Jack Ryan at Occidental Dissent reprints from an old publication and article on the difference between Northern and Southern– he calls them “race realists” but I would just call them opponents of the system, since race realism, even if it appears to be a primary issue, is only a small part of opposing the system.
It notes that both parties, while white, differ ethnically, religiously, and in who they view as their primary opponents and what historical events animate them. The parties aren’t necessarily by nature hostile, but rub each other the wrong way sometimes- the recent Alex Linder/Hunter Wallace dustup being an example.
I think both parties have serious misconceptions and blind spots, even though I’m more a product of the Northern group. It is best to be honest and open about looking at what these are and what the true nature of things is. My comments don’t appear there- I don’t know if it’s a filter thing or I pissed off Wallace, I piss people off easily so likely the second- but here is my opinion on the divide.
I’ll start with the Southerners, since I want to conclude with and be harsher with my own people. Southerners, particularly Wallace, correctly see the “Yankees” and he calls them the prime movers of the oppressive regime. He is conscious of his own culture’s older English origins, but doesn’t seem to appreciate the older English origins and broader scope of the “Yankees”, a group for which the best name seems to be the “Puritans” for shorthand but who I have also called the “PQJs” (Puritans/Quakers/Jews) or “English commercial elite”.
Southerners don’t understand- and why should they, because Northerners mostly don’t understand- the relationship between the Northern non-elites and the Northern elite, which is also the US elite. They regard Northern non-elites as gutless sell-outs at best and stooges at worst in the battle royale for American supremacy known as the American Civil War. This comes out of a self-serving misunderstanding of Northern politics and the Civil War. I will repeat here things I have said several times before, but they bear repeating.
The Civil War did not start because Northerners wanted to ban slavery in the South. Some did, it would likely have happened eventually with more free states admitted, but the proximate cause was what white groups were going to claim the West. Southerners wanted to expand the plantation system, or for Southerners of more modest means, just small scale slavery. Northerners wanted a system of small farms operated with family or some hired labor. Western Northerners- as distinguished from New England Puritans- didn’t feel real strongly about slavery, but it was a foreign way of life not compatible with their own. Family freeholders did not want to live next to possibly arrogant and unfriendly slave owners, who by virtue of their chattel regarded themselves as aristocrats of a sort. Slave owners could come to economically and socially dominate free farmers, and their black slaves represented a constant danger to all whites, whether they were slave owners or not, as demonstrated by the savage brutality shown towards all whites in various slave rebellions.
Nevertheless, because the South controlled the Supreme Court, which controls the nation, slavery was a fait accompli. The only solution was rebellion, and the Civil War was a rebellion against the anti-democratic Dred Scott and pending Lemmon decisions.
Land is something people will fight to the death over, and that is what Midwestern whites did. Southern arrogance and overreaching assumed the North would fold easily. In and around DC, Northern troops were incompetently led but fought well. Everywhere else- which is to say 95% of the front- Northern troops were both competent and well-led.
Proof that slavery, and not civil rights was the issue was the Northern surrender on Reconstruction. Once slavery was ended, free settlement of the West was assured. Northerners as a whole didn’t care much what Southerners did to control their black population, a long as blacks and the Southern social system was confined to the South.
The North succeeded in keeping blacks out in significant numbers for about 50 years, and succeeded in keeping blacks under control on their terms for about 100. Black-Run American dates to 1965, not 1865.
Still, the North was dominated and controlled by Northeastern interests, New England Puritan culture and New York finance. Midwestern whites were and are ethnically, culturally and religiously different, but needed to cooperate with New England power in Western development. The newcomers were in little position to assert independence from a power structure that had been well-established centuries before their arrival, and held power not just in the US but worldwide. There was some pushback, in the Populist era, but New England maintained control in the bad cop Progressive era and good cop New Deal era.
Southerners fundamentally misunderstand power relationships in the North. Logically the West and South would unite against the Northeast- I think one Southerner suggested that- but the South has been content to isolate itself, and because as Wallace points out it is indeed pretty homogenous, it has been able to do that to some extent.
The Northern mistake has been worse, partly because the North is not homogenous, but mostly because their understanding of politics is much worse. Northerners- even “revisionists”, “race realists” or whatever you want to call them, accept the power structure on a fundamental level. They mostly genuinely believe in the idea of a republic under the Constitution, and even mostly believe implicitly in the New Deal state. They only see that somehow, things do not work the way they are supposed to- that the Constitution is always flexibly interpreted to serve the desires of their opponents, and the New Deal state is always using its power against them. To them the solution is simple- a constitutionally controlled government with strict constructionist judges as its guardians, and a government that regulates, but not too much.
Southerners see the Constitution- or at least its modern amendments as something imposed on them against their will to control them. That the Supreme Court as final authority against unfortunate and unwanted democracy was a tradition established by two Southerners, John Marshall and Roger Taney, they conveniently forget. But they understand the raw exercise of power. They also have a pretty cynical attitude towards the New Deal- they will take what they can get from the federal government, in the spirit of if you can’t beat ’em, pick their pockets.
Northerners lack this healthy cynicism and have a childlike faith in the moral authority of the government. If it’s not working like it’s supposed to, and some highly visible ethnic group is aggressively involved in the malfeasance, it must be their fault, right? And so we have the tendency to blame things on the Jews noted. But here’s the thing- the system is not malfunctioning, or being suborned by some sinister group, it’s working exactly like it is supposed to. The Jews are not corrupting anything, they are diligently doing the work of their masters, as they have done from opening the gates of Constantinople for Moslem invaders, collecting rents in Poland and stringing up kulaks in the Ukraine.
I can sympathize with the Southern sentiment to wash their hands of the whole thing and go their own way. They are indeed a separate civilization– the US consists of various regional civilizations- but schism makes for weakness, not strength. The biggest problem the South has is domination by the system, but the second biggest problem is a large and hostile internal population, a problem that has plagued it as long as blacks have been present there. Absent the first problem, the second problem does not exist, as Southerners can do what they need to do to control this population.
Scenario one- the South is separate, and the system still controls the rest of the country. The South has an internal enemy and an external enemy, both of which it must contend with. Scenario two, the system is out of power, and the South has no external enemy, and can deal with its internal enemy as it needs to. There is no real conflict between the South and the rest of the country.
It is better and more productive to respect our differences and work together.