Our Great Space: The Golden Circle (part I)

The world is currently divided into over 190 sovereign political states (plus a few de facto states) most of which are joined into various multi-national regional unions: the European Union, African Union and Arab League are just a few, with numerous more proposed unions such as the East Asian Community. Most of these blocs were created to support the present liberal, US-led global order. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Eurasian Economic Union are unique in that they represent possible threats to the Atlanticist-based system which ensures global liberal hegemony. They point to at least the possibility of a multi-polar world. However, these are not the only possible regional blocs which might challenge the existing liberal order of Post-Modernity. We of the South are at the heart of the possibility of something revolutionary and important in the Western Hemisphere.


One of the defining features which endures to some degree in the South today is our Pre-Modern roots. Our cultural-space, populated primarily by British settlers, inherited many of its norms, social and economic structure, from the plantation civilization of the New World. Importantly, that civilization, though unique in its location, racial composition and connections to four continents (Europe, Africa, North and South America), was a continuation of the colonial plantation model Western peoples constructed in the Mediterranean basin. Colonies similar to those of Dixie, the Caribbean and northeastern South America were built in the Levant, Crimea and shortly thereafter (following the loss of the Crusader States to the Muslims) on the isles of the Mediterranean. From there the colonial plantation model was taken to the eastern Atlantic isles where true plantation societies were established. The Portuguese successfully took this model to Brazil while the French and Spanish expanded it into other parts of Latin America. The English colony of Barbados, the mother colony of the South, was revolutionized by this process and its inhabitants established South Carolina as a plantation colony – whose people spread its system throughout the South. Our social, religious and economic roots are to be found in the Pre-Modern Mediterranean basin. Our ideological roots are in the Renaissance and are identified with neo-classicalism. This distinguished us from the other British colonies of North America and established conditions which gave rise to Southern nationalism, secession and US invasion and domination. The South of today is a society with the legacy of Pre-Modern roots which suffers foreign (US) occupation and colonization (culturally, politically and militarily) by a Post-Modern state which never shared our Pre-Modern experience. As Alexander Dugin writes in Eurasian Mission (Arktos, 2014):

It was born modern. This is important. To be born modern means that the US never became modern; it has never been pre-modern. It is not relatively modern. It is absolutely modern. The US doesn’t know what it is like to be unmodern.

This birth in Pre-Modernity continues to influence the Southern people on multiple levels despite the thorough post-1865 colonization of Dixie. Unlike non-Southern Americans, we retain elements of classical values and look to more than individualism (and now post-individualism). This is evident in Southern resistance to interracial and homosexual marriage, abortion, the destruction of heritage and our close association with religion. All of the things which Progressive USA hates about the South is a result of our roots in a different civilization, one referred to as the Golden Circle by many nineteenth century Southerners.


The South shares its Pre-Modern roots with Latin America and its historic ties and civilizational founding with the former plantation colonies of the Golden Circle. Dugin writes:

Latin America was never cut off so radically from Mother Europe. It was conceived as a peripheral part of Europe, and maintained strong ties to her. Latin America was part of European history, and so it has inherited European pre-modernity – Catholicism, the idea of empire, caste society, and so on. Modernity for Latin America has the same sense as it has for Europe: it is one step beyond its pre-modern roots. So, South America is much more European than America, and its deep identity is much easier to discover. Its roots are Latin: Spanish, Portuguese, Catholic, and Mediterranean.

Where Dugin goes astray is in ignoring the South as the historical northern-most arm of the same civilization to which Brazil, Venezuela, Barbados and Cuba belonged. He sees a future multi-polar world as being comprised in the Western Hemisphere of a North American Great Space and a Central and South American Great Space, with the latter Latin American countries having “historical, economic, and political qualities”… “which are different from those of the Anglo-Saxons.” Dugin promotes the “integration of close civilizations and cultural spaces” which “will be able to guarantee fully-fledged development to the nations of Latin America.” And, in combating the Atlanticist-supported global liberal hegemony of Post-Modernity, he promotes “the limitations of American strategic, political and economic interests to the boundaries of the American meridian zone.” Ignoring the complete and utter lack of any authentic American traditionalist movement and the total domination of the “Right” in US politics by neo-conservative Atlanticists, Dugin asserts that “our allies in this question will be the American conservatives, who are adherents of both isolationism and expansionism as limited by the Monroe Doctrine.”

In reality, there is no American conservative movement with which to ally. The closest thing to such a movement was destroyed when Patrick Buchanan was sidelined by neo-conservatives in the 1990s. And Buchanan’s roots are truly in the South, not America as a whole. The rise of Donald Trump and his ideological realignment to the Right of the Republican Party on questions of trade and immigration do point to some possible non-Southern conservative movement but we have yet to see if it will fully emerge. It seems far more likely that Trump, a thoroughly bourgeois man who heads a multi-national business empire, will return to the familiar ground of American politics should he win the Republican nomination – which is itself an unlikely event. The entirety of the US establishment is against the man’s new ideological stance outside the American mainstream.

The true potential ally in the US of those who seek a multi-polar world is the Southern people. Our roots are not in Modernity. We cling to our own symbols. We have a long history of resisting US liberal hegemony. We were once, though briefly, an independent nation. We have a native soil to which we are closely attached and a heritage that we value, while Dugin notes that “America is a very shallow, hollow society. …Americans lack soil, a pre-modern legacy, depth, and roots.”

The future quest of Southern nationalists on the international level is to make our possibility known. It is to foster relationships with Western traditionalists in Cuba, Venezuela, Central America and Brazil. It is to help the Southern man and woman realize that their origins were outside of America and their destiny lies outside of the liberal, Post-Modern USA.

Also see: Part II



Leave a Reply

  1. Watching Texas Rising, and comparing it to Texas History class, it occurred to me that Texas is one of the nexus points between Dixie and the Golden Circle. The Texians had more in common, culturally, with their Mexican opponents, than they did with their “fellow Americans” in New England.

    As an aside, Where are all these conservatives among the Northern people we keep hearing about? All I can see from them is silent consent with the radical agenda.

    Liked by 1 person

    • JO, the Knights of the Golden Circle were mostly a Texas-based group. Pro-GC sentiment was strongest in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and the broader Lower South than elsewhere, perhaps because several of these States were first colonies of France or Spain and because they had so many connections to the GC region.


  2. I didn’t know that the KOGC were from Texas. I think Michael, you would have loved 7th grade Texas History class. Especially the chapters on the filibuster expeditions and the Freedonian Rebellion. The Santa Fe Expedition was an attempt to annex lands in New Mexico and Colorado by Texan filibusters. Then there was the Republic of the Rio Grande, which was supported by Texan and other Southern filibusters. It had its capitol in Laredo and was composed of the Mexican states of Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas. Great and exciting history.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, indeed. Do you know of a good book on the Republic of the Rio Grande?

      The KOGC had 34 castles (local groups) in Texas. It was by far their strongest State and they focused mostly at first on filibuster efforts into Mexico. Later they focused on secession, smashing up the last anti-secession US newspaper in Texas and forcing the surrender of a large garrison of Federal troops. After secession they merged into Confederate units.


  3. Sir, you say, ‘where Dugin goes astray’ … and right you are; though, all in all, most of the world and most ‘Americans’, have always seen, as far as I can tell, this country through the perspective of anomaly – that it is built on, as Michael Savage likes to say – ‘borders, language, & culture’ … NOT THE EXIGIENCIES OF UNIFIED BLOOD, but the consturct of a certain ideation.

    I understand you are, and have been, working diligently to recondition the basises of that common cultural assumption, as far as we Southerners go; though, I think this is a damnably hard row to hoe.

    Sir, when contemplating your very industrious and evermore systematick efforts to stir a new national perception for us, I sometimes find myself wondering if your ends might not be better, and more alacritously, met, by accepting the common perceptions as is, and redirecting them; i.e. turning Southerners towards secession NOT by trying to reindoctrinate almost their entire political identification, but, by encouraging them to think of themselves as the real stewards of the ‘American idea’, and that our forefathers fought and died to protect exactly that.

    I feel that most of our fellow countrymen think this way, and because it is so, it might be prudent to put the watermill where the water flows.

    Please take no offence, but, you have an unusual intellect and an unusual disposition; in that you are something of an iconoclast, a quiet revolutionary, if you will, and such a disposition is far from common, and, thus, the spiritual things which have driven you to where you are, philosophically and intellectually, will not be shared by most of our fellow countrymen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There are already many out there advocating the South and the West as the most thoroughly American cultures. I don’t see how much good can come from this. Even if we seceded with much of the Midwest and Rocky Mt States we would take the ideals of American universalism with us. As such we would be unable to deal with pressing issues like Third World immigration and miscegenation. We also would have no new starting point for our position in the world

      I see our GC vision as solving all of these problems. It would allow us to deal with race, immigration and culture. And it also points us towards natural allies in the GC region and potential friends far away – Russia, China, India and most of Eastern and much of Central Europe. Anyone who wants a multipolar world is a potential ally if we are something distinct from American universalists.

      Yes, it is a tough sell but we haven’t really begun to sell it. This first book and my upcoming speech in London will be the first real steps. They will be followed by advertising, the proliferation of the book among Southern and Brazilian and European intellectuals and the publication of 2 more short books in this series.


  4. Sir, let me add just one more thing here – I like how you have ‘reconceptualized’ the moorings of our culture and wish I (and my society) had been taught it. I have come to see this, as perhaps best put by Mr. Crews’s concise principles of ‘being Southern’, as being a far better explanation for us, than that which we were given.

    That said, with the way people have been indoctrinated, and given that most have lazy intellectual habits, and given what a choke-hold federalist agenda and scalawag professors have on our ‘educational system’ – not to mention the entrencht anti-Southern media, I can only see this kind of thinking being proliferated AFTER Southern independence. I believe strongly that, if you try to evangelize people, in this respect, before such, you will ‘liberate some, as you have me, but, most will see you as a space creature out of The Twilight Zone, and, accordingly, reject the whole agenda of Self Sovereignty for the Southern people.

    Sir, I imagine that you have exposed this Weltanschauung to a variety of our people. When you have talkt about it to non members of The League of the South, and non Southern Nationalist Southrons, have you not found them politely fascinated, yet interiorely reluctant?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I agree with you Junius, Micheals ideals does seem like something out of the Twilight zone. And barring some type science fiction apocalypse colaspe the likely hood of these ideals becoming main stream is very small. However I would wele come the debate, I’ve always wonder how a gentile civilization could have tolerated the evil of slavery nowing that every civilization that is now dust in the wind. Can that type of civilization exist with out slavery or a buggy man. Why didn’t the southern work the land without slaves or in cooperation with a free Africans. I personal think you need to have someone who is the buggyman or else you will turn on each other.


    • Our society (and that of the Golden Circle in general) was destroyed from outside – not within. Our system works while Modernity does not and as we see in Baltimore, Memphis, Haiti and Birmingham is in a state of collapse.


  6. So are you saying the slaves wanted to be slaves. The poor whites wanted to stay poor? The old South was pateriarticle and class driven with very little chance to move up in the class structure in which slaves had virtually had no chance unless they escaped from the plantation.
    Can you give me an example of an modern societies that use the model you describe.


    • I am not saying slavery was voluntary. They were chosen as slaves because they were uncivilized people living in Stone Age conditions without a written language or other basic advances Western and Eastern peoples had thousands of years earlier. Slavery was a way of lifting them up out of the Stone Age and providing for our labour needs at the same time. It worked well. Under slavery their population grew. They became Christians. They became productive people. And they were cared for in return. On average their living conditions were better than Northern Whites during the Industrial Revolution. They had more time off, enjoyed a better diet and were provided for in their old age.

      Poor Whites in the South had lots of opportunities to move up. There was an abundance of cheap, fertile land which when worked made lots of people wealthy. The sparse population in the South and high productivity of our people made conditions for advancement optimal.

      There is no society at present which uses our model of civilization though some aspects of it are found in many traditional cultures around the world. If we applied our values to today’s problems we could turn around Southern and Brazilian cities and make Haiti a civilized, productive country again.


      • Well I suppose the Northerners had to civilize the Southerns from the barbaric practice of slavery. And the model you are describing is the model used in middle eastern Muslim countries.


        • Northerners killed hundreds of thousands of Southerners and burned our cities down. That is not civilizing. And there is nothing barbaric about paternalistic slavery, especially of those from a far less developed culture. It can be uplifting, as it was with Africans in the South.


  7. War is ugly and the North did give the South a spanking for the barbaric practice of slavery. Slavery had to be purged from this land because a country could not be have slave and half free to survive.


    • It is interesting when people liken the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, the raping of countless women, the burning of numerous cities, etc. to a “spanking” – a disciplinary act done out of love which harms no one.

      It is also interesting that that you think coerced union at the point of a gun and over dead bodies makes one “free.”

      Tell me again who was/is “barbaric,” please.


  8. Southern whites raped, murdered, killed and exploited Africans for centuries in the name of civilizing them? You guys are some sick people for supporting that. Like the Jews say never again.


    • Willie, if you paid an enormous sum for slaves and nearly all your wealth was tied up in land and slaves how would you want them to be treated?

      Under our rule the Black slave population grew steadily. They were not murdered off. Under our system Black lives were worth more than they are today, in fact. And studies have shown the slaves had a better diet and frequently more free time than did Northern or English “free” Whites. Ours was a paternalistic system under which both races benefited and a high culture was created.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s