FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1.   How will The Southern Independence Party of Texas be established?
The Southern Independence Party of Texas is being officially registered with the Secretary of State's office in Texas. The Southern Independence Party of Texas Executive Committee (SPTEC) is overseeing the filing, recruiting, fundraising, organizing and promoting of The Southern Independence Party of Texas.

2.   Why would we even need a Southern Independence Party of Texas?
Simply stated, because either of the two national parties can be trusted to represent the distinct cultural and national interests of the Southern people. Both parties are beholden to special interest groups whose political agendas often are diametrically opposed to the interests of the Southern people.

While Democrats plunder the national treasury in order to appease accredited victim groups - feminists, ethnic minorities and homosexual lobbies, for example - Republicans, in the interests of plutocracy and global capitalism, sponsor policies that seriously dilute state sovereignty and local control.

Yet, in spite of these policy differences, it has become increasingly evident within the last few years that both parties differ very little on matters of broad principle. Both agree on an expanded federal role in virtually every facet of our lives, and the political, moral and cultural consequences of this expansion are likely to be felt by Southerners for generations to come.

3.   Some Southern nationalists believe such a party isn't viable and think our best hope is sticking with the Republican party.  Why isn't this possible?
The 1998 elections very well may be remembered as the swan song of authentic conservatism within the Republican party. In the aftermath of these elections, Republicans have undertaken a wholesale abandonment of everything Southern traditionalists hold dear, namely standing on principle by eliminating quotas and set-asides, defending the Second Amendment, halting immigration and, broadly speaking, reducing the role of the federal government and offering a viable alternative to the dominant culture of liberalism. On all counts, the Republican party has failed miserably.

Even more important, is it realistic to believe such a party even would be receptive to a pro-Southern faction advocating a return to states rights and strictly limited government? If the shabby treatment meted out during the last two elections to Pat Buchanan and his followers is any indication, Southern traditionalists should expect very little from the GOP.

4.   How would a Southern Independence Party of Texas differ from the Democratic and Republican parties?
Chiefly in the way we view the concept of nationhood. Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, we reject the flawed notion, espoused by Lincoln, that we are merely a "propositional nation" -- that is to say a country bound together only on the basis of some abstract notion of liberty and equality.

Rather, we believe the United States in general and the South in particular are defined by their historically Western and Judeo-Christian cultural core.   This is especially true of the South, whose predominantly Celtic and British-derived religious and cultural traditions distinguish it from the rest of the country.

There also is the issue of scope. One of the principal aims of the party would be working for social, cultural, political and economic renewal at the grassroots. Our first and foremost goal will be good government for the Southern people. Rather than competing with the Democratic and Republican parties for the national spoils, we would function as a broad-based regional political movement operating entirely at the state and local levels and would remain beholden only to the interests of the Southern people.

While the party initially will be involved in advancing Southern interests with the present federal union, we do not rule out complete political self-determination for the Southern people or, in a word, independence. This would be accomplished by electing Southern Party of Texas majorities to Southern legislatures as well as by electing nationalists to governorships and other statewide offices.

Like the people of Scotland and Quebec, we believe that if Southern nationalist governments come to power in the Southern States with the express purpose of securing independence, it will represent a clear and unequivocal expression of the desire of the Southern people of those States to begin negotiations with the other States of the American union to facilitate a process of peaceful and orderly withdrawal from the United States. Like London and Ottawa, Washington will have a moral obligation to allow this peaceful separation as it will represent the legitimate, sovereign will of the people of each Southern State, as expressed via free and fair elections.

5.   Where does The Southern Independence Party of Texas stand on the issue of Southern independence?
The Southern Independence Party of Texas was established in order to serve as a regional/nationalist party for the people of Dixie.  From the very beginning, we have spoken forthrightly for the right of self- determination and independence for the people of the Southland.

We believe outright independence remains both constitutionally and morally a valid and viable option for the people of Dixie. However, thanks to decades of political indoctrination by a Northern-inspired public school system, we recognize that many Southerners and transplants to the region wrongly believe a peaceful, orderly pursuit of independence via the ballot box is unconstitutional.   This is something we must address through a process of political education.

Our goal of eventual, but complete, independence for the people of Dixie remains firm. However, in light of the current social and cultural condition of the Southern people, it would appear the task of securing full independence for Dixie may require decades and perhaps even a few generations. We must remember that Irish independence wasn't built in a day -- nor was Scottish and Welsh nationalism.

We will continue to be inspired by the Parti Quebecois and the Scottish Nationalist Party, two parties advocating full independence for their regions. Nevertheless, we believe the most viable model for the South today is that of the Plaid Cymru, the regional/nationalist party of Wales, whose aim is to secure authentic home rule and a renewed sense of national identity within the United Kingdom.

Therefore, as the regional/nationalist party of the South, our principal mission for the foreseeable future will be twofold: to restore the constitutional rights guaranteed to the people of the states by the Constitution of 1787, most notably the Tenth Amendment, and to sponsor a political program aimed at restoring the unique cultural, social and religious foundations of the Southern people. Securing these objectives undoubtedly will carry us a long way down the road to full independence, which remains our ultimate goal.

In short, our immediate task is to secure de facto independence for the people of Dixie: genuine self-government for the states guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Recognizing that the ultimate goal full independence would not be possible without a thorough-going cultural, religious and social rejuvenation of the Southern people, we also will step up our efforts to forge close working relationships with other conservative and Southern political, social and cultural organizations with whom The Southern Independence Party of Texas shares similar goals.

6.   If your ultimate goal is independence, what is the difference between the SP and non-political party groups like the Republic of Texas movement?
The Southern Independence Party of Texas rejects, in the strongest terms, all attempts to secure independence by any means other than through the ballot box and through duly elected officials following longstanding, constitutionally prescribed practices.

All of us, to one degree or another, are affected by the global upheaval taking place around us. However, in the face of this turmoil, some people, in a desperate effort to restore some degree of order to their lives, are resorting to a number of highly unorthodox "remedies" based on specious legal arguments. These include: forming common-law courts with the express goal of imploding the U.S. judicial system by filing more paperwork than the system is capable of handling; and using a series of cleverly contrived legal arguments in order to declare individuals, townships and even entire states beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Needless to say, the federal government will never tolerate these tiny pockets of resistance (which, at most, number only in the tens of thousands) because doing so would result in utter anarchy. Moreover, all of these approaches not only are based on faulty legal reasoning but likely will lead to needless violence and bloodshed in the long run. Our Founding Fathers established several remedies for ridding ourselves of tyrannical government, none of which involves one or a handful of people drawing a line in the sand, declaring their "independence" and challenging federal law enforcement officials to contest them.

Secession is not the right of individuals or groups but of states. For it to occur, it must be carried out in a peaceful, orderly and, most important, constitutionally prescribed manner patterned after the successful models of Quebec and Scotland. Anything short of this would constitute a betrayal of the vision our Founding Fathers.

7.   Would separation lead to another invasion of the South and war?
No. This is not 1861. Times have changed. We live in an age of instant news coverage and libertarian views which hold that no government should rule without the full consent of the peoplewho live under it. The use of brute force by a Western nation like the United States to suppress the popular electoral mandate of the Southern people would be universally opposed and condemned in the modern age.

Furthermore, The Southern Independence Party of Texas does not advocate or otherwise endorse the use of force to achieve political ends.  If force ever comes into play as a result of our peaceful political efforts, it will be initiated by the federal government - not the Southern States.

The use of force by the United States government, while condoned and tolerated in the 19th century, no longer would enjoy the approval of the American people or the internationalcommunity in an age preoccupied with democracy and self-determination. With the collapse of Soviet totalitarianism and other authoritarian governments in the Third World, conventional wisdom holds that the only legitimate governments are those resting on the consent of the governed. The founding principle of the American revolution is now sweeping the globe. How tragic and ironic it would be if the United States were to repudiate that principle by refusing to honor the will of the people of the South as expressed at the ballot box.

The election of explicitly pro-independence state governments in Dixie would represent a de facto withdrawal of consent from the from the federal government. In the new millennium, the devolution of power from the center to local governments and the breakup of old transcontinental empires will be the order of the day -- completing a process that began in the early 20th century and which has accelerated with each passing decade. The concept of resorting to the sword to maintain the old geographical boundaries of aging empires will become increasingly unthinkable -- especially for the Western democracies based on notions of popular sovereignty.

8.   But are regional, nationalist parties even possible in a global age?
Yes!  And this has been proven time after time in other countries throughout the world. In fact, Southerners are already far behind other countries in this respect. In Quebec, for example, the pro-secessionist Parti Quebecois (Quebec Party) has enjoyed astonishing electoral successes in recent years among citizens who believe political independence offers the only viable solution for preserving Quebec's historically French culture.

In Italy, the Northern League, organized by former pharmaceutical salesman Umberto Bossi, also commands a wide following among citizens fed up with seeing their region's tax base drained in order to support a relatively corrupt, impoverished South.

In Scotland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "compromise offer" of an all-Scottish regional Parliament, rather than staving off Scottish independence, actually has stoked nationalist passions and, consequently, the fortunes of the pro-secessionist Scottish Nationalist Party. Indeed, many experts believe Scottish national independence will be an established fact within the next few years.

9.   You say one distinguishing trait of a Southern Independence Party of Texas would be its uncompromising support for the historic, European, cultural foundation of Southern civilization.  Isn't this just a code phrase for "white nationalism."
No, it is not. The Southern Independence Party of Texas has never advocated the expulsion of other ethnic minorities from the South and we never will. Ethnic cleansing, in our opinion, is a practice best left to the Balkans as we are a civilized people who harbor no desire to see such horrors visited upon the North American continent. While we do believe that the dominant British-derived cultural institutions of the South should be preserved, we recognize Dixie has long been an essentially bi-racial nation with an influential Afro-Southern ethnic minority which, nevertheless, shares a common faith, culture and language with the majority. A return to genuine home rule or even outright independence would not alter this demographic reality.

Nonetheless, this probably will not prevent dishonest liberals from maliciously labeling the Southern Party of Texas as white nationalists. After all, within the predominant liberal culture, any movement that affirms historic Judeo-Christian, Western civilization and rejects all of the harmful effects associated with post-modernism, most notably multiculturalism, is guaranteed to be attacked by political Leftists as "racist, homophobic and white nationalist." These are the hate-words of the Left and they are intended to manipulate those who lack the capacity to think for themselves.

Just because the Left will level such accusations with reckless abandon does not validate these attacks. People who think for themselves will reject these accusations for what they are: products of the "Big Lie" school of politics -- a school that traces its political pedigree to Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi party. The practitioners of such junk yard dog tactics should be scorned with the ridicule they so richly deserve.

The Southern Independence Party of Texas readily concedes a degree of cultural cross-fertilization is a good thing. No one would deny individuals descended from other cultures have made valuable contributions to Western culture. Still, our civilization can be preserved only by safeguarding the unique ethnic and cultural core from which it sprang. The party's efforts to preserve our region's distinctive cultural traditions is not a phenomenon unique to Southerners.

Our desire to preserve the South's unique cultural core doesn't stem from racist or white supremacist convictions.  As history has shown, there tends to be a high degree of trust in societies in which a  substantial majority of the population share a common culture, religion and ethnicity, and high-trust societies act as a safeguard against centralized tyranny.  Preserving the current cultural, ethnic and religious fabric of the South will ensure that our region remains a high-trust society.

In multi-cultural societies, where high levels of trust often do not exist between competing cultural groups, governments typically use this as an excuse to enact increasingly onerous laws in order to force people to interact with each other. That, of course, is part of the reason why liberal elites want a multicultural society: it provides them an excuse to micro-manage our lives.

Preserving the cultural foundations of the country is one of the basic premises on which the American republic was founded. That is why John Jay alluded to it in his first essay in the Federalist Papers. To abandon this core principle would constitute a betrayal of one of the most basic premises of American federalism.

Multiculturalists rail against such policies, contending that nations do not have the moral right to defend such institutions. We beg to disagree. Very few nations allow unbridled immigration and most make concerted efforts to maintain the ethnic, religious and cultural roots on which their societies are based. Nowhere in history does one find examples of nations that willingly allowed themselves to be overrun and replaced by competing cultures.

That said, let there be absolutely no misunderstanding of where we stand regarding hate groups and other expressions of ethnic bigotry. While we are pledged to defend the South's defining cultural core, it is very important to understand that we bear no spirit of malice toward other ethnic groups. We urge high-minded individuals from all walks of life to join us in our struggle to renew Western Christian-Judeo civilization.

10.  Would The Southern Independence Party of Texas be a Christian party?
Only in the sense that we believe Western civilization has derived its greatest strength from its Christian-Judeo heritage. While The Southern Independence Party of Texas does not function as a sectarian party and requires no religious tests, it undoubtedly does affirm the sovereignty of God in the universe and supports policies safeguarding the free exercise and expression of the Christian faith both in the public and private spheres. This does not imply, however, that The Southern Independence Party of Texas will advocate or otherwise support policies that would deny religious liberty to people of other faiths.  We strongly support the 1st Amendment as a barrier to government interference in the free exercise of each citizen's religious faith.

11.  Why not do this as a national party that could unite conservatives from the Southern and Western States?
First and foremost, because the major impetus behind The Southern Independence Party of Texas is a determination to prevent the destruction of the South's unique cultural identity. This central goal represents the fundamental force that drives this effort. This party, unlike all other American third parties, isn't preoccupied with only a handful of "hot button" political issues -- it goes much deeper than that. This is a party designed to secure genuine sovereignty and a renascent sense of nationalism, organized around the principles of State sovereignty, cultural preservation, peace through strength, the abolition of the welfare state and prosperity through free enterprise. In short, we wish to be the masters of our own destiny and believe this will be possible only by securing genuine sovereignty and, barring that, outright independence.

The Southern Independence Party of Texas believes that the time has come to complete the work of our noble, Confederate ancestors. We no longer consent to be governed by a federal union in which the South is always outvoted in Congress and where Southern cultural values are mocked and ridiculed. The shotgun wedding forced upon the South at Appomattox has reached a dead end: either the federal government undertakes a program of meaningful reform, or it faces a political divorce for the good of all parties concerned.

We also believe that unlike other third parties, the nationalist approach will work to our advantage because the independence issue is impossible to "co-opt." There is no way that the Republicans or Democrats can steal this fundamental issue of Southern independence from us without granting us precisely what we want -- freedom -- an action that would immediately deprive any co-opting party of our votes.

The Southern Independence Party of Texas also believes that a regional party of the South, if successful, will inspire the rise of regional parties in New England, the Rocky Mountain States, the Upper Mid-West and maybe even in the Pacific Northwest.  This would be entirely right and proper as each of these regions has a distinctive cultural base that could serve as the foundation for such parties and we encourage the people who live in these regions to consider trying to form such parties.  A cluster of regional parties could serve as a powerful tool for reinvigorating State's Rights and serving as a check on Washington's power.