There is often a criticism levied by broader White Nationalists against Southern Nationalists regarding the disproportionate number of blacks in the South and the feasibility of Southerners managing such a large population. Specifically, the argument goes, that due to the large number of black people (in some states as high as 40%: Mississippi), the South would struggle with their administration, and possibly find themselves inheriting a black insurrection. They argue that the North – often citing the Pacific Northwest – is the natural homeland for a White ethno-state. While it is true, blacks constitute more than 20% of the population of every Southern state with the exceptions of West Virginia (4.8%), Texas (13.5%), Arkansas (16.7%), Florida (17.6%), and Tennessee (18%), there are structural and cultural realities in the South that are hard for Yankees from predominantly White states to appreciate.
To be clear, one of the key issues that Northern Whites do not seem to understand is that Southerners are deeply wedded to their land and respective home countries (states). It is not simply the difference between New York and Chicago pizza when characterizing cultural distinctions between various Southern peoples. Virginians are very different internally by region, let alone from Georgians… Carolinians are very different between their designated North and South demarcation… Texans and Floridians may ultimately secede, but they will remain distinct cultural groups. Whereas there are some traits that are uniformly Southern, each Southern country is unique. This breeds a passion for the respective geographic territories that is hard to qualitatively understand by individuals from other parts of the United States. When I drive away from Florida and return to my beautiful country, I literally clap for joy. Consequently, it is important to understand that Southerners are not going anywhere – especially not to Oregon.
So, what to do with black residents who may find themselves in a White dominated, separate South? The short answer is that we reassert reasonable and traditional standards from a vantage point that already exists in the South. Again, this is hard for White Nationalists coming from other areas to comprehend. A White Nationalist whose only experience with blacks are those in which he may have come across in urban centers of the North generally lacks an understanding of Southern black rural culture. Southerners never had an issue with these people because they generally tend to themselves, are Christian, and share some cultural similarities. Southern rural blacks largely self-segregate. The ones who do interact with Whites on occasion tend to maintain conventional racial boundaries and mutual respect; it is also not uncommon for rural blacks to call White males “boss man” or other such self-leveling idioms. This is an ingrained characteristic that has been maintained over time, despite the removal of monuments or Black Lives Matter.
Rural blacks would probably find a Free South more comfortable than that which we have in the United States today. The LGBTQ crowd, transgenderism, pedophilia, and cultural degeneracy is just as foreign to them as it is to us. All of that would end in a Free Dixie, as we returned to a more sane society whereby our leaders would actually care enough for children to encourage them to love the gender God gave them and capital punishment would be the norm for child rapists. For the most part, rural blacks would not see much of a difference in their day-to-day lives. Contrary to rabid leftists, slavery would not return and for most Whites who engage occasionally with rural blacks, they probably would maintain the same traditional relationships that have defined our coexistent societies since the end of Reconstruction. But what about urban blacks?
Urban blacks in the South are just as much a problem here as they are up North. The only difference is that our law enforcement and prosecutors know how to handle them and rarely coddle them, except in the biggest, black-run, liberal urban environments, like New Orleans and Atlanta. Most live off of some kind of federal assistance. It is not an accident that the often-misleading meme showing net federal assistance states corresponding with Southern states fails to mention that the federal subsidies that are tracked overlaps with the “The Black Belt” of the South. Given that Southerners are the most conservative bloc in the United States, generous federal subsidies would likely cease in a Free South. That would be the impetus for many urban blacks to voluntarily move to the far more leftist and generous North.
Those who do not leave immediately, would likely find any type of assistance coming with caveats previously imposed by Southern states before the federal government intervened on behalf of black constituents. Sobriety tests would likely become mandatory in the South as a condition of receiving workfare versus welfare. Again, making the economic system less comfortable for urban blacks (as well as other non-natives and underperforming Whites) would likely encourage them to move to places like Portland or the Northeast.
Additionally, criminal penalties, regionally the toughest in the United States, would undoubtedly grow even tougher. Already Florida is leading the way with a series of legislative acts that increase the consequences of criminality in response to a softening federal government. County sheriffs in Florida have a great deal of power – perhaps the most powerful in the South – and I suspect a similar rise in the power of the county sheriff would return throughout the South. A 21st Century version of Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor would not likely use fire hoses to disperse agitated urban blacks. Rather, sweeping drug busts led by newly empowered elected sheriffs would clean out those who chose to stay and continue in their criminality.
One final thought: the South always had a disproportionate number of blacks compared to the North, yet we never had a problem coexisting with them until Yankee interference through federal institutions. Take away the federal institutions and the South can return to similar policies that were established in the past. I do not mean Jim Crow, per se. Instead, we would likely see a return to voluntary segregation at the local level for everything from schools to hospitals. Local elected leaders would likely reflect those communities, much like they do today, but with more emphasis placed on the local community. Elections would surely require identification, and hopefully some sort of capacity (literacy) tests would return. In fact, I would prefer to see elections limited to property owners. How would that change things in the black centers of the South? Quite a bit.
Currently, black politicians that enter into Congress typically focus on that which they can bring back to their communities in the form of federal subsidies. Beyond that, they bring almost nothing else and provide little to their people. In a Free Dixie, those blacks who remain would likely have a black sheriff who maintained law and order in accordance with the dictates of conservative, White statewide laws. Failure to comply would solicit a coordinated response to correct the criminal negligence on their community.
In sum, it is my belief that the loss of federal subsidies and the shift of power dynamics back to Southerners would likely lead to a mass exodus of urban blacks to more leftist White locations in the North and West. Meanwhile, rural blacks who are tied to the land would not likely see much of a change to their daily lives. The Christian, Anglo-Celtic Dixie would be an inhospitable environment for leftists, trans-freaks, ghetto blacks, Judeo-Bolsheviks, and the usual cast of characters seeking to destroy Western Civilization. They will self-extricate to areas within which they will feel more comfortable, such as the tolerant Midwest, Northeast, or Pacific Northwest. There they can burn cities down, feed children hormone suppressants, and receive generous federal welfare packages all while getting virtue signaling rhetorical support from wealthy suburban Yankee households. In other words, we won’t have these problems in a Free Dixie.
The son of a recent Irish immigrant and another with roots to Virginia since 1670. I love both my Irish and Southern Nations with a passion. Florida will always be my country. Dissident support here: Padraig Martin is Dixie on the Rocks (buymeacoffee.com)
Nice article! I am in New Jersey and agree with the sentiment of standing your ground on the land you have inherited and are wed to. Unfortunately, the ideology and history is different here. I will say though that white people are slowly coming around here (which is some sort of progress.) I like your approach though. You make the conditions so that the trouble makers and large swaths of the population are forced out through policies that secure the land.
Hello Alexander,
I am happy to read that there is a change occurring up North. I will say, in every conversation I have had with Northeastern ethnics – Italians, Irish, Poles, etc – there seems to be a very realistic perspective on black-White relations that does not exist for more affluent, suburban families (although, some of them are NE ethnics, as well). Thank you for reading Identity Dixie!
God Bless,
Padraig Martin
Louisiana was majority Black until the 1890’s, South Carolina was majority Black until the 1910’s, and Mississippi was majority Black until the 1930’s, and Negroes were never much of a problem outside of instances in which Northern meddling was occurring. Forcefully removing all Negroes from Dixie is neither good nor moral.
Great piece
It is both good and moral. You are not doing black people a favor by putting them in our home and dictating their culture and laws to them, its not your place to do that any more than it is a Yankees place to do it to us, it is immorality cloaked in fake benvelonece, it is the ideology of the morally hollow. In addition, you are just pushing the inevitable fight that will take place down the road to our children to fight, Yankees, Jews and every other power on earth will use them as surrogates for influence in our home and a standing army within our borders, that will never, ever go away.
Send them to the places that are a threat to us just as they are doing to us right now, that should have always been the plan and is the only way forward. None of the “white” countries that seem friendly now because they are facing the consequences of the nightmare they pushed onto us have ever stood by our side and only a fool would believe they will not just revert right back to their true selves as soon as the threat has ended. They are Africans, you are not qualified to make decisions for them, you will never be able to deny that truth on the world stage and will lose every argument regarding it just as you always have, because it’s the truth.
Hello Michael,
Personally, I believe they will leave on their own, with the exception of the very small, relatively insignificant rural blacks, who really do not cause much trouble. Ultimately, those blacks will choose to either fade into oblivion or depart freely, once they find they are deprived of power and subsidies. Thank you for reading and ignore the crazy guy on here (LOL).
Respectfully,
Padraig Martin
Thank you, Joe.
As a fan of your written work, I greatly appreciate the compliment. You and I agree, we need not forcibly remove blacks. We can incentivize the bad ones to depart, while reasserting dominance in a way that is natural to the Southerner.
God Bless,
Padraig Martin
A well-written and thoughtful article.
I’ve often thought the “minority” problem is analyzed exactly backwards. In reality, whites are the “minority”. No matter where we congregate (even if it be the Pacific Northwest), we’re always going to have to live in a world where we’re outnumbered.
And mere geography is no help. Be they 10 feet from us or 10-thousand miles, we’ll always have to maintain a delicate moral relationship. Our southern ancestors were wise enough to know this must be a paternal and dominate relationship, albeit one with charity and the mutual respect inherent between all classes in the ideal hierarchical societies respecting the Great Chain of Being…
Hello Scott,
I have had these very same conversations. I do believe that manipulation of emotions have made blacks violently antagonistic toward Whites and, as such, there will be limits as to how much we can continue to play the benevolent, paternalistic role in global society. There appears to be a drive toward violence that may force our otherwise kind-natured selves to defense. Anyway, great contribution to the conversation. Thank you for reading!
God Bless,
Padraig Martin
Who is approving this clowns comments 😂 I am on a phone and it took me ten minutes to scroll past his drivel to see if someone said something real. Please just IP block him or something.
the truth is gonna bite and hurt you badly buddy and these Solomonic propagandists do not give a rats arse about you, only power and ching … read it … https://ia803404.us.archive.org/12/items/pdfy-ihcFXHsGr0S35Dj0/Billions%20for%20Bankers%20and%20Debts%20for%20the%20People.pdf
You are not a Southerner and should not be trying to inject your influence into discussions we are having about our nature and culture. You have problems of your own in Europe, your abysmal failure in dealing with them are almost the entirety of the source of our problems here. So go deal with them.
Shared with “all.” Thank you for sharing these insightful thoughts and facts. I don’t see anywhere you are wrong. As a Northerner from the Midwest, who is aware of much of what you have written, I have never seen it put quite like this. All current nationalist, patriot, and even conservative American Whites need to read this, because it greatly changes the picture and raises the “red-to-black-pill ratio.
It is my belief that the answer lies in Radical Freedom of Association. We claim to have “freedom of association” here, but we have nothing of the sort.
What this means is that every citizen has the right to associate with or not associate with; to do business with or not do business with; to hire or fire; to buy from or sell to; anyone for any reason or for no reason. This means the complete abolishment of all laws and all penalties, both civil and criminal, regarding discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, ethnicity, “sexual orientation”, or any other criteria. I’ve described this in more detail here (also published on the Lew Rockwell site):
https://thecivilright.org/radical-freedom-of-association/
I received the following through the Contact link on the Freedom of Association site on my previous post:
“Tell me something Mr. McGehee, How are you gonna have radical freedom of association when Dixian’s believes in a non-kinfolk foreigner nation’s global messianic man-god monarchy?”
Just for a moment, let’s set aside theological matters and focus on the cultural and logistical issues.
1) This person is totally out of touch with Southern culture (my guess is that this either a Yankee or a recent transplant). Does the term “Bible Belt” sound familiar? The Southern nation is a Christian nation. Period. Yes, there are plenty of agnostics, atheists, pagans, Christ-haters, and other beliefs, but it is still overwhelmingly a Christian nation, both theologically and culturally.
2) Restoring our Southern land to what it could have (or should have) been is an enormous task and the odds are greatly stacked against us. Don’t make it any harder than it already is. We need solutions that are simple and realistic; solutions that can be accomplished in small but meaningful steps. We don’t get to start with a clean slate. We don’t get to pick and choose exactly who inhabits this land beginning on Day One. The best we can do, as Padraig Martin has so eloquently explained, is create an environment that will attract our people while strongly encouraging others to leave for somewhere else better suited to their kind.
We need REALISTIC solutions that even those who oppose us can buy into. They might not like it, but it has to be something they can accept. The alternative is for our descendants to inherit the smoking ruins of our once-great Southland that we destroyed because we weren’t patient enough and flexible enough to find a solution that works.
Radical Freedom of Association might not be THE solution. Perhaps a better one will come along, and I eagerly look forward to someone else coming up with a better idea – but it MUST be realistic. Too much fantasy is being tossed about already.
The man who contacted you is out of his mind crazy and a relentless spammer.
I think the ideal solution would be bantustans or something similar- the rural blacks, regardless of how similar they are to us, still gave rise to the urban black. I don’t see how coexistence without separation could be possible.
You promote a false dichotomy. I can say the same thing about White Trash, Meth heads, rednecks, and other undesirable Whites. You lump together people based on “race” which is a social construct. Separating based on who looks “White” and who looks “Black” is un-Christian period. ID clearly is not a genuine Christian group.
“If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” God separated the nations and races for a reason. We may not know what it is, but it wasn’t arbitrary. Even in Revelation, you see that different nations still existed and a nation is largely defined and divided by genetic stock.