November 2, 2013: A New and Better Confederacy.
Totalitarian centralization manifestly being the chief sickness of modern governments, the term confederacy as used here signals a remedy for what ails society today, having to do with the decentralized nature of the Old South and not at all with slavery or racism. However in the very next breath certain qualifications must be made, accounting for the title of this article, "a new and better confederacy": for advanced here isn't even the reinstitution of that plenipotentiary sovereignty of constituent states which was the South's greatest boast—an impossibility at whose attempt the old Confederacy was doomed to fail—but rather a distributive, organic sharing out of power: a horse of a different color indeed. Here being invoked the central organizing concept of vigorously-viable sub-sovereignties—duchies, princedoms and so on—of which medieval Europe was alive: the concatenation of which unfailingly produced that kind of nation which modern political scientists—most of them tautology-ridden radical theorists to the core—absolutely refuse to consider at all, calling it backward, "tribal", and so on. Hence what we put forward, under an updated Southern flag—and what the Old South scarcely knew—is the reappearance of men jealous of economic, cultural and political treasures, prerogatives and privileges of the regions (states) they in ruddy fashion personify in some way. Such sanguine figures being the only possibly barriers in the way of endless numbers of personal-liberty crushing, ultra-centralizing, synagogue-sponsored Napoleons of our day.
Once the above qualifications are made the use of the term confederacy can be understood in its proper light, its re-invocation providing a fitting historical and cultural motif for a modern-day departure from a system become totalitarian in the extreme: brainwashing, deliriously-"patriotic" politicos, commentators and newscaster notwithstanding. And although as noted race has absolutely nothing to do with this new idea of a Confederacy, yet its promulgation would—by default more than direct policy—see the speedy dispatch of the all-points forced integration begun under Johnson: a grim episode in social engineering which together with hundreds of others of its morbidly-direct kind vitiates the potencies of persons and states in the most unnatural way. (Indeed, rights having been the point of contention all along, it can hardly be held necessary, let alone in due proportion, that we be bussed and media'd, counseled and quota'd into a uniform mass, with the culture of one or two minorities—effectively, with deafening non-admission—being rigidly, largely by way of a kind of visual and auricular attrition, imposed upon all). Gone then under this new Confederacy would be a related bussing of students hither and yon, with a whole mammoth and unproductive conveyance industry thus being dismantled, freeing-up its assets and manpower for better flights, funneling students into a more-commercially-viable public transit—a mode generally speaking physically-and-morally-safer as well—wherever required. (Indeed, the chance is there that perfectly-unmonitored school buses today are used as convoys not just of students but of any amount of illegal drugs as well, or perhaps even of human trafficking, as suggested by frequent sightings of these yellow whales in the oddest places in the late morning or dusk. As well as by the personal character of many of the drivers involved.) Thus as might be gathered, according to a happily-utilitarian logic, would quotas of minorities on jobs and elsewhere be everywhere ended, as being an obvious drain upon noted moral, cultural and economic dynamisms involved in a vigorous, harmonious, productive and well-developed state. The whole potency of each lying in the potent and unfettered, eagerly-encouraged and irreplaceable contributions of living and breathing cultural elements found therein: rather than in the sterile, radical "we're all in this together" dogma which is the order of the day. While of course neither can a polar-opposite policy of deliberate segregation be held acceptable: being in its own way as Orwellian as the above. Our new Confederacy thus forming a veritable rip-rap of vigorously-divergent factors redounding not to conflict but to healthy tensions of the common good: being the exact opposite of the monolith which prevails today, which provides a vast, complex, secretive sanctuary for every sort of malfeasance or wrong. All of them feeding into Jewish international intrigue and investment-related control. The present ultra-centralized system—to which liberal democracy directly and inevitably leads—only bringing about the remorseless dissolution of every good thing into a common pool of non-identity: the whole miasma finally being said to comprise modern "progress". That harbor-idol namely at whose mention so many today lose their critical powers, are more or less struck dumb. That progress namely by which we give up our birthright—of locational and personal, moral and political liberty, of property and land—for the mess of pottage of gadgets, genomes and rocket flight: and these indeed chiefly enjoyed by a chosen, "deserving" few.
Hence does the New and Better Confederacy aspire to bring a return of divinely-bestowed, natural-law blessings that are in perfect accord with man's rational and dignified nature: those whereby and by definition "the smallest possible organizational unit is recognized as rightly possessing the greatest possible agency over those things which naturally fall under its purview". Providing a system in which each family or micro-neighborhood is conceived-of within its own realms as an animated reality, without today's host of case-workers, counselors and inspectors, its powers only limited by larger concerns of the common good: in a political-philosophy of a mutual-benefit whose agents or powers becomes more and more circumscribed, rarified and abstract as they ascend multiple stairs of regional to national scope. Becoming en-route for most purposes less and less direct or determinative, and more-and-more consultative, with each mounting step. The New Confederacy—having a partial and faulty but conceptually useful ancestor in the old—displaying that kind of reasonable larger power to wit which is utterly lacking in the U.S. Government today, which utterly disregards man's native dignity, being consumed with the desire to control every detail of man's daily and personal life. This indeed the dream of a controlling world synagogue, of which the USA is today's prime tool, as were England or Prussia in the past, whose whole theology is obsessed with denigrating all humanity other than themselves as being "goyim", or less than human. And brazenly governable as if they were so many despicable colonies of ants, or kennels of dogs.
Thus, briefly, would the new Confederacy see the restoration of a nobility and a monarchy: potent, fabled figures which can alone secure the state against the inroads of evil and grasping men, with the whole inevitably partaking in the dash and romance of a hundred J.E.B Stuarts or Robert E. Lees. Yet in our distributive system assemblies would nonetheless meet at all levels, largely to negotiate charters of rights, duties and privileges in candid communications with noble figures above, in a consultative orientation which was the chief characteristic of political life in medieval England or France. And the denial of which jealously-guarded prerogatives—including in major ways any decisions regarding the waging of war—readily brought on bouts of revolt or civil war: like that of Simon deMontfort in thirteenth century England, the culmination of a struggle against a string of absolutist monarchs, a stark anomaly coming some four centuries before their time. Yet ascending levels of noted types of medieval cortes, "hundred" or county chamber were mostly strangers to notorious modern-day propensities of such bodies toward becoming mere mouthpieces of secretive interests that rule silently from on high, in all case through venal persuasions and intrigues, sweet-talkers such as hold our Congress in rigid thrall.
But let no one dare say that such corrupt and coercive systems are "all we can hope for", citing the well-worn and constantly plied maxim that government is the "art of the possible": readily giving way to the lowest common denominator of cynicism and wrong. Because then we blaspheme God, accusing Him of having saddled mankind with such a treacherous thing, such a deadly necessity. Yet alas, such forthright articles as this inevitably call forth legions of bible-thumpers, odd bedfellows to above-noted political cynics, expostulating with rabid fervor about man's "sole necessity" of "believing on Him" (Christ), without any real need to do anything good. Good government to these "pious" people thus being the chief among hated "good works", with blameless deeds, of all things, allegedly being condemned by St. Paul. The "born again" thus departing like a skyrocket from perennial convictions of mortal man of all persuasions since Adam and Eve, with supreme verbal economy relieving the Christian—said to be a creature-all-his-own—of any need for he or his institutions to be any much good at all. These divines alleging sternly if in a deafening economy of words that rape and mayhem are the proper lot of our race, whatever realms or offices we ply. Here indeed being the genealogy of the all-points American national sickness analyzed here, stemming directly from the "faith without works" heresies of the sixteenth-century revolt against Catholic Rome, in ferment with uniquely-fanatical zeal on the Colonial east coast. Yet such cockle isn't really sown by Christians at all, for "an enemy has done this": the ever treacherous and perfidious synagogue, the immemorial lavish sponsor of deadly heresies of every stripe.
But returning to those assemblies to be met with in the New Confederacy: for their very free existence a vigilant and powerful nobility is essentially required, preventing them for one thing from being taken over by ever-busy big-money-sponsored moles: those in particular before whom our country presently lies in miserable thrall. While over the top of ranging orders of secular authority and organization there must be a royal family to hold it all together: a throne whose power would in fact be the most abstract and circumscribed of all, being largely moral, coordinational and consultative in nature, rather than mostly command-oriented, as our disgustingly-falsified collegiate history establishment so often inaccurately portrays. The medieval-model of an organically-conceived throne being utterly unconcerned with frustrating local liberties—which historically tended to reinforce royal prerogatives rather than weaken them—the king having enough to contend with in his own rarified, limited but considerable sphere. As in those wonderfully-spare and trim royal administrations of old whose private good above all was basically identical and coterminous with that of the people, and not substantially tied to any one interest, region or group. Even as finally under this new and medieval Confederacy—which at least initially would require some sort of pact among "confederate" states, thus likewise justifying the name—the humblest reaches of human existence would once again find that strong voice which their nature, "made in the image and likeness of God", should display: this in the marvelous epiphany which the state was indeed designed most powerfully to procure. Namely in an approximate restoration of the medieval Frankpledge: a ten-head-of-household all-purpose legal, cultural, economic and political building-block. A unit-of-authority which admittedly would have to formulate its own renewed identity in contemporary terms, while retaining its traditional "hew and cry" law-enforcement functions in ruddy form. In our own model with each frankpledge sending a representative to the next-higher such assembly—the hundred—a holder-of-court over petty crimes and small fines, and other practical legal matters quite small—being perfectly acquainted with persons and colloquial issues typically involved. ( A far cry from present dominant "at large" elections, with equally-non-representative equivalents of every kind, by which we are delivered under the control of special judicial and other interests hostile-to- or unacquainted-with local visions and needs). These hundred units thereafter, in an upwardly-climbing trellis, sending one man to sit at a higher and broader such council—no doubt most typically of the nimble number of ten—with these mounting upward to a state ten-man chamber to negotiate larger matters with the noble figure in charge, lower in power and honor only to the king himself. Here being a system which at either end—noble or assembly-of-commoners—cannot tolerate "shortcuts", to make things "more convenient", but must hash and hammer out things into the wee hours of the night, must never be satisfied until the humblest or grandest, the most pressing or most incidental, of practical human needs is earnestly sought to be achieved.
Over all these units of organization and authority the law of God would form the only "Constitution": at first perhaps only in major outlines of the natural law as written in fleshy letter on the human heart and mind, as understand to varying degrees of clarity by all mankind since the dawn of time. While further commonly-agreed-upon specificities of this divinely-modeled understanding-of-law would be fixed upon in due time. As the alternative offered by modern liberal democracy is to hold the elite-controlled assembly to be the actually maker of law: releasing thereby upon mankind a tyranny which knows no bounds, which crosses hitherto intractable dimensions, which would make of certain men a law and a god unto themselves.
Thus do we take up the flag of the old Southern Confederacy, upon which are emblazoned the two Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary: not to re-enkindle old flames of slavery or racism but rather to give each race, nationality and region its long-neglected due: with commercial viability, the very practical soul of political independence for any person, race or locality, being by law and custom freed of every possible restraint. All the while as suggested the nefarious excluding of people by race from any public or commercial facilities would still be considered a crime, even as above-noted over-blown polar schemes of initiative-stultifying all-points integration would be left to die on the vine, starved of any nourishment from the official badge or till. And unwanted invasions of alien music and behavior—often-enough harmless in their own proper idiom—would likewise thereby be harmlessly excluded, letting inoffensive nature take full sway, permitting no one's sense of self-identification—the driver of so many good and ebullient things—be diluted to any serious degree.
Another way in which the new Confederacy will model the old will be in its agrarian orientation, and equally importantly its medieval understanding of land: the latter by contrast having been speculated-with as if it were mere chattel under the radical Jacobin, pseudo-legal theories of capitalism of the past two centuries and more. Hence will its present-day dominion by corporate entities be reassessed and title in many cases be denied—of assets and properties in any case loudly claimed to be defined under vocal sanctimonies of "public ownership"—thus opening up a bountiful new field of vigorously-productive land-and-resource use, in place of the morbid system of elite-enriching rent-farming and cow-milking which our economy has so plainly become: oceans of catchy and sanctimonious slogans and maxims notwithstanding. As wealth and its myriad sources must by the nature of things be intensely and familiarly worked and monitored by many stake-holding parties, else it quickly go into greedy and all-controlling hands: land in particular receiving just distributive allocation only in this exhaustive and personalized way. This personally and locationally elaborated or iterated idea of a political system indeed being the central practical truth upon which the coming polity will be based, with land however to be held in the immemorial manner of men. Namely not as fee simple but as liege to lord: with the king the ultimate "owner" of the land, holding it in trust in turn to God alone, in honor to same, for benefit of those he leads. (Not again as if he commands an army which can summarily dispossess, imposing a "sweet whim" at will.) Thus would a certain longed-for stability-in-property, even for the humblest of workers or peasants, be maintained, if anything much more solidly than at present prevails: as history indeed attests of the holds of vassals and small-holders for centuries on end in prior days. This even as formal allodial deed-of-title in almost all cases did not actually obtain. Yet there would be added the timeless and once-universal—hardly "socialist"—understanding of land as in all cases having a social purpose as well—in this departing decidedly from personal properties of a chattel kind. With land thus understood as entirely unusable in any way seriously detrimental to the national or neighborhood wellbeing, or lawful prerogatives of the guy next door. With this one caveat seeming to have been the only limit set to a land-use for the medieval phenomenally free, multiplier-prolific, raw-materials-shepherding and -utilizing, and so on.
Finally, most peculiar to the Jewish pseudo-eschatology under which we all unwillingly live is the notion of sacrifice gone in search of a victim: as a host of false-flag operations and other grizzly deeds so bloodily reveal. The Jews having so notoriously rejected the Victim provided by God. Hence in modern life there is this continual notion that some familiar thing has to be sacrificed for something allegedly better, or at least more "advanced": with the latter one of those once-scarcely-known adjectives which not by accident have pushed aside all others of a more noble kind, having come to utterly dominate modern writing and speech. For the Jewish savior is universally thought-of as a coming arrival which they feel required to impose on all others, not at all for our benefit, but strictly for that of the Jews. Or more typically as some further development of a deified Jewish identity. The concept being rife and institutionally superimposed that we are rapidly progressing to purely-material phases of science, technique, manufacture, medicine, and so on, toward some future glorious but purely material plateau. (In view of such an inherent futurism, together with a 90%-plus Jewish leadership worldwide, does not the synagogue origin of dialectical materialism—in other words, both polite and bomb-throwing Communism—seem evident beyond debate?) Hence too this fantasy that nothing from out of the past is to be kept, indeed that it is a kind of act of treason against the modern totalitarian pseudo-state to hold old things dear. Although our very identity as viable actors is found in customs and traditions from out of our past, while a surrender to this open-ended idea of a future-determined existence is manifestly to throw our freedom to the wind, to surrender ourselves to a bevy of doctors, scientists and engineers, to do with us and especially with our offsprings what they wish. Therefore will the New Confederacy love and cherish every good thing from out of the past, and foster materially every simpler and less-technical way of doing things, preferring where possible the use of herbs and barks over modern medical science, an old Allis-Chalmers WC-3 tractor to the million-dollar monster-machines that plow and harvest fields today.