Atlanta, the self-styled “capital of the New South” and the host of the annual debauchery known as “Freaknik,” was a natural to host the 1996 Olympics. The quadrennial event has become a giant block party to celebrate the smiley-face aspects of the New World Order: universal brotherhood, multiculturalism, diversity, and tolerance. But amidst the revelry and self-congratulation, the “City Too Busy To Hate” has discovered a target for its pent-up indignation: the Old South.
The 1996 Centennial Olympics revealed the dichotomy between the two Souths. On the one hand, the New South greeted the gathering of the world’s tribes with its usual boasting and civic boosterism. On the other, the Old South viewed the garish pagan spectacle in much the same way it views the annual descent of the sandals-and-black-socks crowd from Ohio—as an aggravation to be borne until it goes away.
In order to spare the feelings of international visitors, the Atlanta city fathers and ACOG (the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games) went all out to banish every vestige of the Old Confederacy, including the Georgia state flag, which contains in its design the Confederate battle flag. A resident of Crawfordville. the home of CSA vice president Alexander H. Stephens, told me that when a van load of federal bureaucrats came to scout out Liberty Hall as a potential Olympic tourist site, several of them refused to go inside, and one spat on a monument to “Little Aleck,” calling him a “hooky racist.” Needless to say, politically incorrect Liberty Hall was not put on the official Olympic pilgrimage.
But traditional Southerners fought the international octopus in their own small ways. A lawsuit was filed against the Atlanta suburb of Roswell, which forced the city to allow Confederate reenactors to march in a parade escorting the Olympic flame. In the rural north Alabama hamlet of Battleground, named in honor of General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s victory at Day’s Gap in 1863, city officials were asked to remove the battle flag that waves over the volunteer fire station on Highway 159 so as not to offend the bearer of the sacred flame. The local Bubbas reacted by hoisting two additional flags over the roadside plaque commemorating Forrest’s triumph. “Them ‘lympic folks ain’t gonna tell us what to do,” one retorted.
Why have loyal Southerners come under such heavy fire from the New World Order’s artillery? In part, I think, because the traditional South is seen as the world’s largest (and maybe the last) bastion of historic Christianity, the last “infamy” to be wiped out. Southern Christians (the Southern Baptist leadership perhaps excepted) see in Biblical scripture the mandate for a hierarchical society in which modern egalitarian notions have no place, and they view the scattering of the nations at the Tower of Babel as an indictment against the United Nations. The Bible is also one of the sources of the Southern view of the nation as an organic expression of loyalty to kith and kin. The impersonal modern state, like the universal rights of man it is supposed to protect, derives from the delusion of human perfectibility. The Southern identity—largely Anglo-Celtic—is not dedicated to any proposition; it is bound up in that vast memory of the blood captured so well in Stark Young’s So Red the Rose. Young’s protagonist, Hugh McGehee, tells his son as he sends him off to join the Confederate Army: “It’s not to our credit to think we began today and it’s not to our glory to think we end today. All through time we keep coming into the shore like waves—like waves. You stick to your blood, son; there’s a fierceness in blood that can bind you up with a long community of life.”
The social and political ideals of the traditional South contrast markedly with those of the North, and especially New England. While the Southerner held fast to Biblical inerrancy, allegiance to place and kin, patriotism, local self-government, and social hierarchy, the Yankee embraced individual conscience, universalism, nationalism, centralism, and egalitarianism. Lincoln’s and the black Republicans’ victory in 1865 assured that the North’s worldview would prevail, at least for a while. The first chapter in the story of the destruction of the Old American Republic indeed was written at Appomattox Courthouse. Nonetheless, for the better part of the last 130 years, Southerners have tried hard to “get over it” and be good Americans, despite the destruction of the social and political arrangements left them by their forefathers.
One area of national life in which Southerners have been willing to participate for the last century has been the Armed Services. They have shed their blood far out of proportion to their numbers in the general population. The most highly decorated American soldiers in World War I and II, respectively, were Alvin York of Tennessee and Audie Murphy of Texas, and our most feared World War II General, George S. Patton, was descended from a Confederate soldier.
But in more recent days, the military’s attitude toward Southerners has changed. For example, many Southerners in the Armed Services, as exemplified by Michael New of Texas, are apprehensive of America’s loss of national sovereignty to transnational agencies. New’s tribulations have been well documented, and I shall not go into them here. What I would like to show, however, is a disturbing anti-Southern trend within America’s mercenary Armed Services.
When it is not bombing the people of Iraq into submission or aiding Muslims against Christians in the Balkans, the New American Military is busy preparing to be the global peacekeeper of the 21st century. In an article entitled “Ambushing the Future,” published in the April 1995 issue of Special Warfare, an official publication of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg, Dr. James J. Schneider reveals some of the darker purpose of this seemingly noble effort. The tone is set in the preface written by Major-General William F. Garrison. “We may forget,” chides Garrison, “that our own Civil War [sic] was a nationalist-separatist conflict; that during Reconstruction our Army performed peacekeeping, nation-building, and humanitarian-assistance missions; and that our Indian wars were a long-running ethnic conflict.”
Schneider takes the same lesson from the past, hopping from one cliche to another. Schneider is not sallying forth into never-never land. “The future,” he says, “is already before us, hidden in a fog. It is like a living thing that we must seek out, discover, and ambush,” and to set his ambush, he turns to the South’s past; Reconstruction. Citing the Army’s role as a domestic counterterrorist force arrayed against the Ku Klux Klan, the Redeemers, and other manifestations of white Southern resistance, Schneider and others of his stripe foresee a time in the coming century when United States Armed Forces could be profitably employed against “Good Ole Boys with guns” foolish enough to believe that the Bill of Rights still means what it says.
Should Schneider’s view of the future role of the military prevail (as it seems to be doing), then not only the present-day South but much of the rest of the world is likely to get a taste of what “peacekeeping” really means. He contends that “for the Army and for Special Forces, the future will be a period of global reconstruction” under the auspices of the United Nations. This “global reconstruction,” he reveals, will be sold to a gullible public through the international media. “Today the media knows no national boundaries,” he writes, “it is international. The media is a powerful lever of public opinion. Through its global extension, universal presence, and speed-of-light technology, today’s media can change world opinion in a matter of hours. As a consequence, local issues become laden almost immediately with global implications and therefore become U.N. problems.” (Italics added.) In light of the well-publicized black church burnings and the pipe-bombing of Atlanta’s Olympic Centennial Park, one wonders how long it will be before the U.N. blue-helmets descend upon the South in their rainbow-colored paddy wagons to haul away scores of redneck terrorists to stand trial before The Hague Tribunal.
It is clear that the South and its long-standing patriotism are the main obstacle to the implementation of policies that subordinate the United States Armed Services to the interests of globalists. Southerners have in large part provided the backbone of the American military since the founding of the Republic. One might claim that the American Empire has been built on the bones of Southerners, just as the British Empire was built on the bones of Scotsmen. But today the Armed Forces are conducting a campaign to demonize the South, as evidenced by the Navy’s attempt to ban the use of the state flags of Mississippi and Georgia in a 50-state display at a change of command ceremony in Pennsylvania in 1995. More disturbing are reports from Southern soldiers on the anti-South propaganda coming from some of their officers during basic training. The young man tells of entering basic at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing and learning that the real enemy was not a hostile foreign power but domestic “terrorists” and the ubiquitous militia. A bit further on in his instruction, this Southern soldier was shocked to hear that the U.S. Army’s standard example of a large-scale domestic disturbance was not the recent Los Angeles riots but the American “Civil War.” The instructors pointed out that several Southern states still fly the battle flag in certain public venues, and that the flag stands for “disorder” and “treason.’ Moreover, Southerners are depicted as being more likely to stockpile weapons and ammo and to be distrustful of the federal government than are other Americans. This young man, along with his comrades, apparently is being brainwashed to take his place in the new Union Army that will finish the job Grant and Sherman started.
The South is decades “behind” the rest of the country in accepting feminism, children’s rights, and a privileged position for homosexuals. Before the South will fit neatly into the puzzle board of the New World Order, it will have to be reshaped to rid it of these old-fashioned virtues. And perhaps this is what the New Reconstruction is all about.
With this in mind, what can traditional Southerners (and our friends in other regions) do to ward off the global demons who threaten to carry the country straight to Hell along with the rest of Western civilization? The first task is to develop a Southern consciousness based on our predominately Anglo- Celtic roots. The Anglo-Celt (by definition someone who is mainly of Celtic descent but who speaks English) is perhaps the most despised creature on the face of the earth because he holds to an Old World Order—a sort of Filmerian patriarchy—that makes him unsuitable raw material for productive citizenship in the coming global Utopia. He holds fast to the creed of the Mississippian: “‘A man ought to fear God, and mind his own business. He should be respectful and courteous to all women; he should love his friends and hate his enemies. He should eat when he is hungry, drink when he is thirsty, dance when he is merry . . . and knock down any man who questions his right to these privileges.”
Self-protection is the hallmark of traditional Southerners of Anglo-Celtic descent, and if we are to survive, or better yet, prevail, as a distinct people, then we are going to have to rekindle the spirit of defiance that burned within the hearts of our ancestors, from Wallace and Bruce to Lee and Forrest. Unless we arc willing to be unswerving in our devotion to furthering the interests of our own kith and kin, we shall be absorbed into a multicultural nightmare in which our identity will be destroyed. No other ethnic or racial group in America (or the world) hesitates to defend its own. It is a vain hope that European Americans in general will call forth the courage to develop an ethnic and cultural consciousness as a means of advancing their own interest and well-being. For one thing, there are too many outstanding historical grievances from both the Old and New worlds that still exacerbate tensions among the various European ethnic groups. For another, Americans of European ancestry have been subjected to an effective campaign of anti-white, anti-Western brainwashing that has rendered them incapable of defending their birthright.
At present, it appears that the best chance we have of saying at least part of our Western patrimony from the clutches of the New World Order is to raise the most recent banner of the Southern Anglo-Celts—the starry St. Andrews Cross—and hope that we can rally that particular group to serve as a nucleus for the revitalization of a general European cultural hegemony. Barring parts of the Western United States, the rest of the country lacks both the will and the ethnic and cultural cohesiveness to act decisively. Only in the South, and particularly the rural South, is there a sufficiently large population rooted in the old ways to allow for a successful movement against the forces of global reconstruction.
In reflecting on our current plight, I am reminded of the words of Donald Davidson in his 1984 essay The Center That Holds:
We have come to the moment of self-consciousness . . . when a writer awakes to realize what he and his people truly are, in comparison with what they are being urged to become. . . . The Southerner does not have to labour to learn some things. We already know, from the start, who we are, where we are, where we belong, what we live by, what we live for. That priceless inheritance is something given to us. But in the thoroughly modernized, anti- traditional society, it is not given; it can be achieved, if at all, only after long struggle. It is exactly what the apostles of the new Reconstruction, in the pseudoscientific language of the modern power-state, are saying we must not have, must give up if we do have it.
Should we fail to rally our people in the South to a defense of a historic blood-and-soil nation, we shall have had a hand in fulfilling Thomas Babington Macaulay’s dire prophecy. In writing to an American friend in 1857, Macaulay predicted: “Your republic will be laid waste by barbarians in the 20th century as the Roman Empire was in the 5th—with this difference: . . . that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions.”
The defense of civilization has never been easy or cheap. If we are to succeed against the new barbarian hordes. Southerners must call forth the moral fortitude to reassert our own dominance in our own land. When the armed globalists come calling at some future time to usher us into the New World Order, then we will have to consider whether to take the good and practical advice of that fierce Southern man of action, Nathan Bedford Forrest. I shall alter his words but slightly to fit the looming situation: “Shoot everything in [U.N.J blue and keep the skeer on.”