I’d like to preface this with the reminder to all the psychotically hypocritical lemmings who loathe Moore and feign outrage about the allegations against him but give a free pass to Dennis Hastert, Jeffrey Eppstein, the Clintons, etc., etc., etc. need only disregard this post–which is directed at people that are still sane and not given over to a reprobate mind and strong delusion.
Why is there a “South”? What is this place we call the South? What makes it different from other parts of the United States?
Many years ago, the Alabama writer Clarence Cason wrote that the South was “self-conscious enough and sufficiently insulated to be thought of as a separate province.” Echoing the same theme, W.J. Cash called the South, “not quite a nation within a nation, but the next thing to it.” In his book The American Dilemma, the Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal agreed that the South was “a nation within a nation.” The historian Ulrich B. Phillips once quipped about a ferryman calling the north bank of the Ohio River “the American shore.”
We’ve all seen it, some tractor rap urbanite, hipster soyboy, or boomer claiming that they’re Southern. These claims are generally followed with inflammatory comments about Southern culture and history or nearly incomprehensible ramblings on how great the American Empire is. These people are not Southern, they are indoctrinated and they are Reconstructed.
This is an updated version of the tenets of Dixianism as previously introduced and incorporates the definition of Dixian People as previously defined. It is meant to be a positions statement on the “must haves” for our enduring existence and prosperity as a people. I have attempted to avoid secondary (and often the most divisive within the movement) beliefs. This is intended to provide a foundation (perhaps not yet complete) on which secondary positions may later be constructed using these as premises. Most readers will probably notice that this statement has much in common with the Tennessee Statement and the League of the South core beliefs statement.
It does not adequately describe us to simply identify as altright or white nationalist. While it is true that our primary identity is based on our peoplehood rather than ideology, it is still expedient to be able to articulate an ideology. Unlike liberals, trucons and libertarians, we are a people that possesses an ideology rather than an ideology that possesses a people. Our ideology is necessarily Dixian-ethnocentric or it is worthless, without saltiness, to be trampled underfoot . Its tenets must at least stand up to the simple test:
Is it good for the long term interest of the Dixian people?