Dr. Michael Hill Interviewed by Richard Spencer

Here, Richard Spencer interviews Dr. Hill about the League of the South and Southern Nationalism, a term I have never liked. Dr. Hill explains the evolution of the League over the years. He mentions some of the controversy that came along with this evolution, but there is a lot of nuance there that you have to have followed the organization to be aware of.

Advertisements

One thought on “Dr. Michael Hill Interviewed by Richard Spencer

  1. weavercht

    I have mixed feelings about the term “Southern nationalist”.

    We are not a distinct race. However, the US continues to be flooded with immigrants from parts of Europe other than where most of us originated. So, if preserving that origin and identity, declaring ethnic separation might be a necessary survival strategy.

    “Copperheads” though would be of the same stock.

    The negative to opposing a wider “white nationalism”, which is to say embracing implicit Nordicism or Angloism, is it’s divisive. The dominant identity in the US is white nationalism from all of Europe, and that identity could well absorb the older Americanism.

    The issue isn’t purity but identity. And it’s complicated by Southerners who assert the South has never been so racially oriented, that racial centering is a German importation. To those, I become confused as to what they want, because they seem to oppose both white nationalism and Nordicism/Angloism. And there is of course history backing a racial identity in the US.

    Some have taken the position that Europeans from all parts should be welcomed in as they’re absorbed into the South. Perhaps their children then are to be welcomed in if born here, but the argument seems to be that nationalism is a cultural particularism with a racial foundation from anywhere in Europe. Truly though nationalism has more to do with race than with culture, language, and political traditions. We risk becoming like the rest of America if we define ourselves by political ideology.

    Regardless, there’s value in just highlighting the issue. People should choose their own path on the matter. Fuzzy thinking seems the rule in politics, but perhaps some benefit from viewing the whole matter clearly. Realpolitik is important: You can’t always get what you want, have to pursue the realistic and moral.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s