The past few years have been a roller coaster, and they have been especially influential on politics and the right-wing in general. One of the most notable developments in politics is the emergence of the “Alt-Right” as a popular political phenomenon during the 2016 presidential campaign. This term, or group, or phenomenon, or whatever you want to call it, has taken the right-wing of American politics by storm, especially on social media. In light of this, it is expedient that we should address the relationship between Southern Nationalism and the broader Alt-Right.
To begin, we must define the Alt-Right. Regardless of the origins of the term and those various elements that come together to form it, ‘The Alt-Right’ emerges at the public level to describe a political alliance of opposition right-wing entities. Many of these converged to support Donald Trump in his U.S. election bid because of his opposition politics and nationalist policies, such as the border wall to restrict immigration, a rejection of free trade, putting a stop to the economic hemorrhaging of jobs to third world countries, and a symbolic rejection of the rule of bureaucratic, globalist, deep-state entities. This U.S. based movement quickly became aligned with an international coalition of nationalist political positions, such as Putin’s United Russia Party, UKIP, and other right-wing European political movements.
While not necessarily in ideological agreement with each other, these parties are in practical and political agreement in terms of opposition to globalism in practice. This was the original place of Southern Nationalism in relation to the Alt-Right. Southern Nationalism was and always will be extra-national in regards to the United States, even if we are currently stateless in the formal sense. Just as a French, German, Ukrainian, or Russian nationalist may belong to the Alt-Right in the broadest sense by means of their shared goals and ends, so Southern Nationalism is a member of this international political alignment of nationalism against globalism.
The Result of Trump’s Victory and the Immediate Aftermath.
Well, we all know what happened. Trump “won” the election. In theory, a Trump victory was supposed to result in nationalism becoming the new political policy of the United States. Bannon and company would have instituted the only thing that could theoretically have saved this godless republic for another generation or two – a civic nationalism that pushed against the neo-con and leftist globalist agenda. If this would have been the case, the Alt-Right alliance that had united against the globalist establishment would have devolved back into competitive ideological and policy factions who would compete with one another for dominance in the new administration and the ideological sphere of the Republican Party and U.S. Conservatism. An orthodoxy would be established, with some nationalists pulling it left or right, this way or that, and some perhaps being out-right opposed to the new civic-nationalist orthodoxy. This, however, did not happen. Trump won the election, but nationalism itself has been closed out of the institutional level of the political establishment.
For a fleeting moment, the elements of the Alt-Right were all struggling with one another to dominate how that vision would manifest in political reality, and then the fleeting moment of competition to establish the ‘New Right’ ended. There would be no new right, globalism would remain in power at the establishment and institutional level. The high-water mark of populism crested, and it became increasingly clear that democracy and popular rule in the United States is nothing more than a sad, impotent dream.
As it became clear that the Trump Administration would not be pursuing civic-nationalism, and just as the campaign-era opposition political alignment was breaking down, it started to come together again. Furthermore, it is starting to look like the ethos and opposition political alliance of the 2016 election campaign of Donald Trump is going to have to keep running for the next 4 years for him to even stay in office. This means that the Opposition Right, which hasn’t been politically relevant in the U.S. in a long period of time – if ever – will now go through a long period of being united in terms of opposition to the political establishment, rather than being united in terms of ideological agreement or ultimate goals, much as the Radical Left has been in the U.S. for the majority of our lives.
The obvious failure of ‘nationalism’ to capture the US-state, after the Trump-level victory, places the ‘Alt-Right’ (perhaps to their chagrin) in the same place as Southern Nationalism. The Alt-Right now represents nationalism in an extra-national sense, at least in terms of the state and national level political aspiration. However, the energy and culture remains. The 2016 election campaign continues, but there is no state left to capture. Even a fool can now see that politics in the Yankee Republic is not a game that nationalists are allowed to win.
So, if the 2016 election created the Alt-Right, what is the Alt-Right now that the election is over, and what has changed?
The 2016 Election drew opposition nationalists outside of their conferences, meetings, and rallies, and directly into the public square, into the media, and into the realm of party politics. Even if they won’t be allowed to retake the institutions, that does not mean that their voices, voting, or opinions are not powerful and do not matter. To borrow from history, pro-slavery candidates were not going to retake the D.C. Administration after the election of Abraham Lincoln – they would not be allowed to win that fight – but that doesn’t mean that being pro-slavery was not a viable political issue, even at the formal level. In fact, these pro-slavery political entities were the catalyst for the largest political and military conflict North America has ever seen.
There is now in the U.S., and throughout the English-speaking world, a sense that opposition right politics – real nationalist politics – are politically viable and can be united around opposition to the globalist establishment on the basis of a basic political posture. This is an alliance that is not in terms of what we are for, but it is in terms of what we are against. There is a sense that the battle has moved beyond the realm of ideas, where we argue with each other on social media and at conferences, over which way we might theoretically move forward. Those times are over. We are now uniting not based upon what we agree with, but upon what we are trying to stop. The struggle is real, and it is here and now, in time and history.
In light of this, the ‘Alt-Right’ then can be defined very simply. In terms of how the media and the establishment sees it, it is real opposition to globalism, and anyone who is aligned with it is a real threat to them, and a meaningful political reality.
How does this relate to Southern Nationalism? As Southern Nationalists, we seek to advance the well-being of our people. This is undermined by mass immigration, demographic displacement, and the preeminence of the global economy, all of which is being brought against our people. That which is opposed to globalism, (and this opposition to globalism is a world-wide agenda), also works to the benefit of Southern Nationalism.
We as Southern Nationalists are not merely the “Alt-Right.” We don’t exist simply to end globalism. We have a particular people – the Southern people – and we have a particular vision – Christendom restored in Dixie, freed from the Yankee Republic. It is by this that we are defined and for which we will fight. However, if the Alt-Right is defined as a worldwide opposition alliance to globalism then we are a part of that struggle, whether we like it or not. That is simply the reality
HOW ARE WE DEFINED?
So, how are we defined as Southern Nationalists? There are people who define themselves as ‘Alt-Right,’ with a sort of abstracted/universalistic opposition to globalism. But as Southern Nationalists, we are not defined as part of the Alt-Right, we existed before it, and we will exist after it when nationalism is victorious in the West.
If we define ourselves as ‘Alt-Right’ then we define ourselves with a primarily negative identity, nothing more than the toppling of the current regime. While we may align with such a purpose, as a technical, political, or military alignment, we don’t have as our ultimate and end goal the destruction of the current system. Ending the globalization of the West has replaced defeating Hillary in the Alt-Right, but our vision and identity lies on the other side of that. Our vision is a future for the Southern people, and securing their survival and well-being. This does not automatically flow from defeating the enemy of the day, even if defeating today’s enemy is necessary to secure our vision and goals.
Additionally, while many identify and define themselves simply as “Alt-Right,” such a generic identity is generally only the surface of a more particular vision, particularly for leaders and personalities in the Alt-Right. These particular goals may or may not be compatible with our own, and they are not things we need to identify with.
We are part of the global movement of nationalism, the presently termed ‘Alt-Right’, but we are not the international-nationalism, the right-wing, the ‘Alt-Right,’ or whatever particular agenda or ideology is projected by the media on to that. We are Southern Nationalists. Our goal is not to create a name and a place for each nation, or even each white nation on earth, free from undue influence and control by foreign players. We are for the Southern people – our own people – and whatever honorable means by which we can advance Dixie’s survival and well-being is our path forward.
The bottom line is that Southern Nationalism is thinking from being Southern. We must define ourselves by our Southern Nationalism, and not by our alignments and alliances which lay outside of it. We must not forget that the Union itself began as a theoretical political alliance with those who were not our own, that in the moment seemed to be our political benefit. In 1776, we set aside all differences with the Yankee puritans to unite against a perceived enemy, without regards to a common faith, ideology, goal, or understanding, in order to unsettle a common enemy. While this can at times be necessary, the dangers of losing a sense of our identity and interests in political alliances of that sort should be acutely aware to us. In the years following our union with the Yankee, the Crown was defeated in the rebelling colonies, but the Southern people suffered a fate infinitely worse than subjection to our King. These disastrous effects continue to this day. Our Union with the Yankee, while perhaps politically expedient in a time of conflict, has caused our own people to lose much of their identity, as we have been amalgamated into this hell-bound republic and have reaped the just rewards for its sin and wickedness. Any union or alliance with any entity must be approached soberly and with extreme vigilance, lest our own people become subordinated to our political “allies.”
THE ETHICS OF COOPERATION
Real world politics, the politics of war, of life and death, are not about who or what we agree with. They are not about shared ideology and political vision. Real world politics are about cooperating towards agreed ends. For example, in the Europe of the Middle Ages, the enemies of a given people usually shared the better part of their ideology and world-view, and in party-politics people often face the most bitter assaults by those who are their nearest ideological competitors. If we are at the first stages of a struggle that will define the future of our people in immediate generations, then we need to know how to define our friends and foes.
There are generally two ways people define their relationships in an ideologically and politically driven society. There are those who base their relationships personally on where they have agreement, who ally with those with whom they share something in common. This is the defining feature of their range of relations. Then there are those who look firstly to where they disagree, and who keep company only with those with whom they do not have a strong disagreement. It is the tendency towards the latter which has locked Southern Nationalists out of much of our public society.
Those who would outwardly call for secession in the last 100 years have been as prophets in a hard land, without friends. True Southern Nationalism is a hard and lonely position to hold in this world of liberalism and modernity. We have had few friends, even among broader white nationalist and far-right circles, until recently. It is only once these broader nationalist circles finally began to realize that reform of the Yankee republic is impossible that they began to listen, often begrudgingly, to our message. Now that Southern Nationalism can work alongside the broader Alt-Right, we must have an ethic of cooperation to determine the extent and methods of our political and utilitarian relationship with them. The solution to the matter is simple, and no people in the English-speaking world are more endangered, or have the potential by God’s grace for a greater victory in this than our own.
Let us be Southern Nationalists, first and foremost. We must place the well-being of Dixie over the well-being of any other people. We must view every action and alliance through the lens of Southern interests, and we must never allow our interests to be subordinated to the interests or goals of any other entity, organization, or people. If we play the head and not the tail, not being swayed by external agendas and identities, then we can afford to align with anyone who will assist us in promoting our stated ends. Our resistance to globalism is not an abstraction, it is lived out right here and now, in time and history. Those who will stand with us in defending our stated goals and vision, such as recently for the flag and monuments in NOLA, and in opposition to those children of hell who seek to erase our very identity and erase us from the face of the Earth, those are the people with whom who we will work. We will work with them soon in Charlottesville.
We don’t have the time and energy in this struggle to have theoretical ‘alt-right’ allies who aren’t doing anything for us here and now in the South. However, we will work with those, including other nationalists, who support the goals and ends of Southern Nationalism. This is how we must define our relationship not only to the Alt-Right, but to the U.S.-state, or any other movement or institution. Our relationship to it must be defined in a manner not abstracted or separated from our national identity, duty, and destiny. The furthering of Southern interests must take preeminence in any action we take, and in our relationship with any other nationalists and the Alt-Right.
This eliminates the question of whether we agree with them or not on some particular ideologies. Frankly, most of the US-based Alt-Right have a much more universal and theoretical vision – some want a so-called ‘White ethno-state’, a renewed and demographically stable American Republic, or whatever. That isn’t our vision, period. It’s not a matter of how much we do or don’t agree with it, it isn’t ours. We can’t be defined by the ideologies, visions, and goals of such allies because they simply aren’t ours. A Southern Nationalist can no more be at the same time a ‘White Nationalist’ than he can be a Russian Eurasianist.
Southern Nationalism has always been very clear in setting forth its goals and ends – we are here to renew the Southern people as the Southern people, in Dixie, as a Christian nation. That is our goal, and if you support it you are our ally. If you do not, well, then you are something else. In relation to us, and our people, that is how we must define our relationship, not in regards to them, their goals and what they wish to do, and not in some sort of universalistic abstraction.
Those who define themselves as simply some non-national movement, such as the Alt-Right, Alt-Light, Alt-West, Ult-Right, ‘White Nationalists’, ‘MAGA’, and so forth, spend a lot of time engaging in tug-of-wars trying to determine the focal point and ideological or policy core for what the Opposition Right in the U.S. should be. That is a problem we don’t need to have in our ranks. We don’t have any need to define some common, shared ideology or ultimate separation for nationalists on the other side of the fall of globalism. The question of whether any of these people or factions are “really” conservatives, patriots, nationalists, bigots, or Nazis, (endlessly argued at the present time), isn’t here or there for us. We aren’t them, and they aren’t us.
In fact, it seems like this endless infighting itself is related to a sort of egalitarian presumption, that we have to compete for the same space. This is demonstrative of people who don’t know their place. Southern Nationalism is not competing with White Nationalism, Amerikanerism, Neo-reaction, or anything else folks are trying to do in the North or anywhere else. In fact, it is only when we stop trying to pretend that we are all the same that we can really put an end to the infighting and accept some realities. Some people say, ‘not to punch to the right’. That’s fine, if everyone knows their place. I don’t have any interest in going around punching Krauts, Yankees, or any other people. The trouble comes when universalistic types, be they Liberal-Left progressives or White-Nationalists of the Alt-Right, try and push their alien ideologies on us here in the South. I will tell you this now, you will not have unity with Southern Nationalists if the price you ask is our subordination. Those days are over.
Similar things can be said for the question of infighting in the Southern movement itself. We don’t need to spend any more time pulling and tugging with anyone in the heritage crowd over how being Southern is going to be defined. Those days are done. Ever since the Dylan Roof incident in Charleston, there is no way to be respectable in U.S. society and defend Southern heritage. The leadership of the SCV has stepped out of the public square, as we have seen time and again at events such as the defense of our monuments in New Orleans. Anyone who publicly defends Southern heritage in the present day and in the future is going to be defined by the Southern nationalist hardline, whether they like it or not. ‘The Rainbow Confederacy’ was never real, and never could be in the first place, no more real than a Hollywood inspired fantasy of a Fascist-Dixie. What it means to be Southern, our nation, is something organic and firm. It isn’t something we decide or make for our ourselves, by the fiat of our own will.
There is only one, final question when it all boils down to it. It is not whether Southern Nationalism supports the Alt-Right, but whether the Alt-Right supports the ends of Southern Nationalism. And not in theory—we don’t need their approval to be Southern nationalists, to advocate for the future, existence, and well-being of the Southern people. We don’t want their abstracted approval of Southern Nationalism, but we will ally with them if they advance our interests in reality and in substance.
My word to Southern Nationalists is to be leaders not only in your community, but to set an example for other nationalists in this struggle against globalism both in North America and abroad. We will benefit by standing with others, whether we agree with them or not, in this struggle to save our nation – the Southern Nation – from the threats of globalism.
And my word to those non-Southerners aligned with the Alt-Right is an invitation, to work with us in the promotion of Southern Nationalism. You will never find better allies, or more God-fearing, loyal people with a fighting-spirit. No people, by the grace of God, have a better fighting chance at victory. Join the fight to see Dixie restored.
R.G. Miller is a husband and father to two future Southern Nationalists and one future Southern Belle. He is chairman for the Arkansas League of the South.