Rally For Morality in Harrison June 2nd

On Saturday, June 2nd, at 11 AM, there will be a Rally For Morality in opposition to a drag queen show recruiting small children and a Gay Pride parade and Diversity Festival at the courthouse square in Harrison, Arkansas. Patriots from several different organizations will stand together to support traditional values and uphold our families against this onslaught. Bring your pro-heterosexuality signs and let your voice be heard!

Listen, over the next month there will be events in Harrison, AR., Little Rock, AR., Dickson, TN, Sevierville, TN. , and in the Ozarks. Point blank, I am asking for your involvement and commitment to the cause. Come out and stand with us if you can! I’ll be happy to give you the details on each of these opportunities if you’re interested in more information. If you cannot personally attend any of the several upcoming public rallies over the next few weeks, your partnership with our travel fund to help us get our people there is greatly appreciated. Paypal donations to roper_billy@yahoo.com or through concealed cash, check or money order made out to Billy Roper to PO Box 1937 Mountain View AR 72560. Either way, we appreciate your working with us. As you know, the ShieldWall Network doesn’t charge dues: we don’t even charge Phalanx members for patches or our affiliates for SWN business cards to use for recruiting purposes, so all of our organizational income is solely from voluntary donations. Thank you all for everything you do as my friends for our people’s future. This is going to be a VERY active summer as things heat up and accelerationism kicks in!

Advertisements

After Roper Endorsement, Morgan Wins Over 30%!

Despite a primary election eve endorsement of multimillionaire incumbent establishment supported Governor Asa Hutchinson, the corrupt RINO liberal whose NeverTrumper opposition to conservatism made the President’s statement of support a stab in the back to Jan Morgan, who was a staunch supporter and the Chairperson of Citizens For Trump, it was still a very close race, indeed, in Arkansas. Traditionally, any primary campaign against an incumbent officeholder barely counts as a protest from the party’s fringe, or in this case, from its populist base. However, Hutchinson’s widely known left-wing policies and views almost overcame the support he enjoyed from Wal-Mart Inc., the world’s largest retailer, and Tyson Foods, the world’s largest meat processor, both of which are headquartered in Arkansas and heavy backers of the Governor. The state’s big controlled media outlets, including the NBC and Fox TV outlets whose News Director takes his orders from leftist Arkansas Times editor Max Brantley, and the state’s biggest newspaper, the Democrat Gazette, shepherded by Jewish editor Paul Greenberg, all supported Hutchinson, as well.

It is estimated that through his endorsement of Hutchinson, Trump lost up to 5 points in expected Republican voter turnout on his behalf in Arkansas in 2020. The incumbent Governor, who refused to debate Morgan during the campaign, was given 4 million dollars to propagandize with by his corporate and liberal supporters, while the challenger raised about $144,000, largely through small donations from private citizens.

Jan Morgan, the conservative challenger, did best in rural areas of the state and in those northern and western counties with overwhelmingly White populations, as was expected, but she also carried Yell county, one of the regions most deeply affected by illegal immigration of Mestizos sponsored by the poultry industry. Another example of her support lay in Newton County, which is the Whitest county in Arkansas at over 99% White, and which she also won. Voters in those areas responded most favorably to Morgan’s hard line anti-immigration positions, which stood in contrast to Hutchinson’s support for sanctuary city programs and lax immigration enforcement. Her strong second amendment stance, c ompared to the Governor, also resonated with voters in the Ozarks and Ouachita Mountain regions. Hutchinson met with the anti-gun ‘Moms Demand Action’ lobbying group at the capitol, posing for a group picture with the hoplophobic activists. Liberals in the Republican Party painted Morgan as a xenophobe and bigot because she declared her indoor gun range and shop as a “Muslim Free Zone”, refusing to sell them firearms or ammunition.

A week prior to the election a former state legislator turned anti-White NeverTrumper, partnered with an effeminate past “aide” of Hutchinson’s, attacked former state gubernatorial candidate Billy Roper’s endorsement of Jan Morgan. Although they and other liberal activists in the establishment state media and political machine called on Morgan to disavow Roper’s endorsement, she never caved in to the pressure to turn her back on the White voters of Arkansas. In fact, silly monkey and washed up former  TV talk show hostess Montel Williams publicly weighed in on the drama despite having no business being involved in the state’s politics, claiming that Morgan would not disavow Roper’s endorsement because she needed the “racist” votes which his support would potentially bring to her. Whether or not Williams was correct that Roper’s endorsement brought a large number of votes Morgan’s way is difficult to measure based on currently available exit polling data, but he may have been correct. Arkansas, as the rest of the country, is polarizing and dividing more and more every day, with an increasing number of White citizens no longer being intimidated into silence by the “racist” label used as a weapon by the left to keep them from acting in their own interests.

Despite the outcome, Morgan stated that her campaign had “laid the foundation for grassroots political movements in Arkansas” to oppose the establishment. As for Trump’s endorsement of Hutchinson, Billy Roper personally visited multiple polling places around the state on election day, speaking to a number of precinct workers who bitterly confided to him without hesitation that the President’s betrayal had “just about” proven to them that he is as corrupt as any other politician, and that the whole electoral system is a rigged and fixed game from start to finish. According to the mood of voters he interviewed, many Jan Morgan supporters chose to stay home rather than cast their ballots once they heard of Trump’s endorsement of Asa, in disgust. In fact, there was only an 18% voter turnout. They likely will do the same, come November in the general election.

That’s how Civic Nationalism dies, and Identity Politics fills the vacuum. That’s how we go Balk Right.

On Social Engagement

by Tharru

From The Purity Spiral

I’ve found one of the rather distressing realities about a desire to return to a more traditional life is that traditional life, in the past, often meant engaging in the public sphere with your neighbors and members of your community. However, no new commentary exists which may be offered as a solution to our modern problems. Much of what would be said has been said already by greater men than any modernity has produced thus far in a dissident capacity. To further compound this problem, very little remains of what was, and is, traditionally understood as “community.” Even if one were to desire participation in modern social communities, it is likely very few among these shallow representatives of culture and community would desire to engage with you.

So much of modern life now exists for the sake of convenience, sloth, and stupefying entertainment. Hard questions, and indeed hard tasks, are shunned increasingly by each successive generation since the Western generation which came after the end of WWII, or what can more accurately be described as the second European civil war. A very small minority among my generation balks this trend but, by and large, there is no talking to modernity about its problems. “What’s that new app?” “When does the ‘new’ iPhone come out?” or “Who’s in that new show?” are the interesting and important questions of my generation, questions which society says we ought to be concerned with. Even when members of this dead society turn their heads towards politics it is often only because they have been told, or have sensed, someone or something is threatening their convenience, contentment, or comfort. Modernity is thoroughly utilitarian and has convinced itself any suffering, struggle, or personal strife is an indicator of some deep perversity with society which must be corrected, regardless of its causes.

Our society no longer cares for things which grow anymore. Rather, we are a society which places the utmost importance on created things – things which have no intrinsic connection to the earth other than their existence as extracted resources to be molded and manipulated. In some sense, our creations are a reflection of ourselves, for we mold and manipulate just as we’ve been molded and manipulated. These European descendants no longer care for European things – ideas such as truth, honor, duty, obligation, morally righteous actions and thoughts, community, race, and nation. We have been turned into a rootless peoples who, in the absence of true roots, turn to worship of racial others in sports, fashion, global technology brands, and corporatized food chains. We are now increasingly enslaved to massive, hostile data-mining companies which have supplanted actual public squares with digital ones. These companies have created perverse fictional characterizations of actual human interaction which displays a solipsistic and cherry-picked ‘happy’ existence of each individual member, further warping our perceived reality. We are all but minds in a vat, with our reality increasingly existing as a fantastical smorgasbord of what we desire while viciously rejecting and attacking anything which interrupts the craving for the dopamine rush created by these platforms.

We do not walk anywhere, we drive. We do not talk or write letters anymore, we text or email. Our existence increasingly exists as one in which our reality is presented to us through neon screens. We go camping to “get back to reality” but bring our anti-reality and anti-culture devices with us, creating the anti-nature we’re trying to escape in the first place. Our technology has rendered much of our evolved body useless or increasingly less useful. Of course, this is not a new critique – indeed, it’s one of the oldest. In the epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh begins as a man coexisting with nature alongside the animals and plants. It is only after Shamat, the owner and purveyor of Uruk’s brothel, lures Gilgamesh toward civilization that Gilgamesh’s ties to his original natural habitat are cut. When Gilgamesh returns to his old dwelling place he finds the forest and plains animals no longer enjoy his company but instead flee at the sight of him.

A curious side-effect of this rapid decay and degeneration is that, though modernity increasingly rejects nature, nature still manifests in producing technical and mechanical geniuses who flourish in this technical modern dystopia and have become the new aristocracy. But they are an aristocracy in name and wealth only. No sense of virtue, noblesse oblige, or honor is taught to them, and they exist only as agents of the new modern order working to further entrench its power and death grip on all who fall under its watchful eye. They exist to worship their god of technology and science only, and their virtues are whichever virtues best increase its dominion over all.

These virtues in modern times have been labeled “Democracy” but the democracy claimed to exist, the democracy propagandized to children and adults is an illusion. It is an illusion given to the people to blind them to the chains modernity and its zealous believers have slipped over their necks. It is destructive, chaotic, and ultimately accountable to no one. Political elections are now a circus show which creates outrage that is used to stir the people into parroting slogans of the new moral order, further inculcating the dependency of the people on the new moral order. Politicians, not unlike much of what remains today of the old order, are simply shallow representations of their former offices and exist simply to maintain the veneer among the people that nothing has really changed when, in reality, everything has changed. Everything exists in this modern world to prop up illusions about community and culture so that White people do not open their eyes and realize they’ve been tricked into enslaving their minds and dooming their children.

The modern “aristocracy” lives by a special code of equity, equality, non-confrontationalism, and a rejection of natural truth and natural law. Of course, in areas the truths of nature cannot be ignored, such as biology and chemistry, a dissonance is induced and new slogans, followed blindly by the common people, are formed. Biologists who recognize biological truths are “biological essentialists”. They have been labeled, belong to a group, and can be harangued by other (artificially created) groups to set an example that no dissent will be tolerated. At the same time, the new moral order incorporates, in a perverted manner, the findings of the essentialists into its larger church of technology and science.

Nonetheless, deviation from the moral code of the new moral order is met with the utmost social, economic, and political hostility. This upside down world view renders all followers of the moral code, both willing and coerced, volatile and chaotic underneath a surface veneer of gilded tranquility and a feigning and false openness. Many turn to drugs, alcohol, or degenerate promiscuity to fill the deep, unsatisfied hole which now exists in place of what used to be robust spiritual virtue. In place of virtue it is filled with hedonistic, ephemeral, material pleasures. Fantasy, myth, and belief have been supplanted with hollow forms and artificial modern concoctions of hedonism and perversity. Art, education, technology, film, and music – in their modern forms – reinforce this chaotic modern moral order. On their surface they would appear synchronous, in the Jungian sense, but beneath the surface they are tightly intertwined so as to create an ironclad absolutism of moral authority and moral truth. Where once our European myths were concerned with the virtuous self-conquering of our own desires and licentious hungers, the new moral order promotes myths of metal, mechanics, and material: Our myths have been turned against us.

Built into this new moral order is a concomitant hostility to anything which threatens the moral order in word or deed. Even if this word or deed manifests as a passive and non-interacting community living on the outskirts of modernity both geographically and metaphysically, it is still viewed as a threat by this corrupt order. No alternative to the new moral order is allowed to exist freely, for it knows no bounds and will never tolerate alternatives- it must be destroyed, utterly and completely.

Balkanization & Back To Blood

By ROD DREHER

The American Conservative

Politico has a fascinating story from Minnesota, about the fight splitting up the foundation started by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone’s family and supporters.  A majority of the board of Wellstone Action, which trains progressive activists, kicked the senator’s sons off the board. Why? They cared too much about rural poor white people. Excerpt:

Founded after Wellstone’s death in a plane crash in 2002, Wellstone Action has trained thousands of progressive candidates, campaign operatives and community organizers throughout the country, with alumni serving in local and state offices and in the U.S. House. In 2016, the last year for which tax filings were available, the group reported providing training to 2,135 data and digital strategists, 723 nonprofit leaders and community organizers, and 854 aspiring political leaders.

David Wellstone and other Democrats close to his father began objecting last year to what he described as Wellstone Action’s abandonment of disaffected Democrats in the rural Midwest — the rural poor were an early focus of the late senator — with an increasingly narrow focus on gender politics and people of color.

“I said, ‘After Trump, we’ve got to figure out how we are going to go back after those Democrats that we lost,” David Wellstone said. “We can do all the stuff we do. We do great stuff on communities of color, we’re doing great stuff on gender identity politics. But we need to do some of these other trainings. … Nobody wanted to have a discussion about that.”

Read the whole thing. 

Serious question: how many people think that having a truly liberal, non-identity politics is possible anymore? On this day in which Tom Wolfe’s death was announced, I’m reminded of this passage from his final novel, Back To Blood. The speaker is a character named Edward Topping IV, a white American who, in Wolfe’s fiction, is editor of the Miami Herald:

“Everybody… all of them… it’s back to blood! Religion is dying… but everybody still has to believe in something… So, my people, that leaves only our blood, the bloodlines that course through our very bodies, to unite us. ‘La Raza!’ as the Puerto Ricans cry out. ‘The Race!’ cries the whole world. All people, all people everywhere, have but one last thing on their minds – back to blood!”

The novel (which is not very good, or at least not the part I read until I gave up from boredom) is about ethnic cultural conflict in contemporary Miami. Tom Wolfe built his entire career as an observer of status in American life. I wonder what he thought of what was going on in Trump’s America, and how we were dividing over race and other identity markers. Look at this headline from an essay in The Forwardtoday: “Intersectionality Has Abandoned Jews. Should We Abandon Intersectionality?” If the emerging left-wing politics has no role for poor, rural, and working-class white people, and a diminished role for Jews, will they turn to the Right? What about white gays, as the gay rights issue fades among Republicans (the GOP leadership already doesn’t care about it, and it’s going to become a non-issue as older Republicans die off).

If thinking about American politics this way makes you uncomfortable, well, I think it should. But progressives — the kind of progressives who kicked Paul Wellstone’s sons off the Wellstone Action board for caring more about economics than identity politics — are driving this train. David French writes:

Linker’s essay reminds me of a recent Remnant podcast with Jonah Goldberg and Michael Brendan Dougherty. I’m paraphrasing, but Michael made the point that the Left is simultaneously crowing about the decline of the white voter while scolding any white voter who racializes their politics. A message that essentially declares, “Ha! White people your time is over!” and “It’s racist for you to care” is unsustainable outside progressive academies or corporations. [Emphasis mine — RD]

The answer isn’t for politics to strive to ignore race. To ignore the role of race and racism in American history (or the American present) is to ignore reality. But I can think of few developments more destructive than doubling-down on racial identity as the defining strategy for coalition-building. Given the fact that American demographics are hardly changing at the same rate in every community, this is a recipe for Balkanization and division far more than it’s a recipe for Democratic dominance.

Another serious question: what are the meaningful forces in American culture that push back against racial balkanization and other forms of identity-politics balkanization? Can they be strengthened?

A final question: It is a Noble Lie that America only started practicing identity politics recently. Our politics have always had a strong racial and ethnic element. Sometimes they were nakedly present (e.g., Southern segregationist Democrats’ appeals), but more often they were submerged in the peaked waves of meringued rhetoric like Woodrow Wilson’s speeches about how ethnicity doesn’t matter in America. Is it better to be honest, or will we miss the Noble Lie when it is gone?

UPDATE: A view from across the Pacific, from reader Seoulite:

To frame this in terms of race, with a view from an outsider:

The US originally was a white empire with black slaves which became a white dominated multi-ethnic empire. Until now this has been relatively stable because: 1) there was one undisputed majority group, and 2) economic and political ascendancy allows people to look past a lot of grievances. Like an indebted gambler who’s still on a winning streak, those niggling problems seem like far away things to be tackled some other day.

Now that whites are no longer the undisputed dominant group (at least in the mind of the people, not yet in reality), the empire is starting to fracture as do all multi-ethnic empires. Think of what is holding China together: 1) economic prosperity, 2) the relentless dominance of the Han Chinese. If the economy was seriously faltering or Beijing started giving an equal voice to any and all identity groups, how long do you think the country would hold together?

So in answer to your questions Rod:

1) non-identity politics is no longer possible because there is now a feedback loop. Identity politics grants one power, which means more people in power are identity politicians, which strengthens identity politics, and so on. Heck, many groups aren’t even really in the game yet. Whites haven’t yet taken the field in earnest under this new paradigm. Nor have East Asians, or those from the Subcontinent. Let alone black Africans. It could also be argued that hispanic identity politics is still nascent, as the conversation in America is still dominated by black-white history. This identity politics thing has barely even begun.

2) The meaningful forces that could have held the US together were civic nationalism and Christianity.

We have already begun to see some groups reject civic nationalism outright (#NotMyPresident, #TakeAKnee, pulling down statues, renaming buildings, Founding Fathers were racist, etc). It clearly does not have the power to unite people anymore. Or those who previously rejected it no longer feel the need to keep quiet.

The Church, as you’ve said many times, is weakening. The only religion that could hold the US together would be a muscular (Islam-style) Christianity that strongly rejected racial identity while enforcing Christian identitarianism. This of course would be rejected out of hand by atheists, liberal Christians, and any others who believe that multi-faith, multi-ethnic empires are sustainable. It is far too late for any of that.

As I’ve written above, this has barely begun. The legacy of slavery narrative is still so loud that other conflicts are being drowned out, but as time goes by this black vs white history of America will be replaced by a multitude of voices. I’m thinking of the political battles between Asians and Hispanics in California. Or Hispanics and Blacks in California. Or Muslims and whites in Michigan. The list goes on and on.

The story of the American Dream requires prosperity and American exceptionalism to unite people. If the USA is no longer #1, what is this American Dream and why would an immigrant from North Africa care who died in the civil war and what they blasphemed about one nation under a false god?

The White Minority Illusion

Not to encourage CivNats, because the increase in identity politics, especially accompanying the ongoing voluntary internal migrations resulting in racial segregation by region within the United States, makes national unity under ANY of the contending forces less likely than ever, but what liberals fear is that their necessary pandering to identity politics for nonWhites will create a backlash among Whites and a growing sense of corresponding political racial identity. Combined with growing regional racial segregation through voluntary migrations, that will equal balkanization. This portends a white pill for the Balk Right. 

by Damon Linker

The Week

If there’s one thing that’s sustained liberals through the trials of the 2016 election and its aftermath, it’s faith that demography will come to their rescue to ensure that they eventually prevail against the right-wing, racist populism of the Trump-era Republican Party.

That assumption, which originated with the “emerging Democratic majority” thesis of the early 2000s, has animated a thousand tweets and undergirded an untold number of think pieces over the past year and a half. The most recent is Ezra Klein’s erudite reckoning with just how much President Trump’s toxic racism and xenophobia diverges from the American norm. Klein’s conclusion from a perusal of American history is: not much. The United States has never been especially liberal or democratic for non-whites, and Trump represents the last gasp of those in American life who would like to keep it that way.

It’s likely to be their last gasp because, as Klein writes, “if current demographic projections hold, we will be a majority-minority nation in less than 30 years.” Once that happens, the country’s formerly white majority will have no choice but to reconcile itself to a changed demographic reality. And that will hopefully allow historians of the future to look back at our moment to conclude that what seemed like a potentially dire threat to liberal democracy in America during the Trump administration was merely “the turbulence that has always accompanied racial progress in this country.”

It sounds reassuring. But is it true?

Don’t bet on it.

Yes, the U.S. is on track to become at some point around 2045 a “minority white” nation — in the sense that if we lump every person who isn’t white into a single demographic category of “non-white,” whites will be outnumbered. The problem is that no such politically homogeneous category of citizen exists in the real world. It’s the creation of demographers and liberal data journalists eager to mollify their anxieties.

Such people convince themselves of its reality by making a habit of talking about how “people of color” are uniformly oppressed by hegemonic “whiteness” in the United States. But the truth is that people of Hispanic, African, West Indian, East Asian, South Asian, and Arab descent don’t perceive themselves as (or vote as if they are) members of a unified bloc. They are discrete groups. Most of them do lean Democratic, but not uniformly, and they do so for disparate reasons rooted in the cultures they brought with them to this country and in their distinct histories since arriving. (That’s true of white voters, too, of course.)

Now, as critics have pointed out, it’s most likely misleading even to suggest that these ethnic categories will remain stable over the coming decades, given rising rates of intermarriage among the members of each group. But even if we assumefor the sake of analysis that the categories remain intact, it’s important to recognize that “white” is going to remain the plurality group for a very long time to come. In 2045, when the shift to “minority white” country is supposed to happen, whites will be 49.8 percent of the population, with Hispanics, at 24.6 percent, the next largest group at roughly half the size.

That’s not the portrait of a country in which demographics are going to deliver liberals an automatic and permanent victory. It’s the portrait of a country in which politics will continue as it always has, with different parties and politicians jostling for the support of a range of different groups.

Unless, that is, liberals can convince the non-white members of their current electoral coalition to begin thinking of themselves, first and foremost, as “people of color” united by their antipathy to, and in their oppression by, white America. If racism is defined, in part, by the tendency of whites to view everyone but themselves as “not white,” then this would be a form of counter-racism in which non-whites positively affirm as a politically potent identity what was once treated as a form of stigma.

The doubling down on identity politics among liberals since Donald Trump’s election follows from something like this ambition to unify non-whites against the Republican Party and in favor of the Democrats. (At the same time, the left’s growing emphasis on intersectionality, which sows division instead of unity by highlighting the distinctive, irreducible grievances suffered by the members of ever-narrower demographic sub-categories, adds a heavy dose of self-contradiction to the project.)

It would appear that the “emerging Democratic majority” requires anti-white identity politics as its midwife.

That would be inadvisable in civic terms even if demographic trends over the next half century favored non-whites more convincingly than they do. As it is, liberals risk actively antagonizing (and hence galvanizing against them) what will remain for some significant time to come the single-largest demographic group in the United States.

There may be more foolish electoral strategies out there, but I’m hard-pressed to think of one.

Andrew Dodson, R.I.P.

(pictured: Jacob Rosenberg, the Jew who doxxed Andrew Dodson)

by Billy Roper

Sadly, the young man with whom I was misidentified last year has passed away, a victim of anti-White harassment and relentless stalking. The torment began for Andrew Dodson shortly after the August 12th, 2017 ‘Unite The Right’ rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. He was first thought to have been a University of Arkansas professor bearing a similar facial likeness because Andrew had worn a red UA  ‘Arkansas Engineering’ t-shirt to the tiki-torch lit rally the night before. Then, because he was an exceptionally handsome man with a strong resemblance to me, I was named as the person in the picture. In order to draw the focus of our enemies away from the person whom they were attempting to doxx, I played with them, alternately denying then confirming that it was me, even though the person photographed has no tattoos and I am fully sleeved, and for months ahead of the event I had been publicly and vocally opposed to the Charlottesville rally.

Hundreds of anti-White activists began reporting all of my social media outlets, trying to have me censored and silenced. One washed up and compromised former reporter began calling people in my community and our town’s government to try to create drama for myself and my family. To some extent, they were successful, but it was worth it, I felt, to shield the (at that time) unknown activist. It did buy him some time. The enemies of White people continued digging, though.

Jacob Rosenberg, the Jew who doxxed Andrew M. Dodson, is typical of his kind. Rosenberg then worked for the Arkansas Times fish wrap, headed up by morbidly obese, uneducated leftist Max Brantley. Fans can e-mail Jacob here: JacobRosenberg12094@gmail.com. Here is his bio. You can follow him on Twitter @jrrosenb . He lives in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Here is his Linked In profile.  

Jacob Roland Rosenberg is listed at 703 N Columbia St #a Chapel Hill, NC and is affiliated with the Democratic Party.

We honor Andrew Dodson for taking his stand, and we mourn that he has fallen. There will be a collective reckoning, and his life will not have been in vain. Rest In Peace, brother.

Montel Williams says Billy Roper’s endorsement can deliver enough “racist” votes for Jan Morgan to win AR. Governor’s race.

After former Arkansas gubernatorial candidate Billy Roper, the coordinator of The ShieldWall Network and an author who coined the phrase ‘Balk Right’ to describe the political philosophy of those who share his view of the coming breakup of the United States into racial ethnostates, publicly endorsed Jan Morgan for governor in the Arkansas Republican primary election against RINO cuck Asa Hutchinson last weekend, liberals lost their minds.

Hutchinson’s former stepandfetchit Trent Minner took the time to help advertise the ShieldWall Network website, as did Nate Bell. It’s nice to know they read our articles, and now many more Arkansans will, as well. Bell, famous for misquoting Hitler and promoting Holocaust museums, is so liberal that he abandoned the Republican party in 2015, when he joined with black activists to attempt to promote the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday at the expense of the Robert E. Lee birthday. That stance was so unpopular that Bell did not run for reelection.

Most telling, however, was a tweet from obsolete farm machinery and washed up former tv personality Montel Williams, who stated that an endorsement by Roper could deliver enough pro-White votes for Morgan to defeat Hutchinson, largely seen as the establishment candidate, on May 22nd.

While Williams may have overestimated how many White Arkansas voters are willing to stand up against the giant corporate interests of Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods at this point, the fact is that the tide is turning against leftists of both political parties. Most Whites, though, understand already that they will not be allowed to vote their way back into control of their destiny as a people. More and  more of them are becoming disenchanted with Civic Nationalism and joining the Balk Right. Whether they disavow our support or not, and whether they win or not, doesn’t matter. Protest campaigns against establishment candidates, especially when they help garner attention for more forthrightly pro-White projects such as the ShieldWall Network, help polarize, divide, and shift the Hegelian dialectic rightwards towards our ultimate awakening and victory. Go Jan Morgan, kick Asa!

Future Political Systems: Hail Caesar!

by Billy Roper

After the ShieldWall Network’s long-term goal of aiding the rise of White ethnostates to fill the coming vacuum of power following the inevitable balkanization of America, the Balk Right will have to develop a political system of governance. Not to put the proverbial cart before the horse, but it’s never too early to begin discussing some alternatives. After all, different regional ethnostates may find that dissimilar systems better fit their local culture and historical traditions than others.

Most people who are dedicated to securing the existence of our people and a future for White children come into the movement either through libertarianism or Civic Nationalism, and graduate into White Nationalism. As they further harden and radicalize, many mature into National Socialism. The matriculation process takes longer for some than others. Some, indeed, envision further evolutionary progress into traditional and organic natural political structures, such as feudalism and monarchism, eventually eclipsing National Socialism. After all, how far a leap is it from a fascist dictatorship to having an ethnostate ruled by a king? Indeed, such would be a guarantee that the racial nation didn’t devolve into Strasserian egalitarianism, ultimately  abandoning its very core ideals of eugenics, discipline, and the greater good outweighing individual “liberties” and a mythical and ill-advised equality of outcome for everyone White. The Roman Republic blossomed into Empire, not the reverse, after all.

In Plato’s ‘Republic’, arguably the most astute political philosopher of Western Civilization argued that a good monarchy is the best of all governmental systems, and the a bad monarchy is the worst. Then again, he had never met Karl Marx, who would contend the same about Communism. Obviously, the ShieldWall Network tends to side with Plato rather than Marx. While the question of insuring character and integrity in a monarch is a thorny issue addressed unsuccessfully in the Bible, the Magna Carta, and finally in the Declaration of Independence, it’s one that we may have to deal with again in years to come, as post-balk warlords consolidate territory and resources.

Until then, here is a cogent discussion of some alterations and alternatives to traditional feudalism. 

Billy Roper finally makes GQ

Not for his style, fashion sense, or ruggedly handsome masculine good looks, but because of his knife-edge political and racial views, ShieldWall Network coordinator Billy Roper has finally made GQ. 

“In a wrenching new NBC Left documentary, Path to Radicalization: A Mother Turns to Hate, Billy Roper, who identifies as a non-white extinctionist, spoke to the newfound boldness of extremists under Trump. “Two years ago, when I would go to a white nationalist meeting, I would be the youngest in the room—now it’s just the opposite,” said Roper. “It’s not a fringe movement anymore.”

What the United States Can Learn from Yugoslavia’s Breakup

By Thomas O’Malley

from: American Thinker

Yugoslavia was held together by the unifying figure of Josip Broz Tito.  He was an ethnic Croat, not the largest ethnic group in the country, but he was still respected by the various peoples of Yugoslavia for his role in liberating Yugoslavia from German and Italian occupation.  While Yugoslavia was communist, Tito remained independent of Joseph Stalin and led Yugoslavia his own way.  Tito was first allied with Stalin but broke with him in 1948.  Yugoslavia was an important figure in the non-aligned movement during the Cold War.  Tito promoted “Brotherhood and Unity” and suppressed nationalism, sometimes by force.

Tito died in 1980.  In the 1980s, the country’s economy declined, and nationalism began to rise.  The country broke up in 1991 during the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.  The country had been divided into six republics and two autonomous provinces.  The republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia all seceded, leaving Serbia and Montenegro as the remnants of Yugoslavia.

Serbia was led by Slobodan Milošević.  Milošević wanted to create a Greater Serbia, where ethnic Serbs living outside Serbia would be incorporated into their country.  Specifically, he wanted the regions of Bosnia and Croatia that were majority Serbian.  Serbs in Croatia didn’t want to live under Croat rule, because during World War II, the Croats allied with the Nazis and fascists and committed many atrocities against the Serbs.  They tried to secede from Croatia.  Croatia objected to this, to which Milošević responded that if Croatia could secede from Yugoslavia, then Serbs living in Croatia could also secede.

Serbs in Bosnia also tried to secede and conquered much of the country.  The Muslims and Croats in Bosnia united to fight the Serbs.  After NATO bombed Serbian-controlled areas in Bosnia, they agreed to negotiate.  The Dayton Agreement was signed in 1995, which led to the end of the war.  Bosnia became a union of two entities, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  A few years later, fighting broke out in Kosovo.  Kosovo was majority ethnic Albanian, but Serbia still claimed the province, because it was part of the Kingdom of Serbia and the province of Serbia in Yugoslavia, and it had much historical significance.  It was the site of the defeat of Serbia by the Ottoman Empire in 1389.  NATO bombed Serbia, which led to the country withdrawing troops from Kosovo.  Gradually, peace returned to the region.  Montenegro became independent from Serbia in 2006, and Kosovo declared independence in 2008, although Serbia, Russia, and many other countries don’t recognize it.

The trend since 1914 has been countries breaking up, not uniting.  Austria-Hungary broke up after World War I, its territory becoming part of seven countries, some of which were new.  After the fall of communism, Yugoslavia broke up, as was detailed previously.  So did Czechoslovakia, which peacefully broke up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.  So did the Soviet Union itself, which in 1991 broke up into 15 different countries based on the old Soviet socialist republics.  This caused ethnic problems, because there were large minorities of Russians in the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.  These problems flared up in 2014, with the unrest in Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Ethnic conflict in multiethnic countries is not limited to Europe.  Most modern African countries were created by European colonial powers and have no ethnic majority.  This has led to ethnic warfare, one example being the Nigerian Civil War of 1967 to 1970, where the Igbo people tried to secede as the nation of Biafra but were defeated.  Most modern Middle Eastern countries were also artificially created by European powers after World War I.  This has led to violence in Iraq among Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds.  This has also led to ethnic and religious tensions in other countries such as Syria and Lebanon.

It certainly seems that diverse countries tend to be unstable.  That being said, what lies ahead for the most diverse country in the world, the United States?

It is highly likely that the United States will break up sometime in the near future.  Since the 1960s, the United States has become more racially heterogeneous and more politically polarized.  The right and left have grown increasingly farther apart and see each other not as fellow Americans, but enemies.  This polarization has accelerated since the presidential election of Donald Trump in 2016.  Americans used to mostly have the same religion, Christianity, and now they don’t.  Many are irreligious or are members of other religions.  The immigration of large numbers of people from Latin America and Asia since the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 has transformed the United States.  As a result of this mass immigration, white people are projected to become a minority in the United States in 2042.  No other country has undergone such a rapid demographic transformation in such a short period of time.

Many racial nationalists want a piece of the United States for themselves.  Some Mexican nationalists want the Southwest to become a part of Mexico again or to become an independent country called Aztlán.  Some black nationalists want the Deep South to become an independent all-black country, believing that black Americans have a different identity from other Americans because they were enslaved and therefore deserve their own country.  Some white nationalists, especially in the Alt-Right movement, want one part of the United States to become an “ethnostate” where only white people live, the most common proposal being the Pacific Northwest.

Some might argue that the number of people in the United States who want to see the country break up are small in number, and therefore it is unlikely to happen.  This is true, but the number of things that unite us as a country are becoming fewer, and the number of things that divide us as a country are growing.  This trend shows no signs of stopping or slowing down.

A country without a common sense of nationhood won’t last.  If the United States were racially diverse but politically united, it could survive.  If the United States were politically divided but racially homogeneous, it could survive.  But if the United States is both racially diverse and politically divided, it will not survive.

If this country does break apart, will it happen peacefully as in Czechoslovakia, or violently as in Yugoslavia?  Time will tell, but if our Civil War is any indication, unfortunately, it will likely be more like Yugoslavia.  Let us hope this is not the case.

The story of Yugoslavia is a cautionary tale and a warning for those who underestimate the strength of nationalism.

Yugoslavia was an artificial country, created after World War I from Serbia, Montenegro, and much of Austria-Hungary.  It was a monarchy run by the same royal family that ruled Serbia before the war.  It was occupied by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy during World War II.  Yugoslavia was liberated not by the Soviet Union, but by its own partisan forces.  Therefore, there were no Red Army troops in Yugoslavia to force the country to become a satellite state of the Soviet Union like the other countries of Eastern Europe.

Yugoslavia was held together by the unifying figure of Josip Broz Tito.  He was an ethnic Croat, not the largest ethnic group in the country, but he was still respected by the various peoples of Yugoslavia for his role in liberating Yugoslavia from German and Italian occupation.  While Yugoslavia was communist, Tito remained independent of Joseph Stalin and led Yugoslavia his own way.  Tito was first allied with Stalin but broke with him in 1948.  Yugoslavia was an important figure in the non-aligned movement during the Cold War.  Tito promoted “Brotherhood and Unity” and suppressed nationalism, sometimes by force.

Tito died in 1980.  In the 1980s, the country’s economy declined, and nationalism began to rise.  The country broke up in 1991 during the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.  The country had been divided into six republics and two autonomous provinces.  The republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia all seceded, leaving Serbia and Montenegro as the remnants of Yugoslavia.

Serbia was led by Slobodan Milošević.  Milošević wanted to create a Greater Serbia, where ethnic Serbs living outside Serbia would be incorporated into their country.  Specifically, he wanted the regions of Bosnia and Croatia that were majority Serbian.  Serbs in Croatia didn’t want to live under Croat rule, because during World War II, the Croats allied with the Nazis and fascists and committed many atrocities against the Serbs.  They tried to secede from Croatia.  Croatia objected to this, to which Milošević responded that if Croatia could secede from Yugoslavia, then Serbs living in Croatia could also secede.

Serbs in Bosnia also tried to secede and conquered much of the country.  The Muslims and Croats in Bosnia united to fight the Serbs.  After NATO bombed Serbian-controlled areas in Bosnia, they agreed to negotiate.  The Dayton Agreement was signed in 1995, which led to the end of the war.  Bosnia became a union of two entities, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  A few years later, fighting broke out in Kosovo.  Kosovo was majority ethnic Albanian, but Serbia still claimed the province, because it was part of the Kingdom of Serbia and the province of Serbia in Yugoslavia, and it had much historical significance.  It was the site of the defeat of Serbia by the Ottoman Empire in 1389.  NATO bombed Serbia, which led to the country withdrawing troops from Kosovo.  Gradually, peace returned to the region.  Montenegro became independent from Serbia in 2006, and Kosovo declared independence in 2008, although Serbia, Russia, and many other countries don’t recognize it.

The trend since 1914 has been countries breaking up, not uniting.  Austria-Hungary broke up after World War I, its territory becoming part of seven countries, some of which were new.  After the fall of communism, Yugoslavia broke up, as was detailed previously.  So did Czechoslovakia, which peacefully broke up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.  So did the Soviet Union itself, which in 1991 broke up into 15 different countries based on the old Soviet socialist republics.  This caused ethnic problems, because there were large minorities of Russians in the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.  These problems flared up in 2014, with the unrest in Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Ethnic conflict in multiethnic countries is not limited to Europe.  Most modern African countries were created by European colonial powers and have no ethnic majority.  This has led to ethnic warfare, one example being the Nigerian Civil War of 1967 to 1970, where the Igbo people tried to secede as the nation of Biafra but were defeated.  Most modern Middle Eastern countries were also artificially created by European powers after World War I.  This has led to violence in Iraq among Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds.  This has also led to ethnic and religious tensions in other countries such as Syria and Lebanon.

It certainly seems that diverse countries tend to be unstable.  That being said, what lies ahead for the most diverse country in the world, the United States?

…Since the 1960s, the United States has become more racially heterogeneous and more politically polarized.  The right and left have grown increasingly farther apart and see each other not as fellow Americans, but enemies.  This polarization has accelerated since the presidential election of Donald Trump in 2016.  Americans used to mostly have the same religion, Christianity, and now they don’t.  Many are irreligious or are members of other religions.  The immigration of large numbers of people from Latin America and Asia since the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 has transformed the United States.  As a result of this mass immigration, white people are projected to become a minority in the United States in 2042.  No other country has undergone such a rapid demographic transformation in such a short period of time.

Many racial nationalists want a piece of the United States for themselves.  Some Mexican nationalists want the Southwest to become a part of Mexico again or to become an independent country called Aztlán.  Some black nationalists want the Deep South to become an independent all-black country, believing that black Americans have a different identity from other Americans because they were enslaved and therefore deserve their own country.  Some white nationalists, especially in the Alt-Right movement, want one part of the United States to become an “ethnostate” where only white people live, the most common proposal being the Pacific Northwest.

Some might argue that the number of people in the United States who want to see the country break up are small in number, and therefore it is unlikely to happen.  This is true, but the number of things that unite us as a country are becoming fewer, and the number of things that divide us as a country are growing.  This trend shows no signs of stopping or slowing down.

A country without a common sense of nationhood won’t last.  If the United States were racially diverse but politically united, it could survive.  If the United States were politically divided but racially homogeneous, it could survive.  But if the United States is both racially diverse and politically divided, it will not survive.

If this country does break apart, will it happen peacefully as in Czechoslovakia, or violently as in Yugoslavia?  Time will tell, but if our Civil War is any indication, unfortunately, it will likely be more like Yugoslavia…

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/what_the_united_states_can_learn_from_yugoslavias_breakup.html#ixzz5EjBPEw4D