I hear the League of the South has added thousands of new members since the election of the Obamanation.
Will the rise of the Obamanation be good for Nationalist organizations?
We have much debate over the subject of White Response to the elections of Democrats/liberals/Commies/Socialists etc. Some of us at ANU think that itsuch responses have been overwhelmingly favorable. Others believe that Whites/Nationalists/anti-NWO folks have responded poorly during the rise of Carter, Clinton, etc.
I agree with Nelson (Come back Nelson, we miss you!), that the election of G. W. Bush in 2000 was disastrous for Nationalist and Racialist organizations, and pointed out the Council of Conservative citizens as such a group that suffered from this syndrome. So much pent-up hatred of Clinton and his leftwing crowd led many White patriots thinking that they had a good thing with Bush and the Repubs coming to power.
Not so much I agree with others in our group that Whites/(real) conservatives/Nationalists/Racialists responded poorly to the 1992 onslaught of Clinton. I observed just the opposite -- a veritable EXPLOSION of Whites streaming into the ranks of very many conservative, neo-Confederate, and patriotic organizations. Unfortunately the effect didn't benefit ALL such groups, as some Naitonalist andharder-than-Nationalist organizationsdid not experience membership gains.
This I have observed with my own eyes: Ordinary middle-class Whites who were following the typical Republican-means-Good-for-White big media pitch are genuinely HORRIFIED with the result. They are in a foul state of mind with Obama and Hillary on tap to crucify the country.
There's no doubt in my military mind that millions of basic middle-class Whites are up for grabs, right now. Their sacred GOP was soundly crushed. Bush, Inc. is NOT their favorite corporation anymore.
So we who participate in ANU, and throughout Nationalist-space in America, should not throw in the towel just yet ... I diagnose 2009 and beyond as fertile ground to convert disappointed White conservatives. Give us a DOW at 4500 and a bunch more layoffs, and even more gradient towards the anti-NeoCon loose coalition will form. I foresee being able to actually hand copies of The Nationalist Times to folks who wouldn't even talk to me three years agoEdited by: realgeorge
Excellent analysis, realgeorge. Thank you!
Great post realgeorge! [img]smileys/smiley32.gif[/img]
An article entitled "The California Crisis: Divide And Prosper?"
In fact, the idea of dividing California has been proposed more than two dozen times during the state's history. A serious attempt was made in 1859 with a bill by Assembly Member Andres Pico to divide the state along the Tehachapi Mountains at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. Today, localizing many of the Hispanics into the southern zone beyond the Tehachapi Mountains could make sense; call the place Mexifornia and write it off as a failed social experiment.
The Three Californias blog has helpful background information about the issue of divvying up the state. The author presents a division of three in which he has attempted to combine natural political and environmental demarcations, in a way that is sensible and agreeable.