The League vs. Abbeville

draytonhallAbbeville Institute’s James Ruteledge Roesch has written an interesting article lamenting the anti-Southern bias inherent in our conquerors.  He mentions Ol Miss being forced to give up its mascot in favor of a less offensive one (among other travesties).

The Persians and Romans at least had the decency to respect the people they conquered; the Assyrians and Babylonians on the other hand, forced their victims to give up their cultures and miscegenate with the invaders.  This, says Roesch, is the fate of the South, whose been conquered by the United States of Assyria.

Better he should have said the United States of Babylon; no other organization is promoting satanic Babylonian ideals like us yanks.

This is all good commentary except Roesch goes on to say:

Although there is a time for protesting, the fate of Southern heritage ultimately depends on changing the hearts and minds of the people. To do that, Southerners cannot only take to the streets waving Confederate flags, but must win the war of ideas.

While he doesn’t mention the League of the South here, he obviously has them in mind.

What makes this so asinine is how Roesch offers the obligatory line:

Slavery, of course, should not be endorsed, but it does not follow that any trace of master-slave relations, even an affectionate term of endearment, should be abolished.

Wait…Slavery should not be endorsed?

Why the hell is Roesch supporting the South then?!  He may as well say:  the slave-based hierarchical social order which supported the entire Southern way of life and culture, should not be endorsed. But that just is to say:  he has accepted the Babylonian indoctrination which his entire article is meant to oppose!

How can he lecture the League of the South about “focusing on hearts and minds” when he’s already given up the battle for the hearts and minds?!  Either Roesch is too afraid to speak positively about slavery, or he’s genuinely sold on Yankee propaganda that slavery is an evil.  In either case, the force of his argument is lost.

The League of the South, on the other hand, has enough foresight to see that the majority of American “hearts and minds” are already bought and paid for by Babylon and the best thing we can do is break fellowship with them; form our own nation and re-build (through independence) a new sense of national identity.

You can’t grow strong hearts without strong soil to plant them in James.

This entry was posted in Defending Dixie and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The League vs. Abbeville

  1. civil rights apostate says:

    What the multicultural maniacs forget is that even the more radical and violent pro-white groups do not want to go to India, China, and Africa to rule–whereas multiculturalists want to take over Europe and North America for the diverse people. They’re non-white supremacists

  2. Tim Harris says:

    “The League” ended as a force when it changed its name from “Southern League” to the meaningless “League of the South.” “League of the South and Mexico” would make sense, but not simply “of the South.” I’m developing a theory that whoever changes his name, loses. It’s been a big reason for the struggles of my denomination, the OPC, as well.

    • There are a lot of up-n-coming youngsters in the League, most of whom I’m personal friends with, which have deliberately anti-modernist ideals. Hopefully they can re-establish momentum and re-package a Johnny-Rebocracy for a new generation.

      On another note, I may be moving soon and will finally have regular access to an Orthodox Presbyterian church; I hope to join you in membership soon.

  3. Yes, good call “Shotgun.” The person who wrote the Abbeville article is concerned about the name-calling. As long as different pro-white causes have that “Whatever you do don’t call me racist (don’t call me white)” contingent, there won’t be forward progress. When you are called a name, you have got to hit back, maybe with another name, like calling them anti-white. Politics is like a game, start playing it and stop complaining about it.

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

  4. Kyra Marat says:

    I can’t agree that to be a true Southerner we need endorse the Plantation Oligarchy that held the plain white folks in lower esteem then their negro slaves who held a status within this “hierarchy” that was never experienced by white Southerners who were non-slave holders. 27/7 the Southern Oligarchs preached to the impoverished white that he wasn’t held down at all, no, not at all! He might be worse off than a black but he was white, so that made their treatment of non-slaving owning hard working plain folks somehow all better.
    True to their hearts no Southern man would dream of leaving or deserting his country. And when it was time to defend it, it was the plain non-slave owners who gave all their blood for it.

    I love the South with all my soul, but I do not worship Power. And that was what that was about.
    Power held in the hands of the few, who betrayed their own people while giving succor to their slaves.

  5. Kyra Marat says:

    I am sorry about my Comment. My computer is elderly, and the comment section kept bucking on me.

    I think that as Southerners we have to face the plain truth that while the Plantation System is romanticized in our historical mythology, in reality it was not a terrible system economically, and this state fell upon the whites who were not in the Plantation System which was an oligarchical control over all its people, the slaves and the non-holders.

    While a standing army may have been at the ready in Richmond for putative “slave rebellions” the Plantation oligarchs kept their eyes on the white folk who were disfranchised and abused by this same system all the while loving their country with a love that was of the heart. While the rich oligarchs ran around the world and often did not even live in their country, the plain white man never left it nor wanted to. When the war came this is what he defended, not the Plantation system which never did him an ounce of good. This is what we have to dig into historically speaking and come to grips with.

    One can speak of the evils of slavery re the negro, we need to discuss it in terms of slavery re the white people of the South. These are the people I care about. What effect did it have on them? This is in no way is a betrayal of our Southern Heritage. It is however, a defense of white folks of the South who got trapped by a powerful elite into defending the slave plantation system that never served them any good ever for one moment, at all.

  6. I think you’re grasping at a historical narrative that tries to be both politically correct *and* defend Southerners.

    A narrative which might be more acceptable to reconstructed sensibilities.

    • Kyra Marat says:

      es. How this is politically correct not sure. There are some great books about the Plain Fol

      Never been called politically correct before so it is an enjoyable sensation for the moment.

      I care about the white people of the South then and now. I don’t care about blacks. And I don’t care about oligarchs, then, or now.

      When blacks were brought here to be slaves, the die was cast that whites and blacks would be forever entwined. One could ask then, and one can ask now, who is the slave? Who is the master? It was the question then and it’s the question now. The Plantation system was the set up piece for what we have today, total chaos and domination by a lower order. Jefferson wrote all about it.

      There are if one digs, many old books written pre bellum days and Reconstruction era that deal with this subject. Not for one moment could they considered modernist or politically correct.

      You are an admirer of Cambria whose writings are great. Reading his work thoroughly he makes clear that the negro causes great damage to the White Christian spirit just by his mere introduction into the white Christian world. I doubt if he would be considered of reconstructed sensibilities.

      One can love the South with one’s whole heart, but not blindly. You have a great site keep it up. Don’t dismiss a person out of hand. There is much to consider.

      • I’m a monarchist but I sympathize with the structured “hierarchical” social order of old Dixie. It was the closest post-Enlightenment society to the old European order I find so appealing.

        But, unfortunately, this explicit anti-egalitarianism is anathema to moderns, even pro-white moderns who take after northern “white” supremacists in their attempt to garner favor from the left by abhorring slavery (as an institution).

        The problem is not now (and never has been) that whites exist in the same world as blacks. The problem is that we’ve been forced (at gun point) to give up all social restrictions on negro behavior and are thrust into daily life with them as equals.

        If you’re going to be an egalitarian, then yes, I can see why you’d want total separation. But if you’re going to have a Christ-like paternalistic spirit towards your vassals, then it’s best to be loving, yet firm in discipline…as a slave-based social order has exemplified.

  7. Kyra Marat says:

    To bring the black into any white society and world is the death knell of that white society. To introduce blackness into Christian whiteness means the removal of Christ from the white society. Cambria makes this vividly clear.

    The jewish slave traders lucratively traded in black slaves. For the British this was opportune particularly for the Islands (Barbados, et al). The Irish had made poor slaves although over a million had been enslaved. They would work better than any black but they died too quickly. Hence the term “Redneck,” “Cracker,” their skin would burn and they themselves would literally burn and crack to pieces in the sun. These terms are still used derisively by negroes against whites today because they used it against the Irish then. Their skin didn’t burn in the sun. They could survive the sun. Not the crackers! This racialism was endorsed by the plantation owners, who played the race card from the very beginning of the white/black slave system. This racism by blacks continued through the South up until the War. It has continued ever since. The Plantation oligarchs were the race baiters, the race card players. Blacks learned from them.

    I believe that the South would never have become anything like northerners because the people of the South were of a different racial stock, Scotch Irish, etc., Their religion was a deep one and differed mightily from the northerners. It was an entirely different country than the North but the Plantation System was not the reason why it was wonderful and good with a sureness of Christian spirit not known by northerners, ever. The South was the South and southerners were southerners in spite of the plantation system, not because of it. The propaganda to whites that the South was great because of them, the Plantation owners, persists in the southern mentality even today. Old lies die hard.

    When the System went away, southerners were happy to see it go. At least this is what I learned from old family in Alabama. For the first time, the plain people could break free of the oligarchs who held them down more viciously than their beloved blacks. This is the true story of the white people of the South. At last, they could speak to the political powers, at last they could claim what was rightfully theirs, an education, the right to not be looked down upon by the wealthy rich plantation owners who had actually drifted away from being true Southerners in their hearts.

    As said, Southern people perdured through the plantation system and are wonderful good people in spite of the oligarchical system of the Plantation which just continued in another format and in another place, the Federal Government. Too many Southerners today believe the neo-conservative liars, too many of them have thrown their hats in the ring to support Israel, land of the jews, land of the jewish slave traders, who profited off of anyone, white or otherwise. And play the race card like nobody’s business.

  8. Kyra Marat says:

    It could be the wrong attitude. It could be.

    I am not against the notion of vassals, as someone wrote above. Nor about hierarchical structures, nor the Plantation in principle. The South had (has) an attitude and I don’t disrespect it. It is comfortable to me but I want to think more about it, and not stay exactly where I was. Too much has happened in the last fifty years.

    I think that the hierarchy brought in the wrong people to be vassals. The blacks were old hands at being slaves. Four fifths of the continent of Africa had been enslaved, black on black, for untold centuries. When they came here as slaves they merely moved shop. They were adept at what they were, slaves.

    In the South, these people thrived in slavery. Brazil, the islands, where it was mostly sugar growing, was harsh. But in the South the climate was great, and they enjoyed a life in which they could not only thrive, but exert their own sort of power upon the master. As said, they were adept from centuries of doing this. The white Christian will always be superior to any people of color. It’s just that white Christians have to know that even in their superiority people of color have their ways getting into that superiority and exploiting it.

    The attitudes that blacks have now are the same ones they had on the Plantation. And it is interesting to study this and research the old books written in the 1700’s etc by those who were going into Africa before any colonialism was even there.

    If my field of study puts me out of the sorts with the standard format one must embrace in order to have the “right attitude,” well, that is okay. For myself, I can’t be closed in to a certain set of attitudes, some of them I will retain but my field of interest takes me in other areas. If one reads Cambria closely, I would be surprised if he insisted that the South was absolutely right on the money because he too seems to examine the negro from a certain perspective. He says that to embrace the negro is satanism and blames liberaldom for this. I agree. But this notion calls for an extenuation in which some of us must at least entertain the notion that to bring any black here under any circumstances was a death knell. Maybe because he is Northerner, he is not wed to a particular section of the country.

    It was actually reading his writings and the old books about the negro in Africa that formed the notions that I am thinking about. I can always change my mind, or come to further ideas. If they are rejected out of hand as not southern enough, that is too bad, sincerely, really and truly.

    • For your theory to be true, you have to argue that the south *before* that terrible war, was destined to destruction, evil mixing, and white genocide.

      Instead, what we have is a flourishing society, both socially and economically – one that created a quasi-feudal atmosphere, where Walter Scott was read with impunity, where ladies were treated like ladies and men had a martial spirit, where everyday life was laid back and focused on happiness instead of on “progress” … and under such conditions the negro gained the highest level of humanity he’s ever seen since his distant ancestor was cursed.

      You’re right to fear the negro unfettered, but wrong to say the old South should have never existed as it did.

  9. Kyra Marat says:

    Thank you for replying to my comments. I can’t say that the South should never have existed as it did. That is a horrible consideration being that the South is the only thing good about America. The people are the best people, everything about it, every pore of it.

    I am conflicted about the matter. The South could only have existed according to your theories because of slavery and therefore because of the negro slave. This throws all the weight on that contingency.

    Maybe I have become too northernized. I love the South but seem to think that the underpinning of it, the contingency upon blacks who sooner or later would become unfettered, has to be thought about. They would not take their rightful place (the blacks) nor keep it. All the rest of my previous posts wrestle with this.

    • Well it’s my view that God grows peoples like farmers grow crops.

      Through the course of history, the weaving ins and outs of providence, people are forced into (or enter gladly) new ancestral homes and it’s here, in this new place, surrounded by new circumstances, they begin to form new expressions of Christendom.

      But while it’s a new expression, it’s not a new phenomenon. The old South, in my view, was simply antique-European livelihood, in a largely agrarian trappings. Self reliance, agrarian life styles, and pride of place, not to mention, a Christ-like paternalism for the blacks, all came to define the Southern “flavor” – it affects everything from our poetry to our music. Without both the southern climate, its terrain, and yes, even its negros, the South wouldn’t have been what it was.

      And I agree with Fitzhugh – if there’s going to be a peasant or “slave” class, better it be composed of an inferior race. The South’s social hierarchy was the most parsimonious and well-oiled in all of the white man’s history. No organized “Marxist” uprisings there … no peasant revolts (other than an occasional slave row spurred by outside influences).

      The easy-going Southern demeanor and our martial spirit, not to mention our above-normal powers of empathy, all arise from the “soil” God planted us in, the socio-economic soil as well as the natural. There wouldn’t be such a thing as a Southerner otherwise.

      • Kyra Marat says:

        What you write is very well written and all heart. I have no urge to argue with any of it.

        How do I ask this, would you say then that the South is grateful to its negros then? It is from your commentary to my comment that this question emerges.

        The inferior race was treated fairly and often in my opinion too well by the southern plantation owner. The negro was able to get to the white’s soft spots. This is the nature of inferior people. They have an instinct for playing upon the nature of the superior race who then exerts a kindness toward them. This then is exploited. I don’t mean to digress but as my previous comments indicate this is what I am dealing with in terms of the pre-bellum era. Indeed though, no other place was as kind to blacks as the South. It was their blessing to be here. But of course, this is outrageous a thought to them now and is a matter of exploitation upon white people managed by a group who detests Christendom and used the black as shock troops to destroy us. Thank you most kindly. You are going to be a very good writer, for your thinking has an elegance. No flattery.

  10. Shotgun says:

    Thanks for the kind words Kara – and your position has merit, certainly.

    The other day someone posted an old recording of a Confederate Veteran. He gave, what has by now become, a “standard” line, namely: Lincoln was something of a hero, the South didn’t fight for slavery but rather for states rights, and that they’d have all been better off without slavery in the first place.

    But I gather he imbibed the spirit of his times, similar to the way some veterans talk about the Iraq War today (as a war fought about WMD’s or some such). I don’t feel like what he said is what the Southern apologists of the war-days would have argued.

    And I admit, my position is controversial. (Incidentally – some of the younger guys in the League of the South are pushing in the same direction). We’re trying to re-capture the Southern “spirit” more so than all the old Jeffersonian, pro-Republic talking-points. Call it a “Southern Romanticism” vs. a Southern political ideology.

    I love the Abbeville Institute (for example), but everything they write is aimed at supporting some quasi-Jeffersonian political ideal. They’ll promote Calhoun’s philosophy as long as it supports this over-arching political narrative. They promote it because it’s palatable to our new masters, and they wont be immediately ostracized for it.

    Additionally, many pre-War anti-slavery arguments weren’t provided by stereotypical abolitionists, but were, rather, offered by so-called “white supremacists” who argue exactly as you’ve argued here (ie: that such mixing will be the downfall of our race). Professor Clyde N. Wilson has an entire lecture he gives on this point. He likes to rub it in the noses of the anti-slavery advocates, kind of a…”Hey liberals! Guess who you’re bedfellows with in opposing slavery?!” (I’d link you to the lecture but it looks like Abbeville has removed most of their audio content). So what you’ve advocated here has a long pedigree in America.

    ——————————

    As for being grateful for the blacks (and our proximity to them) – well, I’m grateful the South grew as it did…and as a good Christian I need to be grateful for the trials-by-fire we’re undergoing at the moment (even though I despise the new social system that was forced on us at gunpoint), though, admittedly, it’s hard to say “…Thy will be done”.

Comments:

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