I originally wanted to include both these passages but cut it down because it would have made for too long of a post. But this is simply too good to leave out. I’ll pick it up right where I left off the last one, minus one paragraph:
Good men nowadays question what form of government is best and search like Plato for a formula, following which this benighted race of ours may automatically perfect itself. The Delta sages of my youth knew there was no such formula. Being convinced no system of government was good without good men to operate it, they considered it their bounden duty, their prime obligation as members of society, to find such men and elect them to office. Concerning democracy they had no illusions, their fears for it were prophetic; they esteemed it a poor makeshift, but the best devised by man for keeping the peace and at the same time permitting personal liberty. Their point of view, their sense of duty, their relentless striving, while certainly not appreciated or understood by me in my childhood, seeped into me, colored my outlook, prescribed for me loyalties and responsibilities that I may not disclaim – no, not though the sirens call and the flutes sound over the hill. Nor in this respect was my training unusual in the South for my generation. Anybody who was anybody must feel noblesse oblige, must concern himself with good government, must fight, however feebly or ineffectually or hopelessly, for the public weal. One of the first things I did after returning home from law school was to stump off to a mass meeting with Mr. Everman at which we read aloud bitter denunciations of a crime of violence. He thought that was the thing a man had to do, even if we were shot for it, as he believed we would be. And so did I. (When I started publishing verse Mr. Everman simply ignored it.)
During my day I have witnessed a disintegration of that moral cohesion of the South which had given it its strength and its sons their singleness of purpose and simplicity. Today there is fretting and fuming on the part of young people over what they should do, how they should act, what is worth while. Standards are in flux: there is no commonly accepted good way of life – and the hospitals can’t hold the neurotics, the mental cripples, the moral anemics, the blasted who strove to build a pattern because none existed.
Epstein with his heads neurotic, restless, ugly, is the appropriate portraitist of this generation, but Cap Mac and Father and General Catchings would have been at home on the west portal of Chartres with those strong ancients, severe and formidable and full of grace, who guard the holy entrance.
What was the pattern that gave them strength and direction, that kept them oriented, that permitted them to be at once Puritans and Cavaliers? To recapture the recipe might give sustenance to the undernourished of these times, but I suspect, lacking pepper and tabasco, it would be unpalatable to my contemporaries.
Sipping the dregs of a julep among the patriarchs of Chartres with the Queen of Sheba in her summer dress shedding immortal grace – in what better way could a little boy learn that the austerities of living are not incompatible with the courtesy and sweetness of life? I never heard them over their juleps express a philosophy of life, and if I had it would have been incomprehensible to me, but a philosophy was implicit in all their thoughts and actions. It probably made the Southern pattern. Perhaps it is all contained in a remark of Father’s when he was thinking aloud one night and I sat at his feet eavesdropping eagerly:
“I guess a man’s job is to make the world a better place to live in, so far as he is able – always remembering the results will be infinitesimal – and to attend to his own soul.”
I’ve found in those words directions enough for any life. Maybe they contain the simple steady wisdom of the South.
The following from William Alexander Percy’s 1941 autobiography Lanterns on the Levee: Recollections of a Planter’s Son, pages 69-72. Here the inestimable Mr. Percy describes the proper role of an aristocrat in the postwar South, and uses an exceedingly sad anecdote to both illustrate the strictness of honor culture and lay a scathing criticism on modern society. Highlighted passages bolded by me.
It is not what they discussed so much as how they discussed it that still makes those meetings so memorable to me – indeed, so epic. They were leaders of the people, not elected or self-elected, but destined, under the compulsion of leadership because of their superior intellect, training, character, and opportunity. And the people were willing to be led by them because of their desperate need of leadership in those tragic times, because they recognized their fitness to lead, tested and proved in he series of revealing crises that only began with the war, and because they came from the class which traditionally led the South. Applause or aggrandizement played no part in their calculations. They knew leadership was a burden, they knew there was no such thing in the long run as public gratitude for public service, they also knew that unless the intelligent disinterested few fought for good government, government would be bad.
Even at that time, however, the leadership of the wise and the good never went unchallenged. Rascals and grafters, ambitious men on the make and personal enemies fought them and what they stood for tirelessly and unceasingly. Then too the first trickle of poor whites from the hills into the Delta had already begun. It was often necessary to get in touch with Charlie Scott in Rosedale, Sam Neill in Indianola, the Farishes in Mayersville, and those amazing Kentuckians, Colonel Mat Johnson, Johnson Erwin, and Mr. Merritt Williams, down on the lake. If the matter were of national concern, Father would be delegated to go over to Yazoo for counsel with John Sharp Williams, who loved him. Though they were decreasingly on the winning side, they were always live forces and rallying-points for righteousness, respected and greatly feared. When they lost, it was a public loss.
One particular local tragedy did much to undermine their prestige and influence. I was too young to understand it all, but I grew up knowing it was a terrible thing.
General Ferguson was one of their intimate friends and advisers and, further, he was the friend of General Wade Hampton, whose friendship was an accolade and a passport. He had been the beau ideal of a soldier, handsome, young, daring, adored by his men, with a record of brilliant military achievement which won him the rank of general at an age when others were lucky to be captains. His home was the center of frivolity and hospitality, famous in the countryside for high spirits and wit. I cannot recollect seeing the General himself when I was a little boy, but I climbed his kitchen roof, taunted to evil by his small daughter, who was a tartar, and I marveled at her older sister, Miss Natalie, galloping by in her long black velvet riding habit, by general consent the most dashing horsewoman in the Delta. In those poverty-stricken years the General was elected by his friends treasurer of the levee board, though he had neither aptitude for nor experience in business or accounting, besides being high-handed and utterly unmethodical. After some years Mr. Everman, secretary of the board and his close friend, checked the books and found him twenty thousand dollars short. It was unthinkable. He had always been a man of unimpeachable rectitude, of untarnished honor. And he had nothing to show for it: he did not gamble, he had no extravagant habits, his possessions were his home and a run-down plantation, both heavily mortgaged. He could give no explanation. Then, while the enemies of the old regime were in full hue and cry, and our people distracted, humiliated, and incredulous, he did the inexplicable, the unpardonable thing – he fled to South America.
It was recent history when I was scraping the bottom of mint-julep glasses, and it still rankled. He lived for years in exile with his family; then, the bitterness having diminished, his property having been seized and sold to pay his deficit, the rank and file having as usual forgotten, he drifted back to his own country and settled down in poverty and obscurity on the coast.
I went to college and law school, the world began to acquire that momentum commonly mistaken for progress, incidents like the disappearance of trust funds occurred daily and caused no special stir, and I don’t suppose a dozen people in the town could have told you the Robertshaw house was once the Ferguson house. One cold night during the holidays we were giving a dinner party for some of my Eastern schoolmates – pretty girls and young men, pleased as cockerels. It was still the custom then to entertain at home. We were dressed in our giddiest as a dance was to follow. Mother and Father, at the ends of the table, were as usual in fine form and more fun than any of us. Unexpectedly a knock sounded at the front door. The colored waiter, who was also butler, answered it. We could feel the cold air from the open door and hear the scraps of a conversation that seemed to go on and on. I went out to see what the trouble was. In the light of the doorway against the blustery dark stood a little shabby old man in a gray suit and a bright red tie, his white hair untidy, his white beard untrimmed, with something childlike in his wide, vague, very blue eyes. He said: “Is LeRoy home?” I answered impatiently: “Yes, but-” “Tell LeRoy I must see him now.” Father, joining us as he said these words, exclaimed softly: “Why, General Ferguson! Come in. Won’t you have some dinner with us?” “Of course, LeRoy,” murmured the little old man, and he came into the light still wide-eyed like a ghost, a ghost that is not afraid, but only uncertain, a ghost that can’t remember. He sat down with those youngsters in their party clothes just as Banquo’s ghost did, but mercifully they knew nothing and rattled on, though I could see Mother wanted to cry. He hardly touched his food and sat quietly, looking but not seeing, trying to remember something. Once he leaned to Father and said softly: “I have come back to go through those records. It was all a mistake. They will show everything was in order.” Father said: “Of course, General.”
For a month or more he haunted the courthouse and the levee board, pulling out the heavy record books, carrying them unsteadily to a desk, turning their pages backward and forward, and making notes. His presence in the town created little flurry. It had all been too long ago. At last he drifted away. He was mad.
People steal public funds now, but the public is cynical, no one is horrified, and the accused, guilty or innocent, seldom goes mad. Going mad for honor’s sake presupposes honor. In our brave new world a man of honor is rather like the Negro – there’s no place for him to go.
I’ve talked a bit about translating the ideas of Southern Reaction into real world action, which I believe is absolutely necessary to the survival of our thede. This as yet hypothetical action will necessarily be made up of both the positive – construction of alternate power structures, independent from the Leftist Establishment; and the negative – resistance to threats which pose serious obstacles to our future operational capability. It is the latter which I wish to discuss here.
What remains of the traditional South is under siege; it has been since the very moment our forefathers declared their independence from Great Britain. Indeed, from Calhoun to Fitzhugh to the Twelve Agrarians to Weaver, the Southern tradition is largely a negative one – we’ve been under so powerful a siege for so long that the vast majority of our intellectual power has been devoted to retaining rather than building. Although as a whole, our forefathers have done an admirable job in preserving our thedishness, today we find ourselves with much the same enemies they faced, manifested in ever threatening ways. We must continue the fight.
The Latino Invasion
During the period between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, it is fair to say the Latin population in the South exploded, jumping from 11.6 million to 18.2, an increase of 57%. This percentage increase was the largest for any region in the nation, and yet this figure understates the true extent of the threat. Nearly every former Confederate state’s Hispanic population increased at a rate of 90% or higher, with the sole exceptions of Florida (57%), Louisiana (78%), and Texas (41%). Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina led the nation in percentage increases over the time period, each nearing 150%!
This threat really cannot be overstated; the term invasion is no hyperbole. These people are truly alien to us and our worldview, no matter what religion they claim or what sort of work they like to do. They know it, too: they have and will continue to have no problems establishing their own isolated communities, where they practice their own brand of civilization to the detriment of ours. Further, their leaders realize that they are truly involved in a culture war, which they term bluntly a Reconquista – and as numbers from the last fifteen years would indicate, this concerted effort is not limited to the American Southwest. For anyone who doubts this, I refer you to Chapter Six of Jared Taylor’s White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. These immigrants are unassimilable and have no intentions to become assimilable. What can be done?
Normally, I eschew becoming involved in contemporary American politics because it goes against Reactionary principles (not to mention, the game is rigged). However, an exception could be made for this, simply because it is such a huge, indeed existential, threat. Unfortunately, hardline anti-immigration politicians barely exist anymore, and the ones that say they are suck at what they do. Most of this list of luminaries presided over the huge increases noted above. Still, I suppose supporting vocally anti-immigration politicians could conceivably bear fruit. I leave the discretion to the reader.
More can be done on the local level. Don’t employ them, don’t patronize their businesses, don’t be friendly to them, don’t work with them if you can help it, (obviously) refuse to speak their language. Report or threaten to report any businesses who hire illegal workers. I am not advocating cruelty. But it really is a huge family business – incoming immigrants get the low down on promising places to locate to from family members and friends who are already here. If you and your local group of Reactionaries manage to give the impression that your town is not immigrant-friendly, I bet you will see a marked downturn in incoming vibrants.
[UPDATE: A concerned citizen has informed me that since the passing of the nation’s toughest anti-immigration law in Alabama in 2011, the total population of Latinos in that state has declined dramatically.]
The Yankee Invasion
The descendants of Sherman’s army continue to flood the South, wreaking approximately as much havoc as they did before. The flood of Yankees shows no signs of abating, as they abandon the windswept tundra they call home for the good life in the sunny South – and immediately get to work transforming their new homes into copies of their old. They have and will overtake entire communities, turning them into milquetoast strips of cheap shopping malls, copy/pasted suburbs, and urban sprawl. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida seem to be the hardest hit, in my experience, though it’s difficult to find real numbers.
Now, I don’t mean to say every Yankee is a plague; indeed, I know several from my hometown who are excellent examples of humanity and couldn’t fit into the Southern life more perfectly. But in great numbers, they do not fail to bring cultural destruction and modernization. Unfortunately, this problem is harder to affect on the local level, or indeed on any level, short of achieving Southern independence. However, I think there are some things you can do to help. First, many prospective movers peruse sites like www.city-data.com to make the decision on where to work or live. Find your town’s forum, and – after accomplishing the difficult task of swallowing pride for your homeplace – characterize it as a crappy place to live. Or, simply one that is unfavorable – or, perhaps, dangerous – to Yankee migrants. There’s all sorts of strategies that could be used. You may even get the satisfaction of witnessing your target choose another place to live. Baby steps, after all.
A distressing trend that I have witnessed is the little Southern town attempting to make itself more attractive or palatable to migrants from other regions; doing things like putting in bike paths (what sort of Southerner rides on a paved bike path?) or “arts amphitheaters” or some such nonsense. The driving force is always to attract business, which attracts business opportunities, which attracts Yankees. While this may be good for the economy, what of the long-term effects? I want my grandchildren to grow up in the same town I did, in the same manner that I did; not in some plastic picture of chain restaurants and preppy urbanites, “business opportunities” or no. Engage your local government!
Possibly the most damning symbol of the ongoing destruction of Southern culture is the rising influence of progressivism in churches throughout the South. Fortunately for us, in rural Southern communities the church still retains much of its former influence, and the traditional decentralization of Southern religion ensures all is not lost. Southern preachers, many of which in my experience are naturally reactionary but aren’t aware of the greater movement, should be a primary target for recruitment to Reaction. As a rule, this class is intelligent, well-meaning, and wield huge amounts influence within their individual communities. However, they are human, and as the Progressivist interpretation of Christianity infiltrates the more politically-minded leadership of their respective denominations, the trickle-down effect will undoubtedly poison individual churches.
Reaction can provide a counterweight to that. This avenue will require more of a decentralized approach, as preachers will be naturally skeptical of any outside top-down approach. I recommend individual reactionaries sitting down with preachers that they know personally, talking frankly with them, describing how Reaction is both theologically sound, socially healthy, and counters the rampant degeneracy which preachers are particularly interested in combating. There are many quality sites that could help you out in this area – I recommend Faith and Heritage, Christianity and Race, Pro-Western Christianity, and the ever-insightful Bruce Charlton.
It should go without saying that we should not attend or tithe to churches that are swept up in the Progressive interpretation of Christianity.
I regard public education as basically a lost cause, although mine was relatively enlightening and picturesque by modern standards. Homeschooling and private schooling are the places for the children of the Reactionary, if possible. The days of non-public education are, in all likelihood, numbered, but it won’t be for awhile yet, and we should endeavor to prolong the life as much as possible. This is most certainly an existential threat; no matter what sort of learning a child is subjected to in the home, a public education ensures, with ~99.99% accuracy, that he will come out at age 18 a dyed in the wool Progressive, to regard his Reactionary family members as crazy people to be ashamed of, or worse. Such is the evil of the public education; we must ensure the escape valve remains open, or, in all likelihood, all is lost.
Most of the country has seen little or no rumblings, as of yet, to ban or restrict alternative education. However, California has experienced some pressure in this area for the past few years; I don’t doubt but that in time, the Powers That Be will follow the example of Germany, decide that no parents are qualified to teach children in that state, and the downhill snowball effect of Leftism will spread the same sentiment over the rest of the country. For the time being, however, it appears we are safe in this area. However, Reactionaries should be on guard against any encroachments on alternative education, and prepare to take action on a local or state level when it becomes necessary, for it surely will.
It may sound silly to classify a musical genre as an existential threat, but I believe it is, especially in the long run. Country music, once the hallmark of Southern culture, has been utterly and completely co-opted by the Leftist establishment. This is highly damaging because it is a primary method through which young Southerners like to signal their Southerness – therefore, whatever the country music flavor of the day is preaching is going to be associated with defining Southerness in the minds of these young people. Moneyed, progressive American interests are now in control of the genre, which regularly churns out cultural marxist faggotry masquerading as representative of Southern, or at least rural, people. They dress like queers, they rap, they worship gays, they preach the merits of universalization, they glad-hand with black thugs and reappropriate Southern symbols. Mainstream country music, in short, is waging war on the Southern worldview; it is in the service of the enemy.
Luckily, there are organic (as opposed to manufactured) country music artists still out there today. While these aren’t consciously reactionary, because they are outside of the Nashville establishment they can’t help but do a better job of representing the Southern worldview. Saving Country Music, a non-political site, does a pretty good job of promoting these organic artists and attacking the manufactured, calculated filth which calls itself country music nowadays. Don’t give mainstream country music any more of your time or money; instead, foster the production of genuine, grassroots country music. Or, pull a David Allen Coe and make a reactionary country album. That’d be cool.
I’d love to hear recommendations, criticisms, success stories, fail stories, etc. from y’all in the comments section. We all stand to learn a lot from one another.
Bottom Line Up Front: Required reading for any Southerner or American interested in the question of good government. Writing can be bit difficult for modern eyes, though fine if you’re used to older texts. Go here to buy.
Disquisition was written as Mr. Calhoun’s introduction and elaboration on his theory of the concurrent majority. This theory would allow minority factions within a constitutional federal government negative, or veto, power over federal government actions, simply by securing a majority within the respective faction. Mr. Calhoun presents this as an alternative to the numerical majority, which would allow government action with a simple majority of citizens or representatives of the entire political body. Mr. Calhoun’s theory has been called the largest real contribution to political science to come from the New World.
The first thing that jumps out is Mr. Calhoun’s entirely accurate critique of the numerical majority, of which the United States government consists, more or less. He points out its tendency to slide from a constitutional government to an absolute one, based on the incentive for the majority to consolidate power by removing the restrictions on itself, as well as concentrating power into a diminishing number of hands in order to wield power more efficiently. What’s more, the numerical majority acts as a force of progress or liberalism over conservatism, as a simple majority will be easier swayed by new, half-baked ideas, while the veto ability of a concurrent majority would theoretically force new legislation to act for the benefit of all.
Any quick perusal of US history will vindicate Mr. Calhoun’s criticisms. Minority factions, like the South, were trampled as the numerical majority wielded the federal government to frightening effect, even prosecuting a horrendous war in order to maintain control over its vassal. The South was, in effect, made a colony to the majority, exploited and abused while the North grew fat and happy. Clearly the negative powers entrusted to the checks and balance system of the Constitution were not sufficient to preserve minority interests, and early Southern leaders were misguided to hitch their respective states to it.
What if the theory of concurrent majority had been adopted? It is an open question. Certainly it would have retarded the onslaught of Progressivism which ground the South up. Would it have enabled the antebellum US government to function? I think not in the long term. The antebellum South and North were two strikingly different societies, and it didn’t take long to figure out that the two shared very little common ground as to which government policies could benefit the whole. But it is an interesting thought experiment. Mr. Calhoun does outline several historical examples of the concurrent majority theory, namely 17th Century Poland and the Iroquois Confederacy of North America.
In the former example, the concurrent majority theory was taken to the utmost extreme, as any individual member of the Polish legislature had the power to veto any legislation, and call an end to any specific session simply by shouting “Nie pozwalam! (I do not allow!).” See: Liberum veto. This ideal of unanimous assent for any law has been rightly criticised (Mr. Calhoun’s suggestion is much less stringent), and Mr. Calhoun acknowledges its role in the eventual deterioration of the Polish Commonwealth, but also points out that the rule was in place and worked for nearly 200 years, covering the zenith of Polish power.
Perhaps the strongest example for the working power of the concurrent majority is the trial-by-jury system practiced everywhere in the West, in which twelve unrelated citizens are forced to come to a unanimous decision in order for anything at all to be accomplished. Mr. Calhoun notes that, when practiced by reasonably intelligent and moral common citizens, this encourages sober analysis and reflection and nearly always results in a just rendering.
Does this idea translate to today? I think, if the United States were to revert to a concurrent majority system tomorrow, it is doubtful that it would do much good. For one, the mainstream (that is to say, white) US no longer consists of very distinct societies with reasonable autonomy, as it did in Mr. Calhoun’s time. Regions and states today are barrelling towards the cultural homogeneity dictated by the Progressivism infection, which has its claws, to some extent, in every state. That said, the racial thedes which exist under the mainstream social layer are of such foreign and alien character to the prevailing white society that no constitutional government would have much hope in aligning the various interests under one roof.
Additionally, it’s doubtful that the concurrent majority model could be optimized for a federal government divided into 50 states, stretched over a quarter of the globe (seriously, why is Hawaii a state?). How many common interests do Alaska, Connecticut, and Alabama have, after all?
I think the best bet for the concurrent majority model to see the light of day in North America, if at all, would be post-US breakup, in a reasonably culturally homogenous region consisting of maybe 10-15 polities. Coincidentally, a near-future independent South would fit this hypothetical bill. While I tend to endorse Mr. Calhoun’s praise of the concurrent majority theory, the first question we must ask is: Do we need a constitutional or absolute government? I think this question is impossible to answer, until we know what the political, moral, intellectual landscape post-USG may look like. Our best bet for the time being is to oppose Progressivism in all of its forms, foster the traditional mindset, and work towards rebuilding the missing piece of the Southern social puzzle – the aristocracy. If this is ably done, the vexatious questions that may come after the downfall of the Leftist Establishment will just about answer themselves.
It seems to us that the vain attempts to define liberty in theory, or to secure its enjoyment in practice, proceed from the fact that man is naturally a social and gregarious animal, subject, not by contract or agreement, as Locke and his followers assume, but by birth and nature, to those restrictions of liberty which are expedient or necessary to secure the good of the human hive, to which he may belong. There is no such thing as natural human liberty, because it is unnatural for man to live alone and without the pale and government of society. Birds and beasts of prey, who are not gregarious, are naturally free. Bees and herds are naturally subjects or slaves of society. Such is the theory of Aristotle, promulged more than two thousand years ago, generally considered true for two thousand years, and destined, we hope, soon again to be accepted as the only true theory of government and society.
George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All!
As the GOP continues to shift further Left under the control of the neocons, thinking Southerners who haven’t yet given up some love of the old ways are presented with a problem – where to turn? Which contemporary ideology not only represents their interests, but offers some way out of the modern sociopolitical morass? The answer for many is some flavor of Libertarianism. Here I will endeavor to show that this course can only lead to further destruction and ruin of our society if pursued by the South, even, or maybe especially, if it attains the goals which it pursues.
The root of the problem is that Libertarianism is built on almost purely Leftist principles, namely freedom, liberty, and the inherently benevolent nature of Man (or at least Americans). When followed to their logical conclusion, the adoption of these maxims will simply throw the baby out with the bathwater, by stripping government of its primary function of protecting and preserving society. Allow me to explain further.
There is little doubt but that the Libertarians have reckoned the problem of the Federal Government more or less accurately. USG is bloated, incompetent, and represents the interests of practically none of the 360 million people living under it, except maybe incidentally. The Libertarians are right to oppose it and the construction of it. They err in that the solutions they propose are antithetical both to good government of any kind as well as destructive to society itself.
Government and society are inextricably linked – you can’t have one without the other. Of the two, society enjoys primacy, because it is the end for which government works. Government is instituted for the sole reason of protecting society, which is the natural result of the inherently social character of mankind. Society creates the government, without which the former cannot survive. In his Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun noted,
“Although society and government are thus intimately connected with and dependent on each other – of the two society is the greater. It is the first in the order of things, and in the dignity of its object; that of society being primary – to preserve and perfect our race; and that of government secondary and subordinate, to preserve and perfect society. Both are, however, necessary to the existence and well-being of our race, and equally of Divine ordination.”
The problem with Libertarianism is that it places “freedom” and “liberty” as the ultimate ends of government, and therefore places it at odds with the health of society. Total freedom and good government are not only incompatible, but fundamentally opposed. Government is by definition the restriction of freedom. When done right, government limits on freedom serve to protect and preserve society. For example, government restricts the freedom to steal, because thievery is an obstacle to humans happily coexisting with other humans.
Now, clearly Libertarians don’t support the legalisation of thievery (yet). But quite a few, if not most, do support the legalisation of other behaviors which ARE destructive to the healthy functioning of society, like sexual deviancy, drug legalisation, laissez-faire capitalism, and others. Some support these things even after acknowledging their destructive effects on society – why? Because when freedom and liberty are the ends, any time an issue crops up which may restrict one’s individual freedom, the ideology of Libertarianism practically forces one to err on the side of freedom – and every time, the bonds holding society together get weaker. Mr. Calhoun, again:
“Nor can [preventing despotism] be done by limiting the powers of government, so as to make it too feeble to be made an instrument of abuse; for, passing by the difficulty of so limiting its powers, without creating a power higher than the government itself to enforce the observance of the limitations, it is a sufficient objection that it would, if practicable, defeat the end for which government is ordained, by making it too feeble to protect and preserve society.”
Society and government are by definition incompatible with total freedom. One enters a society in order to incur the benefits of social interaction with other people. This entails the surrender of total freedom. Total freedom is only attainable outside of society, as a lone creature. Bears enjoy total freedom, because they don’t live as members of a group. So, when “Freedom” is the ultimate goal for which we work, it cannot fail to destroy society. Over time, the ideology of freedom will destroy one healthy restriction after another, until at last everyone is a lone creature, cut off from all benefits of social interaction.
Leftists target the social bonds directly; Libertarians, perhaps unknowingly, will accomplish the same ends by targeting the institution responsible for maintaining those bonds. The two are animated by the same destructive impulse. This impulse, self-reinforcing like a downhill snowball, looks for more bonds to cut, and more, and more, until at last society fractures and the different elements turn on one another. The cause is the primacy of freedom over society. Libertarians and Leftists alike would have us continue merrily destroying social bonds to solve the problem of bad governance – because to destroy society would necessarily destroy government. This is what I mean by “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
I said at the top that Libertarians are right to oppose the current government. Reactionaries do too. But any alternatives to the current regime must be scrubbed of any traces of Libertarianism. Southern Reactionaries heartily reject the primacy of freedom and liberty. We recognize the primacy of a healthy and functioning society, and acknowledge the necessity of a strong and able government, employed to that purpose. The current of modern Western politics has been the same for the past 200 years – that the world is too little governed. This has been the mantra of the Socialists, the Feminists, the Suffragists, the Abolitionists, the Revolutionaries, and now the Libertarians. George Fitzhugh, quoting Thomas Carlyle, wrote, “‘The world is too little governed,’ and, therefore, is going to wreck.” Unfortunate that no one heeded his call in 1857, for we are now in the final stages of the wrecking.
Like Mr. Fitzhugh, we recognize the problems plaguing us as not too much government, but the deficiency of it. We would, perhaps brazenly, restrict the freedoms which are inherently destructive to society, and thus we work for the society as a whole. We champion the organic State and the principles which have sustained Western Civilization for thousands of years. The traces of these which remain today are the reason for the continual functioning of society, the removal of missing parts is the reason for the dysfunction. We would bring it back in full in order to cure our social ills and save our civilisation from destruction.