Welcome to Southern Nationalist Network

Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Why it is a bad thing for your people to be replaced?

November 23, 2012
By

Recently SNN has been contacted by several major media companies. I’ve given interviews for Time magazine, Russia Today and the BBC in hopes of promoting our message of Southern nationalism and self-determination. One thing that I have noticed in talking with the media people (who have all been quite friendly on a personal level, I should add), those who have done video responses to my YouTube videos and just ordinary people who oppose our agenda is that they often have difficulty understanding why we object to being replaced as a people.

If it is wrong for the Chinese government to replace the Tibetans in Tibet, is it not wrong for the US government to replace Southerners in the South? H/T CNReviews

DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT

The strongest case for Southern nationalism, at least in my opinion, is that it is necessary to prevent our elimination as a unique people and culture. The facts lend themselves towards a strong case on this matter. We have the example of California, which in 1970 was 80% White and as of 2008 (after less than four decades of the US Federal Government’s immigration policy) was down to 42% White. The Golden State once leaned Republican and was fairly conservative; today it is a Democrat-dominated State and is one of the most Left-leaning States in the USA. Here in South Carolina we get quite a lot of White refugees from California. These are people who have lost their State. They have been pushed aside. We also have the example of the USA as a whole. In 1960 the US was over 85% White (the numbers vary depending upon which source you use). By 2005 the White  US population had been reduced to 67% and we are told that by 2050, just a few decades away, Whites will be a minority in a land which was overwhelmingly White only a short time ago.

It’s important to note too that these changes did not simply occur; they were achieved through policy decisions made by the US Federal Government. We often hear talk in the media of ‘demographic change’ as if it were like the weather. The demographics of the US (and the South) have not changed – they were changed. People, specifically US politicians and bureaucrats, chose to change California from being an overwhelmingly White conservative State to being a State with a White minority and massive Third World population. The US Federal Government made the decision (through its policy choices) to replace the people of California, and it is doing the exact same thing to the people of Dixie.

THE MORAL QUESTION OF REPLACING A PEOPLE & CULTURE

We could run through the numbers of how the Southern States have been dramatically changed by the US immigration policy – a policy which is anti-Southern and anti-White because it is pushing aside White Southern populations and will soon lead to the creation of a South with a Third World immigrant majority population. Instead, what is more important here is to raise the question of the morality (or immorality) of replacing one population – one people and culture – with another. If we cannot agree that it is immoral, that is is wrong, to replace a people then it won’t matter what evidence we present to prove that such a replacement is taking place.

Would any human population or culture on this planet choose to be replaced in their own land? It’s doubtful. Perhaps we could find bizarre examples of cult groups that seek their own destruction. However, most people want to live and they wish the best for their families, their ethnic group and their culture. This is not a mutually exclusive thing. Because a Russian may want the Russian people to survive and prosper does not mean that he necessarily wants the Chinese to suffer. Likewise, a Southerner who wants his people and culture to survive and prosper does not necessarily want the Mexican people to suffer. However, what Russian would want for his people to be swamped and ultimately replaced as an ethnic and cultural group in Russia by Chinese? What Mexican would want his people to be swamped and replaced in Mexico by Southerners? And what Southerner would want his people to be swamped and replaced in the South by Mexicans?

‘Demographic change’ is not like the weather; it is brought about through US Federal policy.

We must consider that this demographic replacement is brought about by government policy. On their own how many Alabamians would choose to have a Mexican majority population in Alabama? Very few, I would guess. In fact, Alabamians, as the people of other Southern States, have passed laws to enforce existing Federal immigration laws (which the Feds refuse to enforce) in order to slow down their demographic replacement and these laws were thrown out by the US Federal Government. Clearly, even if we can conceive of a human population group or culture that would wish to be replaced, Alabamians are not such a group. They have taken measures which indicate their desire to survive, and yet these were overridden by a stronger, outsider force – namely, the US Federal Government. Think about what this means. We have a people of a unique cultural group who have said that they want to survive and wish to prevent themselves from being replaced in their land. And we also have an outside force intervening to prevent this people from preserving their ethnic and cultural majority in their land. We have an outside force insisting that it has the right to impose demographic change – ethnic and cultural replacement – upon the people of Alabama.

If individuals from another ethnic or cultural group do not desire to preserve the existence of their own ethnic and cultural group (by preventing the demographic makeup of their land from being changed by US immigration policies, for example) that is their choice. They are free to place a value on the existence of their ethnic/cultural group as they see fit. If they wish to bring tens of millions of Third World immigrants into their land – so many that their own people are absorbed in the massive demographic tidal wave – that is their decision to make. However, it is immoral for someone to make that decision for another ethnic/cultural group. It is wrong for someone to impose demographic change upon others, especially if the conditions imposed would eventually lead to the disappearance of the ethnic/cultural group in question. This is true in the same way that an individual is free to choose death for himself (by killing himself) but it is immoral to choose death for another person (by killing them). One ethnic/cultural group may choose replacement (the death of the ethnic/cultural group) for itself but not for another – such is immoral.

What the United States of America is doing to Southerners is wrong. It is wrong to replace a people, as the US is doing. Southerners have demonstrated their desire to survive. They have demonstrated their objection to the US policy which is replacing them. Even if others do not object to their own ethnic/cultural group being replaced this doesn’t bestow upon them the moral right to impose their decisions on other ethnic/cultural groups – such as Southerners.

Tags: , , ,

  • Chad

    I find it shocking that some people would think that replacing a distinct people with another would ever be a good idea. What is even more mind boggling, is that the liberals (who allegedly adore the arts, sciences and culture) would ever want to replace the people of Dixie.

    The bulk of what is known as “American” culture was produced by the people of Dixie. Without Dixie, “American” culture would only be a pitiful shadow of what it was.

  • tim

    youve heard the phrase “divide and conquer”?
    It’s possible that the feds figuered that allowing masses of outsiders to cover us over would divide us and finally conquer.

    Cause Ive heard it said before that Southerners are extremly stubborn (in other words were not easily conquered) So maybe they figure that overload of mixing backgrounds would be our sure end.

    Do you agree Micheal that they have been trying various things since -after reconstruction didnt force us to be more liberal or like them?

  • Michael

    That’s likely, Tim. They certainly aren’t shedding any tears over our replacement.

  • Virginian Secessionist

    Even if it isn’t completely historically accurate (try woefully inaccurate), Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” has some very powerful lines in it. One that I think quite adequately expresses Uncle Sam’s apparent take on Southrons comes from King Edward I:
    “The trouble with Scotland… is that it’s full of Scots!” and then a little later, “If we can’t *get* them out… we’ll *breed* them out.”
    Just replace “Scotland” with “The South” and “Scots” with “Southrons” and it sounds mighty similar to what’s happening.



Images

SNN