; it wants to flee Russia, which has dominated it for hundreds of years. Shouldn't Southern nationalists support the Ukrainians, the Chechens and the various nationalities and ethnic groups which want to leave Russia? Or does Southern nationalism only endorse secession and independence for me and not for thee...

2) Putin supports immigration and the Islamification and Asianisation of the white parts of Russia (Muscovy, really); like the former Australian prime minister John Howard, he has enabled unlimited non-white immigration while keeping up a pose, successfully, as a 'conservative' and even a 'nationalist'. How can you favour Putin above Alexei Navalny, who wants to keep Russia white? Does Southern nationalism endorse a civic and multi-culti form of nationalism which ends up in white demographic replacement? (Navalny wants visas, i.e., restrictions, for Central Asian immigrants to Muscovy, but the know-nothings at 4Chan take that to mean that he wants free immigration of Central Asians. See here. The idea of visas, i.e., restrictions on illegals, was floated back in 2013, but guess which 'conservative' and 'nationalist' politician quashed it?).

3) Occidental Dissent writer 'Marcus Cicero' sneers at the protestors and believes that they are the work of conspiratorial outside forces; he blames Soros the Jew and supposes that Putin is anti-Semitic and a great enemy of the Jews. But let's look at what at what the protests were about:

Most of the marches were organised without official permission.

TV pictures showed demonstrators chanting "Down with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin!", "Russia without Putin!" and "Putin is a thief!".

Alexei Navalny called for the nationwide protests after he published reports claiming that Mr Medvedev controlled mansions, yachts and vineyards - a fortune that far outstripped his official salary.

Mr Medvedev's spokeswoman called the allegations "propagandistic attacks", but the prime minister himself has not commented on the claims.

The reports included the accusation that Mr Medvedev had a special house for a duck on one of his properties - and on Sunday, some demonstrators held up images of yellow rubber ducks.

Others showed up with their faces painted green, a reference to a recent attack in which Mr Navalny was hit with green liquid.

In Moscow, protesters filled Pushkin square and some climbed the monument to poet Alexander Pushkin shouting "impeachment". Turnout was estimated to be between 7,000 and 8,000, according to police.

The police said 500 protesters had been arrested in the capital alone, but a rights group, OVD Info, put that number at more than 800.

Putin, Medvedev and the rest of the gang have stolen literally billions from the Russian people, have overseen Russian decline - economic, demographic, cultural, you name it - and have done their best to prevent the 'free and fair' elections of the sort that led to the Trump presidency and the leave vote in the Brexit referendum. The question I have is: does Southern nationalism accord the people the right to rebel against politicians whose rule does not accord with standards of justice? Do the people possess the right to rebel, or what German jurists call the right of resistance? Or do they have to lump it...

The Syrians have been living under Ba'athism since 1963, under the rule of the Assad family since 1970, and under Bashar Al-Assad since 2000. That's a long time - longer than Hitler or Mussolini - to be in power, and in the course of the long, long Ba'athist / Assadist reign, one would think it natural that the Assadists and Ba'athists would acquire enemies and earn grievances. But according to the Assadists here in the West (and these are prominent within the Western nationalist and racialist movement), the Syrians at the time of the Arab Spring in 2011 had no right to revolt against Assad, and in fact were the pawns of Zionists, Soros, the CIA and the rest. They lacked, in the terminology of the Right Stuff, 'agency'. Likewise, in the Putinista script, the Russians who are against Putin lack agency; they can't possibly have a genuine grievance against the Putin regime, so therefore they are mind-controlled zombies. But the question is: could Russians have a genuine grievance against Putin, now in his eighteenth year of rule, and do they have the right to revolt?

The ironic thing is that, unlike Navalny and the Arab Springists, I don't consider myself a liberal or a democrat; but I am capable of seeing the other fellow's point of view. Eighteen years under Putin would be like eighteen years under Hilary Clinton - another corrupt, fabulous wealthy, multi-culti and anti-racist elite politician. Just imagine...

4) I see the sneering comments regarding the Ukraine. I want to ask the Putinistas this: the Maidan Square revolt and the ouster of Yanukovych - was that the work of 'Jews' or 'Neo-Nazis'? According to the Putinista Right, the former; according to the Putinista Left, the latter.

But Putin and his regime see themselves as crusaders against all forms of 'Nazi' resurgence. In, fact, the annexation of Crimea was portrayed in Russian and Putinista propaganda as the liberation of Russian land from 'Nazi' occupation, as we see from the Russian propaganda poster below:

5) Russia invaded Crimea, held a phoney referendum in which a 100% of voters supported Russian rule, and then annexed it - in an eerie repeat of what the Soviet Union (well, Russia) did to the Baltic states in 1940. The Balts had a grievance against the Russians for doing that, and for the murdering, torturing and deporting goodness knows how many of them. As part of a reaction to Russian aggression - and Russian communism -  Latvians formed a Waffen-SS brigade with a splendid combat record which ought to be celebrated. The question is, what do the Southern nationalists think of the Latvian nationalists' lauding and honouring of this brigade - and of Putin's disdain for it.

Here is an example of the Kremlin's 'antifascist' work and its fight against all forms of 'aggressive nationalism':

VIENNA, March 16. /TASS/. Russia calls on the Latvian authorities to stop supporting Neo-Nazi movements and comply with the country’s OSCE obligations to fight aggressive nationalism, Russia’s OSCE envoy said commenting on the recent march of the Waffen SS veterans in Riga.

"We call on ODIHR (OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) to pay close attention to the situation in Latvia and call on the country’s authorities to stop supporting or ignoring neo-Nazis and to comply with its OSCE obligations to fight racism, aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism," Alexander Lukashevich said.

"It’s time for Riga to finally admit evident facts - gatherings of SS veterans and their supporters are an affront to the memory of millions of the World War II victims," he said. "It is inadmissible to connive at ultra-radical movements that praise the Nazis and their abettors under the guise of the freedom of speech and assembly."

The diplomat added that ignoring or encouraging neo-Nazi movements "will inevitably lead to a tragedy."

"The examples are around us - for several years, nationalists wearing Nazi symbols have been torturing and killing people for their beliefs in one of our neighbor states," Lukashevich said.

Public events to mark the day of commemoration of the Waffen SS Latvian legion took place in Riga on Thursday. Police officials said about 2,000 people had taken part, including lawmakers and officials.

"Anyway, no statements on the issue were made by Washington, London or Paris. Besides, there has been no reaction from the European Union leadership, which is quick to make harsh statements concerning others," the Russian diplomat said.

"In fact, we are witnessing a de-facto rehabilitation and glorification of those who, as members of the volunteer Waffen SS Latvian legion, committed numerous crimes in Russia, Belarus and Poland and were involved in large-scale punitive actions against hundreds of thousands of civilians, the mass killings of Jews," he went on.

March 16 is an unofficial day of commemoration of the Waffen SS Latvian legion, two divisions of which were set up on the Latvian territory in 1943. The date remained an official commemorative date in Latvia over a period of several years after its breakaway from the USSR, but later the authorities decided to drop it off the official calendar of public commemorative events amid harsh criticism from Russia and in the West.

The Waffen SS Latvian legion had about 150,000 members, Lukashevich said.

"Meanwhile, Latvian authorities have been persistently trying to portray those military criminals as freedom fighters. On the eve of the centenary of the declaration of the Latvian statehood, such neo-Nazi events raise a question of what type of historic achievements are viewed as an example by contemporary Latvia," he said.

II. In Conclusion

I don't expect any answers to these questions, of course. Nationalists have for years been asking them of the Putinistas in the movement and have never, ever received a response; they've been presenting, too, evidence of Putin's pro-immigration policies, etc., and rebutting the propaganda myth that Putin is a 'nationalist' and even a 'conservative' point by point - to no avail. Putinism, like all true religions, has shown itself to be immune to either proof or disproof. Putin bans Holocaust denial? Doesn't matter: he's an opponent of the Jews, and all of his opponents (including myself, including Navalny) must be working on behalf of the Jews. Homosexuality - and homosexual rape and prostitution - rife in the Russian army and navy, and in Russian prisons? Doesn't matter: Putin supports conservative morals and the Russian Orthodox Church, and Putin's Russia is blessedly free of the homosexual plague which afflicts the decadent and liberal West.

My advice to those who oppose Putin is: go your own way and don't expect any assistance from the West. Nationalists who are anti-Putin should not expect support in their cause from the Daily Stormer, VDare, Occident Dissent and the rest of the Putinista outlets; nor should they support, in turn, the 'nationalist' parties which have been corrupted by Putin - Golden Dawn, UKIP, Front National, the NPD and others. If a Putinista 'nationalist' party asks you for assistance in leafleting or some other of activism or electoral campaigning, politely decline their request - turn them away and tell them that you're too busy.

The Ukrainians have learned to rely on themselves, and meet force with force. They've become a militarised nation now, with little to no assistance from Germany and the US, and field a large army of 60,000 battle-hardened soldiers who hold the line against Putin's army of Ingushetis, Dagestanis, Chechens and Central Asian Mongols which has invaded the east of Ukraine and seeks to annex it to Holy Mother Russia. The Ukrainians don't argue, they don't remonstrate, they don't plead for mercy; they fight. Just like the Finns in 1939, they know that the only way to answer Russian aggression is with a bullet.

Putin offends the 'fascist', the 'Nazi' in me, and he also offends the liberal in me - a liberal I didn't even know existed. But perhaps this shouldn't be regarded as liberalism but as a Western love of freedom - one that I hope I share with the Southern nationalist, who I don't think would actually like living in Putin's Russia.

I will conclude with these remarks on Russia from the 19th century French travel writer (and conservative anti-democrat) the Marquis de Custine. His description of the Russia of Tsar Nicholas I sounds a lot like the Russia of Putin, which makes me wonder if Russia can ever be saved.

“Custine eventually discovered that his knack was for travel writing. He wrote a decently received account of a trip to Spain and was encouraged by Honoré de Balzac to write accounts of other “half-European” parts of Europe, like southern Italy and Russia. . . .

He went to Russia looking for arguments against representative government, but he was appalled by autocracy as practiced in Russia, and equally by the Russian people’s apparent collaboration in their own oppression. . . .

He mocked contemporary Russia for its veneer of European civilization hiding an Asiatic soul. . . .

Most of Custine’s mocking was reserved for the Russian nobility and Nicholas I. Custine said Russia’s aristocracy had “just enough of the gloss of European civilization to be ‘spoiled as savages’ but not enough to become cultivated men. They were like ‘trained bears who made you long for the wild ones.’

Custine criticizes Nicholas for the constant spying he ordered and for repressing Poland. Custine had more than one conversation with the Tsar and concluded it was possible that the Tsar only behaved as he did because he felt he had to. “If the Emperor has no more of mercy in his heart than he reveals in his policies, then I pity Russia; if, on the other hand, his true sentiments are really superior to his acts, then I pity the Emperor.” . . .

describes Russia as a horrible domain of obsequious flattery of the Tsar and spying. Custine said the air felt freer the moment one crossed into Prussia. In the middle 20th century, many saw predictions of Joseph Stalin in Custine’s description of Nicholas I. . . .”

“In Russia, everything you notice, and everything that happens around you, has a terrifying uniformity; and the first thought that comes into the traveler’s mind, as he contemplates this symmetry, is that such entire consistency and regularity, so contrary to the natural inclination of mankind, cannot have been achieved and could not survive without violence. . . . Officially, such brutal tyranny is called respect for unity and love of order; and this bitter fruit of despotism appears so precious to the methodical mind that you are told it cannot be purchased at too high a price.”

Donald Trump, American Zio: Should We Do Anything About It?

A few of my anti-Semitic friends in the movement have been disturbed and confused by Trump's Israel First foreign policy, especially by his position on the anti-settlement vote at the UN:

We certainly live in strange times - of weird 'intersectionalities' to borrow a term from the Left. Assad, the 'anti-Zionist', talks - and acts - like the IDF; he is friends with Putin - who is friends with Netanyahu - and wants to be friends with Trump. Meanwhile, some of Trump's most passionate supporters can be found amongst the ranks of the Alt Right and the American white nationalist movement - both of which are anti-Semitic and despise the Jews and Israel. Other Trump supporters on the Far Right can be characterised as anti-Islamic only, and they make a profession out of opposing Islam. Most of these anti-Islamics like Assad, who portrays himself as a noble crusader against 'Islamism' and for 'secularism' - but wait, most of the soldiers doing the fighting and dying for him are 'Islamist' and 'fundamentalist', not to mention sectarian 'Islamists' and 'fundamentalist'. (I've learned from the Syrian war that one must draw a distinction between not only good and bad Muslims, but good and bad Islamists: the Islamists against Assad are bad, and 'Zionist'; the Islamists for him are good, and 'anti-Zionist'). Quite a few on the communist Left support Assad and Putin, but oppose Trump and the anti-Islamics and the populists; the latter group are condemned as 'fascist' and 'racist'. The communist Assadists decry 'Islamophobia' and view calls for 'secularism' in the West - e.g., the call for the banning of veils and hijabs in France - as a disguise for that 'Islamophobia'. At the same time, while virulently polemicising against any sort of 'ethnic profiling' - any sort of targeting of a people because of race, ethnicity, nationality and religious belief - they single out Israel and Jews and of all the nations and races of the world and vehemently denounce their 'Zionism'. It's all very confusing.

As to where I stand... I have identified myself several times - times without number, in fact! - on this blog as an anti-Semite, neofascist, Neo-Nazi,  whatnot; that remains my position to this day. But, to me, 'Neo-Nazism' doesn't mean a resolute opposition to Israel, Zionism, settlements in the West Bank; nor does it entail a firm advocacy of Palestinian rights and Palestinian nationalism. What matters above all is racialism; the main thing that counts is immigration restrictionism in the West. And here Trump will deliver the goods. Trump will build the wall. Trump will cut down - severely - on legal and illegal non-white immigration, and will give other Western nations (such as Germany, the UK, France and Australia) the impetus to do the same. The rights of Palestinians, or the fact that Israel is a nasty, deplorable and irredeemable state - on a par, I will add, with Syria and Iran - don't count for much in this equation.

We whites must look after ourselves. We don't do a good job of it; the Palestinians, on the other hand, do. In fact, they manage to get other people to attend to Palestinian interests too. The Palestinians have UN representation, for example. Supposing that the 'white ethnostate' existed: do you think that this would reap a fraction of the political, economic, diplomatic support that the Palestinians receive? The most likely answer is no. Look at what happened to apartheid-era South Africa, a white ethnostate which was Jew-friendly and even anti-Nazi (it fought for Britain against Germany in the Second World War): by the 1980s it had the entire world ranged against it. So did the American South in the 1950s and 1960s. The Palestinians, being brown, have done all right for themselves, unlike the white Southerners and Afrikaaners: they have respectability. True, they lost most of Palestine in 1948, and the remainder of it in 1967; but they have others fighting for them. We don't.

I bring this up because many nationalists seem to want to wage a jihad against Israel and 'Zionism' out of a desire to protect and further the Palestinian and Arab cause; they don't take up cudgels against international Jewry for the same reasons that Hitler and fascist Europe did in the 1930s and 1940s. Two anti-Semitisms exist, one pre-war, the other post-war. The two are inextricably linked, of course: the Talmud prophesies that the lost State of Israel shall be returned after a 'Holocaust', a 'fiery sacrifice' to the god Yahweh, which shall consume six million Jews, and that's exactly what happened after 1948. Israel would not have been founded without Hitler's gassing and cremation of the six million Jews. But, when all is said and done, the politics of today's anti-Semitism - inside and outside the West - bears little relation to the anti-Semitism of Europe past. Time has moved on since the 1940s and the politics have largely changed. Some of the Jewiest of right-wing publications, such as the Weekly Standard, Commentary and Breitbart (which is commonly miscategorised as 'Alt-Right') these days don't differ much in terms of content from Hunter Wallace, Steve Sailer, American Renaissance and VDare.

A few white nationalists of the George Lincoln Rockwell and William Pierce stripe make today's Jewry out to be the chief purveyors of all the filth, decadence and pornography of the world. The truth is that we non-Jews are now more than capable of coming with our own filth, decadence and pornography: we don't need Jewish help any more in that department, if we ever did. The same goes for race-mixing and non-white immigration.

Left-wing, liberal Jews did lobby to have laws against these things removed in countries such as Australia and America (but not in Israel, naturally); but that took place fifty years ago. White and Western politicians - and journalists, and intellectuals, and economists, and business leaders, and trade unionists - now, in the current year, are the ones responsible for bring hundreds of thousands of non-whites to our shores every year. Australian men don't race-mix with Chinese women because of the urgings of a Shlomo Shekelberg whispering, Wormtongue-like, in their ears... Many nationalists use the spectre of the Jew so that whites can be exonerated of any guilt, relieved of any responsibility. A Rockwell or Pierce would blame the North's desegregation drive in the 1950s and 1960s on the malign influence of 'commie and pinko Jews' on the Republican and Democrat administrations. Certainly, Jews from the North were involved, all right, but desegregation was mostly the doing of the Yankee WASPs. It was the Yankee's hatred of the Southerner, not the Jew's hatred of the goy, which served as the prime mover.

If anything, Jewish power has declined in the past ten years - ever since the catastrophe of the Bush 43 administration and the ascendancy of Obama and the (mainly non-Jewish) Social Justice Warriors. Which is why we hear endless complaining from the Jews about the new anti-Semitism of the 'Left' (really, the anti-Semitism of the Left and the Muslim immigrants); Jews are 'nervous', they feel discomfort, even fear, on campus and at left-wing demonstrations...

At any rate, we nationalists are called on to lend our support to Assad's blowing up and shooting down his fellow Arabs, because Assad is an 'anti-Zionist' and 'anti-Zionism' is good for the Arabs. Likewise, we must oppose Jewish settlements in the West Bank, because the dispossession of the Palestinians is bad for the Arabs. I don't understand how the interests of the white peoples of the world are affected in either case.

Which Way Forward American Man

Had I been a Republican Congressman, I wouldn't have given in to the fiscal cliff deal:  I would have let the tax hikes and spending cuts happen, and then proposed a bill to cut taxes afterwards. The bill wouldn't have passed the Senate, and even if it did, it would have been vetoed by Obama. But a bill would have shown the American electorate that the Republicans were still serious about cutting taxes.

Of course, this may have been bad politics (and one of the reasons why I wouldn't make a good politician). The Democrats, in this scenario, may have put forward their own tax cut bill - one which which would leave high rates on "the rich" (however they may be defined) but would cut rates for "the middle class" (however they may be defined). The Republicans then, were they to continue playing hardball, would be forced to adopt it or block it.

That's pretty much what happened anyway, and so far, we can say that the markets like the recent deal. After the passage of the bill, the DJIA climbed to 13,435 and gold fell to $USD1658 an ounce. The fact that the price of gold has dropped indicates a strengthening US dollar, and increased appetite for liquidity (i.e., an increased demand for US dollars to spend and invest). Gold doesn't respond to supply and demand that much, but US dollars - and all other currencies - do. Increased demand for a currency indicates a strengthening currency and falling prices (deflation); conversely, excess supply indicates a weakening currency and rising prices (inflation). To judge by the falling price of gold and the strengthening of the US dollar, the US is in a deflationary environment right now. But that's a good thing. Increased demand for liquidity (dollars) means increased demand to spend and invest in the US.

If we are to divide the DJIA by the current price of gold, we have a DJIA worth 8.10 ounces of gold. Which is good - probably a high for the past twelve months - but which only puts the DJIA to where it was in the very early nineties, as we see from this chart:

Or, as we can see from the chart, the DJIA was nearly this high back in September 2010. For most of 2012, the DJIA was bobbing around 7 ounces or so.

So why did the DJIA rally after the fiscal deal? Probably because, as Larry Kudlow suggests, the markets expected a real walloping from anything proposed by the Democrats and instead it only wound up with a smack on the backside. The capital gains tax has gone up from 15% to 23.8%, ditto the tax on dividends, and the estate tax has gone up from 35% to 40% with a $USD5 million exemption. But it could have been a lot worse. Dividend taxes could have gone up 43.4% without a fiscal cliff deal, and estate taxes could have climbed to 55%. And the loophole which allows American taxpayers to circumvent the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax could have expired.

Rush Limbaugh shrewdly observed that, while income tax rates (which are applied to labour) have been raised to high levels, taxes on investment income (i.e., capital gains and dividends) were raised only a little. To Limbaugh, this is evidence of Obama's hatred for aspirational Americans: high rates on labour are designed to thwart them from entering the "middle class" (however it may be defined) and competing against the super-rich - the Romneys and Buffets. Indeed, it's well-known that Romney and Buffett hide their wealth using the low divided and capital gains tax rates. Any rich and clever American can do so, and this is part of the reason why so many wealthy Obama supporters - including Hollywood types, wealthy Jewish-Americans hedge fund and private equity managers and the like - continue to support him.

It's good to consider all this simply because US markets - and fiscal and monetary policy - are so intimately interconnected with the rest of the world's. When Herbert Hoover raised the top rate of income tax from 25% to 63% (Obama would have loved Hoover) in 1931, the rest of the world - including Europe and Australia - responded with its own super tax-hikes, and so began the Great Depression.

We can already see other countries following the Obama plan. Japan, under Shinzo Abe, will commence yet another round of Keynesianism: currency devaluation and massive "stimulus" deficit-spending on public works. Europe, meanwhile, has large deficits too, just like America, and Spain, France, Britain, etc., have introduced their own tax increases on "the rich". (Keynesians and liberals, however, dispute the efficacy of the European method. Tax increases on "the rich" are never contractionary: top rates on income, capital gains, etc., can be raised to 99% to little adverse effect. Tax increases on consumption are always contractionary, and some of these European countries have made the error of increasing their value-added taxes, which directly affects consumption. Some the belt-tightening "austerity" measures are bad, too, even though the budget-cutting hasn't really run that deep). On top of this, the Eurozone members can't print their own currencies, like Britain and America, and so can't devalue). No doubt all of this foreign aping of Obamism will enjoy the same success that it did in America - which is to say, no success at all.

Deep down, of course, the Keynesians - and Obama - know that they have stuffed things up. But the problems can be easily hidden. America's CPI doesn't count the cost of food and energy - the only two things which go up in price - which is why US CPI inflation figures have stayed more or less consistently low despite the extraordinary weakness of the US dollar (the US dollar has been devalued by 91.73% against gold in the past five years). US unemployment figures could be higher, but the participation rate is at record lows, meaning that the official unemployment rate stays down (most of the new jobs created every month, too, are going to immigrants, as the US Household Employment Survey shows). As for interest rates on US debt - Bernanke has aggressively intervened in the bond market to keep them at near zero. (It's for this reason that US debt won't see the same calamitous rise in yields as the Italian, Spanish, Greek and French). The US media, as a whole, has abnegated its position as a critic and watchdog of the US government, and has been extraordinarily supine with regard to Obama (as has the liberal establishment, which awarded him the Nobel Prize for Peace), and can be counted on not to draw attention to Obama's failures.

In short, there's no reason why Obama should change course: it's a case of another four more years of the same.

That's economic policy: what of social policy? Well, we can see a continuation of the massive transfer of wealth, via government spending and welfare transfers, from white Americans (especially "middle-class" white Americans) to an Afro-American and Hispanic underclass. This is Obama's socialism, but, because the socialism is racial, American conservatives dare not speak its name. On top of this, Obama wants inmagraciòn, lots more inmagraciòn - again, something the majority of American conservatives approve of - and probably legalisation of gay marriage and marijuana too.

Geopolitically and militarily, America has become something of a joke. Despite its superior weapons and equipment, its technology, its well-trained troops, the US army couldn't win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of its elite units - the Navy SEALs - have been reduced to the status of play-actors: the Bin Laden "raid" and "assassination" most likely never happened. (One has to ask if, in thirty or so years time, whether or not the truth will come out and if the documents concerning the "raid" will declassified).

So what's the answer to America's woes? Secessionism. The United States has to break apart, along traditional cultural, historical and regional lines.

What I mean by those lines is described, brilliantly, in Colin Woodard's American Nations: A History of the Eleven Regional Cultures of North America (Viking Press, 2011), which is every bit as good as Hunter Wallace - the Southern nationalist - says it is. A succinct summary of its contents - including descriptions of the eleven "nations" - can be found here.

Some nations (like the former Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, or even Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom today) are constructed on unstable, shifting tectonic plates, culturally speaking. North America is a continent of a similar character. There was no original, primordial unity, a unity constructed by the Founding Fathers, in American history: that is, a decision as to what sort of nation America would be. Instead, there were always warring nations within America: and the ten nations making up America have gone to war with one another, several times, and not just during the American Civil War. Secessionism, and political and cultural independence from an overweening (often Yankee-controlled) federal government, is written in to the American DNA. (From Woodard, we learn that the region of New Netherland (which contains New York and its surrounding boroughs) wanted to cede from the US and become a city-state).

The way to understand America, according to Woodward, is to see it divided up into nations which are almost like different planets - like the different civilisations the adventurers on the 1960s era Star Trek came across on their journeys. New Netherland is pure commerce, founded by Dutch, and bolstered by the presence of Jews and other European immigrants: this is the true 'nation of immigrants'. Yankeedom was founded by Puritans, who are communitarian, do-gooding and determined to interfere in other Americans' lives. The Midlands, founded by pacifist, easy-going Quakers, German Mennonites and Scandinavians, is a world populated by peaceful farmers who don't cause any trouble and indeed, are reluctant to take up arms to defend themselves against aggressors: they are the equivalent of Luke Skywalker's aunt and uncle on Tatooine in Star Wars. Tidewater was founded by English gentlemen who wore wigs and lived in English-style country estates, like out of a Jane Austen novel, and who were descendants of the Royalist English who had fled Cromwell after the end of the English Civil War. The Deep South is a slaver state, and really has more in common with the Caribbean - that is, the white Caribbean, the white West Indies slaver states - than anywhere else. Then there is the Greater Appalachian region, which is populated by the rambunctious, redneck, cracker 'Scots-Irish' and whose religion is Christian Revivalist Baptism and Methodism - of evangelicals, snake-handling and speaking in tongues.

Further afield is New France (New Orleans and Quebec), El Norte (northern Mexico) and the Left Coast, which is the coast of California, Oregon and Washington state - and contains the Pacific Northwest. The Left Coast is individualistic, idealist, and given to utopianism and self-actualisation - the true birthplace of beatnikism and hippie-ism. Missionary Yankees from New England attempted (unsuccessfully) to colonise it and save the inhabitants from themselves. I found this intriguing reference in Woodard:

The new Yankee "errand in the wilderness" got underway in fits and starts in the late 1820s. A delusional New Hampshire schoolmaster, Hall Jackson Kelley, tirelessly promoted an ambitious colonisation scheme for the Pacific Northwest, a region he'd never seen. His elaborate plans for a civic and religious republic never got off the ground, but his marketing effort - he plastered posters across New England, published books, and petitioned Congress for aid - did inspire others... [Woodard, p. 217]

Is the (purportedly schizophrenic) advocate of white colonisation of the Pacific Northwest, Harold Covington, the reincarnation of Hall Jackson Kelley?

The last of the eleven nations is the Far West, a sparsely populated, desolate area which is rich in resources and is effectively controlled by mining companies: it includes Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, most of Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, etc. It's probably the equivalent of Western Australia.

So, to revert to our science-fiction analogy of different civilisations on different planets: the Far West is the mining planet, the Midlands is the farming planet, the Deep South is the slave planet, New Netherland is the commerce planet, California is the hippie, environmentalist and New Age planet, Yankeedom is the, well, Puritan planet, Tidewater the 'replica 17th-century Anglican and English planet', and so on.

Most countries, including Australia, have pronounced regional differences - which are reflected in differences of accent, but also a pronounced competitiveness and even resentfulness. I've seen a recent article, in the German media, saying that Berliners resent the Swabians who have moved there. (The idiosyncrasies of the differing German regions are well-chronicled in Hitler, Nietzsche and other writers on German national life). But it's only a few rare instances - in the history of the West, anyway - that these antagonisms, differences and resentments become political, i.e., become calls for secession, and even go all the way up to armed conflict and war. America is one such rare case.

America is on the threshold of another break-up of the union, as the 'red' states (or rather, red nations) which voted for Romney will attempt to cede from the 'blue', which voted for Obama and the Obama program (inmagraciòn, gay marriage, marijuana legalisation, massive tax hikes, massive deficits, massive transfers of white wealth to Afro-Americans, currency devaluations, etc.). The Southern strategy is the correct one: the Dixie or neo-Confederate nations - Greater Appalachia, the Deep South, New France and Tidewater - need to cede from the northern states, Yankeedom, Midlands and New Netherland. (The Far West can be, in the event of a breakup of the United States, can be expected to side with the South; the Left Coast and El Norte with the Yankees).

One consequence of this is that the 'red' states will regain control of their own borders and the rapacious demographic advances of the Mexicans (and South and Central Americans) who emigrate to America from El Norte.

As well as that, the Southerners will regain control of their fiscal policies - particularly welfare policies. According to the Southern nationalists, the Afro-American population in the South are huge net consumers of welfare; once, however, the Southern secessionist states cut off the welfare supply, the Afro-Americans will flee the wicked white Southerners and go to the northern states, where they can except a warm welcome. New cities in the north will become majority Afro-American, just like Detroit, Chicago, St Louis and the like, cities which are renowned, the world over, as numbering among the most liveable in the world.

How would such a partition of the US affect Australia and Europe? America, as such, would no longer be a force to be feared. Germany and the rest of Europe can breathe easy, without the threat of American interference (and military intervention, which happened twice in the 20th century) and Australia would be thrown upon her own resources.

When it comes to immigration policy, it would be a case of anything goes. France, Greece, Italy, and then perhaps the entirety of the Western world, would perhaps gain the courage and daring to tackle their illegal (and legal) immigration problems. All because of the break-up, the balkanisation, of America.

Once the American boot is lifted off Europe's neck (it's been there since 1945), Germany can reassert its control of the Continent and weld it into a political and economic unity (this is already under way).

Secessionism, too, is already under way in the US - in thought, but not yet in deed. Obama is just the right man, at the right point of history, to help bring secessionism is about. He is a natural born polariser, who delights in setting different groups within American society against one another. The fact that he is nominating Chuck Hagel as a Defence Secretary, as opposed to a mediocre, establishment Jewish-American like John Kerry, is proof of this. I myself am delighted by the furore of the Jewish-American and Israel lobbies over Hagel, because I watching their rage (what's more, it's proof-positive that the Jewish lobby actually exists - when was the last time you saw France, Russia, Mexico or Germany putting pressure on the US government over its choice of a cabinet nomination?). But I can't help remarking at how Obama is unnecessarily antagonising an ethnic group which is one of his staunchest backers. The reason why he's doing this is that he enjoys it.

At any rate, he has permanently set the two halves of America - the 'red' and 'blue' states - at war against one another, and perhaps, by the end of his second term, we will see the second breakup of the Union.

Cultural Productions IV: 'True Blood' and the logic of white Southern secession

Sometimes you just get the wrong impression of a TV show. Female fans of True Blood (2008-) had always, when telling me about it, conveyed that the show was about sex - and, by implication, sex with attractive vampire men. Years before seeing the show for the first time (last evening), I had seen a still from the show somewhere (on the Internet, or maybe in the DVD shop), showing a naked actress lying on a bed, or a couch, with two handsome, muscle-y young vampire men about to insert their fangs into her... From this I concluded that True Blood was nothing more than soft porn for women. I was dead wrong on this, as I will show presently.

In general, I like vampire and werewolf shows: the recent resurgence, of Romantic and Gothic horror themes, in the white Western culture (a resurgence brought about by the Twilight craze) I find very interesting. One sees vampire and werewolf themes in folk stories all around the world, of course, but it's the Romantic elements that make the depiction of vampires in the West which make it uniquely white and Western. Even as the popular culture of the West becomes more and more ethnicised and non-white, traditional Western, white and racialist themes manage to sneak themselves in through the back door, so to speak, and evade the politically-correct TV or movie maker - who wants every show or film to be 'diverse', and portray non-white minorities (Afro-Americans, Indian immigrants, Hispanic immigrants) as supermen or oppressed or both, and white people as evil or incompetent. As the American white nationalist Yggdrasil notes, it's these kinds of shows - e.g., Downton Abbey (2010-) - which often tend to be hugely successful with a white audience; likewise, it's actors who appear in these sorts of films and TV shows - e.g., Twilight star Rowan Pattinson - who tend to be hugely successful (despite their appearing in films which get uniformly bad reviews from critics). True Blood belongs in that category of unconsciously pro-white cultural productions. Upon watching it, I saw - almost at once - that the show is not about soft porn, but about the South, and the white people there. It's a celebration of their community, values, morals - and the cause (the Lost Cause) of Southern Independence in the American Civil War.

Unlike Twilight - which is set in a small, white, ethnically homogenous town of Forks County, Washington D.C. (in the rainy, cloudy North - ideal for vampires) - True Blood is set in the (small, white, ethnically homogeneous) town of Bon Temps, in the Deep Southern state of Louisiana. The heroine, Sookie, played by Anna Paquin (the New Zealand actress who played the mutant superheroine Rogue in The X-Men (2000) is a waitress in a redneck café, who has telepathic powers - she can listen in to people's thoughts - which are a burden to her (she finds her ability uncomfortable and irritating). (The character does, in fact, bear a similarity to some of the telepathic characters in the X-Men - Professor X, Jean Grey, Psylocke, Rachel Summers, the White Queen - which I'm not sure is intentional or not). Her life changes forever, of course, when the handsome, enigmatic vampire Bill Compton (Stephen Moyer) enters town: Bill is a courteous Southern gentleman, nearly two hundred years old, and an American Civil War veteran (who fought for the South). They fall in love (of course). But, just as in Twilight, this fictional universe is full of bad as well as good vampires, and Bill's full-time job becomes one of protecting Sookie from all the bad vampires who want to suck her blood. As you can imagine, the series is a formulaic one, and pretty much writes itself - just like Twilight does (all the instalments in the Twilight movie series are iterations of the same basic story, and one has difficulty telling them apart).

The twist in this show is that, in this fictional universe, all of the vampires have come out in the open - it's as though Edward and the Cullen family in Twilight openly reveal themselves to be vampires. Some of the vampires, like Bill, agitate for their 'rights' and strive to be seen as a victimised minority - and indeed, much of the series is a satire of the gay rights movement (and the push for gay marriage). The character of Bill resembles character Ben Bruckner (Robert Gant) from Queer as Folk (2000-2005), a dreary, sanctimonious gay-rights activist who is regarded as boring by his fellow gays, and I initially thought that they were the same actor. Certainly, they dress and look the same, and both of them are regarded as dullards and kill-joys by the members of their respective 'communities'. Bill spends a lot of time in the series lecturing, in a tedious fashion, on the 'myths' and 'misconceptions' normal humanity has regarding the vampires. In this, he's like Ben Bruckner, who was endlessly lecturing on the 'myths' about contracting HIV.

I got a bad impression of True Blood from the first pilot episode. I've got a few DVD sets in my collection which I gave up on - The Killing (2007, Danish version), Boardwalk Empire (2010), The Wire (2002-2008) - after a few episodes, out of sheer boredom and dislike. I gave up on The Wire after one episode: I just don't enjoy watching Afro-American actors, and couldn't bring myself to care about any of these Afro-American characters. (An Afro-American gets killed, by a drug lord, in the ghetto - who cares? I don't). I was on the verge of putting True Blood back on the shelf after the pilot episode, mainly because the show didn't gel for me, and because I found the Afro-American character, Tara Thornton (Rutina Wesley), extremely annoying. She is obnoxious, foul-mouthed, reads books on politics and has a chip on her shoulder about white "racism" and is just annoying in general. But, despite her, the show is good, and after the first episode, I persisted with the series, because I wanted to see what would happen next, and was pleasantly surprised. Perhaps it's an instance of the pilot not being representative of the series as a whole. A bad pilot, being the first one the audience sees, can make or break a show. The first series of Breaking Bad (2008-2012) takes the unusual step of showing its first and second episodes out of sequence: the second episode is played before the first. That means the viewer is plunged right into the middle of the developing story line. The producers of Breaking Bad made this decision, probably, because they didn't feel that the first episode was good enough to be shown first, and maybe the producers of True Blood should have done the same.

So, I found the stock character of the 'sassy, young, black woman feminist' to be extremely annoying in the pilot. But, in later episodes, Tara is shown to be living with her mother, who is a drunk (falling down, sleeping on the floor, urinating in your pants drunk), a drinker of something called 'Captain Morgan', and a follower of that evangelical, revivalist, Baptist brand of Christianity that Afro-Americans are partial to. (Later, in the series, she is shown begging her daughter for money to pay for her own exorcism - she believes her alcoholism is caused by a 'demon' inside her). In other words, Tara's mother confirms the worst stereotypes of Afro-Americans that all of us non-Americans get from reading David Duke and Jared Taylor. As a result, the character of Tara became a little more believable and realistic to me.

The only other prominent Afro-American character in True Blood is the short-order cook Lafayette Reynolds (Nelsan Ellis). Again, he's annoying in the pilot - portrayed as a homosexual who is superior to all the rednecks her serves - but he redeems himself, later on, in my eyes, when he is shown to be moonlighting as a drug dealer, gay prostitute and would-be pornographer: by conforming to our worst stereotypes of homosexuals, he becomes, to me, a lot more realistic and believable. He lives in a beautifully furnished apartment, which, with its rugs and cushions, seems Turkish or Arabic or Bedouin. He is an amusing homosexual, like the men in Queer as Folk. (The peculiar thing is that shows like these, which portray gay men as being promiscuous, drug users, and so forth, are intended to be pro-gay, and portray homosexuality in a positive light. The producers, directors and writers, however, don't seem to understand that many people in the audience will see this sort of behaviour as bad, not good, and get a negative impression of gay men and the 'gay community' in general...).

That's the Afro-Americans - what of the whites? It's interesting that this series portrays white Southerners, especially rednecks, in a good light. This is quite a change. The Jewish-American film critic, Pauline Kael, wrote, in the 1960s, that Southerners were portrayed, by Hollywood, as venal, lascivious, sensual, bigoted, intolerant, depraved, and so forth (she was referring to movies like the Sidney Poitier anti-white classic, In the Heat of the Night (1967) and the Marlon Brando movie, The Chase (1966)). This was a trend in Hollywood for quite a while. Kael, in her essay, deplored this negative characterisation of Southerners, and implied that it was 'liberals' (that's a code-word, in her writing, for 'Jews') for shoving it down the throats of the audience. Indeed, the evil white Southerner (especially the bigoted, overweight evil white Southern sheriff, who chews tobacco and says 'Nigra' a lot) was a stock character in American movies and TV for a while. But True Blood is devoid of anti-Southernism. Perhaps it's because the show is based on a series of books written by a white Southern author, Charlaine Harris, who looks like this:

As you can see, a very typical white American type. Interestingly, Bill Compton is invited, by Sookie's grandmother, to give a speech at her women's club (which meets at a church) on his Civil War experiences. The audience is, of course, all-white, except for the Afro-American Tara, and is moved to tears by Bill's reminisces. In another scene, at Sookie's grandmother's house, Tara upbraids Bill for the fact that his family owned slaves before the start of the war. He very gently, very courteously, puts her in her place and then manages to change the subject.

Many, many years ago, I saw a quote from a Afro-American commentator, who said that while white Americans loom large in Afro-American history, Afro-Americans are only a footnote in white American history. That's certainly the case here. The slavery question is a side-issue for the townsfolk who are interested in the Civil War: what's important is how the Civil War reflects Southerness, whiteness, their history, their values. White history is something for them to cling to, in an uncertain, dangerous America - what the author of Occidental Dissent calls 'Black Run America', that is, America run on behalf of (but not by) black people.

Occidental Dissent's push for a renewed Southern secessionism is a good one. White nationalism is a deeply flawed, American ideology (which boils down to, in the words of one nationalist comrade of mine, 'I don't like niggers') which doesn't carry well to countries outside of America (e.g., Australia) which traditionally have never had a big black population (African immigrants only started coming here to Australia in the past ten years or so - they were imported as 'refugees' by humanist church groups and refugee advocates), or a big and powerful Jewish population either. Besides which, whites, as we know from white history (which is so heavily touted by the white nationalists) are known for killing each other in the millions, for the sake of nationalism, or religion, or ideology (fascism versus communism versus liberal democracy; or Southern secessionism versus Northernism): they have never undertaken any war in the name of race and whiteness. The notion of a politicised white race, of the white race as a political entity, is without precedent. And, indeed, even the racialist states of the South, or the racialist state of South Africa, referred to whiteness in the context of Southern secessionism and Boer nationalism respectively.

Because Southern secessionism does have a historical precedent, and does refer to existing political realities, it could work. White nationalism, though, which was invented in the past forty years (by David Duke, a Southerner and a resident of Louisiana) is without precedent and doesn't accord with the realities of human nature. It's artificial, in other words. What's more, it requires a lot of work - a lot of indoctrination and propagandising - for Bulgarians, Greeks and Russians, for example, or Romanians and Hungarians, or Serbs and Croats, to see themselves as all being part of the one white race. One has to be a universalist - and, almost, a Christian, filled with brotherly love for one's fellow whites - to be a white nationalist. That's impracticable. But the doctrine of Southern secessionism is eminently practicable, given that the South is a distinct entity and is (relatively) ethnically homogenous: given that the rest of America is going to the dogs, why not just cede? The US Republican Party has always, since the time of Nixon, taken the votes of white Southern voters for granted. But, in between elections, the Republicans betray the South - by foisting huge numbers of Mexican and other Mestizo immigrants on them. Presumably, Romney will, if he wins the next election (on votes from whites mainly in the Mid-West and South) turn around and shaft the Southerners once again, by amnestying the 11.5 illegal Mestizo immigrants, and by inviting millions more to come across from Mexico and other Latin American states... Romney will do this because, as a Republican in 2012, he is convinced that the Republican vote will collapse without the votes of the 'powerful' Hispanic electoral bloc (in reality, most Hispanics don't bother registering to vote); what's more, he is part of the American business class, which is convinced that the American economy will collapse without low-wage, low-skill Hispanic labour; and he is beholden, like every white Western politician, to the anti-white clique, which wants to eliminate, once and for all, the white peoples in their own lands. So, given this, the logic of Southern secession is impeccable.

As to how this will be carried out - what the mechanics of it are - that is another question. One mustn't build castles in the air: one has to work with the existing situation. At the moment, the Southern secessionist (like the nationalist activist here in Australia) must articulate his viewpoint and inculcate his tendency as much as possible, and build and build... The idea has to take root first. From that, actions - political actions - will follow.

Aside from the theme of 'Southernism', True Blood has another theme, and that is drugs. Unlike Breaking Bad, which is about crystal meth, True Blood is about Ecstasy. People in the show consume a drug, called 'V', made out of vampire blood (well, it's not made out of, but pretty much is, vampire blood, consumed in minute quantities). Sookie's brother Jason (Ryan Kwanten), a loveable loser and simple-minded road worker (what we Australians would call a council worker - municipal councils are in charge of maintaining the roads here), takes some 'V' in a small dose and then begins to act like an Ecstasy-addled nightclub raver. He stumbles into a redneck café, his pupils heavily dilated, and tells his redneck friends (much to their amusement) that he loves them. He runs his hands over a woman's forearm and declares that, because his senses are now so heightened, he can feel every hair... Looking at some daffodils growing in a garden, he sees tiny sparks shoot out. I found these scenes to be among the funniest in the show. Later on, his 'V' inspired trips become more and more intense, and he enters a kind of virtual-reality world, which looks like one of those house-music videos from the late 1980s (the nightclub rave culture had its own music - house - to go along with the effects of drugs like Ecstasy, and was, to Ecstasy, what acid rock was to LSD). He becomes involved in a relationship with a woman who is an 'organic vegan', who wears hippie/gypsy clothes, and is a 'V' addict... All of this is damned odd stuff, which one doesn't expect to see in a Southern setting.

At any rate, the show is (and in this, the women viewers who told me about it were correct) very sexual. That is, it has about as much graphic sex as a Spanish movie: this is unusual, given how prudish North American culture is. In one comic sequence, Jason overdoses on 'V', swallowing an entire test-tube, and gives himself a permanent erection. Eventually, he goes to a doctor, who gets rid of the erection by sticking in a king-sized hypodermic into his penis and draining out all the blood.

Generally, the women in this show are over-sexed. Which again is unusual. Perhaps this is a return to the theme of the randy, licentious Southerner, which we last saw in those sixties movies. But whereas was portrayed as hateful in those films, in True Blood, the South is an object of adoration.