Montgomery Advertiser: Pro-Secession Letter To The Editor
Here’s the pulse of the average conservative secessionist petitioner in Alabama.
I completely endorse Mr. Graham’s observation that this Union is a failure and the brakes have failed and that we are careening toward a Greek-style financial collapse that will crush our economy.
Ending socialism would have a “disparate impact” on the blacks.
“The secession petitions are the result of concerned citizens realizing what this socialist nation has become and where it is going and don’t like it. We are not far away from emulating Greece in political fiscal irresponsibility. We are bigger and it takes more time for the failure mode to surface. It is just a matter of time until the Bernanke/Obama $40 billion-per-month printing press tips the scales. In our case the difference will be in lieu of the Eurozone invoking mandatory austerity upon us it will be China. You think China is your enemy now, just wait.
It is an interesting read to go to Wikipedia and read the differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and the U.S. After dealing with the U.S. Constitution for nearly 70 years, Confederates decided more specific limitations on the power of central government were compulsory. What if the Fed couldn’t print money, or Congress couldn’t install tariffs to protect certain industries over others, or presidents couldn’t grant immunity to illegal aliens or grant our tax dollars to unions and select industries in return for votes?
It is not surprising that we actually have citizens who do not wish to be a part of this policy or debt load. There are those who do not wish to police the world or make exorbitant annual donations to countries that spend these endowments to our detriment. There are those who simply don’t like despotic federal government.
Note: Michael Hill is right that there has been a “shift in consciousness.” It is also obvious that next year we need make greater use of the economic argument like the Catalans in Spain.
A very decent ‘comment’ by one of the posters I thought would be a good intro:
Bill Yancey says:
I don’t know how I missed this piece at CC but it’s one of their best:
Yeah, it starts out sounding pretty pansy. What truly self-respecting white man would not already be sick of the “racial healing” crap than support one of the Republicans’ pets, right? Unfortunately, there are more than there are of us. Frankly, kind I’d credit it to their being at work most of every day instead of analyzing politics.
But don’t let the pansy-sounding beginning distract you from reading the rest. Hood’s target is, damn it, the white men wandering in the desert of disbelief and misunderstanding. Those who are only now beginning to smell the arsenic. A huge wave of them at this particular time, I believe. So, he’s addressing a particular demographic that exists, no matter how much more educated on the subject we consider ourselves to be, than them. They are our stragglers but they are our real soldiers.
As for WN vs. SN, I agree with HW that regional nationalism is more realistic than racial or philosophical nationalism. However, I think that SN is indeed a form of, or a reflection of, WN. Who here, after all, would not be delighted to see a ‘Western Nationalism’ in the white, male western states? Who here would not want to ally with them?
I distinctly remember my revulsion at the about face of “conservatives” from Clinton to Bush, per the federal government. My brain vomited daily. There is always the possibility that the situation is the same this time, i.e. that “the liberals” won again, but I sense something more real and determined than partisan reactions of the past. I think there’s a whole lot more throwin’ up goin’ on out there than usual.
While I try to be a bit restrictive on what articles I send to friends and relatives, not wanting to be relegated to the spam folder, I recommend passing this one around to everybody.
On another subject, doesn’t it seem like a pivotal and good time to have new and more forceful leadership at organizations like the LOS? I appreciate Hill’s knowledge of history and even his somewhat careful instincts but we need something more dynamic and forceful at this point, IMO. Someone who wouldn’t step back from repeating George Wallace’s inaugural speech but someone who pulls some weight. Hill pulls some weight but doesn’t have the guts to be that “radical” in this day and age.
Comments are always good on this site.