“All we need to do is to tell the truth about the War.” I became actively involved in the “Southern” movement in the early 1960s. From that time up to the present I have often heard my fellow Southerners declare of our enemies, “They (our enemies) just do not understand the truth about the War. All we need to do is tell the truth.” This simple, assumed, truism has been repeated for over a half century. Not only repeated but it has been the guiding principle for those few organizations and individuals who are attempting to defend our Southern heritage. Unfortunately, this simple truism is based upon a false premise so elusive and shocking that most conservative Southerners find it almost impossible to comprehend. Southern conservatives have been operating on the premise that our opponents share our values regarding truth. Our enemies have rejected our traditional standard of truth. Our enemies considered truth to be anything that advances their neo-Marxist agenda and they consider falsehood to be anything that supports traditional American and especially Southern values. The vast majority of Southern conservatives have yet to comprehend the fact that in the current politically correct U.S.A. it is impossible to have a civil discussion with our opponents. Most Southern “conservatives” do not realize who our opponents are nor do they realize the pernicious nature of our opponents’ underlying philosophy.
Does truth matter in politically correct America? Surely truth matters to traditional Southern conservatives but we are an unrecognized and virtually disenfranchised minority in what has become a secular humanist America. While the South still remains the Bible-Belt, we are surrounded from the west coast of San Francisco and Seattle to Chicago to our north and to the east coast of Boston, New York and Washington, D.C—best described as the anti-Bible, politically correct, totalitarian Evil Crescent that dominates the Bible-Belt. While we respect truth, they reject truth—that is, truth as defined by traditional Western civilization!
The Left’s attack against President Trump serves as an excellent example of their total disregard for truth as traditionally defined in Western culture. The politically correct Left is engaged in a continuing effort to destroy the duly elected President. One of their main weapons has been to label him as a “white supremacist.” The mere fact that they have not been able to discover any record of Trump ever making statements advocating white supremacy or any record of him being a member of or speaking to such groups is of no matter to the Left. Their truth is anything that might damage or destroy their enemy—the duly elected President of the United States. Note: evidence is not required, no effort is made to prove the allegation—the allegation is simply made and endlessly repeated by the Left’s sycophants in the mainline media, academia and blogsphere. Who are these people who have rejected traditional Western values of truth, evidence and civility? Who are these people of the Left who are actively making war against the values that underlie our Western civilization?
Our enemies are known by numerous labels such as, liberal, secular humanist, neo-Marxist, and postmodernist. All have their roots in postmodernism—a heady, 1950s, French, “intellectual” philosophy that aims to destroy traditional Western society and replace it with a Marxist socialist utopia. Marxism is the philosophical source and inspiration for postmodernism. They are in fact neo-Marxists. “Offering logical proofs about real matters of fact is thus pointless. And, conversely, it is pointless to expect any amount of factual evidence to add up to a necessary or universal conclusion.” As far as postmodernists are concerned feelings, intent, and irrational acts that promote their socialist utopian vision are more important than mere facts (i.e. truth) especially historical facts. As noted by postmodernist critic Stephen Hicks, “Postmodernism is the first ruthlessly consistent statement of the consequences of rejecting reason… In postmodernism we find…the placing of feelings at the root of all value issues…” This allows neo-Marxists to ignore over 100 million corpses piled up by Marxist governments in the 20th century, while pressing onward toward their fanatically held vision of a future socialist utopia of enforced equality. The American vision has its roots in trendy New England “isms” and “higher law” constitutional theories of the 19th century. It ultimately produced a dreadful 21st century vision of an American socialist utopia ruled over by a self-appointed elite who reside figuratively in that City on a Hill.
Our neo-Marxist enemies have rejected the Western traditions of reason, logic and civility. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that they would attack Southern conservatives with lies, slander, unfounded accusations, factually disproven allegations and utter hatred. We put ourselves at an extreme disadvantage when we expect unreasonable people to act reasonably. Our enemies have abandoned reason; they have abandoned absolute ethical values; they see slander and violent competition as a natural recourse. From their standpoint—only the most ruthless will survive.
Our neo-Marxist enemies have rejected the concept of absolute values—especially absolute values based upon Judeo-Christian traditions as expressed in the Holy Bible. In the 1960s Southern scholar, Richard Weaver, wrote “…systematic destruction of ancient ideals and sentiments leads to the revolution of nihilism.” Weaver was reflecting the warnings of post War (War for Southern Independence) Southern writers such as Albert Taylor Bledsoe and Robert Lewis Dabney who argued that no government could avoid ultimate tyranny if it did not “proceed from the assumption that man is a fallen creature.” This traditional Southern conservative idea stands in sharp contrast to the postmodernist vision of revolutionary socialist mankind perfecting human society into their vision of some future socialist utopia. Postmodernists (neo-Marxists) declare that Christian based Western civilization is an oppressive institution that they will destroy and replace with their vision of a modified Marxist socialist utopia. But post-War Southern writers such as Bledsoe warned us about such foolishness:
…in giving up the religious sanctions of his laws and institutions, man hands himself over to the chaos which must always proceed from passion unchecked by higher discipline. To substitute a sentimental optimism and humanitarianism for the old and proved doctrine of man’s natural depravity is to prepare the way for a new fall. The more there is left open to the whims and passions of men, the wider will be the field of folly.
The English writer and Christian philosopher, C. S. Lewis, noted the dangers posed by philosophers and politicians who reject traditional morality:
I am very doubtful whether history shows us one example of a man who, having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used that power benevolently.
Lewis in the 1940s , sounded much like Bledsoe and Dabney of the 1870s. Lewis warned the West about “Men without Chests,” enemies within whose sole purpose was to “debunk” traditional Western values, to destroy those permanent things that our civilization is based upon. As Southern scholar Mel Bradford explained, these values or “permanent things” have been handed down to us via generations of trial and error—traditions based upon transcendent values that have been proven by experience. Bradford understood how such “heady intellectual philosophy” had lead to the destructive anti-South reign of Yankee terror during and after the War for Southern Independence. He warned about ideology absent the constraint of transcendent values he described as those “permanent things.” He well could have been describing postmodernism when he warned “With it we worship ourselves: falsify, and then forget our birthright…the rhetoric of easy hope can produce only the politics of discontent.” Our neo-Marxist enemies have their ideological roots deep in the pernicious soil of postmodernism. Postmodernism is an attempt to resuscitate the utter failure of Marxist socialism—thus the label neo-Marxist.
Marxism is a proven failure but for those who reject absolute values—Marxist socialism is not a failure—according to postmodernist true believers those historical failures were not “real socialism.” This is the perverted and evil mindset of our opponents. The reality of the failure of all socialist revolutions represents the ultimate falsification of socialism—yet, ideologues of the Left reject facts, evidences, and reality. If over 100 million corpses cannot convert a neo-Marxist what possible chance will our “truth about the War” have? Leftist ideologues are not rational people!
Thus, we come to the ultimate question for those of us who wish to defend those permanent things which are our natural inheritance: How do we win in a battle against neo-Marxists (liberals, secular humanists, or postmodernists) when our opponents do not accept Western values of truth, evidence and logic? One thing is for certain; we do not win by trying to convince our enemies about the truthfulness of our claims. We win not by convincing them—we win by destroying them! How do we destroy them? Not by making a frontal assault against their strongholds in the mainline media, academia or political establishments. Yes, we educate but our education must be directed toward the vast majority of passive Southerners (Joe Six Pack and Billy Bible) who are our natural allies. We motivate to activate—we activate to bring social and political pressure on “our” elected officials. We must pressure “our” elected official to boldly and publicly defend our Southern heritage and to cut off the supply of middle-class tax revenues funding postmodernist brainwashing stations in “our” educational system. Otherwise, the day will quickly come in which truth no longer matters even in the Bible-Belt.
 Hicks, Stephen R. C., Explaining Postmodernism-Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault 2nd ed. (Connor Court Publishing, Redland Bay, QLD: 2011), 5.
 Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism 2nd ed., 76.
 Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism 2nd ed., 81.
 Bradford, M. E., Against the Barbarians (University of Missouri Press: 1992), 18-9.
 Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism 2nd ed., see notes 82-3.
 Dabney as cited in, Weaver, Richard, The Southern Tradition at Bay, 143.
 Bledsoe as cited in, Weaver, 143.
 Lewis, C. S., The Abolition of Man, 25-6, 29, 51.
 Bradford, M. E., A Better Guide Than Reason, 200; Bradford also champions Founding Father John Dickinson’s principle that experience is “a better guide than reason.” See, Original Intentions-On the making and ratification of the United States Constitution (University of Georgia Press: 1993), xviii.
 Kennedy, James Ronald, Dixie Rising-Rules for Rebels (Shotwell Publishing, Columbia, SC: 2018), 37-79.
 Kennedy, James Ronald, Dixie Rising-Rules for Rebels, 94-6, 102-3.