Having seemed to give a rather bitter blackpill in my article on the nature and power of woke capital, I thought it best to, in this and some forthcoming articles, discuss how one may better fight the economic wing of the powers that be. In that vein, this is the first in a series of articles on the topic of Southern cities versus Southern rural areas (though their ideas would apply to a lesser extent to northern ones as well) and their potential for building a dissident economy, especially with regard to agriculture. Although much of the material for these articles had been floating around in my head in a separate, disjointed way for some time, Otto Bismarck’s recent article posted on Identity Dixie inspired me to put them down in a more organized, coherent form, both to delve a little further into the current and potential state of Southern urban and rural areas and to offer some practical advice for how, in light of their current and likely future states, Southern Paleos can take advantage of the great changes coming, changes which our elites’ actions have rendered all but inevitable, to craft a major part of a dissident economy that can not only survive but thrive in the wake of the upheavals those changes will bring.
To begin with, it must be understood that US cities and suburbs—all of them, not just those in the South—are in a state of overreach, sometimes severely so, whereas rural areas in the US are in a state of underreach to a greater or lesser extent. The reason for both lies in the fact that for decades now the US has been to a heavy extent what I would call an indirect military economy. To avoid confusion, I don’t mean that the US is overwhelmingly dependent on military exports for much of its trade, as was the case with the dysfunctional Soviet economy which for long stretches of time got its foreign exchange currencies from exports of AK-47s and other weaponry rather than agricultural or consumer goods, though for the US such exports (especially to its European vassal states) are an important part of its economy; nor do I mean that the US economy is still being run along military lines as it had been during the first and second World Wars, though its bureaucratic regulatory groups are something of holdovers from such times. Rather, I mean this: all nations’ ability to consume is directly tied to their ability to produce—it merely depends on what they are producing, and I think it fair to describe the US as having an indirect military economy inasmuch as much of what it “produces” is fear and complacency among weaker nations, especially those in the third-world, via its military might.
Though this trend obviously started during the Cold War while the US was still the factory of the world, it worsened rapidly following the Cold War with the fall of the Soviet Union as a military rival and the rise of China as an industrial powerhouse and the resultant wholesale offshoring of US industry. The US’s ability to maintain the dollar as the world reserve currency, especially via the Saudi regime’s use of the petrodollar, has become more and more of a crutch on which it now heavily leans to keep its standard of living from collapsing. With the wars in Syria and Ukraine having shown the US empire to both an erratic bully (recall its seizure of Russian assets and threats to various nations that didn’t want to comply with sanctions) and a paper tiger, as well as the rise of BRICS and other alternatives to the dollar system, that crutch is about to snap.
And when it goes, so also goes the viability of US city and suburb in their current form. The organizational structure of both city and suburb was in part shaped by an assumption that US living standards would remain or improve, not only in their minute aspects (the size of houses or apartments, the cars and possessions of their inhabitants, etc.) but in their major ones as well. The suburbs for their part, being largely built around efforts at white flight and maintaining a safe distance from diversity in all its glory, become less and less sustainable as the cost of fuel, cars, and everything that goes into maintaining a comfortable existence in the suburbs goes through the roof. The cities, on the other hand, tend to be de facto built around the bread-and-circuses welfare state which allows urbane liberal whites, Jews, and East Asians to stay in close enough proximity to diversity to look down their noses at those who flee entirely from it without being entirely devoured by it. Although such liberal urbanites got a taste of what diversity can do during the summer of George Floyd, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet: let that welfare state fail for even a week, and the rapine orgy undertaken by their dark-skinned pets will make the Sack of Rome look like a tea party—and the relative or complete death of the dollar will make that failure all but inevitable.
Though I’ll be delving into aspects of the urban/suburban situation deeper in later articles, here I want to focus on how the same economic forces that will destroy the cities and suburbs in their current forms will massively increase the potential of the countryside. Basically, it all comes down to how during the dollar’s heyday US agriculture, at least on a small scale, was relatively uncompetitive within the US market when compared with that of Peru, Brazil, and the other nations having equally rich land but a much, much cheaper labor force. With the weakening of the dollar and the ascent of Brazil into BRICS (expect much of the global south to follow its lead) that situation will reverse. Whether this happens sooner or later, for those who prepare for its inevitable occurrence it could prove an unbelievable boon.
Hence my advice to all Paleos and normiecons in the rural US, whether north or South: Without delay, focus on increasing your agricultural production or at least holding onto what you have. This isn’t just limited to farmers. Even relatively rural suburbs can usually allow for a garden. Practice the craft and hone your skills now, using it perhaps for merely better feeding your family at a lesser price while denying big agri and the pseudo-food industry (by which I mean the heavily processed, high-fructose corn syrup–laden garbage that currently takes up over half of grocery store shelf space) further profit. That way, when the great reversal between the relative price of agricultural imports and domestic agriculture occurs, you will be in a position to reap the benefits.
And if all these thousands of small plots—or at least the ones that can produce beyond a subsistence level—can be, under the guidance of northern and Southern dissidents, bound together into an efficient alternative supply chain, they stand a good chance of not only competing with the big agri of the farmer Bill (Gates) types but also forming the backbone of an alternative economy that can allow dissidents in both town and country—and yes, there will be more urban dissidents in the time to come, many more, as city dwellers watch their old assumptions about race go up in smoke and race realism hits them in the face, literally, in many cases—to tell big, woke business of all kinds where to shove it and state their beliefs without fear of being fired or cancelled. The nature and purpose of that agricultural supply chain, then, is the topic of my next article in this series.
D. H. Corax is a northerner who echoes the sentiment of Lord Acton's letter to Robert E. Lee that he "saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled [him] with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy,” and who, like Lee before the war, would like to see the union held together, but only if it be a voluntary union in which "federal," or national, tyranny is kept in check by the explicit and legally acknowledged threats of nullification and succession by truly sovereign states.