Friday, May 25, 2018

A Pro-Southern Immigration Policy, and a Few Thoughts on ‘Blood and Soil’

One vitally important reason why the Southern States should leave the Union is immigration policy.  The first thing that comes to mind for most folks is Latin American immigrants, which is important, but that is not what we have in mind just now.  We are speaking here of a more imminent danger, of immigration from other States and regions of the Union.  It has already decimated Maryland, northern Virginia, and Florida and now threatens other places in Dixie like Texas and North Carolina like a loosely suspended axe:

At first, Rick Scot was hesitant to trade in West Hollywood for a new home in North Carolina. Working as a vice president at a Fortune 500 company in a state with a low cost of living was tempting, yet he wondered: What would it be like to be an openly gay man living in the South?

Friends assured him that this rapidly growing Southern city was a progressive, affirming place for gays and lesbians. So he and his husband, Jeffrey, bought a home in a quiet suburb and settled down. Only afterward did they find they'd landed on a fault line in the deepening divide across the South over LGBT discrimination.

"I have friends and colleagues who won't come here," Scot, 47, said last week at a town hall meeting on North Carolina's controversial new law, House Bill 2, that prevents cities from enacting their own anti-discrimination laws. It also restricts transgender bathroom access throughout the state.

Charlotte is one of a growing number of liberal Southern cities that finds itself locked in a bitter political standoff with state governments increasingly dominated by Republicans. Throughout the nation's most conservative region, socially progressive pockets — urban hubs such as Charlotte that seek to liberalize laws on LGBT rights and other issues — are clashing with predominantly rural state governments that heed the traditional religious values shared by the bulk of their citizens.

"The South is still the Bible Belt, but the gulf between urban and rural interests is deepening," said Michael Bitzer, a professor of political science at Catawba College, a liberal arts college in Salisbury, N.C.

 . . .

Like Hungary’s Victor Orban stopping Muslim migrants from entering his country despite the E. U. bureaucrats’ complaints, Southern governors need to ignore federal orders and do what is right for the good of their peoples:  Block any and all Dixie-phobes from entering their States from New England, Los Angeles, etc.


This episode in North Carolina also serves to highlight what we said last time:  Race isn’t the most important factor in culture.  We would gladly trade every one of the ‘white’ Rick Scotses in the South for ‘black’ Anthony Herveys any day:

Anthony Hervey was born in Water Valley, Mississippi in 1965. He grew up in Oxford, served in the military for a short period, then went on to the University of Mississippi, where he studied sociology and Afro Studies. He then traveled to London, England where he studied Race & Ethnicity at the University of London and served as an intern in Parliament. Hervey loved to debate and was often seen in London debating on economic, political and social issues, which drew large crowds.

In 2006, Hervey wrote a book titled “Why I Wave the Confederate Flag, Written by a Black Man.” He had been an outspoken supporter of Confederate symbols for many years, argued against the changing the Mississippi’s state flag, and often protested poverty at the base of the Confederate Soldiers Monument in Oxford.

 . . .

Source:  Michael Martin,, opened 24 May 2018

This raises questions about the idea of a ‘blood and soil’ country.  Alexander Dugin examines that slogan below:

“Blood and Soil” – “Blood or Soil?”

The famous Russian philosopher, religious thinker, and publicist Konstantin Leontyev voiced an extremely important formula: “There is Slavdom, but no Slavism.” One of the main geopolitical conclusions of this wonderful author was contrasting the idea of “Panslavism” to the “Asiatic” idea. If this juxtaposition is carefully analyzed, we discover a common typological criterion which allows us to better understand the structure and logic of the geopolitical occult war of the Order of Eurasia against the Order of the Atlantic.

Despite an eclectic combination of terms in the concept of “Blood and Soil” by the German ideologist of a National-Socialist peasantry, Walter Dare the problem is formulated differently on the level of the occult war of geopolitical forces in the contemporary world, namely, “blood or soil.” In other words, the traditionalist project of preserving a people, state, or nation’s identity is always faced with an alternative: either take the “unity of nation, race, ethnos, and unity of blood” as the main criterion or “unity of geographical space, unity of borders, unity of soil.” The entire drama rests precisely in the necessity of choosing one or the other, and any hypothetical “both” remains but a utopian slogan which does not resolve, but obscures the problem. 

The genius Konstantin Leontyev, a traditionalist and radical Russophile by conviction, clearly put forth the dilemma: “Russians need either to insist on the unity of Slavs, on Slavism (“blood”), or appeal to the East and realize the geographical and cultural proximity of Russians to the Eastern peoples connected with Russian territories (“soil”).”  In other terms, this question can be formulated as a choice between recognizing the supremacy of “race” (“nationalism”) or “geopolitics” (“statehood,” “culture”). Leontyev himself chose “soil”, “territory,” the peculiarity of Great Russian imperial, religious, and state culture. He chose “Orientalism”, “Asianism,” and “Byzantinism.”

Such a choice implied the prioritization of continental, Eurasian values over narrow national and racial values. The logic of Leontyev naturally led to the inevitability of a Russo-German, and especially Russo-Austrian union and to peace with Turkey and Japan. Leontyev categorically rejected “Slavism” or “Panslavism”, thereby arousing the indignation of many of the late Slavophiles standing on the position of either “blood above soil” or “blood and soil.” Leontyev was neither understood nor listened to. The history of the 20th century repeatedly proved the extreme importance of the problems identified by him. 

Panslavism vs. Eurasianism

The thesis of “blood above soil” (in the Russian context, this means “Slavism” or “Panslavism”) first revealed all of its ambiguity during the First World War when Russia, having entered a union with the countries of the Entente, i.e., with the English, the French, and the Americans in an effort to liberate its “Slavic brothers” from the Turks, not only started to fight against its natural geopolitical allies – Germany and Austria – but also plunged itself into the catastrophe of revolution and civil war.  The “Slavism” of the Russians in fact turned out to work for the “Atlanticists,” the Entente, and the “neo-Carthaginian civilizational type”, which embodied the trade-based, colonial, and individualist Anglo-Saxon model. It is not surprising that the majority of those among the “patriotic Panslavists” from Tsar Nikolay II’s circle were employees of English intelligence services or simply “Atlanticist agents of influence.”

It is curious to recall an episode from the novel of the Russian patriot Hetman Petr Krasnov, From the Double-Headed Eagle to the Red Flag, where, in the midst of the First World War, the main character Colonel Sablin is asked: “Tell us frankly, who do you believe to be our true enemy?” He unambiguously responds: “England!”, but this conviction does not prevent him from honestly and courageously fighting precisely for English interests against Germany in paying his debt of absolute and unconditional loyalty to the Tsar. 

The hero of Krasnov’s article is an ideal example of a Russian Eurasianist patriot, an example of the logic of “land above blood” which was characteristic for Count Witte, Baron Unger-Sternberg, and the mysterious “Balticum” organization consisting of Baltic aristocrats who  remained loyal to the royal family to the very end (just as the Tekin Prince and his division, described in Krasnov’s novel, remain loyal to the Tsar amidst widespread betrayal). The extent to which the Asians, Turks, Germans, and other “foreigners” in 1917 faithfully served the Tsar, the Empire, Eurasia, “soil,” and the “continent” can be contrasted with how the “Slavs” and “Panslavists” quickly forgot about “Constantinople” and their “Balkan brothers,” left Russia, abandoned the Fatherland for the countries of Atlanticist influence, the Western Ocean, Water, and betrayed not only the Homeland, but also the great Idea of Eternal Rome, the Russian Third Rome, and Moscow. 

The Atlanticists and racism

In Germany, the adoption  of the idea of “blood over soil” resulted in equally dire consequences. Against the patriotic German Russophiles and Eurasianists such Arthur Mueller van den Bruck, Karl Haushofer, etc. who insisted on the “supremacy of living space” [4] in the interests of the continent as a whole and the idea of a “continental bloc”, the leadership of the Third Reich was eventually won by the Atlanticist lobby which exploited racist theses and, under the pretext that “Englishmen are Aryan relatives of the German ethnos”, sought to focus the attention of Hitler on the East and suspend (or at least ease) combat operations against England.

“Pan-Germanism” in this case (like the “Panslavism” of the Russians in the First World War) only played into the hands of the “Atlanticists.” It is entirely logical that the major enemy of Russia, who constantly strove to drag Hitler’s Germany into a conflict with the Russians and the Slavs (for “racial” reasons of “blood above soil”), was the English spy, Admiral Canaris. The extreme importance of the problem of “blood or soil” lies in that the choice of one of these two terms at the expense of the other allows one to identify, whether implicitly or indirectly, an “agent of influence” of this or that geopolitical world view, especially when the matter at hand is the “right” or “nationalist” camp. The essence of the “geopolitical conspiracy” of the Atlanticists (just as the Eurasianists’ one) includes the entire spectrum of political ideologies from the extreme right to the extreme left, while always leaving specific traces of “geopolitical agents of influence.” In the case of the “right,” the signal of potential Atlanticism is the principle of “blood over soil” which, among other things, allows attention to be diverted from fundamental geopolitical problems towards secondary criteria. 

Source:, J. Arnoldski, trans., opened 24 May 2018

It is not dedication to the white race, black race, etc. that will save the South, but the common devotion of all Southerners of all races to a common Christian creed, to the unbroken Apostolic tradition of the Orthodox Church, and to dedication to the land of Dixie and her way of life.

We may learn from the ensample of St Alexander the Unsleeping (+430) and his multinational, multilingual community of monks just how powerful the Grace of the Holy Ghost is in creating unity and harmony amongst kin-groups that seem too different to live together peaceably:

 . . .

Alexander was perplexed as to how the admonition Pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17) could be fulfilled by frail human flesh, but after three years of fasting and prayer, God showed him a method. He organized his monks into four groups according to whether their native language was Greek, Latin, Syriac or Coptic, and the groups prayed in shifts throughout the day and night. Twenty-four divine services were appointed each day, and the monks would chant from the Psalter between services. The community henceforth came to be known as the Akoimetoi, the Unsleeping Ones. (Similar communities later sprang up in the West, practicing what was there called Laus Perennis; St Columban founded many of these.)
  Always desiring to spread the holy Gospel, Saint Alexander sent companies of missionaries to the pagans of southern Egypt. He and a company of 150 disciples set out as a kind of traveling monastery, living entirely on the charity of the villages they visited. Eventually they settled in some abandoned baths in Antioch, setting up a there a monastery dedicated to the unceasing praise of God; but a jealous bishop drove them from the city. Making his way to Constantinople, he settled there with four monks. In a few days, more than four hundred monks had left their monasteries to join his community. The Saint organized them into three companies — Greeks, Latins and Syrians — and restored the program of unsleeping prayer that his community had practiced in Mesopotamia. Not surprisingly, his success aroused the envy and anger of the abbots whose monasteries had been nearly emptied; they managed to have him condemned as a Messalian at a council held in 426. (The Messalians were an over-spiritualizing sect who believed that the Christian life consisted exclusively of prayer.) Alexander was sent back to Syria, and most of his monks were imprisoned; but as soon as they were released, most fled the city to join him again. The Saint spent his last years traveling from place to place, founding monasteries, often persecuted, until he reposed in 430, 'to join the Angelic choirs which he had so well imitated on earth.' (Synaxarion)

 . . .

Source:  John Brady,, entry for Feb. 23, opened 24 May 2018

May God grant to Dixie a St Alexander of her own one day soon.


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Loss of Identity in the [u.] S.

The [u]nited States is a frustrating place to live.  So much that gives meaning to life is dissolved in the quest to gain money or ‘freedom’.  One’s identity is not grounded in the traditional soil of Church, family, clan, city, region, nation, empire, and so on but simply in job occupation, leisure activities, and/or the abstractions of various political constitutions and charters.

This unhealthy imbalance has seemingly led to another unhealthy imbalance meant to correct the former:  Race is becoming one of the most important factors in forming one’s identity in the States.  Thus, the rise of La Raza, white nationalists, Black Panthers, etc.

Even the Orthodox clergy in the States seem unbalanced in their attempts to deal with this, in a recent statement bordering on the denial that nationality, ethnicity, and so forth have any real value for the present or the future:

But it seems that both sides are falling into harmful ways of thinking.  The various ethno-nationalists do not see the dangers lurking in their strict identification of race and nation:

And the cosmopolitan Orthodox seem to be forgetting that nationality does have an important role in the present and the future.

Our Lord says that ‘all nations’ will appear before Him at the Last Judgment (St Matt. 25:32), and the recognition of ethnic distinctions continues on in Heaven (Rev. 5:9).  The Orthodox Church has also unapologetically proclaimed as saints some who have advocated very strongly for loving their native lands and cultures - St Paisius of Bulgaria, St Ilia of Georgia, and St Nikolai Velimirovich of Serbia among them:

How should we think of nationality, then, so as not to fall into any of the errors spoken of above?  Vladimir Moss speaks to this:

And this raises the very difficult question: assuming that there is a sense, albeit metaphorical, in which a nation does have a unique spirit or soul, how are we to define it? Or, if a definition is impossible - for, as Aksyuchits says, "just as a person cannot be simply defined, but only described, so is it with a nation"91 - how are we to describe it, at any rate approximately? Or, if it cannot even be described, but only be "felt", how are we to distinguish a true apprehension of the nation's soul from a false one?

In order to answer these questions, I propose briefly examining several criteria of nationhood, both spiritual ones like the religion of a nation, and more concrete ones, such as blood, land and language. In an article written in 1970, and entitled "Three Attitudes to the Homeland", the Russian Slavophile Vladimir Osipov proposes the following set of criteria: "What is a nation? Faith, blood, language and the land. Religion, and even a certain complex of rites, are a part - indeed, the most important part - of the spirit of a nation. An individual person can get by without religion. But without religion, an individual nation cannot survive as a nation... A people disintegrates literally before one's eyes when faith in God disintegrates..."92

Here we find the religious approach to the problem of nationalism – the importance importance attached to the faith of the nation - that is characteristic of almost all Russian writers. It is not that the call of blood, language and land are not felt by Russians - especially the latter. But the strength of the Orthodox Christian tradition in defining the Russians' consciousness of themselves and of others remains strong, even after 70 years of atheist and internationalist socialist propaganda. And this tradition declares that blood, after all, is not a defining quality of nations (especially in such a racially mixed nation as Russia) - and in any case, as the Apostle Paul said, God "hath made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17.26). As for language and land, they change and develop without the essential spirit of a country changing - although there is no doubt that a deep knowledge of the language and living contact with the land has an important role in keeping the spirit of a nation alive.

Aksyuchits echoes this judgement: "The positivist definitions of a people - for example, common origin (blood), language, territory, economic structure, culture, state unity - do not embrace the concept of that mysterious unity which is the people, the nation. All such definitions are only partial. They cannot, for example, explain the existence of such a people as the Jews, who in the thousands of years of their existence have become mixed in blood93, have changed their language and culture, have not had a common territory, or economic structure, or their own statehood, but have nevertheless been fully preserved as a people."94

The example of the Jews is indeed instructive, and there can be little doubt that the only major bond holding them together as a nation since the destruction of their statehood in 70 A.D. has been their faith. However, it is also instructive to note that when the Jewish leaders felt that the identity of their nation was being threatened through assimilation with the European nations in the nineteenth century, they founded the Zionist movement at Basel in 1897 with the explicit aim of bolstering the Jewish identity by a return to the land of Israel.95 Since then, moreover, it has been felt necessary to resurrect the Hebrew language - and to make common blood a condition of citizenship in the state of Israel.

So while a nation can exist by faith alone, this faith is strengthened by its association with a specific territorial, linguistic and genetic inheritance (however artificially these associations may be constructed or reconstructed). This intermingling of spirit and flesh in the self-definition of a nation has much to do with the kind of state structure it eventually adopts. A truly theocratic people may be strong enough in its allegiance to its heavenly Homeland to exist without a homeland or state on earth; for they "confess that they are strangers and pilgrims on the earth" and seek "a better country, that is, an heavenly" (Hebrews 11.13,16). However, once settled in a certain place, they will naturally tend to establish a monarchical state structure; for monarchy, and especially hereditary monarchy, is both an expression and a guarantor of continuity with the past. Nor is such traditionalism a matter just of preserving some quaint old habits and customs. Insofar as the faith which expresses the spirit of the nation is a historical one - "the faith of our Fathers", - and bound up with certain specific historical events, such as the Resurrection of Christ or the Conversion of St. Constantine, the history of the nation will be to a large extent the history of that faith in that land, and the keeping of historical memory will be both an expression of that faith and a means of keeping it alive in the people.

However, as a nation begins to lose its faith, the keeping of the traditions, and the preservation of the spiritual unity of the nation in and through the traditions, will come to seem less important than the fulfilling of the needs of the individual citizens. And at that point, as has happened in the history of almost all the European nations, the opportunity arises for an antimonarchical, democratic revolution. For democracy, as we have seen, is oriented to the needs of the individual as opposed to society as a whole, and of the individual as a materialistic consumer as opposed to the individual as a member of the people of God.

Source:, pgs. 97-9, downloaded 12 May 2018

What we see here is that nationality is more a matter of belief and behavior than strictly race.  The ethnic researcher Lev Gumilev also confirms this in his book Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere:

An ethnos, in my understanding, is a collective of individuals that has a unique inner structure and an original stereotype of behaviour, both components being dynamic. Consequently an ethnos is an elementary phenomenon that is not reducible to either sociological biological, or geographical phenomena.

 . . .

Ethnoi are always linked, on the contrary, with natural conditions, through active economic activity, which is manifested in two directions, viz., adaptation to the terrain, and of the latter to the ethnos. In both cases, however, we come up against an ethnos as a really existing phenomenon, although the reason for its origin is not clear.

It is also not necessary to reduce the whole diversity of my theme to some one thing. It is better simply to establish the role of certain factors. The terrain, for example, determines an ethnic collective's possibilities during its rise, but a newly born ethnos alters the terrain in accordance with its requirements. Such mutual adaptation is only possible when a rising ethnos is full of strength and is seeking to apply it. Later, however, it becomes used to the established situation, which becomes near and dear to its descendants. Denial of that leads inevitably to a conclusion that peoples have no homeland, understood here as a combination of topographical elements dear to all hearts. Hardly anyone will agree with that.

That alone indicates that ethnogenesis is not a social process, because spontaneous development of the sociosphere only interacts with natural phenomena, but is not a product of them. But it is precisely because ethnogenesis is a process, and a directly observed ethnos is a phase of ethnogenesis, and consequently an unstable system, that any comparison of ethnoi with anthropological races is ruled out, and so with any racial theories. In fact, the principle of anthropological classification is similarity, and the people who comprise an ethnos are diverse.

Source:, opened 18, 19 May 2018

The word 'Romans' (romani), for instance, originally meant a citizen of the polis Rome, but not at all the Italics and not even the Latins who inhabited other towns of Latium. In the epoch of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries A.D. the number of Romans increased through the inclusion among them of all Italians-Etruscans, Samnites, Ligurians, Gauls, and many inhabitants of the provinces, by no means of Latin origin. After the edict of Caracalla in A.D. 212 all free inhabitants of municipalities on the territory of the Roman Empire were called 'Romans', i.e. Greeks, Cappadocians, Jews, Berbers, Gauls, Illyrians, Germans, etc. The concept 'Roman' lost its ethnic meaning, as it were, but that was not so; it simply changed it. The general element became unity not even of culture, but of historical fate, instead of unity of origin and language. The ethnos existed in that form for three centuries, a considerable period, and did not break up. On the contrary, it was transformed in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., through the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, which began to be the determinant principle after the fourth ecumenical council. Those who recognized these councils sanctioned by the state authority were Romans, and those who did not became enemies. A new ethnos was formed on that basis, that I conventionally call 'Byzantine', but they themselves called themselves 'Romaic', i.e. 'Romans', though they spoke Greek. A large number of Slavs, Armenians, and Syrians were gradually merged among the Romaic, but they retained the name 'Romans' until 1453, until the fall of Constantinople.

But in the first century A.D. new people appeared in the Roman Empire, unlike any of their neighbors, who formed a new entity in the next two centuries. They already counterposed themselves at the beginning of their advent to 'pagans', i.e. to all other people, and, in fact, were singled out from their number, of course, by the character of their behavior and not by anatomical or physiological traits. They treated each other differently, thought differently, and set themselves aims in life that seemed senseless to their contemporaries, in striving for bliss beyond the grave. Asceticism was foreign to the Hellenistic world; the new people created the Thebaid. The Hellenes and Romans had already, for several centuries, considered their gods literary figures, maintaining the cult as a public tradition but guided in ordinary life by many omens. The new preachers and neophytes considered with complete conviction that the other world was reality, and prepared themselves for fife on the other side. While professing loyalty to the Roman government, they refused to recognize its divine nature, and would not bow to the statues of the emperors, although that often cost them their lives. These nuances of behavior did not break the structures of society, but the new people dropped out of the ethnic unity and evoked the burning hatred of the urban poor, who demanded their annihilation, proceeding from the principle of denial of the right to be different.

It is wrong to think that the cause of the arising hostility was the difference in convictions, because there were no stable and distinct convictions among the uneducated pagans at that time, while they were diverse among the people of the new mentality. But why did the Hellenes and Romans not quarrel with Mithra, Isis, Cybele, and Helios, making an exception only for Christ? What put Christ outside must obviously have been not an ideological or political attribute, but an ethnological one, i.e. a behavioral one that was really new and unaccustomed for Hellenistic culture.

As we know, the new entity was victorious in spite of vast losses. The Gnostics disappeared, and Manichaeans were scattered; the Marcionites (subsequently Bogomils) were confined to a narrow community, and only the Christian Church proved viable and gave rise to an entity that had no name of its own. I shall conventionally call it Byzantine, or Orthodox Christian. An ethnos was formed from the Early Christian community in the fifth century A,D. throughout the Roman Empire, that called itself by the old word 'Romaic' (Gr. Rhome). From the fifth to the tenth centuries A.D. Bulgarians, Serbs, Magyars, Czechs, Russians, and Alans were converted to Orthodoxy, and then a superethnic cultural entity of the Orthodox world was created, which was broken up in the thirteenth century by blows from outside – by 'Franks' [+20], 'Turks', and Mongols.

Mr Gumilev’s work confirms for us that one’s bloodline is not the primary factor in national identity.  It does count for something, but it is only one element in the larger national matrix together with faith, land, and language.

A nation, an ethnos, may contain more than one race, as in Rome, Constantinople/New Rome, and Russia.  It is so with the South as well, which is formed mainly of a triple cord of Englishmen, Africans, and Celts, and many are those who have assimilated to the pattern of life they created here in Dixie - Germans, Greeks, Sicilians, etc.  Hopefully, one day the Native Americans who were expelled will also be welcomed back to their lands here in the South (Muscogee, Cherokee, etc., and become part of this great ethnos as well.

M. E. Bradford is thus on the right track when he speaks of the Southern identity as ‘a vital and long-lasting bond, a corporate identity assumed by those who have contributed to it’ in Why the South Will Survive (U of Georgia Press, 1981, p. 215). 

The mono-racial state is not necessary for national well-being.  What is needed is a common faith, code of conduct, and history.  The fact that black mammies raised white children throughout the life of the South, and vice  versa, even into modern times, shows that this did exist in the South.  It still does, largely.  What is required of Southerners now is to perfect their oneness in the Orthodox Church, and to protect their inherited social order against threats such as weaponized mass immigration.

The South has an antinomic character, i.e., unlike things existing together in harmony.  These different kin-groups, the African and the Western European, co-exist together peacefully in Dixie (there are exceptions of course, but we are speaking of the general rule).  It contributes greatly to her uniqueness in the world, to the sense of mystery surrounding her.  If the antinomy is destroyed, the South is likewise destroyed.

The multi-ethnic, multi-racial nature of the Orthodox Christian Empire did not lead to the melding of all its tribes and nations into one bland people.  Some intermarriage no doubt occurred (as it has in the South), but this is not a sin (here the cosmopolitan Orthodox mentioned above are correct).  Overall, however, they retained their uniqueness, offering it to the glory of God (which is why folks should not be too eager to destroy these distinctions by thoughtless multiculturalism), while purifying themselves of sin and learning to love their neighbors.

St-Emperor Constantine the Great gives us a glimpse of this harmony in his letter on the dating Easter:

...the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day. ...(So) cheerfully accept what is observed with such general unanimity of sentiment in the city of Rome, throughout Italy, Africa, all Egypt, Spain, France, Britain, Libya, the whole of Greece, and the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Cilicia . . .

Source:, opened 15 March 2018

All these peoples lived peacefully together in the one Orthodox Christian Empire by the Grace of the Holy Ghost.  No one in the South, therefore, should think it such a strange or dangerous thing to see different races living under the one roof of Dixie.  If she will simply acquire the Holy Ghost, all will go well with her.


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!