There’s been no shortage of ink spilt on the various hypotheticals if we ever do managed to get our own Southron ethno-state. It’s not all LARPing, either – there’s been an awful lot of good, solid suggestions on both how to get there and what to do once we get there. The *ahem* gorilla in the room, however, perpetually remains the Negro Question and where the Negro fits into the vision of a new South.
One of the main problems with the Alt-South is the presence of Alt-Right problems; pragmatic quick-fixes are seized upon in the place of more difficult, but more permanent and moral solutions. The fight over abortion among the Alt-Right in general is a great example of this: the need to maintain our majority status in the civilization our ancestors built—our very survival-instinct—stands abreast of the explosion of minority populations by both migration and overbreeding. What could be simpler than letting the brown masses use infanticide as a means to keep their population under control? If abortion “works for us”, why would we ever oppose it? Just because the cuckservatives whose hearts have no borders say we should be “Pro-Life”? What about the lives of our white children and grandchildren? If we don’t guarantee their future, that doesn’t sound very “pro-life,” does it?
It’s a very convincing argument, especially when we’re so embattled. The problem is that it takes the rhetoric of the Pro-Life Generation™ at face-value; rarely do we delve into the heart of our ancestors’ religion to discover what they thought of all this. The Scripture teaches “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man.” (Gen. 9:6), and likewise the original Hebrew (and Greek) of the Sixth Commandment is not merely “kill”, i.e. to end life, but “murder”, i.e. to end innocent life, of which children are furnished by Christ Himself as the most ready examples. Furthermore, Exodus 21, punishment is explicitly imposed for the ending of a child’s life by accident, and the father of the child may determine the punishment for causing an abortion (that is, an induced miscarriage). There are moral questions at play here, questions that require consideration of the Scripture and consultation with those who know the Scripture; consider Jefferson Davis, “What security have you for your own safety if every man… can find in his own heart a higher law than… the Bible?”
This isn’t about abortion, though—that debate just serves as a good illustration of our failure to resist the temptation to lay aside the moral imperative of a Christian society in favor of pragmatism. But there can be no doubt that the moral imperative of a Christian society is the moral imperative of the South. Pragmatism and quick-fixes are the preferred methodology of Sherman and Sheridan, men who had no God, who laid aside both decency and law to murder, pillage, and rape their way across our homeland in the name of a swift end to the War their government had inaugurated. On the question of Southern negroes, though, so many of us seem perfectly ready to accept only two solutions: a return to chattel slavery, which is impracticable, or physical removal of the negro from our midst, the methods of which are unconscionable. We accept by silence on the issue that these are the only two solutions, without further thought. We rarely debate the issue, despite the fact that the presence of the negro presents us with the greatest practical problem facing a liberated South.
The moral question of slavery does not need to be discussed – the Scripture and the early Church are all clear that not only is slavery tolerable, but that it can even be, as John Calhoun indeed declared it, a “positive good”. Our ability to discipline ourselves has always been the greatest human weakness, and when obedience is imposed from without, it delivers us from the burden of self-discipline, making the meekness of the Christian life easier to achieve. St. Chrysostom is supposed to have said “The rich exist for the sake of the poor. The poor exist for the salvation of the rich.” Excepting the doctrine of dual predestination largely foreign to Southern religiosity, the slave can affect his own salvation and that of his master far more easily than either could do in an egalitarian society. For we must “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil. 2:12) Slavery is a positive good, and those who are suited for no higher station in life are left listless in an egalitarian society, lacking of direction and therefore tending towards the disruptive role of society’s underbelly. Slavery gives such people purpose: slavery is a moral good. This author, at least, holds that no Christian acquainted with the Scripture or with the history of the Christian Church can possibly claim otherwise in honest discourse.
However, the reinstitution of slavery is impracticable: in the case of chattel slavery, it is nearly impossible, because every method would produce an early “crop” of slaves that are inferior both to their predecessors as well as to technologically advanced alternatives. Only with two or three generations of a controlled environment could we hope to put ourselves on the path of a return to pre-War norms in slavery. Even this, though, assumes chattel slavery is the most desirable or the best form of slavery, which is not easily agreed upon because of the way it confuses the economic, social, and racial hierarchies, which do not so easily or naturally overlap. This moral, but impractical solution leaves us with the alternative, a practical, but immoral solution of black genocide, either by relocation, reservation, or actual liquidation.
No one, however, seems forthcoming in the admission that these are not – and cannot be – the only solutions.
Arguments for removal or re-enslavement, though, are often framed in light of black behavior, so a moral argument might not even be necessary. It is said, “Sure, segregation worked in the 1950s, but you think you can get them to sit down under that again? They’d ape out the minute you tried it! Look at Baltimore!” It is true, black-on-black crime is atrociously high, and the wealthiest blacks do commit more violent crime than the poorest whites. It is even true that fewer than 20% of Blacks have an IQ surpassing the median White IQ. However, it is further true that this evidence better supports the claim that Blacks are more readily led than they are ready to lead. Even the Talented Tenth do little more than parrot rhetoric fed to them by more thoughtful and reflective White authors. Thomas Sowell, the Court Negro of the Neocon Establishment, is a wonderful example of this, obediently offering libertarian talking points on the Welfare State and earning a loving pat on the head for his anti-Trump, pro-Establishment shilling in the National Review’s tone-deaf Against Trump issue.
More recently, consider the heart-break and dismay of one obedient champion of the Fourth Estate, Abdul Aziz, cited in The Atlantic’s tributary CityLab. Interviewing the various mulattos, negroes, and quadroons who made up the Based Black Bloc of monument defenders in NOLA, he found
There were a couple of folks—native black New Orleanians—walking down the street who called the entire effort to bring them down stupid. “This is history,” they said. “You shouldn’t erase history.” This was a recurring theme from people of color, and that was a little startling for me.
These were not the visible, vocal representatives we are used to seeing. These were non-engaged, passive shades of the NOLA rainbow, and it suggests—or rather, insists—that, far from the uncontrollable mass of angry chimpanzees just waiting for a loud-mouth to whip up a frenzy, the Negro population of the South may have a more—excuse the expression—diverse face than we’ve been willing to consider. In the face of such a population, we have to admit that there is no single Final Solution, but multiple solutions which, used in tandem, might actually and finally solve the problems facing both populations.
Step 1: Discrimination of Type
The most important first step is recognizing what the problem is: the problem is not the mere presence of Negroes in our society. That is merely a condition. The problem is the failure to assign a social and cultural place to their population. This requires an honest evaluation of their abilities. The average Negro intelligence is certainly lower than the majority White intelligence—this is indisputable. But neither does this mean that this is some kind of drooling mass of brain-dead sub-humans shambling from whorehouse to crack-house to big house. There is, in fact, a Black Spectrum. A means of evaluating this spectrum is an absolute necessity: the recognition that there were worthy Negroes does not make our ancestors cucked-out. Blacks owned slaves, Blacks voted. This does not give them a right to these things, but it does prove that at least some of them earned those privileges in the Free South, meaning that at least some of them can earn those privileges today.
We need a process whereby privileges are earned: exemplary negroes who are both able and willing to participate in our culture on our terms. The only way to do this is through vetting: but this cannot be formal, legal vetting – it cannot be artificial or institutionalized. It must be organic, local, and customary. We have a process like this already: various societies and organizations which make up the backbone of historical Southern culture all have informal vetting and sponsorship processes. Members must stand and be willing to stake their reputation on the behavior and quality of a candidate for membership. People, traditionally, were not even admitted to a church community without someone to speak for them. It goes without saying that not all negroes will want a part of this opportunity—so few take advantage of the far vaster opportunities afforded them by the urban elite, after all. Those who do desire the opportunity, though, can be credits to their own race as well as potential assets to us.
Step 2: Removal of Waste Material
Certainly, some negroes are irretrievably antisocial, they contribute nothing to either their own community or to the wider South. This subset is a greater percentage of their population than there is of our own representatives of worthlessness, but it is not even the majority of American Negroes. Jus soli is not a Southern concept. It is a monument to Yankeeism – imposed on the South by the ascendant American Empire in 1868. The South, that great bastion of chivalric and classical virtues, built its society on worth and merit, in which citizenship and the right to exist could be revoked. Both the Anglo-Saxon principle of attainder and the Roman concept of proscription preclude the permanency of citizenship in a Free South: therefore, forced removal and penal transportation – suggested by some for all Negroes – can make up a major form of punishment for the anti-social element of the Negro population, and it would not be particularly difficult. The chaos in Africa means that very few African countries can actually refuse expatriation from a foreign power, and there is no indication that this can readily change. Deportation of individuals is neither radical nor impossible—and is necessary for any civilized society. Indeed, a Free South could even see fit to simply deport our anti-socials to the North or West.
Imprisonment is likewise not a useful option: storing anti-social blacks and wasting resources on them is not only inefficient, it is unwise. Prison walls, to paraphrase Gen. Patton, are a monument to the stupidity of man – if mountains and rivers can be bridged and tunneled, prison walls cannot be expected to be fool-proof. Escaped black inmates promise to be far more destructive even than they were before being imprisoned. While the argument that prison labor is useful, such work does not serve the psychological purpose of determent if it does not sufficiently humiliate the prisoner, which is easier to accomplish with a white criminal than a black criminal. Furthermore, the nature of white crime differs to a great extent from black crime, and prison integration has demonstrable problems. Imprisonment and penal labor, therefore, should be restricted to white criminals.
Step 3: Mutual Segregation
What of the rest, though? Can cultural and social integration truly be affected? More importantly, though, is it desirable? Judge the tree by its fruits: has integration worked for either party? Has it been welcomed by either party? In spite of legal force with which the American Empire has introduced the proposal, and in spite of the indoctrination into the leftist ideology behind the program, the majority of blacks and a large portion of whites remain antipathetic to the concept. This is demonstrated in the utter failure of the program: has a single “Historic African-American Community” vanished since the Civil Rights Act of 1968 introduced the Fair Housing Act, effectively making preservation of historically white communities impossible? No – and, in fact, the racial preference of the Negro has much to do with it. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution published a triumphal symphony in honor of the death of Cobb County just last month, interviewing a negress film producer and carpetbagger from California, who “wanted to surround [her] children with black people” when she first arrived in Georgia in the 1990s and therefore refused to settle in the then-white Atlanta suburb. Now, however, that the white devils only make up about half the population, she’s back with her brood – to be followed by many others, just as the Park Heights neighborhood in Baltimore went from 95 percent white to 95 percent black. The conclusion the detached onlooker makes is that integration and diversity are the transitional form in the evolutionary chain of white neighborhoods to black ghettos.
Whites, despite decades of ideological indoctrination on television, in schools, in advertising—even on cereal boxes—are only marginally less loyal to their own. A Slate article dated as recently as May of 2015 whines, »integrating America’s neighborhoods and cities is harder than we think«. It goes on to lament the atrocity that a full twenty percent of white urbanites admitted that they wanted to live in whites-only neighborhoods, and a mere twenty-five percent of the same polled urbanites would be comfortable being a minority in their own neighborhood. This polling project conducted by the Federal Housing Administration restricted itself to cities and their immediate suburbs – it did not take into account the bourgeois sprawl or the typically homogenous small towns and rural communities.
So integration is not only unwanted, it has defied the best efforts of social engineers and forward-minded legislators to force it on the resistant population, both white and black. Supporting formal segregation, therefore, is not even a radical stance: it is, in fact, a populist stance. We want it and the negro wants it. Even the urbanites and Yankees want it for themselves, even as they force it on the rest of us. Mutual, legally protected segregation is, therefore, a keystone of policy in the Free South on race relations, and it is the third step towards a solution to the negro question.
These steps take care of the three basic types of negro: the negro Mittelstand, who are racially self-aware but only to a degree that makes them useful to activists and advertisers, the criminal and asocial element, and what John Derbyshire has usefully described as the “Socially Well-Adjusted Blacks” or SWABs. It is the beginning of determining a nuanced solution to the Negro question.
Other solutions, of course, have already been provided by other WN; the Amerikaner solution in particular proposes the simple cession of some Southern states to form a Black ethnostate; this is unacceptable for obvious reasons. That a Black ethnostate be formed, however, in the way Whites have not been allowed a racial enclave in South Africa, is not beyond imagining nor would it be beyond our power to give should independence be achieved. Reexamining the proposals of George Lincoln Rockwell, who worked closely with an often concurred with the conclusions of Black Nationalist leaders, is also necessary. For better or for worse, however, the Negro Question is not going away, and it is neither a plain or simple question and has no neat or easy solution.