Welcome to Southern Nationalist Network

Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Hamilton vs Jefferson discussion on NPR

May 30, 2012
By

More of what we would expect from NPR & Michael Lind

This morning, National Public Radio had an interesting topic of discussion on their ‘On Point’ program with guest writer and historian Michael Lind on the debate throughout US history between Jeffersonianism and Hamiltonianism. As expected, NPR’s guest strongly supported the pro-Big Government Hamiltonian perspective. Lind and the host Tom Ashbrook praised various Federal programs and policies which intervened in and distorted the market and consolidated power in Washington, DC. The article on NPR’s website about the program includes an interesting quote from a recent Lind article entitled ‘The Future of Whiteness‘ on this subject from Salon.com:

‘The need for public investment in American infrastructure should not be a partisan issue.  But the capture of the Republican Party by free market fundamentalists and neo-Confederate localists has led to the identification of the infrastructure issue with the Democrats.’

Clearly, there are no ‘neo-Confederates’ (a term used almost exclusively in a pejorative manner by ‘Progressives’) in leadership roles within the Republican Party. If true ‘neo-Confederates’ had been in office during the Reagen or Bush years the size of the US Federal Government would have been drastically shrunk rather than aggressively expanded, foreign wars would not have been started and power would have been decentralised rather than consolidated.

In the same article, Lind goes on to say:

[P]rogressives are wrong to imagine that a new “majority of minorities” is about to emerge and create a lasting majority for the Democrats. The success of white nativists in the GOP in driving away Hispanic voters may help the Democrats for a few more electoral cycles, but sooner or later Republican politicians who are tired of losing will challenge the neo-Confederate wing of their party and practice a more racially-inclusive politics of the kind pioneered by George W. Bush and his brother Jeb Bush, with his Hispanic wife and mixed-race children.

Again, what parallel reality is Mr Lind living in where the Republican Party is controlled by ‘neo-Confederates’? As a genuine Southern nationalist I can truthfully say there are no ‘neo-Confederates’ in the US Congress or in leadership positions in the GOP. I wish this were not so. I wish that Mr Lind’s alternative reality were in fact real.

Notice too how Mr Lind agrees with the ‘respectable conservatives’ such as Rich Lowry and Kevin D Williamson in embracing a Third World America and encouraging miscegenation, which necessarily means the extinction of the White race (and therefore the Southern people) in North America. Under international law, the definition of genocide includes the following description:

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

…Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

US policies which have created the current conditions that are leading to a Third World America certainly could be defined in the above manner. Are Lind, Lowry and Williamson comfortable with advocating genocide? This is a question they should be repeatedly asked – and they would be if genuine Southern nationalists were allowed to debate them in the media rather than the controlled opposition presented by the ‘respectable conservatives.’

Tags: , , , ,

  • http://newconfederacy.weebly.com Brad Harris

    The problem with Hamiltonianism today is that they really don’t know what is behind the Neo Confederate movement. Almost everything they have used to describe the Neo Confederate movement has been nothing more than lies and Stereotypes. The same thing has been given to the confederate flag. There is no Neo Confederates in the government nor would there ever be unless the candidate lied in the beginning as a front in order to get into the political seat. No one would want someone with true ideals for freedom in a political seat because it would mean that congressmen would have to follow the same laws as the people they represent. And that’s just bad for business…

  • Southron Rebel

    Lets be clear here about National Public Radio. They have been and will always be far left leaning, period. The very name National Public Radio is a mis-guiding title. The reality here is the unspoken title: Nationalist Progressive Radio. But, they cannot use that title. They would lose way too much support and even federal dollars. Everything that is said by the left faction (for the most part) has hidden undertones. It is a word smithing game to garner as much public support as possible until the the socialist government takes it over completely.



Images

Feds out of Florida footer