Muses from the SF Webmaster

Miles’ Southern warning against global interventionism by SF Webmaster

William Porcher Miles, a socially-conscious Southern nationalist intellectual who served as a medical volunteer, Mayor of Charleston and USA and CSA Congressman from South Carolina, warned against tying to apply political ideas universally. He noted, a Classically-minded Southerner, that human are inherently flawed and limited. He also pointed out that no single political system is best for all people everywhere. Instead, the best political systems are organic and developed over many generations in accordance with the cultural and physical conditions of different people.

In 1852, Miles gave an address before the Alumni Society of the College of Charleston. His warnings in that speech applied the plantation world's Classical values to various problems born of Modernist ideologies. In the wake of the mess (which resulted in a migrant crisis, terrorism and trillions of dollars wasted in regime change attempts) made by the USA and its NATO allies in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, Miles' warnings read prophetic about the horrors unleashed by Neo-conservatives or liberal interventionists seeking to topple monarchs to bring radical republicanism to the Muslim world:

Political Crusades are impolitic and dangerous, and are apt to be productive of as small permanent results as the Religious Crusades of the Middle Ages. The true policy of a nation is to a great degree selfish. Let her chief aim be to conserve or to perfect her own Constitution; to elevate and improve the condition of her own people. The finite intellect of man is incapable of marking out for them the destined of all races and People.

 

Radical Martianism by SF Webmaster

If Martians were settling here and some of them were preaching war against us and periodically killing get us and blowing things up would we blame radical Martianism or would we say that the Martians need to go back to Mars? Would libertarians insist on a free right to travel between Mars and Earth? Would Republicans demand more off-world workers and tell us how the growing green population is expanding our economy? Would liberals lecture us about the universal brotherhood of intelligent life? Would our leaders worry about the potential rise of anti-Martian extremism every time a Martian killed someone or would they begin sending the aliens home?

 

New poles of SN politics

by SF Webmaster

 

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 discussion 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.