Is Southern Nationalism the same thing as White Nationalism? The short answer is yes and no. This vexing topic is rarely if ever addressed, and the Southern cause is consequently reduced to a myopic, quaint subsidiary of a larger quest for a White ethnostate. Many racially conscious young Southrons, most of whom embrace their Southern identity, reflexively refer to themselves as White Nationalists. This is at least partially because they see their own Southern identity as lesser than and subordinate to their White identity. If Southern Nationalism is ever to capture a critical mass of these young men, the already racially awakened, then it is incumbent upon us to explain why, far from being a narrow, curious sect of White Nationalism, Southern Nationalism is an entirely different beast.

In the first place, we must acknowledge that the South is White. When we speak of the South, we speak of the White South. This is not debatable. It is simply a fact, one which is so self-evident that it is often taken for granted. In this respect, it can unequivocally be stated that Southern Nationalism is necessarily White Nationalism, but that White Nationalism is not necessarily—and is indeed often directly at odds with—Southern Nationalism. We are White and proud of it, but our racial identity does not, in and of itself, provide us with the nourishing fire which impels us forward. Our racial identity is a component of our primary, Southern, identity.

Our Christian identity is another component of our Southern identity. When we speak of the South, we not only mean the White South. We mean the White, Christian, South. Dixie is God’s Country, and we are God’s people—perhaps not His only people, but His people indeed. In this respect, one could state that Southern Nationalism is necessarily Christian Nationalism, but that, of course, Christian Nationalism is not Southern Nationalism. Here, we have our first major divergence from White Nationalism. Unfortunately, White Nationalism is afflicted with a deep antipathy for Christianity. To be sure, there is not much if anything about contemporary organized Christianity to recommend or endear itself to Rightists of any stripe. Jesus Christ Himself would abhor much of what today passes for “Christianity.” The subversion of Christianity, however pervasive, still cannot change the Word of God. Indeed, the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever.

Large numbers of White Nationalists, perhaps even constituting a majority, have no interest in reading or otherwise learning this truth. Instead, they nonsensically slander Christianity as “Jewish,” which would be news to the Jews who ordered the murder of Christ, the millennia of subsequent Jews who made and still make the annihilation of Christianity their highest mission, and the millennia of Christians who did their best to protect their people from Jewish corrosion. They create absurd cults, adopt pagan practices centuries removed from an idealized, obscure pre-Christian past, or rely on cold, dispassionate scientism. While we do not view these misguided, lost souls as our enemies, nor can we see them as our allies. We do not share any semblance of a common vision or mission with non-Christians.

Another major point of divergence for Southern Nationalists is that our cause is particular, while that of White Nationalists is abstract. Our goal, distilled to its purest, most essential form, is a free, independent Dixie, which one could see as a sort of reconstituted Confederate States of America. Our cause is rooted in one particular place—the South—and one particular people—White, Christian Southrons. Ours is an uncompromising and practically defined vision, one which is orders of magnitude more feasible than that of the inherently vague White Nationalist ethnostate. For example, where should such a state be? Even this simple question proves unanswerable with any degree of satisfaction by any great number of self-identified White Nationalists.

Furthermore, our identity as Southern is specific, corresponding to a real, historically defined, culturally, linguistically, and politically distinct population. While anti-White Leftists and egalitarian “colorblind” civic nationalists often make the ridiculous claim that White people do not exist (i.e., “I’m not White, I’m Italian”), while in the next breath uttering genocidal statements about those same White people whom they claim do not exist, there is a kernel of truth to the challenge.

Pan-European unity is a fiction; White people generally do not define their identities on purely racial grounds, but rather by their nationality. Far from joining hands as racial kinsmen, the kingdoms and then the nation-states of Europe have engaged in perpetual warfare against each other. When White men refer to themselves as such, their nationality subordinated to their race, it is typically limited to situations of oppositional ethnogenesis, where an external racial threat is involved—such as Amerindians, blacks, etc. And yet, even then, these expressions of White identity are often still expressions of national identity, the nation itself understood to consist of White people, rather than a conceptually White nation.

It is certainly true that, for all intents and purposes, America was intended to be and did function as a White nation for most of its history. Until the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act, America boasted a 90% White supermajority and a small black minority, with other racial groups demographically insignificant—though not politically insignificant, in the case of America’s numerically infinitesimal but politically dominant Jewish minority. But, while American men always saw themselves and referred to themselves as White, it is only after the triumvirate of desegregation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Immigration Act that what we now call White Nationalism began to emerge.

Thus, before the middle of the twentieth century, White identity was merely a component of, and thus subordinate to, American identity. But American nationalism itself was an invention of war propaganda, most clearly traceable in its contemporary iteration to the bloodthirsty tyrant Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Without delving too deeply into the historical thicket, however, it will suffice to say that White Nationalism is a thoroughly modern creation.

Southern Nationalism, by contrast, is premised upon a Southern identity forged by centuries of blood, fire, and siege. Southern identity predates any American identity, and, while Southern men did see themselves and refer to themselves as White, their sectional identity as Southerners was always first. This identity was so deeply ingrained in the Southern psyche that it survived well after desegregation. Indeed, even today, large numbers of Southerners, perhaps even constituting a majority, still see themselves as Southern, although this has become subordinated both to American and partisan Republican identities. Southern Nationalism per se emerged in the antebellum period, mere decades before the War for Southern Independence, primarily in response to Northern rhetorical political vitriol and economic aggression. But its antecedent, Southern sectionalism, predated even the American War of Independence.

While Southern Nationalism and White Nationalism both emerged in response to external pressures, the nature of these pressures were and are of a fundamentally different character.

At the outset, we must address the Jewish Question. Without a solution to this question, there can be no solution to any question. While Jewish influence dominates our world, the security of our existence and the future of our children will always remain in danger. Make no mistake: Jews are the avowed enemies of the White race. At the bottom of nearly every single ill which afflicts Whites as a people, you will find a cabal of Jews. Every aspect of White Genocide is Jewish, from top to bottom. Jews do control every center of institutional power in the whilom West. Jews—the Synagogue of Satan—are the root of much of the evil in our world.

Their goal is the extinction of the White race, of all that is good, pure, and holy on this earth. Their goal is to profane the sacred. The sicker, the filthier, the fouler, the better. Nonwhites, including American Blacks and the constellation of “refugees” and “migrants” from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Central and South America, are the primary shock troops utilized by the Jews in their war against Whites. Insofar as Jews and their non-White pets constitute the enemies of the White race, so too are they the enemies of the Southern people, who, again, are White.

But this is not the end of the story for Southern Nationalists. No, the Southern people have an additional enemy, one who has inflicted far greater material and psychic damage upon Dixie than the Jews or their puppets ever have: the Yankees. Northern Whites have been, and arguably still are, our most pernicious foes. While it is true that all Whites are under attack from a truly genocidal force, Southrons face a deeper hatred than any other White ethnic group—save perhaps Russians—including from fellow Whites. Indeed, many prominent White Nationalists today heap scorn upon the South and our Confederate heritage.

Before the Jews ever worked to destroy the South, the Yankees literally put Dixie to the torch and the sword in the War for Southern Independence and then enslaved her in the most humiliating fashion conceivable during Reconstruction. Federal soldiers committed atrocities against Southern civilians at an unprecedented scale, the first real example of total warfare waged by a nominally civilized power. The next example would be the Anglo-Boer War, to which historians have devoted far more sympathy.

After the Yanks razed and materially annihilated the South, they subjected her to a decade of negro domination, during which the same White Northerners squeezed every last drop of blood from the already despoiled Southern turnip. The descendants of these Carpetbaggers wreak the same havoc across the South today, occupying our hometowns and our wildernesses, emanating as locusts from the coasts they have already destroyed in order to devour our birthrights in a grand scheme of physical, economic, political, and cultural dispossession.

What is now happening to the White race writ large—genocide—was initiated in the South long ago. In other words, even leaving aside the fact that our first and worst tormentors were White Northerners, the Jews and their tools targeted the South for destruction first. We were the canaries in the coalmine. Nobody cared. Indeed, many Whites—including self-identified “patriotic, conservative” Whites—enthusiastically cheered, participated in, and spearheaded the defenestration of Dixie. Similarly, our forebears saw what the United States Government was becoming, the monster that the Federal Leviathan was transforming into, more than a century before the contemporary Right did. Again, nobody cared.

Here, we come to another major point of divergence. Generally speaking, White Nationalists envision a single ethnostate or multiple ethnostates functioning as a White homeland, along the lines of: (1) some reclamation of the entire landmass of the United States of America as the nominally singular polity it now purports to be; or (2) a combination of balkanized ethnostates operating as a loose confederacy. Complicating this picture is the attachment of some American White Nationalist intellectuals to the concept of a pan-European supranational project, something akin to a racially conscious European Union.

Southern Nationalists start from the premise that the United States of America as a political unit is dead, and has been since 1860. The quintessentially American spirit that animated our ancestors in 1776 and 1861 was slaughtered on the battlefield in 1865. We do not put “America” first, because America does not exist. We are Dixie first. Even if it were feasible to reclaim the entire landmass of the currently extant United States—and it most certainly is not—we have no desire to do so. We do not give one hoot about the fate of New York, or California, or Illinois, or Ohio, or any other State not represented by the thirteen stars on each of the national flags of the Confederate States of America. While the Southern Nationalist project involves a sort of balkanization of the currently extant United States, the prevailing locations contemplated by White Nationalists for their ethnostate invariably exclude the South. Many White Nationalists have even suggested giving large swathes of the South to negroes.

In Dixie’s land, we’ll take our stand. The South is nonnegotiable. We place no stock in a vague, abstract “homeland” dominated by deracinated Yankees, for our homeland has a single location. Southern identity, although inherently racially defined by White identity, is simultaneously deeper, narrower, and yet more expansive than bare White identity. My own heritage is instructive of the difference between Southern identity and White identity.

I am half-White, half-Indian. My maternal lineage is Scots-Irish. It’s through this side of my ancestry that I am a proud member of both the Sons of the American Revolution and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. My earliest ancestors in this line emigrated to the Colonial South in the mid-to-late seventeenth century, perhaps even as early as Jamestown in 1616.

I have at least two ancestors who served South Carolina in the American War of Independence.

Glass Caston, my fifth-great grandfather, was born in 1732 in Essex County, Virginia, and became a carpenter and wheelwright. In 1754, he bought land in Orange County, North Carolina, where he quickly got involved in local politics, becoming constable in 1756. In 1763, Glass bought land in Craven County, in what is now Lancaster County, South Carolina. In 1765, he was appointed one of the County’s Justices. During our War of Independence, Glass served as Wagon Master for a supply train in Colonel Kershaw’s Regiment, supplying Patriots stationed at Purrysburg, near Savannah. After the War, Glass continued in public service; in 1784, he even ran against General Thomas Sumter, the Fighting Gamecock, for a seat in the State Assembly. He passed away in 1804.

Captain John Blakeney, my sixth-great-grandfather, was also born in 1732, in Mount Blakeney, Limerick County, Ireland. John came to the colonies around 1750, and by the early 1760s had settled in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. He became a substantial landowner and a successful planter. In 1775, he was elected Captain of the local militia. The next year, he received a Captain’s commission from the Provincial Congress and raised a regiment. John and his men were assigned to Colonel Benton’s Regiment, where he served as a Sergeant under the Swamp Fox, General Francis Marion. John passed away in 1832, at the age of 100.

I have at least eight ancestors who served the Confederacy in the War for Southern Independence.

Newman Robinson, my second-great grandfather, was born in 1841. He enlisted in the Confederate Army on April 8, 1861, just a few days before the Battle of Fort Sumter. He served throughout the War in the 5th Regiment of the South Carolina Volunteers, known as the Lancaster Greys. He was discharged from service a full four years after he had enlisted, on April 9, 1865, when General Lee surrendered at Appomattox. He passed away in 1924.

Newman’s father, Phillip, my third-great grandfather, served in the same company with him. Philip, born around 1815, was a plantation overseer. He was probably killed during the War. Newman’s brother, Warren, born in 1842, also served with the Lancaster Greys during the War. He passed away in 1916.

Lewis Rowell, another of my second-great grandfathers, was born in 1846. At age 16, he and his father, Henry, both enlisted in the Confederate Army, serving through the end of the War. At his death on June 15, 1944, at age 98, Lewis was the last surviving veteran of the War for Southern Independence in Lancaster County, South Carolina. On special occasions, like church service, Lewis wore his trademark white homespun suit. His birthday parties were the biggest event in the community each year, always attended by three to five hundred people.

My third-great grandfather, Jeff Ellis, was a Corporal in the 12th Regiment of the South Carolina Infantry. He was wounded at Manassas in 1862, and again the next year at Wilderness. In 1870, he passed away as the result of complications from those wounds.

My paternal line, as you likely surmised from my last name, is North Indian. Unfortunately, I don’t have as detailed knowledge of this side of my lineage. My grandfather, long since passed, was the genealogist of his family, and apparently took this knowledge with him to the grave.

My father came to North Carolina from India in 1984, joining several of his older brothers who had moved here before him. Interestingly, he had been reluctant to come to America.

In India, he had been involved with the RSS, a Hindu nationalist paramilitary organization which serves as the backbone of the Indian Right. The RSS is closely tied to the currently-ruling BJP government.

But his brothers asked him to join them, so join them he did. He waited until 2001 to become a citizen, not wanting to officially sever ties with his homeland. If it weren’t for my mother, he may well have returned to India in the 1980s.

Growing up mixed-race was interesting. In many ways, I had a traditional Southern upbringing. In other ways, I had a cosmopolitan upbringing. My parents loved to travel, and, being an only child, I always went with them. I’ve now visited nearly thirty countries on four continents.

My mom is a Southern Baptist, my dad a Hindu, but I was raised a Southern Baptist. All of my friends were always White. I never learned how to speak Hindi. I never identified as anything other than American. Beginning around junior high and high school, though, I began to experience identity issues.

By “identity issues,” I mean that I suddenly had a hard time fitting in and feeling a sense of belonging; part of this likely stemmed from being an only child, but I suspect that it was also at least partially driven by the fact that I had two cultures, two ancestries within me.

As I began to experience the alienation common to modern adolescence, I rebelled against my Southern roots and my Christianity. In this rebellion, I turned not towards my Indian heritage, but rather towards deracinated urban liberalism. I found my way home again, but I went through Hell to find my way back.

What had started as experimentation in high school developed into full-blown drug and alcohol addiction through most of my years at the University of Chicago. You name the drug, and I’ve almost certainly done it. You wouldn’t believe me if I told you how much liquor I drank on a daily basis, the copious quantities of hard drugs I did almost every night. I am blessed to still be alive. By the Grace of God alone, I overcame my addictions cold turkey. I’ve been fully sober now for four years.

My time at the University of Chicago also coincided with my awakening. Growing up in 90% White Bentonville, Arkansas, I bought the egalitarian hogwash hook, line, and sinker. It wasn’t until I moved to Hyde Park, on the South Side of Chicago, that this veil was pierced. You see, I witnessed racial reality for the first time—this was the first time that I had really had any dealings with blacks in their natural habitat. I also encountered Jews in significant numbers for the first time.

While I noted that there were no Southerners among the students or faculty, I found it strange that such a vast majority of faculty members were Jewish, and that Jews, who make up such a tiny minority of the American population, actually made up the majority of students in many of my courses. I had at least one Jewish roommate for most of my first two years, and I was astounded at how their behavior verified every single negative stereotype I had heard about their race.

My racial awakening also occurred almost simultaneously with the 2016 election. Seeing every single center of institutional power on earth align to destroy the Trump campaign really opened my eyes. Donald Trump was a totally non-ideological, pragmatic civic nationalist whose only real offense was speaking about issues that adversely affect Whites, giving life to the concerns of average White people. I’m under no illusions about Trump or his failed presidency, but his election was epochal; for the first time in many years, Whites began to feel that they had a voice. This was Trump’s crime.

I started systematically re-educating myself. Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique is certainly the book most formative in my understanding of the Jewish Question that I read during this time, but it was Richard Weaver’s The Southern Tradition at Bay and Eugene Genovese’s The Mind of the Master Class, combined with Shelby Foote’s The Civil War, that set my long-dormant Southern blood ablaze. You see, it was not until I understood the truth about the South that I was able to understand the other truths that I have since come to learn.

I could go on—I read literally hundreds of books in a 3-year period, from 2016 to 2019. And I haven’t stopped. The point is that I returned home, both spiritually and physically. I read the entire King James Bible, for the first time in my life. I was saved, and then baptized. I gained a passion for my family history, my Southern ancestry, and joined SAR and SCV. I found my calling, my purpose, the reason for which God placed me on this earth at this time: to protect, fight for, and advance the interests of my people, the Southern people.

I’m not ashamed in the slightest of my Indian ancestry. I love and embrace all of my family, and of course I feel a kinship with India. It is only natural that I do. But I do not situate my identity there, nor do I situate my loyalty there. Though I am mixed-race, I am not mixed-identity. I am not an American, or an Indian. I am a Southron.

To those who believe that our day is done, that our cause is lost, I say: You know what they say about Southerners and Lost Causes. Our forefathers left their homes and their beloved behind, risking everything, laying down their lives and charging so bravely into the mouth of Hell because they knew that if they did not fight, their homeland would be lost, transformed into their worst nightmares.

They gave everything they possessed in order to transmit their inheritance, their Southern birthright, to generations yet unborn. They knew that, if they had stood by, their entire world would end, that the world which they had built for their children would be stolen from them and divvied into the hands of squatters not fit for the blessings of their civilization.

Pickett’s Charge, bloody as it was, should be the image etched in our hearts, the pool from which we draw our fortitude. These Southern heroes, common men only months before, fearlessly stormed an unassailable position, marching headlong into the impenetrable Yankee Leviathan because it was their duty. Union Colonel Frank Haskell described the Confederates thusly:

None on that crest now need be told that the enemy is advancing. Every eye could see his legions, an overwhelming, resistless tide of an ocean of armed men sweeping upon us! …Right on they move, as with one soul, in perfect order, without impediment of ditch, or wall, or stream, over ridge and slope, through orchard, and meadow, and cornfield, magnificent, grim, irresistible.

Let not our enemies need be told that we are advancing, immovable, magnificent, grim, irresistible.

We should also consider Edmund Ruffin, the greatest Fire-Eater of them all, a gentleman who spent most of his adult life laying the discursive groundwork for secession; who, at age 67, fired the very first shot on Fort Sumter from Morris Island. After Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Ruffin chose to commit suicide rather than submit to Yankee rule, writing his famous last words:

And now, with my latest writing and utterance, and with what will [be] near to my latest breath, I here repeat, and would willingly proclaim, my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule — to all political, social, and business connection with Yankees, and to the perfidious, malignant, and vile Yankee race.

It should go without saying that I am not advocating for Ruffin’s final course of action. But we should embody the principle: that, if we fail, life is not worth living. We have to understand this: everything that we love and cherish about our country, all that is pure and good on this earth, is directly tied to the reclamation of our Southern nation.

Remember, and never forget, what we are fighting for. The Andy Griffith Show has always been one of my favorite programs. Mayberry, North Carolina, the fictional town that it was set in, is a perfect image of midcentury Southern life. Our enemies tell us that Mayberry never existed. They’re wrong. Hundreds if not thousands of Mayberrys existed all over the South. My mom was blessed to have grown up in one.

My mother grew up in a tiny little town called Rich Hill, South Carolina. Her father was a sharecropper, and her mother was a homemaker. My mom lived next door to her grandparents, and every Sunday, after church, most of the extended family—more than fifty people—would gather there for a supper of fried chicken fresh from the coop, homemade biscuits, fresh vegetables from the garden, fresh churned butter, chess pie, pound cake, chocolate pie. On hot summer days, they’d sit under the oak tree churning ice cream.

Every year, her grandfather planted a garden, plowing it with a mule, walking behind in his worn leather brogans with this old iron plow. My mom would help the family shuck corn, hull peas, and string green beans. There was a lot of vegetable canning. They washed their clothes by hand.

After school, my mother would run next door and climb onto her grandpa’s lap under that oak tree. She’d reach in his pocket, and he always had a piece of gum or penny candy for her. Every day, he’d walk up the road to the corner store to visit with his friends and get his grandkids a treat. Her grandmother was always reading the Bible, rocking on the front porch.

That’s what we’re fighting for. Our posterity. A future for our children, a world in which that communitarian ideal isn’t just a memory, a world in which it’s a reality.

The blood of heroes courses through our veins. Through this ancestral blood, our forefathers commune with us. Their blood—our blood—calls out to us, challenges us, exhorts us, asking us why we allowed our enemies to drag us to this sordid, miasmic state of decay, commanding us to fight and to secure victory—not just to secure our existence and our future, but to triumph and fulfill the glorious plans they laid for us—to realize the future which they made possible for us.

Our duty is to take up our ancestors’ mantle, to preserve the birthright for which they sacrificed everything to bequeath to us, to stop squandering our inheritance and instead make ourselves worthy of their blood.

Our duty is to fill our descendants’ hearts with the admiration for us that we have for our forefathers, to give our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and their children after them a legacy to uphold, a name to honor, a kingdom to maintain and advance.

It will take everything that we have and all that we are, but we can and will reclaim our homeland. It is ours, and ours alone. It belongs to nobody else, and it never will. What other region of the raped and desecrated corpse that is the United States of Weimerika has managed to hold on to any semblance of an identity?

The South lives yet. The South shall survive, or we shall die with her. And as ever, the Lord will vindicate our blood.

This is an expanded version of an article that will appear in edited collection The Honorable Cause: A Free South, to be released on March 31.

Neil Robinson Kumar ran for U.S. Congress in Arkansas’s Third District in 2022, garnering nearly 17,000 votes. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and is now in his final year at the University of Arkansas School of Law. A member of both the Sons of the American Revolution and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, his lineage can be traced to Jamestown. His next book is a history of the Reconstruction Ku Klux Movement.

Introduction

Every so often someone recites a litany of the wrongs supposedly done by Whites to Blacks in Britain over the years. These litanies draw more on myth than fact.

Consider the one written in 2000 by Stuart Hall, the Jamaican Marxist who had been professor of sociology at the Open University.[1] As though with a weary sigh, he began by calling it an “ancient story, banal in its repetitive persistence”. He went on:

From the early race riots of Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958, through the 1970s campaigns against the “sus” laws, the death of Blair Peach in 1979, the uproar following the death of Colin Roach in Stoke Newington police station in 1983, the Deptford Fire, the 1980s “disorders” in Brixton and Broadwater Farm, to the murders of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and Michael Menson in 1997, black and Asian people have been subjected to racialised attacks, had their grievances largely ignored by the police, and been subjected to racially-inflicted policing practices.

He therefore made three accusations for each of his ten examples, namely that Black people had been racially attacked, that the police had largely ignored their grievances and that the police had acted in a racist fashion. If we look into these thirty accusations, we find that only three of them are true.

1. Nottingham race riot (1958)

The Nottingham race riot of August 23rd 1958 began when a White man’s challenge to a Black man sitting with a White woman spiralled into a street fight involving hundreds. Although the episode was described as a “white-on-black terror”, most of those stabbed were White.[2] According to a Black man, people were shocked by the speed and ferocity of the West Indian response.[3] There were no reports of the police ignoring Black grievances or acting unfairly. But Black people were indeed racially attacked so we can give Stuart Hall one justified accusation out of three.

2. Notting Hill race riots (1958)

The Notting Hill riots, which started the following weekend, are said to have begun when a group of Whites and a group of Blacks intervened on different sides in an argument going on outside a tube station between a Swedish woman and her Jamaican husband. Accounts of the disorder that occurred over the next few days vary, but again, although Whites attacked Blacks, Blacks fought back with a vengeance. According to a policeman, a group of Whites was confronted by “what can only be described as a mob shouting threats and abuse and openly displaying various offensive weapons, ranging from iron bars to choppers and open razors”.[4] His shock at seeing these weapons wielded by Blacks suggests that he had seen no such offensive weapons being used by Whites. Nine Whites received exemplary sentences of five years each whereas no one reports any Black people being sent to prison. Nor does there seem to have been any racist policing or any sign of Black grievances being ignored. But since Blacks were indeed attacked, having incidentally been found officially to be sixteen times as racially aggressive as Whites by the time Stuart Hall wrote,[5] we can credit him with another justified accusation, giving him two out of six.

3. Campaign against the “sus” law (1970s)

The Vagrancy Act of 1824, known as the “sus” law, allowed the police to arrest people they found to be acting suspiciously, such as those who appeared to be loitering with intent. According to the campaign against the law, it was “racist” because it netted Black people at a higher rate than others. But if this claim of “racism” was anything like those typically made by anti-racists, it netted Black people at a higher rate because Black people acted suspiciously at a higher rate, not because the police applied the law unfairly to Black people. In this case Black people would have had no legitimate grievance.[6] So Stuart Hall still has only two justified accusations out of what are now nine.

4. Death of Blair Peach (1979)

Blair Peach was killed when he was hit on the head by a policeman during an anti-racist riot in 1979, but he was White, from New Zealand. Still only two out of twelve, now, for Hall.

6. Deptford fire (1981)

When thirteen young Black people died in a fire in Deptford, south London, also known as the New Cross fire, a Black activist launched a campaign blaming the blaze on Whites. It had nothing to do with Whites. It started in a house where a Black party was going on, apparently when someone set the curtains alight with the aid of a flammable liquid such as nail varnish[7] or paint stripper.[8] Nor did the police neglect the case. To show how seriously they were taking it, the investigation was led by the head of the Crime Investigation Department. Still only two out of fifteen for Hall.

7. Brixton riots (1981)

The Brixton riots of April 10th to 12th 1981 were the Black response to a crackdown on mugging launched by the police a few days earlier. No Black people were attacked by Whites, nor did the police act unfairly. They were too busy trying to quell the riots as bricks, fence posts and petrol bombs were hurled at them by young Black men amid the burning vehicles and buildings.[9] Presumably the Black “grievance” here was that the police had launched the crackdown. Still only two out of eighteen for Hall, then.

5. Death of Colin Roach (1983)

The “uproar” that followed the fatal shooting of Colin Roach at the entrance of Stoke Newington police station was created by Black activists, who claimed that he was shot by the police. In fact he took his own life.[10] Still only two for Hall out of 21.

8. Broadwater Farm riot (1985)

No Black people were racially attacked before or during the riot at Broadwater Farm in Tottenham, London. The riot started after a Black woman, Cynthia Jarrett, died from a heart attack when she panicked as the police came to see her about her son, who had given a false name when found in a car with a fake tax disc. As in Brixton, it was the police who were the victims. One officer had a flagstone thrown onto his back as he lay on the ground. Another was hacked to death by young Black men with machetes. Still only two justified accusations out of 24 for Hall.

9. Stephen Lawrence murder (1993)

A young Black man named Stephen Lawrence was murdered by a group of White youths, said the police almost before they had begun their investigation, and the idea was eagerly accepted by the media. Nineteen years later, two White men were convicted, so we can give Stuart Hall one for this. But it was hard to take seriously the official report on the police’s handling of the case, which found them to be “institutionally racist” according to a specially constructed definition. Even the media usually put the term in inverted commas. Although the crime and the police’s long failure to solve it were held up as epitomising the White-Black relationship, the idea that a single murder case can do this does not stand up, especially in view of the many killings of Whites by Blacks, not all of which were perhaps solved promptly. But Hall now has three justified accusations out of 27.

10. Michael Menson murder (1997)

Michael Menson was a young Ghanaian who was killed in London in 1997. As in the case of Stephen Lawrence, his murder was attributed to White youths. But Menson turned out to have been killed by a Mauritian and two Cypriots with the aid of an Arab.[11] Nothing for Hall here, who has still therefore made just three justified accusations out of thirty.

Conclusion

Stuart Hall’s litany was almost entirely bogus, relying mainly on presenting anti-racist myths as true. Rather than Black people having suffered decade after decade at the hands of Whites only for their grievances to be largely ignored by a racist police force, they seem to have had remarkably little to complain about, especially considering that to find even two examples of White wrongdoing Hall had to go back as far as 1958. His litany was just another case of false accusation being used as a weapon against Whites in an attempt to soil their name and make them feel guilty.

[1] Stuart Hall, 2000, “From Scarman to Lawrence”, Connections, Spring 2000. pp. 15-16.

[2] A report in History Today, Jan. 3rd 1999, described the event as anti-black rioting where black people were pursued by mobs screaming “Lynch him, lynch him!”

[3] BBC, May 21st 2007, “The ‘forgotten’ race riot”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6675793.stm.

[4] Guardian, Aug. 24th 2002, “Secret papers reveal truth about five nights of violence in Notting Hill”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/nottinghillcarnival2002/story/0,12331,780023,00.html).

[5] In 1999 the Commission for Racial Equality stated that eighteen per cent of racial aggression in Britain was due to black people, who made up 1.7 per cent of the population. Whites, at 94 per cent of the population, were responsible for under two-thirds of racially motivated offences. See Commission for Racial Equality, 1999, Racial Attacks and Harassment, CRE Factsheet, http://www.cre.gov.uk/pdfs/attac_fs.pdf, p. 4.

[6] The basis of long-standing demands by anti-racists for stop and search to be discontinued or even for street robbery to be no longer treated as a crime was that black people fell foul of the law at a higher rate than others. The demands were largely met using the concept of “indirect discrimination”, which by definition can only occur where there is no discrimination, in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. See (1) Telegraph, Nov. 7th 1999, “Race Bill to end stop and search” and (2) Commission for Racial Equality, Feb. 2000, “Race Relations (Amendment) Bill (briefing note)”, http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/dl_rrab3.html.

[7] History Debunked, May 12th 2021, “A shockingly mischievous and inaccurate book by author and broadcaster David Olusoga”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuCi5dG6vhw.

[8] The Daily Mail of Feb. 25th 1981 was quoted by New Cross Massacre Action Committee, 2001, The New Cross Fire 18th January 1981: 13 Dead. Nothing Said. We Will Not Forget. See also BBC, Jan. 18th 1981, “On This Day: 18 January”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_2530000/2530333.stm.

[9] Lord Scarman, 1982 (first published 1981), The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin. See especially Paragraph 3.109.

[10] History Debunked, May 27th 2021, “How trustworthy and reliable is Diane Abbot?”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swMuUarhKl4.

[11] Guardian, Dec. 21st 1999, “Student found guilty of Michael Menson murder”, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/21/race.world.

I recently watched a YouTube video that featured a Boise Idaho police officer interacting with two young Black males who were suspected of peeking into cars after midnight which violated a curfew law for minors. They also allegedly matched the description of suspects involved in several vehicle burglaries. This incident occurred in November of 2019.

In the body-worn camera footage, both males were seated on the curb while the officer was trying to get information from them. None of them were handcuffed at this point. The two suspects were verbally chipping away at the officer, although it was comparably mild to what I’ve seen and heard on many other police body-worn camera videos.

The officer, seemingly annoyed, engaged in a verbal dispute with one of the males who was swiftly kicked to the ground when he tried to stand up. The officer ordered this same male to cross his legs as a means of gaining greater control of him. When the male suspect refused the order, the officer handcuffed him and walked him to the rear of his patrol car. It was at this point that the handcuffed suspect kicked the patrol car causing the officer to throw him to the ground. After striking a sign when he fell, the handcuffed suspect began to scream and screech in order to create as much chaos as possible at the scene.

This is a very common overreaction among Blacks when detained or arrested by the police. They do it to gain sympathy from any gullible observers and to make themselves appear as victims of “racist white police officers.”

White Officers Must Adjust to the Racial Climate of the Times

My point in highlighting this incident is not to critically dissect everything that went wrong at the scene, but to illustrate how seemingly large numbers of cops throughout the nation still do not understand the times we are living in. They have not yet adjusted to the political and racial climate of much of the nation in their policing styles. They are caught up in a mindset that is at least twenty years outdated.

What was once generally permissible or at least moderately tolerable in terms of use of force among cops two decades earlier is completely unacceptable today. The times have indeed changed — and yet, many street cops still don’t seem to understand this. They have failed to shift with the tone and mood of how the public expects officers to conduct themselves. Whether we like it or not, officers will get little support from the community they serve if they are seen as disrespectful, officious, or heavy-handed.

This seems like such an obvious and even unnecessary thing to point out, yet I wonder at times whether the average police officer really understands it and the implications. Simply watch the various incidents involving cops on YouTube which records the demeaning attitude and conduct of officers who know full well that they are being recorded on video! How could they be so brazen and seemingly unaware of the public backlash that will occur? I attribute it to arrogance, probably because they’ve gotten away with it throughout much of their career.

Have Officers Forgotten the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics?

Created in 1957, the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics expresses beautifully how officers are to conduct themselves, the level of professionalism they are expected to exhibit regardless of whatever personal biases they may carry. They are to treat the public they serve with respect, civility, and fairness in all they do. Such expressions found within it as: “I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to me or to my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others.” And “I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.”  This conduct was codified so that each officer knew what was expected of him or her.

Yet does any of that seem to mark the caliber of today’s officers? Granted, many officers throughout the nation conform well to the standards outlined in the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. But I suspect that a good many do not as is evident in the many police body-worn camera videos available on social media. Far too many officers, it seems to me, have little knowledge of what can and what cannot be done within the limits of the law. They act as if their authority is limitless. They have forgotten everything they were taught about constitutional law during their academy days.

What is it about cops in the age of George Floyd who haven’t yet learned to tone down their rhetoric and conduct when dealing with Blacks — or anyone for that matter? This is especially so for the White officer wearing a body camera so that every word and deed is going to be scrutinized by their own department, the DA’s Office, as well as by the defendant’s civil rights attorneys?

These two young Black males featured in the video above were proverbially yanking the officer’s chain, but he was too caught up in the moment to realize what was being done to him. He allowed them to dictate how things would turn out. He reacted quite predictably as they wanted. How did engaging in a pissing match with two juvenile minority suspects benefit this White officer? It clearly didn’t, and he was lucky things didn’t turn out worse for him.

Boise’s Interim Police Chief, Ron Winegar, called the video “troubling” in an internal department staff email. Winegar later told the Idaho Statesman newspaper in an interview that “the police department’s internal affairs office reviewed and investigated the incident, after being notified by a supervisor and watch commander. The investigation found that “the sum of the conduct depicted in the video was clearly unacceptable,” Winegar said. . . . Winegar added that corrective action — which could be anything from counseling to termination — was taken. He declined to specify what kind. The investigation was closed in April 2020, mayoral spokesperson Maria Weeg told the Statesman in an email” (Alex Brizee, 3/2/2023).

The lesson here is that as a White cop, you’ve got to be smarter, more discerning, and wiser than the criminals and the defense attorneys they employ.

You’ve got to expect that whatever you say and do on a department-issued body-worn camera is going to be used against you if you find yourself in a use-of-force incident, or in an officer-involved shooting. Anything said that even has the slightest hint of “racism,” or suggestive of a “racist motive,” is going to be used to discredit a White officer. They will scour the entirety of his social media comments, his Facebook page, and they will interview other officers and associates in hopes of finding a ‘white supremacist’ they can parade and shame before the public. There is no forgiveness or rehabilitation for such White officers in today’s racially obsessed society bent on destroying any vestiges of White America.

Never forget that soft-minded jurors are going to watch that body-worn camera footage. These folks are in large part sheep — simpletons who believe all they’re told in the mainstream media and on social media. They know little about the realities of police work. If they are White jurors, chances are they have been badly propagandized by current “diversity” dogma. Why, then, would any officer — especially a White officer — potentially raise the ire of a jury by getting into a pissing match with two Black male juveniles? Why make matters worse by throwing one of them onto the pavement which caused his head to strike a nearby sign? The suspect, after all, didn’t kick the officer, he kicked the patrol car. Big deal.

When I was a cop, I had suspects kick my patrol car on several occasions. They would also intentionally bang their heads against the protective metal grill that separates the front seat from the rear seat of the police car. So what? If they were stupid enough to harm themselves in this way, more power to them. The point is that kicking a patrol car upon being arrested doesn’t justify throwing a handcuffed suspect to the ground. The officer should have restrained him better and made sure to secure him inside the car while causing no physical injuries to the arrestee.

The primary officer involved in this altercation, Tyson Cooper, a nearly seven-year veteran of the Boise Police Department, appears to have gotten off easily in this case. His chief was unwilling to provide to the Idaho Statesman details about corrective disciplinary measures given to the officer, and he remains employed by his department. I doubt this would have been the same outcome if Cooper were employed as an officer in any big city, blue-state police department. He’s lucky that Idaho is a staunchly red state, and even though Boise has a growing politically liberal enclave, there is still a large population that supports its police officers.

You Get What You Give to Others

Prior to my retirement, I was a police officer for many years. For fifteen years of my professional career, I was a Field Training Officer. My specialty was to train new officers fresh from the academy how to do police work the right way. I taught them in practical ways how to handle emergency calls, principles of officer safety, how to conduct a thorough criminal investigation, how to interview suspects, how to get information from witnesses, including the policies of our agency, relevant case law, and how to have a long and productive career in law enforcement.

I taught each of the new officers assigned to me that they were expected to treat everyone with respect and dignity and that, contrary to what some sour or cranky veteran officer might say, it would never benefit them in the long run to talk down to people. Even the criminals in the city I worked for were treated fairly and respectfully because that was the culture of our department, one that I wish more agencies followed as strictly as we did. We all knew that our investigations would be hampered, and we would not get as far if we were demeaning and officious toward those whom we contacted. Arrestees were more inclined to give us confidential information if we treated them with common courtesy and civility.

None of this negated the truth that there are times when an officer must talk directly to people in terms they can understand. There is a time for everything, and police work is not always pretty. But these should be rare occasions, and never the routine way an officer should speak to people. I taught new officers that their approach with people should always be on a calm, low-key level unless circumstances dictate otherwise. I essentially taught them the “Columbo method” of contacting and interviewing people which at its core is unassuming and nonauthoritative. You talk to people as you would have them to talk to you. You still aim to have your questions answered. You’re still doing your investigative job as an officer. You’re just doing it in a subtle and inquisitive manner as opposed to one where you’re acting officious, threatening, or dictatorial. Time after time, this approach proved fruitful in my investigations.

More than that, I taught these same officers the principle that if there are going to be any mistakes, let it be the suspect who makes them. The perceptive officer realizes that he or she has the greater price to pay if they are caught doing something stupid or illegal to a suspect. That price is being sued and losing one’s home, one’s livelihood, or even a prison sentence. In an age where there is a greedy attorney on every street corner, and where Americans are ready to sue others at the drop of a hat, why would any officer negate or downplay such practical realities?

The sensible officer, then, knows he is always being watched. Even when he thinks no one is watching him, there’s always some citizen observing and possibly even recording him—likely a big reason why there is a huge upsurge of crime in big cities, as police are reluctant to do their job. There’s no real or guaranteed privacy when you’re attired in a blue uniform. More reason, then, to conduct oneself in a professional and courteous manner when interacting with anyone, no matter who he or she may be or what you may think of them.

Here’s another thing to consider. Just as a criminal defendant might try to portray himself as innocent to a potentially sympathetic jury, so also the smart officer plays to the jury in portraying himself as innocent too. The difference is that while the criminal defendant does his best to convince the jury after he’s been arrested and while standing trial, the officer does his convincing before and during any arrest.

In other words, his words, respectful demeanor, and professional and policy-abiding conduct at the scene of any arrest or use of force serves as his defense before the jury. What real need is there to persuade a jury that the officer’s actions were justified and without malice when they can watch the body-worn camera footage for themselves and see how the officer conducted himself throughout the entire ordeal?

Granted, there are no guarantees because any body-camera footage must still be filtered through someone’s interpretation of the events. I’m also not denying that the most well-behaved officers may still need to testify before a jury or a judge to explain what they have done and why. My point is simply that the officer is more than likely going to be vindicated in his actions if he behaved in good faith and sought fully to conform to the law and departmental policy.

The smart officer, then, anticipates how a later jury or judge will rule dependent on how he communicates and behaves at the scene.

This must always be in the forethought of an officer when dealing with anyone. This means he doesn’t verbally belittle any suspects he contacts (commonly referred to as “jacking up” someone). He doesn’t intentionally provoke them so that a use-of-force incident ensues. All of this will later be carefully investigated, and if it’s shown that the officer was guilty of goading the suspect to react the way he or she did, the officer will be held accountable (or, at least, should be) which may result in a suspension or even termination.

The same principle applies to an experienced officer during a DUI investigation. He knows that a defense attorney will later try to pick apart everything he did at the scene of his arrest. So, he makes sure to perform a careful and full DUI investigation, followed by a meticulous arrest report in which he anticipates and addresses the kinds of objections that the defendant’s attorney will later raise during trial.

Everything a prudent officer does, then, is a form of risk management in which he forecasts and prepares for any damages or accusations that his conduct might later bring.       

The Value of Body-Worn Cameras

What an officer says and does on his body-worn camera can either destroy or justify an officer’s continuing career in police work. I recall being asked by another officer years ago about the value of body-worn cameras when they first came out. He felt they were an intrusion of the officer’s privacy and would skew the opinions of anyone watching the resulting footage of any incident. I disagreed and told him that body-worn cameras would do no such thing. If an officer routinely spoke down to others or in any way mistreated them, body-worn cameras would surely ruin the careers of such officers and rightly so!

On the other hand, body-worn cameras would also serve to justify an officer’s use of force if he did what was right within the law and departmental policy. Body-worn cameras would also vindicate officers who were wrongly accused by citizens of misconduct or any other inappropriate behavior. I can personally attest that the body-worn cameras I wore saved my bacon on more than a few occasions when I was falsely blamed for things I never said or did. In the absence of video evidence, many juries, propagandized by the Defund-the-Police movement, are likely to assume the worst about the officer and side with the arrestee. Body-worn cameras to my way of thinking, then, became an important and protective tool that was just as integral to my job as my firearm, portable radio, and handcuffs.

Dealing with “Constitutional Audits”

Another thing to address is the popularity of “constitutional audits” seen on social media in which individuals record the activities of officers while in public. Whether the officers are arresting or questioning someone, or just engaged in writing a minor traffic violation, they are routinely video-recorded by “auditors” who claim to be holding them to constitutional accountability for anything they say or do in their official capacity. Some officers are annoyed by it, but most take it in stride. The truly disturbing thing about it is how many officers are easily provoked by the auditors and completely “nut up” while being recorded. How embarrassing to have been filmed getting easily triggered while violating the U.S. Constitution at the same time, and then having it plastered all over social media!

Many of these same auditors, of course, are intentionally trying to antagonize the officers, to get a rise out of them, and possibly a lucrative settlement for false arrest. Some of them have been quite successful at it too! The officers who succumb to having their chains yanked by these folks seem often to have little awareness that American citizens are permitted to film them when they are in public. So long as they do not prevent an officer from performing his or her duties, such public recordings are perfectly legal. What’s worse is how many officers will seemingly create out of thin air a reason to arrest an auditor. I have repeatedly watched on YouTube obscure legal justifications on the part of officers for detaining and arresting an auditor simply because he’s recording them in a public place. Many of these same officers are soon corrected by a supervisor who arrives on scene, and they’re forced to walk away in shame.

What these officers don’t seem to understand is that times have changed. The days when officers were respected by the general public are largely over. The era when people would just do as an officer told them by virtue of his authority has passed. The country has changed, and that for the worse. Their word is no longer trusted. Our judges don’t even trust them. An anti-authority mentality has gripped much of the country. Cops aren’t seen as good guys trying to protect us, but as “racist bullies with a badge” who can’t wait to gun down any Black person they see. A blatantly distorted picture, no doubt, but that’s how many easily manipulated Americans see it.

This negative opinion of police officers is more widely held than people think, though admittedly it’s not as prevalent in majority-White regions of the U.S. Our own federal government and its complicit media have so badly poisoned the mood of the country and its view of cops, that it’s not surprising to find that almost every police department throughout the nation is having great difficulty recruiting candidates and retaining them.

The anti-police mentality that prevails throughout much of the country, then, is really a symptom of the greater breakdown of our society. When traditional norms are constantly under attack, including that of the family, historic American institutions, and all forms of authority, it should surprise no one why there would not also be virulent attacks on cops.

This is not meant to deny that some officers have abused their authority and rightly earned the hate they’ve received. But all things considered, they comprise a small number compared to the overwhelming number of officers who comply with their sworn oath and conduct themselves honorably. For an in-depth and critical look at the widespread lies and outright distortions about police officers, I highly recommend two books authored by Heather Mac Donald: Are Cops Racist? (2010) and The War on Cops (2017). Both works serve as a corrective to the falsehoods promoted by such groups as BLM and other radical anti-police organizations. Mac Donald, unlike the great majority of mainstream conservatives, is not naïve about racial realities and she understands well the anti-White climate that has taken root in our society (see her The Diversity Delusion, 2019). This is from a recent article:

The perpetrators in this wave of predation are overwhelmingly gang members and overwhelmingly black. (At street takeovers, by contrast, it is not unusual to see Mexican flags.) Since Floyd’s death in May 2020, the mainstream media and Democratic elites have relentlessly sent the message that blacks are the victims of endemic racism. President Joe Biden claims that the criminal-justice system treats blacks unfairly. That message inevitably spreads into such underclass enclaves as South Central Los Angeles, where it produces more alienation and contempt for the law.

Yet, who would want to be a cop in an era when they are despised by so many and viewed as “white supremacists” ready and eager to gun down all minorities? White people seeking a career in police work, then, better prepare themselves for how they will be perceived by much of the public, especially so if they choose to work in a community with a large minority demographic.

These same easily triggered officers have forgotten that they are sworn “peace officers.” If that term means anything, it surely implies that those given authority to protect the public ought to have the qualities of a peacemaker, a person who instead of bullying or instigating conflicts is known rather as calming things down as well as respecting the rights of all.

Finally, White officers working in the law enforcement profession in the era of George Floyd need to be especially on guard when dealing with Blacks or any minority group. Your words and actions are going to always be carefully sifted through the lens of race, more so than any Black, Asian or Hispanic officer. You might not think it’s fair to be specifically targeted in this manner, and it isn’t. But that’s the kind of society we have deteriorated into, and it should surprise no one why we and the civilization we built are  in decline as a result.

Conclusion

Strange as it may sound, the White officer must intentionally put on his kid gloves when dealing with Blacks. If you expect to have a long police career, not get successfully sued and lose everything you own, or not find yourself serving a prison sentence in protective custody, you need to be strategically smarter and wiser than the hostile Blacks you encounter on the streets. This doesn’t mean you debase yourself or jettison your dignity, but only that you watch your words, watch your attitude, and conduct yourself in a way that doesn’t provide ammunition to those who would be happy to destroy you and your way of life.

If you’re unable to do this, then I’d recommend you get out of police work altogether. This once-respected profession has fast become one geared for compliant government types who will do nothing to oppose tyranny so long as they are paid handsomely. The assumption that most officers will uphold the Constitution they’ve sworn to protect is naïve at best. If the federal government or their own agency were to require them to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens, I fear most of them would put up little resistance to such an order.

Racially conscious Whites who have eyes to see what is being done to them and their once great nation, might want to think twice before endeavoring in a law enforcement career that assents to all the basic ideas and ‘values’ of a tyrannical system that stands against the racial and cultural interests of Heritage Americans.

The future of American law enforcement