The Southern Plot To Destroy American Liberal Democracy

The “fascism” meme is stupid.

Since I can’t wait for Joe Biden’s prime-time national address on the battle for democracy and the “soul of the nation,” I am going to go ahead and share this article which was written in July 1861.

William Falconer’s The True Question: A Contest for the Supremacy of Race, as Between the Saxon Puritan of the North, and the Norman of the South appeared in the Southern Literary Messenger in Richmond in July 1861:

“The true causes that lie at the bottom of the troubled relations of the two sections, are well nigh ignored by this haste and superficiality of opinion; our present troubles are passed to the credit of mere transient politico-party success, which, in turn, are considered but the results of a mere source of fanaticism; and according to popular view, would not have happened at all, had the political issues of the last few months been different. This light and erroneous style of thought, is not legitimate to true Southern mind; nor is this haste of conclusion the real result of the working of true Southern character, but the superinduced effects of the swift traveling government which was attempted to be set up, and the hurry scurry life we have led since the revolution of 1776 – in other words, the effects of American Democracy upon the Norman mind. Since that period, and up to the present time, the men of the South (as indeed all others) have been so pressed upon by outside and quick succeeding events, as to have lost sight of their true normal character, and have taken but little time to examine into the tendencies of opinions, or their true relation to the move and spirit of the age – from which facts, they are somewhat likely at this time to be put upon a mere course and expedition of civil war – such as marks the life of the inferior races, both of Europe and this continent – which have ever been, and are yet, peculiarly unproductive of any beneficial influences, either in the science of government or in the amelioration of the condition of the human race – beginning in social and senseless contumely, progressing in bloody paths, and ending periodically, without a moral, in, if possible, greater political relapse.

This state of things is alien to all the instincts of true Southern character, and entirely abnormal to the natural working of the Southern mind – there being absent, in all of this, a well defined purpose, which, above all things, the Southern mind and heart require, before it will move in its native strength and grace; and is more the effect of that idea, that has tyrannically ruled so long in American society, under the sobriquet of “Progressive Democracy” – which, in its spirit, frowned upon every impulse and thought that had their basis, rationality, justice, and prudence; and has at length discovered its full measure of merit, in precipitating a government upon destruction. And even now, neither party to the catastrophe, are prepared to announce at what point they are going, or to acknowledge from which they will recede.

The South finds itself engaged upon a course of civil war and revolution, without a properly defined idea of any particular purpose to be advanced, and apparently without any just conception of the great …

The Southern people, though superior to all other races on this continent, are yet themselves but men, and subject to all the general laws of humanity – it, therefore, appears necessary that human agencies should be used in effecting great changes, howsoever proper.We have long been in the enjoyment of the privileges of an almost unqualified liberty, both personal and political, that we would scarcely have consented to their abridgment for any cause. But a curtailment of that liberty, and a more modified form of government, appeared to be necessary to the position which the advances of time demanded us to assume. In short, a stronger government appeared to be necessary – not a monarchy, but a sort of Patrician Republic. …

At the time of forming our late government, a popular form seemed good and wise, for a variety of reasons. Most prominent among these was the fact of our having a very large territory and but a small population; it was, therefore, proper to invite emigration, by bestowing popular privileges. …

A Democracy was, therefore, the result. But such considerations have not only long since failed, but for many years have operated as a defeat of the many good objects then had in view. In the next place, a democratic polity was necessary as being the only one that could be established. There were two very different peoples engaged in the same cause of rebellion to the mother country, but each so small as to render their relative status unimportant in the economy of general society. There was, therefore, a physical compulsion for union, to move on with the first, great purpose, and no corresponding good to proceed from an assertion of superiority; and even had there been, neither party had the power to assert or maintain it. …

The peculiar form of government, under which we have for many years been living – call it by what name we may, whether a democracy or a republic – has been well calculated to demoralize, to some extent, the native, high character, of the South, and to vitiate its progress in statesmanship. There has been too much individual freedom, license rather, conferred upon the masses, through the agency of which fact, the lighter and less worthy material of society has floated to the surface. Men of actual merit, who are generally less adapted to popular approbation, have been compelled to come with their opinions and claims before the same volatile tribunal, with the worthless and flippant demagogue; and they, too, as far as was possible for them to do so, have been compelled to resort to the same vitiated means of success. …

Our late form of popular government was doubtless, at the time of its adoption, essential to our progress as a people. In time, however, that very progress developed its organic errors and its longer in adaptation to our wants and welfare. It had conferred such privileges upon the masses, as to cause it to be difficult, now that it is gone, to effect suitable changes – under a continued presence of peace. …

In the new system which is to be organized after all the slave states shall come together, and the present tempest somewhat subsided, all sources of public corruption are to be cut off, as far as is possible; and prominently among the subjects for consideration will be those of universal suffrage and the naturalization laws. In either of which lie concealed great sources of trouble to our national peace, dignity, and strength. …

The hour of that hybrid thing, a democratic republic, for the government of two different races, has passed away forever, and we must now direct our attention to those ethnological facts, from out of which the next government is to flow. …”

Here is another blast from the past.

Writing in De Bow’s Review in 1862, J. Quitman Moore explains the ethnic and cultural 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 …”

So, you see, this isn’t the first time we have wanted to shake off this execrable thing which drags us down the cultural drain.


  1. The South had the right idea 150 years ago by trying to secede from the union. You can say they were 150 years ahead of the states that want to secede now.

    • Had France, Spain, or England helped them, they would have won, too. Just like with our Revolutionary War, France helped us win…they wanted a piece of the pie. But that would have been worth it.

      • The Revolution was all fake and gay and Rothschild’s toady G. Washington signed the Bank of US into parasitic existence. He probably fucked little boys too which is why Shlomo adores him. It was betrayed from the start.

    • @John…

      Thank you. I always appreciate your kindness towards the South in recognizing that we have, and have had, something of worth to contribute; that we have our own world view and, indeed, are entitled to it.

      Do not hesitate to come down here and live out your life with us.

  2. I don’t know. Hitler was actually elected by popular vote and the Confederacy had a Jewish/RedShield Treasurer. I think I would go with “fascism”.

    • Judah Benjamin wasn’t the one trying to abolish slavery, grant citizenship and civil rights to blacks or pushing for the 14th Amendment

      • But having a Rothschilds central bank you pay usury too? The Germans got this right. Gottfried Feder called it. I think Shlomo just played both sides and was so thrilled with the slaughter they repeated it in WWI.

      • “The Norman mind” is very well said. Negro chattel slavery “culture” was Norman thinking indeed, harking back to the real Normans sent by the Pope to Catholicize and enslave Anglo-Celtic Britain, slaughtering the British Orthodox priests, imposing feudalism, etc.

        Incidentally, regarding my previous comment: “Early reports say that the Gorbachev viewing will be held at the Moscow Pizza Hut.” Or maybe, at the McDonalds.

        • The Normans banned the slave trade and freed many slaves. Not that they weren’t evil and brutal, but why lie. Furthermore, England was as Eastern Orthodox then as it is now and feudalism is intrinsic to Celtic and Germanic cultures. Read the Battle of Maldon, the wanderer or really any secular Anglo-saxon work from the period. warriors served lords, often called ring-givers in return for the lord giving them food housing and estates that were worked by peasants who were doing in payment for the protection the lord and warriors offered.

          • “England was as Eastern Orthodox then as it is now”

            England was Orthodox, not papist. It’s not a coincidence that the Norman conquest happened just a little over a decade after the great schism. The Pope was consolidating his power, so he sent Normans and Jews to the British isles to genocide the Anglo-Saxons, who were following traditional Orthodoxy instead of bowing to the newly-invented cult of popery. That’s why the surviving Anglo-Saxons who escaped the genocide went to Constantinople and joined the varangian guard. Because the Anglo-Saxons were Orthodox, not papists.

          • I agree there was plenty of slavery and other exploitation in Anglo-Saxon Britain, and in the still Celtic parts. Yes the pagan Saxons were brutal invaders too, and the Normans freed a few British slaves, but the Norman conquest consolidated and institutionalised feudalism, exploitation increased and soon nearly all of the good farm land in England belonged to the Roman Catholic church and to the Catholic, Norman nobility. It was a successful crusade.

            This tangent began with the description of the South as “Norman” thinking and a “Norman culture.”

          • Papism and Byzantinism are not and were not the only options. Aelfric of Eynsham had a view of communion that both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would reject, but would fit right in with Calvinists. He wasn’t the only one, as his position was defended,by Franks and Saxons like Gottshalk and Ratramnus. Nor am I saying these people were protestant, but there was a great diversity of opinions at the time and I reject the notion that either the papacy or the byzantine clergy have maintained an unbroken tradition going back to the apostles.

            Feudalism is not inherently bad, nor was it enforced on any Germanic people. British serfs had it better than any non-royal group anywhere in the world up to the modern era. They were better fed, worked less, and had more legal rights. Again , the Normans were brutal and evil, but why exaggerate. The harrowing of the north is bad enough. I appreciate the attempt to mock the south as Normans thing though, because that idea is absurd.

    • >Hitler was actually elected by popular vote …

      Not really; that’s not the way the system worked then, and it isn’t the way it works today.

      Generally, in a parliamentary system the operational head of government (in Germany the Kanzler) is determined by the leading parties after the election, and is typically part of Koalitionsverhandlungen — normally it is expected the leader of the party winning the most seats will become head of government, but that is not written in stone.

      Back then the Reichspräsident had more power and influence than the Bundespräsident has today.

      To make a long story short: the NSDAP was generally regarded with some suspicion (e.g. as a ‘threat to democracy’), and this was shared by Reichspräsident Paul von Hindenburg, who refused to ask Hitler to form a government when the NSDAP emerged as the strongest party after both the Reichstagswahl Juli 1932 and the Reichstagswahl November 1932 — there was a lot of political instability in DE; Hitler contributed to this via his uncompromising attitude regarding his participation in any government — but after yet another failure to form a stable government after the Reichstagswahl November 1932, von Hindenburg relented and appointed Hitler Reichskanzler at the end of Jan 1933, asking him to form a government — the rest, as they say, is history.

      So Hitler was never directly elected to lead Germany, just like the Bundeskanzler is not elected directly today (the Bundespräsident plays no role in forming a government).

      • Corrent. Hitler was appointed Chancellor the President. In that system the president was elected who then appointed the Chancellor. So Hitler never won an election outright and the NS Party total never exceeded 44% nationwide.

    • Brad doesn’t like fascism because he generally supports conservative economic orthodoxy. He tries to protest at times that he doesn’t, but it comes through in a lot of what he writes.

      • Among other things, fascism has never had any appeal to me because I don’t want to live under a centralized and consolidated national government. It is also weird and foreign, involves dressing up in uniforms and parading around, genuflecting before a Duce or a Fuhrer. Americans are terrible at this and it shows. It is alien to our culture.

        • I don’t think it is weird or foreign. It’s the logical progression of Western civilization. What is weird and foreign is the judaized merchant revolution called conservatism.

          • I’ve always thought that Americans trying to do Neo-Nazism or fascism look like buffoons. They don’t remind anyone of the Third Reich. They are not any good at it and don’t inspire anyone.

          • Not really.

            After 50 years of trying, microscopic Neo-Nazi groups have zero traction. There is no comparison between that stuff and the audience for small government Southern White Christian rightwing populism

          • @ Hunter Wallace AUGUST 30, 2022 AT 10:20 PM

            >They are not any good at it and don’t inspire anyone.

            One ought to consider the reasons for the latter — it is not uncommon to find that when you strip away labels and remove ‘bad optics’, political ideas are often viewed much more favorably when presented as such — I recall hearing this was true even back in the time of George Lincoln Rockwell (who was open about the reason for his public antics), and I can believe it would also be true today of ideas that might be termed national socialist.

            With the media engaging in heavy, morality-tinged defamation campaigns, as well as the all-too-familiar ‘optics’ problem, it is difficult to say definitively that the issue of ‘not inspiring anyone’ lies entirely with the ideas.

          • >One ought to consider the reasons for the latter …

            Rockwell was Right

            By the way, my initial impression of Rockwell was that he was a vulgar buffoon, but my views like those of most people were shaped by enemy propaganda. So when I picked This Time the World, I was quite surprised at the man’s sheer intelligence, rationality, and eloquence. It is a powerful and inspiring book.

            The task of race realists and ethnic nationalists is to present facts and ideas in a responsible way, as free from ‘optics’ baggage as possible — dealing with media defamation is already difficult enough.

        • Fascism is too Catholic for me. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and others were all Catholics and on good terms with the Pope and his Cardinals. Joe Biden calling WASPs Fascists is bizarre.

        • @Hunter Wallace wrote, “It (fascism) is also weird and foreign, involves dressing up in uniforms and parading around, genuflecting before a Duce or a Fuhrer”


          But genuflecting & crawling on one’s belly before (invisible & not alive) rabbi yeshu & the jew volcano demon yahweh = Aryan man’s only hope to “oppose” jewry, so you repeatedly imply.

          Your only semi-sensible counter-argument against what you deceitfully call “Paganism” is that it’d be an uphill battle

          Everything else you claim about this most important “Question” is a bald faced lie, or a mega-bald faced lie

          (example: like your repeated assertion that pre-christian Aryans never built an advanced civilization, when we’ve all seen the Flavian Amphitheatre {aka the Colosseum} & most of us know of pre christian Aryans engineering marvels…like how the Romans invented a concrete which sets underwater & which becomes **stronger** with time).

  3. Off topic: The great traitor Mikhail Gorbachev has died. I hope it marks an end to almost forty years of national humiliation.

  4. The French and British were ready to move in and retake control of the US if the North lost the war. But the Russians sent one of their warships into NY harbor as a sign of support for the North as well as a warning to the British and French, who had recently defeated the Russians in the Crimea.

    • Look at how many cities in the NE have French names, with their proximity to Canada. Then there’s Louisiana, too. The French were very instrumental in the formation of the US.

  5. This line of propaganda never made sense to me. The Normans banned slavery when they arrived in England. Furthermore wasn’t the south of Jefferson and Jackson the area that wanted more direct democracy and supported the French revolution, while the north wanted less account taken of the popular will and supported Monarchist Britain against the French.

  6. Ideology is only of interest to cranks and weirdos. Right wingers discussing “National Socialism” are just as fake as even more gay than Left wingers discussing “Anarcho-Communism.”

    The Rebel Flag is the obvious correct flag for us, as is Gadsden and maybe a few others.

    No one wants to live in your utopia where Based You will just use the government to do the Right Thing because you have the Correct Ideology. Where have we heard that before? Better question where have we NOT heard that before, they all say that.

    What did the Fake and Gay Movement do when Roe was overturned? Celebrate this decentralizing momentum? Support California secession then building a wall to keep them from moving here?

    No, the Movement engaged in ghoulish purity spiraling, anti-social virtue signaling like edgy teenagers and LARPing like they are Hollywood Villains, wrestling heel characters.

    They are just a bunch of internet commenters and a tiny, tiny fringe subculture, like punk rockers. That and the feds and the jews of course.

    More rebel flags please.

    • Why is it “larping” when right wingers embrace National Socialism, but when you embrace
      “Christian Nationalism”, it’s not?
      National Socialism is and was a viable working political system, versus the pretend theocracy you want to faciliate.

      • When have I or anyone advocated a Christian theocracy?

        You’re projecting. You’re the one with the crank ideology. It’s not viable, you couldn’t even get enough signatures to get on a ballot in a single district. It’s just LARPing in the comment section which granted isn’t as bad as the uniformed goon marches for the Jew TV.

        Don’t worry you’ll always have the Daily Stormer and Weev.

        • Banned Hipster!

          I was listening to Myth of the 20th Century podcast and they mention they’ve had you as a guest before, how interesting!

          You are perfectly fine bashing National Socialists, but gladly go on a pro-NS podcast? You are so two-faced, it’s despicable.

          Go out in public and build a movement, show us how it’s done, coward! Since you have so much better ideas and are so much smarter than everyone.

          • @National Socialist

            “Dixicrat, National Socialist, Fascist”

            we all need to unite against the common mortal enemy, Unionists,Capitalists,Mensheviks,Non-Whites and their Hebrew handlers, NATO,EU,GOP and Dem different sides of the same coin!
            The enemy do not seperate between us and neither should we

            As a non National Socialist I have this to say about National Socialism

            The entire democrat world in the 1940s did not unite with bolshevism to destroy “American Constitutional Patriotism” or “English Imperialism” that should tell you what and who our mortal enemy see as the greatest threat

          • Of course I’m fine “bashing National Socialists.” How is that “two faced?” What are you running some kind of cult here?

            I’m a nobody blogger, why would anyone care if I “bash National Socialists” in the comment section? I’m not calling them “Hitlercucks” or anything.

            > Go out in public and build a movement, show us how it’s done, coward!

            Holy shit that is EXACTLY what Bob Whitaker said they would say in his metaphor about the sniper.

            Just because you make an anonymous comment claiming to represent some ideology doesn’t mean there is any reason to take you seriously. You sound like Antifa, which you probably are.

          • Banned Hipster,

            It’s 2 faced because I bet you didn’t tell go on a pro-NS podcast and call those guys “Nazi retards” and whatever else you spew in the comments section here.

            You have all these grand ideas about what we SHOULD do, I’m asking you to put them into practice. Ever been doxxed? Fought with Antifa? Harrassed by the Law? I have! I’ve lived my beliefs, but people like you just spew bile at people like me because of our worldview and that’s why you are a coward to me.

        • @Banned Hipster Nice try with NOT answering my question. You’re just “pro-religion”, but not “pro-white”.
          You ARE advocating a Christian theocracy. You want a Christian government. But maybe not white. You’d include all of your brothers and sisters in Christ from around the world.
          Like the guy above said, you’re all talk.

          • @Pilot,

            Banned Hipster is a poseur. He is not Southern, unless you consider the NOVA-DC are ‘The South.” He has zero accent, but I am sure he shed his Southern accent in the same manner Alabama born and raised Courtney Cox did through a voice/speech coach in NYC, while he was working in Lower Manhattan.

            Being a SPLC deradicalizer pays well, if you do not mind going the Judas Iscariot route.

  7. To the enemy “Confederate” “Fascist” and “Nazi” all mean the same!, they see absolutely no difference between Southern Secessionism and National Socialism

    I´m first and formost a Confederate and a secessionist but i respect and value all Three for what they are, they all work for the advancement and natural superiority of the White man over the negro and all non-White ilk

    That however do not mean i want to rule them infact i want them as far away from me as possible , like the moon!

    If we wan´t to get out of this without cataclysmic bloodshed and the anihilation of several of the races we must seperate, and do it soon since nature have it´s own way to set things straight

    • @ Confederate holdout in exile The most reasonabe statement i’ve read in this article of the blog, congratulations.

    • >To the enemy “Confederate” “Fascist” and “Nazi” all mean the same!

      I posted a link to this video of Enoch Powell with Dick Cavett before:

      Enoch Powell on Being Called A Racist | The Dick Cavett Show

      Speaking of being called a racist, he says: ‘It’s one of the modern terms of abuse. And a term of abuse is the more effective the less defined it is.’

      Just substitute any of the words you cite, or any other ‘modern term of abuse’ you come across or can think of, and it’s the same — name-calling is a hallmark of the infantilization of American political discourse.

  8. To be perfectly fair, Cromwell did not allow the “saints” — that is, the Fifth Monarchy Men — to rule for that long a period in the Commonwealth (maybe a year). Cromwell mainly tried to restore the Elizabethan balance. He was wary of any sort of extreme – eg, the aforementioned Fifth Monarchy types, and the Levellers, who he shot.

    • “the Levellers, who he shot”:

      The commons were useful as cannon fodder in the war, after which the liberation that they were misled to hope for did not materialise. Cromwell’s sons were even more reactionary. This is a great movie on the period: Full movie: Clip from movie:

  9. TBH looking at the situation in Europe and the coming winter i would say that a massive anti-government insurgency (Your “civil war”) maybe fueled by anti-EU, and pro-Russian sentiment is more likely to start there! since you already have a huge conflict expanding in Europe including the soon likely full flare up in the Balkans

    After this winter it´s possible that the the EU is completely broken up! Sure is that resistance to it will have grown even more whatever happen

    Add to that the brewing anti-imigrant wave and maybe the pot will blow there and not here

    Atleast the White folks there still largely maintain the personal fitness level to fight in a war (well maybe not the English)

  10. This is why I identify as a Southern Nationalist and a White Nationalist rather than call myself a “Nazi” and cloak myself in the Swastika flag. All the good parts of National Socialism are right there in Southern Nationalism. Hierarchy, Herrenvolk Citizenship, Faith, Family, Folk, and Race! A complete rebuke of globo-homo and liberal democracy! True independence for Whites in the South. Deo Vindice!

    • I don’t see anyone calling themselves “a Nazi”. That’s what the media does. National Socialists did not call themselves, “nazis”.
      I don’t think people who favor NS are looking to play dress up or anything. I think they realize that what the Germans facilitated was the best system for whites.

      • Nazi is term used to demonize the NS. It was coined by Korad Heiden (jew)to do just that. You are right though, NS never referred to themselves as “Nazis”

    • >… rather than call myself a “Nazi” and cloak myself in the Swastika flag.

      Obviously, if you want people to consider your ideas then you have to pay some attention to the packaging — and your ideas will get a lot more attention if the packaging isn’t a major distraction, meaning in this case if you don’t label yourself a Nazi.

      • Australian nationalist Blair Cottrell made an excellent point in that we still use the foundations of National Socialism, but lose some of the 1920s-1940s aesthetics, and create new aesthetics that do not carry the unfair jewish Svengali imposed bias on the original.

  11. I want to say that I appreciate this kind of post, which contains interesting historical information and references (e.g. to authors), a lot of which is new to me — you appear to be very knowledgeable about the history of the South, including the intellectual history and cultural background to the Civil War, as well as the aftermath.

    I always read these posts and save them so I can review them and look at the references more closely later — so thanks for putting them together.

Comments are closed.