Dixie
In DeBow’s Review, J. Quitman Moore on the racial differences between the Anglo-Saxon and Normans, Puritans and Cavaliers, Yankees and Southerners:
“But, when the eye was turned from the contemplation of these social phenomena to a survey of the political institutions of the country, it required no remarkable strength of observation to discover that there were two distinct nationalities existing on the soil of Great Britain; and of the two, the Norman was the ruler.
The Teutonic and the Latin – the Northern and the Southern – types of civilization, with their diverse social systems, their incompatibility of ideas, opinions, and institutions, and their ineradicable national prejudices, were brought into the presence of each other, under the exigencies of a compulsory political union; and so long as the dominant race maintained the principles and institutions that were the native outgrowth of its civilization, its ascendancy was complete.
Aristocracy, based on the feudal relation, is the natural expression of the political thought of the Norman – a social condition, resting on the principle of subordination, and recognizing the family as the primary basis of social union. Democracy, founded on the idea of an unlimited individualism, and without any reference to the conservative organism of institutions, is the fundamental conception of the political philosophy of the Teuton or Saxon.
The English constitution is the result of a compromise between these two hostile systems, with the Norman element always in the ascendant, save during the brief reign of Cromwell.
But the Roundhead, at once a religious fanatic and a political agitator and reformer, could conceive of no government but the rule of the Saints, and form no other idea of the principles of civil liberty than what the levelling philosophy of the covenant taught. A bigot in faith and an idealist in speculation, his sentiments were violent and his convictions impracticable. A visionary from principle and a revolutionist from interest, his prejudices allowed no compromise, while his passions fed equally the flame of his cupidity and ambition. Austere in his morals and inflexible in his principles, he set up his own conduct as the standard of right, and sought to dictate the opinions and control the convictions of others. Rude in his manners and morose in his disposition, he practiced the profoundest dissimulation, while attaining credit for sincerity, and concealed his real character and designs under the cloak of hypocrisy. . . .
Opposite under the banner of the king, stood the Cavalier – the builder, the social architect, the institutionalist, the conservator – the advocate of rational liberty and the supporter of authority, as against the licentiousness and morbid impulse of unregulated passion and unenlightened sentiment. No idealist, enthusiast or speculative system-builder, upheaving ancient landmarks and overthrowing venerable monuments; but a realist, a practical and enlightened utilitarian, bowing to the authority of experience and acknowledging the supremacy of ideas, forms and institutions that had received the hallowing sanction of time . An institutor by genius and a ruler by race, his pride was at once the sword of his most eminent virtues and greatest weaknesses, while honor was the touchstone of his character. Chivalrous in sentiment and magnanimous in deed, glory was his ambition, and loyalty the inspirer of his every thought, impulse and action. Elevated in his ideas and tolerant in his views, his selfishness was vicarious and his very faults wore the semblance of virtue. Unyielding in his principles, but compromising in his opinions, his conduct was governed more by sentiment than reflection, and more by association than either. Courtly in his manners and splendid in his tastes, a knightly generosity he practiced even toward his foes, and never lost his faculties in volumptuousness. Without being an abject advocate of passive obedience or a supporter of arbitrary power, he yet took ground against the revolutionary party, not as an enemy to liberal institutions or a well-regulated liberty: but, discovering in the doctrines and principles of the revolution a greater danger to the social and political system than from the alleged existing abuses, he preferred yielding his loyalty rather to institutions than abstractions, and felt it a duty to attempt to quench the lights of the incendiary philosophy, whose torch had been applied to the noblest monuments of civil wisdom yet erected by the genius of man …
The Cavalier doesn’t think or sound like the Puritan. We are not the same people. Never will be either.
Jefferson was from the Virginia Piedmont. Monticello is just outside Charlottesville. It is important to remember that Virginia used to include West Virginia.
Virginia made the foolish mistake of joining the American Revolution because the Piedmont planters joined forces with the Scots-Irish backcountry settlers who resented the British for blocking their expansion across the Appalachians.
The Virginia Tidewater was a different story. The Cavaliers settled in Eastern Virginia between the Atlantic and Richmond. There was much less enthusiasm for the American Revolution in that area.
(1) Is there a Norman influence upon the South?
If there were Norman Cavaliers anywhere in Dixie, then it was in the Virginia-Maryland-North Carolina Tidewater area. There were real Cavalier families that settled in that region in the early seventeenth century.
Tidewater was created on the English country gentry model. In the years before liberal democracy, Virginia had an aristocracy which was unquestionably conservative, and which after independence spread out across the Lower South into the plantation belts with their slaves which also came from Virginia and North Carolina.
Consider the places names in the Alabama Black Belt: Barbour County, Macon County, Lee County, Randolph County. The Carolina influence can be seen in Lowndes County.
HW, look at the Lowcountry of SC (where Rhett was from). It was minority White and very aristocratic and explictedly anti-democratic. The entire State of SC was the least democratic of any Southern State. It rejected the popular vote for president longer than any State, for instance. Any movement towards democracy was rejected. Anyhow, i think the Lowcountry is a perfect model of northernmost tier of a Caribbean-Southern civilisation which extended into Dixie.
(2) Are Southerners descended from Normans?
Unlikely.
Demographically, the Scots-Irish influence is much greater. There are Spanish, French, and Huguenot influences around the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. Contrast Kentucky and Tennessee with Louisiana and Florida.
There are Irish influences in New Orleans, Memphis, Savannah, and Charleston. There are Germans in Texas and North Carolina. These populations are probably greater than the Norman descendants anywhere in the 21st century.
The bulk of the Southern population is English or Scots-Irish. We are a predominantly British people, Norman or otherwise, and we tilt more toward Western and Northern Britain.
So where does that leave the Norman Question? As we can see with the Jews, a race doesn’t have to be demographically predominant to be culturally predominant. It just has to be dominant.
The Cavaliers were dominant in Virginia. Undoubtedly, their dominance in Virginia had a wider impact on the whole South, as Virginia was the biggest and most important Southern state at that time.
So, I am sure there is a connection between Norman Cavaliers and Southern conservatism. If you had to associate any particular part of the South with conservatism, it would be Tidewater and the South Carolinia low country around Charleston.
Those two areas were in the cultural driver’s seat in the Confederacy. It was largely an attempt to build a Southern nation-state around their distinctly conservative worldview.
PP,
I totally agree.
Something like 134 Whites in South Carolina voted to rejoin the Union under the 14th Amendment. It was the lowest total anywhere in the former Confederacy. The regional highwater mark was something like 25 percent in North Carolina, more or less western North Carolina.
What is BRA?
It is a civilization where the Jew is culturally dominant. Below the Jew, we find the Yankee who is on the next rung down, who was displaced as the ruling class in the mid-twentieth century.
The “people of color” are below the Jew and the Yankee. The role of the negro is purely as an object to legitimize the present social pecking order. The old system, we are constantly told, was racist toward the negro and is illegitimate for that reason, so we need BRA (and its managers) to perfect Americanism which is identified with equality.
The Jew rules through the Yankee – the inverted Puritan – in the name of the negro. It is a weird system. The Cavalier and everything he stands for is at the absolute bottom of the BRA system.
The Cavalier is racist, ethnocentric, honor driven, nativist, sexist, homophobic, patriotic, patriarchal, reactionary, conservative, authoritarian, etc. – the opposite of the Jew, who nobly defends the poor negro and people of color, purely for their sake of course.
The ZOG theory misses these nuances.
Correction: should read the Yankee and various deracinated and cosmopolitan Whites. That’s the second caste.
I agree about the structure. It’s no accident that civil rights is an alliance if Jews and Blacks. Jewish brains combined with Controllable black muscle.
It’s pretty obvious. But you didn’t specify it was a cultural dominance. Fair enough. However the Normans and Jews did act in concert in financing conquests. Anglo Saxons did not have that problem as Jews were excluded. Post Edward Longshanks to Charles I no problem either. Cromwell let this problem re appear. He was financed in part by Dutch Jews. William was funded partly by Jews party by the pope. William of Orange likewise. It’s recurrent.
The problem as I see it is that whites lost their nerve. I’m not sure how either.
I see you point now.
@John
Whites seem to lose their nerve very gradually as their standard of living rises. Soft living makes for a soft will. That is one problem I don’t blame on Jews or non-whites. That one is purely ours alone.
I tend to think that the Brits and French lost their nerve in Africa too. Suez was literally the great unravelling. It’s just about nerve.
Between 1865 and 1950 or thereabouts, the Yankee was at the top of the cultural pecking order, and the WASP was the ideal and was identified with America, but the system downplayed ethnicity and emphasized liberal democracy and the ruling class was theoretically opened to everyone, although there were barriers in the Ivy League universities that preserved WASP dominance.
So you had the Yankee on top and a bunch of deracinated European ethnics in the North bubbling up through the system into the second caste. This was America when the Jew arrived en masse in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.
The Jew thrived in the environment of liberal democratic capitalism. He ascended through the social pecking order like a bottle rocket until he hit the entrenched barriers to the ruling class like those that were found in the Ivy League universities. Those barriers to his advancement fell after the Second World War.
The period between 1945 and 1965 is when the Jew became dominant in the Northern states and the Yankee was knocked off his pedestal into the second caste. The vast majority of Jews didn’t live in the South though.
The Yankee had reached a modus vivendi with White Southerners after Reconstruction. The South would be granted home rule and left unmolested, but the Yankee would dominate America.
The demise of the Yankee in the North and the rise of the Jew had the effect of terminating that unwritten sectional compromise. The Jew didn’t live here and couldn’t assert nationwide authority without overthrowing the Jim Crow system.
So the Jew began to relentlessly exalt the negro and demonize the White Southerner. The failed project of Reconstruction was relaunched. It was done through the liberal attitudes of the Yankee to make it sound legitimate to him. It was just about “freedom” and “equality” and “civil rights” and all the other bullshit abstractions that have always been so important up there.
That is a brief summary of what happened.
HW’s “brief summary”: well said. Just to bring it up to date though…(Democrat) Jews found blacks usefully violent but, due to inherant Congoid stupidity, hard to organize as a revolutionary, anti-capitalist/anti-white ersatz proletariat. So, moving rightward and into the Republican Party, they conned Chamber of Commerce, Bush/Rove types into flooding the country with Mestizo cheap labor in hopes of getting a more controllable ersatz proletariat. But it’s not going well; the latinos and blacks – cf. the late Trayvon – are capping each other at a frightening rate.
Brutus you are all wet. Yes there are genetic differences in northwest Europeans. They are very minor from Scandinavia and Western Germany all the way through to Western Ireland compared to the rest of the world. I’m talking about the vast majority who have the R1B1B2 haplotype which centers approximately in the Netherlands. These are descendants of the Corded ware (Battle Axe) wave of Indo-Aryans who swept into the area from the Middle East around 3500 B.C.
Forcing actual scientific reality into 19th century Romantic notions is absurd. Of course there are major cultural differences between these groups of Northwest Europeans and I can think of no greater one than that between hillbillies and plantation owners. I live in the Pacific Northwest and am surrounded by tall blond haired blue-eyed liberals of Scandinavian stock. I still prefer to live among white folk than be surrounded by niggers.
Hunter constantly wants to re-fight the Civil War and have the “South Rise Again.” This is stupid and not the way out of our current mess. You all should move up here and get out of niggerville which those dumb ass planters inflicted on America.
Agree Rudel. You folks down South may have a great (though disappearing) culture and heritage, but it’s hard to imagine it’s worth living among all those blacks. Holy crap is it black down there. You don’t know what it’s like to MAYBE see a black person once a year.
‘Course we make up for it with whiggers but…
@Rudel
“This is stupid and not the way out of our current mess. You folks should all move up here and get out of niggerville which those dumbass planters inflicted on America.”
So what IS the “way out”, genius? Pin your hopes on Harold Covington and his juvenile “revolution” fantasies? Let me make it clear: NOBODY is moving up there. EVER. That “Northwest Homeland” horseshit is NEVER going to happen. EVER. You want to live around whites only? Well fine. But those brain-dead blonde liberals are all you’re going to get. Don’t expect real white people, with real lives, and real responsibilities, to drop everything and move up there because people like Covington feel lonely and frustrated. You don’t like liberals, then YOU do something about it. Stop crying and pissing for everyone else to come and do your dirty-work for you.
They way I see it, the liberals were there first, they’ve been there the longest, so the Pacific Northwest is THEIRS. And if they wish to turn it into a sanctuary for beaners and gooks, that’s their business.
‘From an early age [Robert Barnwell Rhett] fully accepted the prevailing myth that the South had been settled by the descendants of the noble, high-toned English Cavalier aristocrats, while the narrow, bigoted Puritan stock populated the North.’
‘Rhett: The Turbulent Life and Times of a Fire-Eater’ by William C Davis, page 20
313Chris writes:
“So what IS the “way out”, genius? Pin your hopes on Harold Covington and his juvenile “revolution” fantasies?
I was up here long before that redneck dipshit Harold Covington ever considered it. I *like* being around white people regardless of their politics. In fact democratic politics doesn’t mean shit. People vote with their feet. You don’t see any any white liberals anywhere even in the Northeast living with niggers. The mud people are restricted to the inner cities.
And I’d thank you to keep a civil tongue in that rude mouth of yours. Talk to me like that to my face and I’ll hand you your ass on a platter.
@Rudel
Then I stand corrected. You don’t advocate HAC’s bullshit. I apologize, seriously.
Still, no one is migrating anywhere. White-flight is dead and buried. An exercise in futility.
And sorry, but unfortunately you wouldn’t hand shit to me in person. And I have enough legal trouble to confirm that. Goddam, what is it with people on here acting tough about what they’d do “in person”? You and stonelifter. Direct your aggression at the people (term used loosely) who deserve it.
Rudel, you are the one who is all wet. *I* said NOTHING about the actual genetic reality of Europe. What my post was about was THE WAY GENETIC INFORMATION IS REPORTED.
Read my post again. This time carefully.
As happens continuously, people read into a post or article their own preconceived notions about what is on their own mind at the minute, usually based upon the title or opening sentence. Since I began my post by quoting what you cited and my post was “negative,” you automatically read into it that I was attacking you and that I somehow was accepting the Liberal view on race.
Again, I urge you to reread my post. The only opinion I expressed was that today’s writers and reports concerning genetics very often are written in such a way that one sentence, paragraph or page contradicts the next sentence, paragraph or page. This is so, of course, due to genetics being such a “politically incorrect” and delicate subject since we are immersed in a culture dominated by anti-white Liberalism that has as its religion the hatred of anything white and the overwhelming need to “equalize” everyone and downplay the role of genetics.
A very good informative post and comment thread in my opinion, and Hunter’s last two responses above–beginning with “What is BRA” and “Between 1865 and 1950”–were especially helpful, but then I’m a fairly new regular reader.
It’s going to be okay :
Lynda just informed Apuleius The Blessed Holy Mary is going to save Dixie.
Plus [ + Fr John + ] is praying for Dixie.
So I know it’s all going to work out Fine In The End.
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but what about the idea (if not fact) that here Normans were not a different “race” in any sense of the word, but (Norman meaning “northman”) were descended from that same Germanic adventurer stock that settled England and almost conquered it again as Vikings?
In those days, race was often used in the sense that we use ethnicity.
Hi,
Most of the Normans who stayed on in England married English women.
Additionally many of the Normans who stayed on were decendents of Aethelred’s courtiers who had married in to the Norman populace. Some of the Bretons had claims in Britain and may have family connections to Cornwall and Wales. The Saxons settled much of Northern France anyway. There are lots of English place names stretching from Calais to Cherbourg. The main shift was a linguistic one.
One more factor. The Vikings sold most of their slaves captured in England to slave dealers in Rouen. So many Norman’s were likely to be descended from English. This accounts for some if not all of their fanatical desire to conquer.
The Normans who invaded England in 1066 were the descendants of Norse Vikings who had invaded and mixed with the Frankish inhabitants over the previous two or three hundred years. The Scandinavians are a largely “Germanic” people to be sure but were not of the same tribes as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians who had invaded Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire.
The current population of England, Lowland Scotland, and Northern Ireland is still about 60% Celt genetically as shown by this map of the distribution of present day Y-DNA haplogroup R1b.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA_version_2.gif
My ancestors were Norman and my Y-DNA is I1, the viking gene. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml
A very good website for White Americans interested in American history :
[www.] dcdave [.com]
An excellent website to learn about American history. Unlike the history books from Madison Ave : They all contain lies. Both lies of omission and lies of commission.
This website has alot of good, solid information. Facts and info that would never be allowed to be printed by the mainstream publishing houses.
Prayers, papal bulls, and mary, aren’t going to save White America. The first thing White Americans need is good, solid information. Decisions based on false information, false premises, leads to more problems, not less problems.
Another good website for history :
[www] conservapedia [.com]
Hunter. You said more about America in your “brief summary” than the scribbling of walls full of books. I’m truly impressed. It’s very difficult to clearly and briefly summarize such a complicated subject. I believe you’ve done so. I’m going to keep a copy of this. Thank you.
Aethelred and his retainers fled England and lived in Normandy for decades. Edward confessor brought over the descendents of this crew and installed them in power all over the place. Many of the Knights that William bought over who ended up staying (remarkably few stayed after the invasion) had a English mother or Father. I’ve seen the rolls not making it up.
My ancestors came to England with William in 1066, one as a knight under lord Mallet,They were given land in Suffolk and Norfolk, Some came to Virginia in the mid 1600’s and moved south, Norman English. I will not give my name but I am from Alabama and my surname is almost exclusive to Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. I now live in Texas. Even those with my name living in other states are generally from our family, although one branch went to the midwest in the 17-1800’s God bless the south…
I was born and grew up as half yankee actually, i like town meetings, direct democracy, i like to build cities in hills putting myself as a moral crusader, i am an intellectual and idealist, i have a big amount of ingenuity, i don’t drink nothing of alcohol and my father was a science man biochemest.
And i like the pine flag over the confederate cross, I like militias and autonomy over all, i like the minuteman, the republic and all related more to saxon europe than latin europe
My brain actually doesn’t understand the logic of slavery, i would prefer to send them all to africa than to enslave them
Actually, it was more a case of the Anglian North vs the Saxon South; try reading Albion’s Seed and not seeing the correlation between Dixie and Alfred’s Wessex, as opposed to East-Angle Yankees.
Lots of the Scots-Irish in the South were of Northumbrian (Angle) descent.