Tradition over paper platforms

George Fitzhugh (1806-1881), one of the South’s most important social theorists, reminds us in his essential Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters that tradition and our unique experience, are the true basis for our social organization. There is nothing sacred or particularly special about constitutions and precise forms of government and law. To the degree that Southerners are permitted in the present system of Post-Modern America to govern ourselves, we do so as a distinct people with a unique heritage and worldview – whether we realize this or not:

[I]n truth, our laws and government are either old Anglo-Saxon prescriptive arrangements, or else the gradual accretions of time, circumstance, and necessity. Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guarantied and constitutions, into the fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions – and the necessities that begot , and have, so far, continued them.

Our traditions today are attacked on all fronts, as are our symbols. Even our demographic survival is in question due to imposed US open borders and Third World immigration. Many of our institutions are long destroyed. And yet, we still continue to distinguish ourselves in the Post-Modern USA. So long as we survive, our essence and tradition will truly determine how we govern and conduct ourselves, just as Fitzhugh explained a century and a half ago. The US Modernist praise of supposedly universal ideals on scraps of paper (constitutionalism) as the basis for ruling over multi-national populations is folly.

10 Comments

·

Leave a Reply

  1. I’m confused. If you are not a White nationalist then what exactly are you?

    What are we to make of the statements of Fitzhugh? It seems that what he said is something we already know or at least would agree with him about after thinking about it.

    So now what? Are we to pretend that we don’t know who is behind open borders? Are we to do nothing? How are we supposed to respond to this bit of information?

    Like

    • Babs, our tradition of Southern nationalism is distinct in many ways from WN. It is pro-White (we are a European people, after all, primarily of British ancestry). But it is not universalist or Modernist in its approach to race. Fitzhugh, for example, specifically condemned scientific racialism as dehumanizing non-Whites. He and most Southern intellectuals defended slavery as the most humane relationship possible with Africans. It was seen as a way to Christianize and civilize a pagan and under-developed race. It was also seen in traditional imperial terms, as was our relationship with the Mestizos of Latin America. This points to an important point. Our racial and national advocacy was rooted in our neo-classical worldview while WN is entirely a Modernist perspective. First, there is no single nation of all Whites. There are significant differences between various ethnic and national groups of Whites. WN is also generally a Third Position perspective and sees itself as beyond Left and Right. Ours is a Pre-Modern perspective and there before Left and Right.

      We certainly should understand and be aware of the influence of hostile alien groups. In particular, the Ashkenazi Jews who populated many Northeastern cities did not share our faith or our Pre-Modern perspective. Unlike the Sephardic Jews who were accustomed to the neo-classical structure of the Portuguese and Spanish empires (and participated in it as settlers) and identified racially as White, the Northern immigrant Jews were not a settler people, did not identify with the ruling Anglo culture and came from a revolutionary Leftist experience in the early and mid 19th century in central Europe. Even so, the Sephardic Jews of the GC were viewed as religious aliens and were not enfranchised until the republican era.

      I should also add that the WN approach to the Jewish question bis essentially a dualistic religion. It posits a highly intelligent but evil race against a highly intelligent but good, if too naive, race. This is problematic on several levels.

      Like

      • All Nordic European White people are in the same boat. Our politics doesn’t matter. Northern White people are Europeans the same as we are and we have something vested in them no matter if they represent a different way of seeing things or have had the same experiences as we have or not.

        You talk about a piece of paper not being able to hold all races together because of differences in race and then you act like Northern White people are essentially different from us because they hold modernist views as opposed to our classical views.

        Europeans have always fought one another. But do we make distinctions between saving the English or the Germans or must we save them both?

        The Jews are waging war against us and none of these race wars would be happening if not for them. None of this would be happening. If not for jews we would not be having this conversation. The imperialist thing to do would be to deal with them and all the non Whites but for some reason we are forbidden to speak about them b/c WN talk about them???.

        I don’t understand what you are saying that we must do? I don’t know what you hope to accomplish by making distinctions between us and Northern Whites?

        We know we are different. If we forget the Northerners are quick to remind us even if they won’t let us go and leave the union. I’d just like to know how we are supposed to get back our neo classical way of life if that is what you propose? At least I know where the WN stand b/c they openly speak about what they would like to do to the jews but I have no clue what you would have us do with all of this neo classical history?

        It just seems to me that we are what we are and we shouldn’t have to go around reminding ourselves of what we are since there is no danger that we can become other than what we are and surely what we are will manifest itself in everything we do in the future whether we like it or not.

        But it is the future that we must deal with and plan for. We are in the age of technology and not the age of plantations and slavery.

        Like

        • Babs, I am not presenting a political platform. I am just talking about some issues you don’t hear much about on SN-related sites. I am trying to broaden the scope of our survey. And I am also trying to dig deeper than is generally done on Southern sites and explain why some things are the way they are.

          Yes, we are in an age of technology – as our ancestors were compared to their distant ancestors – though surely things have changed a lot of late. I am pointing out that our values can work in different ages whereas egalitarian values always fail in a multi-racial environment.

          Like

        • It looks like an interesting study. No doubt, IQ differences for groups and individuals are real. As are other differences or inequalities. Fitzhugh would not have denied this. He objected to efforts at dehumanization which sometimes grew from it. And we are not necessarily bound to his view on all things, though he was a gifted and influential Southern traditionalist social theorist.

          Like

    • Of course you can post here. If you link more than once in a post it automatically requires me to approve it. And profanity and slurs are the same way.

      Like

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