Welcome to Southern Nationalist Network

Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Southern nationalists & the Fourth of July

July 3, 2011
By

As a Southern nationalist the July 4 holiday is probably my least favourite time of the year. For a week or so leading up to the holiday the streets are decked out with Federal flags and the rhetoric about “the greatest nation in the world” reaches a fevered pitch. Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood songs that glorify the US flag and service in the Federal military are played again and again. Radio and television personalities implore us to be thankful for our (disappearing) freedom and to thank Federal military veterans for fighting in distant wars that do not make us safer and certainly have nothing to do with preserving our ever-fewer freedoms. Fireworks are launched, the US flag is everywhere and the churches take the lead in promoting a spirit of US nationalism. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, a song which glorifies the slaughter of Southern secessionists by the US military, is sung. All in all, it’s a very disturbing environment for any Southern nationalist to have to endure.

As Southern nationalists our primary political concern is for the well-being and independence of the Southern people. We reject the Empire that conquered our ancestors and killed about a quarter of a million Southerners, burned down Southern towns, churches and fields and raped countless Southern women. We reject the Empire that refused to allow our people to be independent and which has since then used us for cannon fodder in the continual over-seas wars. We reject the flag of our oppressors and the regime which seeks to displace our people and eradicate our culture.

After the conquest of the independent South by the United States of America, Southerners largely refused to celebrate the Yankees’ national holiday. This was not because Southerners rejected the Declaration of Independence (a secessionist document, after all) or Jefferson, Washington and the Founders. In fact, the Confederate Seal showed George Washington (a secessionist and a Virginian) on horseback. The South rejected the July 4 holiday because of what it had become – the national holiday of an Empire which oppressed Southerners. It was not until WWI (when tens of thousands of Southerners were conscripted and forced into the Federal military to be sent over-seas and participate in a war which had nothing to do with Southern freedom or well-being) that the holiday re-emerged in some Southern communities. Other communities held out even longer. But by WWII (when tens of thousands of Southerners were again conscripted and sent all around the world to fight in another awful war) the Fourth of July was celebrated by most Southerners. Since then, Southerners have become the most pro-USA region within the Empire. Our people in far greater percentages than peoples from other regions and cultures, volunteer for the Federal military and end up being used by the Empire to fight in imperialist wars around the planet. Few large Southern towns are far from a major Federal military base, a situation which further ties Dixie to Federal militarism.

This environment of chest-thumping US patriotism – even at a time when the US president is a very alien character with whom most Southerners can not identify and when US policies encourage millions of aliens to replace native Southern people - is pervasive across Dixie. There can be little doubt that the Empire is in decline. And there are also signs that secessionists and Southern nationalists are making gains. But until the Empire is dead and gone it seems we will have to endure the repugnant atmosphere that comes with the July 4 US holiday. Outside my house, the Confederate battle flag which flies pretty much sums up my feelings on this Federal holiday.

Tags: , , , ,

  • Misplaced Southerner

    Michael, God has blessed you with a Vision that rings True! It will take time and perseverance for others to catch the Vision you already possess. You are fighting the good fight. Seeds are being planted. People who also care about Dixie, even someone like me, who God figured would not be born in the South (He has His reasons which are a mystery to me), are being educated and prepared by your Noble Mission. Your light doth shine! Thank you! God bless you always. ~Nicholas Ferrante, son of Joan Van Zant.

  • the29thtn

    I have always loved the 4th. I’m not celebrating big government. I’m celebrating those who fought against big government. That’s what it’s supposed to be all about. The South considered the Founders of the original republic to be their founders as well. They put George Washington on the seal.

    Since when do we have to go along with what big government idiots tell people it’s about today. The Yankees win if you let them ruin a perfectly good holiday. Take the 4th back by celebrating it’s true purpose. A few years ago I marched in a 4th of July parade in a Confederate uniform.

    • Long Live Dixie

      The 4th has always been celebrated in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York. It was never our holiday; it was a shared holiday. Others may have already said it (I have not yet read every post), but I think three additional points are worth making here:

      1) The principles behind the American revolution were solidly Englightenment principles best expressed in a single phrase in the US declaration of independence (“all men are created equal”). The document itself was co-authored by four Yankees and one Southron.

      2) Southrons are not an independent people. Whose independence are we celebrating?

      3) It should be considered that if 4 July is commemorated at all it should be a day of mourning for the loss of Vicksburg.

  • Chris

    here here, I agree the29th.

  • http://southernnationalist.com/blog/author/administrator/ Michael

    Hey, if y’all can make a positive out it, that’s great. I am repulsed by the holiday but I understand that not all Southern secessionists think alike on this.

    • Virginian Secessionist

      Personally, I’m with you, Michael.

  • the29thtn

    The Southern tradition of firing anvils into the sky on the 4th http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c0B00Ax3w

    I live close to the Museum of Appalachia. Every year they do a traditional Southern 4th with anvil shooting and raising a liberty pole etc. like they did back during the Revolution.

  • Anti Federalist

    the29thtn,

    I came across an opinion piece by Gary North today.

    http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1002.html

    His position (which I agree with by the way) is that the American Revolution was a mistake. King George was a petty tyrant compared to the 536 megalomaniacs (435 house members, 100 senate members, 1 president) along with the numerous Federal bureaucrats and law enforcement officers (including the military). I’m thinking of flying the Union Jack to protest the American Revolution this weekend.

    • Virginian Secessionist

      I like this idea a lot…

  • the29thtn

    I certainly know what you mean in so far as things are worse now than they were before the Revolution. However, I’m still a fan of the Patriots.

    Besides, the issue was not that the British taxes were high, it was that the British government had no right to tax them at all. By the royal charters of the colonies the British Parliament had no right to tax a colony a single cent.

    Each colony was an independent country that shared a common king and only the colonial legislature could pass taxes within the bounds of a colony. The colonies owed no loyalty to the British, only the monarch. King George was also the monarch of Hanover, but the British Parliament had no authority over them either.

    The King betrayed the charters and subverted each colony to a foreign country. This is why the Declaration of Independence directs its primary reasons for secession not at Britain, but the King himself. The colonies did not consider themselves subjects of the British Parliament in the first place.

  • http://southernnationalist.com/blog/author/administrator/ Michael

    Agreed, 29th. Sure, the British rule then was pleasant compared to DC rule now. However, comparing DC today to the UK then is not really fair. A better comparison would be to compare DC today to the UK today. Both have declining liberties, massive Third World immigration, foreign imperialist wars, high taxes, endless regulations, etc.

  • Chris

    So I read that article by Gary North. I came across this in the article that made me think a bit.

    “In 1872, Frederick Engels wrote an article, “On Authority.” He criticized anarchists, whom he called anti-authoritarians. His description of the authoritarian character of all armed revolutions should remind us of the costs of revolution.

    “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon – authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.”

    I dont think I would agree with what was said there at all. in fact I think that sounds stupid. When revoultions take place. The majority is involved. No minority of people lead a revolution. If they do it never gets anywhere. Just my thought on it.

    • Virginian Secessionist

      The French Revolution was not led by a majority…
      The American Revolution was not led by a majority…
      The Revolutions of 1848 were not led by a majority…

      In fact, thinking back on all the revolutions in Western history that I can think of, only two come to mind as having majority support:
      The overthrow of Tarquin II and the establishment of the Roman Republic (almost unanimous Roman support)
      The ‘Glorious’ Revolution of 1688 (which, by the way, I consider one of the greatest disasters in Western history).

  • Chris

    And also. If revoultion takes place and the majority is for it. Why would they force the minority to take part ? Why would they even care about the minority. the minority will not force the majority to take part haha.

  • http://southernnationalist.com/blog/author/administrator/ Michael

    Chris, revolutions are typically led by minorities – often very small minorities. No more (and probably well less) then 1/3 of the Colonial population supported independence from the UK. A tiny percentage (about 1%) of the Russian population led the Soviet revolution. The Chinese communist revolution was led by a tiny percent of the population. This is the norm throughout history. Most people just want stability and the status quo. They’re ultimately willing to go along with which ever side wins.

  • Kevin

    that was a fantastic piece of work Michael. It really sums it all up now doesn’t it? My wife wanted to go to dinner near West Palm Beach tonight but I found out near downtown they are going to display an 11 story Federal Flag from a large building and attempt to get 100,000 people to recite the pledge of ignorance. I flatly refused to attend so I took her out last night.

  • Chris

    Ah okay Micheal. I was under the impression that many of peoples wanted to break off from Britian. Now after thinking about it cearly I would agree. But why would he say they are authoritarian ? It really all depends on the situation and what the revolution is before you can call it that wouldnt you say ?

  • the29thtn

    By the time of Lexington and Concord and the Gunpowder incident in VA, the majority of the colonists WERE in favor of independence from the king. “Tories” were a minority of the population. Remember, the American revolution was not some mere rebellion. It was undertaken by leaders ELECTED by the population in defense of the sovereignty of the individual states and their people. Just the same with the Confederacy later. Those states all acted by the elections of the people, not a rebellion by a small party within the south.

  • the29thtn

    PS. You might find it interesting, but the numbers are believed to be much as they are today. Today 20% identify themselves as liberal, over 40% identify themselves as Conservative (includes libertarians) and the rest are wishy-washy.

    During the Revolution only 20% were Tories, 40-45% (and perhaps more) supported the Patriots, and the rest were wishy-washy. The British really lost the war because the supposed support for the British government never materialized. After Kings Mountain and all the hard fighting in the South, the British abandoned all the Southern states and retreated to Yorktown because nobody was joining up with the Brits. Instead the Southerns were nibbling their army to pieces.

  • http://southernnationalist.com/blog/author/administrator/ Michael

    29th, I’ve never seen anything to suggest that 40-45% of the people were for independence. I’ve read that about 25-33% were. At any rate, they were a minority.

    Chris, there were different types of people who wanted independence. Those like Jefferson wanted liberty & to create a classical civilisation here. Those like Hamilton wanted authoritarian rule and to construct an empire. Both of these groups (who later became the Federalists and Anti-Federalists) were for independence, but they had very different views of the type of society and government they wanted to live in. The Federalists were most definitely authoritarians.

  • Chris

    Oh okay. I guess he was speaking of people like Hamilton. I know for sure there was something wrong if he was speaking of people that think like us.

  • the29thtn

    33% is the old liberal revisionist history numbers from the 1960s. It may yet survive in some general history texts. I think I heard those numbers in public school myself. I don’t remember if it was in any of my college text books.

    One book I really really love, though I would love it more if it focused some more on the South, is From Resistance to Revolution. I recommend it as much for the history as I do for a guide book how to handle our present day situation. It was a book I really enjoyed.

    You don’t have to agree with everything in it to enjoy the detailed description of how the resistance to big government developed. I believe much of what is in it is very possible to duplicate today.

    http://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Revolution-Development-Opposition-1765-1776/dp/0393308251

  • SouthernBorn5ti01qs

    I am undecided on the holiday to be honest. As a recent example my church didn’t promote The Empire instead my pastor gave a sermon called ” Has God Abbandoned America” and the question is obviously yes. At the same time however I like to thank God for those brave revolutionarys such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Reevere, and Madison. So right now I’m undicided.

    • Long Live Dixie

      Was God ever with America? A major goal of the revolutionaries was dis-establishing the church and creating a secular union.

      • Michael

        That’s a good point. Deism, along with other Enlightenment concepts, was prevalent among the founders of the Union. Some areas of the Union (much of the South) had a traditional, Christian culture (though not at all like today’s Evangelicalism) but in general much of the Union rejected traditional, Christian culture. New England was pretty radical in embracing cultures that were not traditional churches. And NY was a hodgepodge – basically a commercial region rather than an organic culture.

  • Chris

    Well there is a Baptist church up the road from me and on thier thing in the front yard it said. “Thank God for America”. I rolled my eyes as I went by.

  • Jim Klein

    FWIW, the following is from Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars. I’m inclined to think it’s accurate, but that’s my intuition and not knowledge:

    “During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.”

  • the29thtn

    You don’t have to believe me, but put as much faith as you normally would in things they taught you in school and pursue it yourself :P

  • Dutchy

    All those striped rags hanging everywhere in the towns I rode through just made it all the sweeter when I saw a small, lone battle flag flying on a bulldozer in the countryside of southern IOWA over the 4th of July weekend.

    • Virginian Secessionist

      Defiance can be a beautiful thing… :)

  • Long Live Dixie

    Michael, what do you think would have happened with the Southron identity if we had remained Empire loyalists?

    From what I understand, the Australians, for instance, have barely any feeling of an Australian nationalism; they look to Britain when they think of nationalism.

    Could we have remained in the empire, had a nationalistic identity, and achieved eventual independence?

    • Michael

      HW has some good thoughts on this, LLD: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2013/07/04/independence-day-2/

      My views correspond pretty closely to HW’s. I think we would have seen the failure of republican government in New England if we had remained with Britain. The plantation lobby in the UK would have remained very strong, countering the Progressive lobby. New England might have be retaken down the road or it may have just remained a backwater that no one cared anything about. The South would have grown more prosperous with the advent of King Cotton. But we have to also remember that the UK gave Canada, Australia and the Caribbean islands their independence. I think they would have done the same in the South. Of course, having decided not to join New England in revolution and then watching the failure of their republican experiment I think this would have encouraged a reaction against republicanism in the South. I don’t know where that would have led but part of our identity at that point would have came from having decided not to join the American Revolution. I’m not sure what effect the Romantic Age would have had upon us if we were not independent from the UK by that point. It might very well have led to Southern secession from the UK in the mid 1800s. If that were the case it’s possible that Jamaica, Barbados and other islands might have joined us. It’s really impossible to say about the particulars but I think it’s almost certain that by 1900 the South would have been independent even if we had not rebelled in 1776.



Images

SNN