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.
. . .
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.
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)
. . .
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!
