League of the South Chieftain Talks ‘Race War’
The League of the South (LOS) appears to be having an identity crisis. As the two-year anniversary of the neo-Confederate hate group’s abrupt tactical shift towards well-dressed and well-mannered street demonstrations approaches, LOS President Michael Hill’s latest column marks one more chapter in the collapse of what quickly revealed itself to be a laughably transparent façade of respectability.
The time has come, at least in Hill’s mind, to ponder what he believes is the real possibility of a race war. Apparently, he likes his odds.
LOS President Michael Hill
“We Southern nationalists do not want a race war (or any sort of war). But if one is forced on us, we’ll participate,” wrote Hill on the LOS website. “Southern whites are geared up and armed to the teeth.”
Such statements may come as a shock, given the fact that the LOS has spent much of the last two years attempting to promote its message to “regular” southerners through the use of mainstream, conservative messaging on issues such as “traditional marriage” and the “demographic displacement of southerners.” Of course, that was never a very honest presentation. After all, Hill is the same man who at a Georgia LOS meeting in 2011 urged his constituents to begin stocking up on AK-47s, hollow-point bullets, and, most remarkably, tools to derail trains.
Then, last year, Hatewatch revealed that the LOS was actively — and secretly — training a uniformed, paramilitary unit to be called the ‘Indomitables’ that was tasked with advancing a second southern secession.
Hill’s latest piece, which appeared in the wake of nearly a week of demonstrations and rioting in the Baltimore area following the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, focuses on the myriad advantages of the angry white man in a potential race war. The reason, asserts Hill, is the white man’s innate superiority.
“Negroes are more impulsive than whites,” says Hill, who once taught at a historically black university in Alabama. “Tenacity and organization are not the negroes [sic] strong suits. If the war could be won by ferocity alone, he might have a chance. But like the adrenaline rush that sparks it, ferocity is short lived. And it can be countered by cool discipline, an historic white trait, and all that stems from it.”
The race war Hill imagines is nothing more than fear-mongering in the style of the late neo-Nazi William Pierce’s novel The Turner Diaries. That book depicted a race war in which whites murder Jews, black people, “race-mixers” and a host of others in order to build an “Aryan” state. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was carrying photocopied pages from the dystopian novel when he was arrested, apparently to explain his motives in case he were to be killed by police.
Hill seems to revel in the details of the bloodshed he thinks may be imminent.
“Things would begin to get interesting once the widespread terror spread out to the suburbs,” he writes in his new essay. “The most likely flashpoints would be white owned suburban businesses or neighborhoods where armed men and women stood ready to defend themselves. At this point white discipline, resources, and firepower would start to become a factor; however, would American suburbanites, after decades of PC brainwashing, have the will to fight back in sufficient number to quell the black tide?”
Hill also throws in a little of his increasingly apparent anti-Semitism. Following his recent posting of an essay by the disgraced former professor and anti-Semitic ideologue Kevin MacDonald in a LOS Facebook group, Hill now suggests that one of the South’s main problems is “Jewry” and what he depicts as the Jewish-controlled media. “ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and other largely Jewish-Progressive owned media would doubtless fan the flames, justifying black behavior while conversely condemning white reaction,” Hill writes as he contemplates the difficulties that will face the white man.
Hill goes on to fantasize about the end of “white guilt,” a common theme among neo-Nazis and others on the radical right. “American negroes, and those Jew/Gentile Progressives who supported their lawless behavior for decades, would have used up whatever ‘civil rights’ capital they may have accumulated with average white Americans (and perhaps many Asians and Hispanics),” he writes as he describes what is pictured as the ultimate victory of whites in the South.
When reached by telephone, Hill declined to comment.
Hill ends his essay with a warning that sounds very much like a threat: “So if negroes think a ‘race war’ in modern America would be to their advantage, they had better prepare themselves for a very rude awakening. White people may be patient, but our patience does have a limit. You do not want to test that limit.”
