New poles of SN politics

This past weekend, we threw a party in Augusta, Georgia to celebrate the publication of Our Southern Nation: Its Origin and Future. The dinner at a local Southern restaurant and the party which followed were a lot of fun. A couple of dozen or so friends and family members attended, some travelling from out-of-State to be there. I was honored by the support and love from my people.

Interestingly, the attendees held a wide range of Southern nationalist (for lack of a better term) beliefs; there was a great deal of intellectual and political diversity among our ranks. Monarchists, republicans, Third Positionists, Jeffersonians, libertarians and anti-Jeffersonians attended, all of them identifying with the Southern people and our cause of self-determination.

After the dinner I asked two friends to give short presentations on Jeffersonianism. Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent spoke first. He has recently written several articles on Southern economics, why the Confederacy failed and why Southern nationalists should advocate economic nationalism and protectionism. Mr. Griffin advocated an energetic State in a free South which would encourage Southern industry. He historically identifies with Southern nationalists such as James D. B. De Bow and George Fitzhugh on these matters. Next, I asked a friend and political activist John M. To respond. John identifies as a Southern libertarian and advocated free trade and an extremely minimal State in a free South. He invisions a South where property rights are paramount and the people are freed of government regulation and intervention to create wealth and industry. He identifies historically with Southern nationalists such as Robert Barnwell Rhett on these matters. Both made excellent points and the discussion became passionate and continued much longer than I had anticipated. While it was not my intent to start a heated debate, I was pleased that there is room for disagreement on issues of trade, regulation and other economic policies within our ranks.

While the roots of our social worldview are Classical and distinctly Southern, there must be room for different approaches to issues which are not essential to the survival of the Southern nation. As a national movement we must foster honest and open discusssion on these issues. While the political climate of the USA is oppressive and limited, it must be open within our ranks.

Historically, Southern nationalists disagreed on the appropriate size of the State and the limits of its intervention in the economy. No one can doubt that both Rhett and De Bow were 100% pro-Southern, yet one passionately defended free trade while the other equally passionately advocated economic nationalism.

In the Modern USA, the poles of politics are limited to Chamber-of-Commerce-Republicans and Progressive Democrats. Both advocate mass immigration. Both advocate destructive trade deals with Third World countries. Neither places any priority on the survival and well-being of the Southern people.

It seems we already have in place new poles of politics for a free South. That is certainly not to say that even newer poles will not emerge. I hope to foster the development of these poles and encourage all pro-Southern people (including libertarians, protectionists, monarchists, Jeffersonians, conservationists, Christian conservatives and secular traditionalists, etc.) to join the discussion. Dixie needs all her sons and daughters in the cause of her survival and liberation.

Note: I do have opinion on these economic matters and I sometimes write about it and will do more in the future. But my opinion is not the Southern nationalist position. There is plenty of room for disagreement with my views.




Leave a Reply

  1. For us, this is natural. It’s never been any other way. It’s important, however, to remove outsiders from the conversation table. The South must be defined by the Southern people and no one else. It’s our internal dialogue, not theirs.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sir, I have, very carefully, read Mr. Griffin’s idea of a New/Olde South.

    Certainly he elaborates his points very well, and, the long and the short of it is that he is a Hamiltonian – the centralization of this and that for the sake of power and progress. (As you well know)

    To me, Sir, what we have, already, in the Washington government, is Hamiltonianism – some good things I will admit – such as social security, unemployment compensation, medicare, and national parks.

    That noted, we also have incessant imperialism, a $17,000,000,000,000 debt (growing $1,000,000 a minute I hear) the usurpation of sovereignty by a network of commercial and banking alliances the whole worldwide; the use of funds to subvert the curriculae of local schools and the initiatives and discretions of teachers therein; the impinging of our right to choose our own medical care; the unconstitutional constraint of forcing folks to hire, fire, and hang around those whom someone we have never met, – not to mention that the 4th Estate, the media, has become ruthlessly controlled to indoctrinate our own kind against their own traditional culture and, even, their very own interests.

    Further, each state is constantly censored and perverted by a court system of judicial foreigners who, with the quiet threat of the gun, pass judgement over who we may, or may not be. We have no control over our own currency – those decisions made for us by the Brit who owns it – that very fact utterly negating the results of the first ‘American Revolution’.

    Then, there is the destruction of the family ever more upon us, and, too, a near complete loss of privacy as regards to our papers and effects. Too, we are placed in the unenviable position of having an alien people thrust down our throats, which not only undermines our own working classes, it threatens our very health and welfare. Too, we are forced to say publick solemn oaths and prayers to this government that does all this, while being prohibited to pray to the power which creates and licences all things.

    Sir, I could go on, but, all in all, it seems a bad, and ever worsening tradeoff – this Hamiltonianism.

    My conclusion?

    I prefer to be ruled by those whose house in within a ride’s distance – instead of by somebody, whom I have never met, who is answering to concerns of those from overseas. I prefer to deal with those people who know how to say sir and m’am, and who have likely attended a church service in the last year, if not the last week. I prefer to have people considering my affairs whose ancestors have long been here, and who see all possible innovation in the context of our forbears’s traditions.

    So, in this case, I must disagree rather strenuously with Mr. Griffin – my indebtedness and admiration for his Southern patriotism notwithstanding.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Michael, in your opinion, is there a historical figure or figures who most epitomize the beliefs and thrust of the current day Southern Nationalist movement that I should be reading about? Any recommendations?


    • Steve, I would say that Rhett and Fitzhugh both have enormous influence on SN today. Calhoun has traditionalist staying power though he was not a secessionist. He brings out the best ideas of the Jeffersonian Era while rejecting its universalist propositions. I do think that Miles and De Bow will be of increasing importance in the near future since they speak to many of our present challenges.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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