The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_95072044
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

[A major oration, previously unpublished, by Prof. Paul Gottfried]

Those Southern secessionists whose national flag we are now celebrating have become identified not only with a lost cause but with a now publicly condemned one. Confederate flags have been removed from government and educational buildings throughout the South, while Confederate dignitaries whose names and statues once adorned monuments and boulevards are no longer deemed as fit for public mention.

The ostensible reason for this obliteration or dishonoring of Southern history, save for those civil rights victories that came in the second half of the twentieth century, has been the announced rejection of a racist society, a development we are persistently urged to welcome. During the past two generations or so, the South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. We are being told that we should therefore rejoice at the reconstructing of Southern society and culture in a way that excludes, and indeed extirpates from our minds, except as an incentive to further white atonement, the pre-civil rights past, also known as “the burden of Southern history.” This last, frequently encountered phrase is from the title of a famous study of the South by C. Vann Woodward, who in his time was a liberal-minded Southern historian.

Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms, as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery, this commendable attitude, which was also shared by some Confederate leaders, does not justify the federal invasion of the South, with all of its attendant killing and depredation. That invasion took place, moreover, in violation of a right to secede, with which several states, including Virginia, had entered the Union.

A comparison is drawn nowadays between two supposedly equivalent evils, the Old South and Nazi Germany. This comparison has entered the oratory of the NAACP and the Black Caucus; it has also has appeared with increasing frequency in social histories that have come from the American historical profession since the Second World War. A bizarre variation on this comparison, and one frequently heard from the American political Left, is between the Holocaust and Southern slavery. First brought up by the historian Stanley Elkins (when I was still an undergraduate), this seemingly unstoppable obscenity is resurrected whenever black politicians demand reparations. Not surprisingly, those who claim that the Holocaust was unique and that comparing it to any other mass murders, particularly those committed by the Communists, is an impermissible outrage have never to my knowledge protested the likening of American slavery or segregation to the ghastliness of Auschwitz.

The benign acceptance of this comparison by would-be Holocaust-custodians has more to do with leftist political alliances than it does with any genuine reaction to Nazi atrocities. At the very least, reason would require us to acknowledge that Southern slave-owners were vitally concerned about preserving their human chattel, even if they sometimes failed to show them due Christian charity and concern. Unlike the Nazis, these slave-owners were not out to exterminate a race of people; nor did Southern theologians and political leaders deny the humanity of those who served them, a point that historians Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese have demonstrated at some length.

But all of this has been by way of introduction to the gist of my remarks. What interests me as a sympathetic outsider looking at your culturally rich region, goes back to an agonized utterance made by someone at the end of William Faulkner’s magnificent literary achievement, The Sound and the Fury. The character, Quentin, who has journeyed from Mississippi to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to study at Harvard, and who will eventually take his life, tries to convince himself that “No, I don’t hate the South.” This question is no longer a source of tortured embarrassment, but part of a multicultural catechism that requires an immediate affirmative answer. That is to say, every sound-thinking (bien-pensant) respondent is supposed to hate the “real” South, as opposed to warm-weather resorts that cater to retirees and in contrast to places commemorating Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King. The South, as the location of the Lost Cause and of Confederate war monuments, is one that we are taught to put out of our minds. It is something that a sensitive society should endeavor to get beyond—and to suppress.

Looking at this anti-Southernness, in whose filter displaying a Confederate battle flag, particularly in the South, has been turned into a hate crime, one may wish to consider the oddness of such an attitude. Why should those associated with a defeated cause, and one whose combatants were long admired as heroic even by the victorious side, become moral pariahs for their descendants? Is there anything startlingly new about our knowledge of Southern history since the early 1950s, when my public school teachers in Connecticut spoke with respect about Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, which would account for the present condemnation of the same figures? A few years ago, following my viewing of “Gods and Generals,” a movie that deals with the personality and military career of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, I was struck by the widespread attacks on the movie director, Ron Maxwell. Apparently this celebrated director had failed to use his art to expose “Southern racism.”

ORDER IT NOW

In fact there was nothing in the movie that suggests any sympathy for human bondage. In one memorable scene, for example, Jackson’s black manservant raises a question in the presence of his master, about whether it is proper to hold a fellow-Christian as a slave. The devout Presbyterian Jackson, who ponders this question, has no answer for his manservant, with whom he has just been praying. How any of this constitutes a defense of slavery is for me incomprehensible, but it does confirm my impression that there is something peculiarly twisted about the current repugnance for the Old South– and indeed for any South except for the one reconstructed by federal bureaucrats in the last fifty years. On visits to Montgomery, Alabama, I have noticed two local histories, which, like straight lines, never intercept, but nonetheless confront each other on public plaques. One is associated with the birthplace of the Confederacy; and the other with the political activities of Martin Luther King and the distinctly leftist Southern Poverty Law Center. The headquarters of the SPLC, this watchdog of Political Correctness, stands obliquely down the street below the state capitol.

It may have been a pipe dream that the two historical narratives, divided by culture as well as race, could be either bridged or allowed to function simultaneously. What has happened is entirely different. One of the two competing narratives, the one about the South as a bigoted backwater until the triumph of revolutionary forces aided by the federal government changed it, has not only triumphed but has been used to drive out its rival narrative. It might have been a happier outcome if Southern whites and Southern blacks could have agreed on a single narrative that would not demean either race. The second best outcome would have been if both had retained their accounts of the Southern past, as separate non-intersecting ones that nonetheless remained equally appropriate for different groups. The worst outcome, however, is the one that we now have. It is one in which the descendants of the defeated are taught to vilify or treat dismissively their ancestors, so that they can demonstrate their broadmindedness and remorse about past racism. As a result of this inflicted attitude one is no longer allowed to speak about the South as an historical region without focusing on its real or alleged sins.

But this has not always been the official situation. Certainly this was not the case, even in the North, from the years after Reconstruction up until the second half of the twentieth century, when even veterans of the Union army praised their former foes. It was also not always the case even afterwards, as Shelby Foote’s treatment of the losing side in his work on the Civil War, a classic that has gone through multiple printings, would indicate. The venting of hate and contempt on the South, as found in such predictably unfriendly authors as Eric Foner and James McPherson, is a relatively recent phenomenon. It underscores the fact that the Old South has been defeated twice—and the second time at the level of historical memory even more disastrously than in a shooting war that it lost in the 1860s.

The American white South has fallen victim to the “politics of guilt,” a dreary subject, albeit one on which I have written widely. The Yankee victors of the 1860s, who overwhelmed the Southerners by virtue of their numbers and superior industrial power, did considerable wartime damage. They also subsequently occupied the land of those whom they had vanquished militarily, but then did something that was equally important. They went home, and permitted their devastated opponents to rebuild without an occupying army. What I mean to say is that the first occupation was morally and psychologically less destructive than the ever deepening humiliation that is going on now.

The first victors were mostly Yankee Protestants, who in some ways were similar to those they had invaded and occupied. Once the passions of fratricidal war had cooled, these Yankees were able to view their former enemies as kindred spirits. Although they were establishing a bourgeois commercial regime, one that differed from the prevalent Southern way of life, the winning side had also recruited farmers and those whose culture did not diverge significantly from that of those who had fought on the Southern side. In a certain sense Socrates’ observation about Greeks once applied to Americans as well. While they could fight brutally with each other, they were still brothers, and so some form of “reconciliation” was eventually possible for the former enemies. And both North and South came up with a narrative about their past differences which bestowed honor to the heroes on both sides. This was possible with the Yankee Unionists, who wished to draw Southerners back into their community, even after a terrible war had been fought to keep the Southerners in a Union that they had tried to leave.

But the second civil war seeks the utter humiliation of those who are seen as opponents of a society that is still being imposed. The Southern traditionalists from this perspective are particularly obnoxious inasmuch as they are a full two-steps behind the project in question. Those who insist on these changes are no longer Victorian capitalists or Methodist and Congregationalist villagers from the North. They are post-bourgeois social engineers and despisers of Western civilization, a stage of development that these revolutionaries identify with discrimination and exclusion.

In Southern traditionalists they see those who are still celebrating a pre-bourgeois, agrarian, and communally structured world. That world appealed to hierarchy, place, and family, and its members displayed no special interest in reaching out to alien cultures. Such ideals and attitudes and the landed, manorial society out of which they came point back to a nineteenth-century conservative configuration. For our post-bourgeois leftist intelligentsia, this point of reference and model of behavior cannot be allowed to persist. It clashes with feminism and the current civil rights movement, and hinders the acceptance of a multicultural ambience.

The fact that people like your selves are still around and still honoring the national flag of nineteenth-century landed warriors from the American South might have the effect, or so it is thought, of making others equally insensitive. Even worse, those who engage in these celebratory rites do not express the now fashionable “guilt” about members of their race and tribe. Those being remembered had owned slaves, and they would have denied women, whom in any case they treated as inherently different from men, equal access to jobs. Needless to say, non-Westerners are not required to dwell on similar improprieties among their ancestors or contemporaries, and so they may celebrate their collective pasts without disclaimers or reservations. The hairshirt to be worn only fits Western bodies, and in particular impenitent Southern ones.

ORDER IT NOW

It is against this background that one might try to understand the loathing that the political, journalistic, and educational establishment reserves for the unreconstructed white inhabitants of the South. You seem to bother that establishment to a degree that Louis Farrakhan and those unmistakable anti-white racists, who are often found in our elite universities, could never hope to equal. You exemplify what the late Sam Francis called the “chief victimizers” in our victimologically revamped society, an experimental society that fits well with our increasingly rootless country. But your enemies are also the enemies of historic Western civilization, or of the West that existed in centuries past. You may take pride in those whom you honor as your linear ancestors but equally in the anger of those who would begrudge you the right to honor them. What your critics find inexcusable is that you are celebrating your people’s past, which was a profoundly conservative one based on family and community, and those who created and defended it. For your conspicuous indiscretions, I salute you; and I trust that generations to come will take note of your willingness to defy the spirit of what is both a cowardly and tyrannical age.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Classic, Confederate Flag, The South 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Cahokia says:

    The South is irrelevant because it’s contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    You are obviously unfamiliar with the American South and its many contributions to American and, therefore, Western Civilization. In literature alone names like Faulkner, Twain, Williams and Mencken to name a few. Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Jackson might have had a little influence on Western Civilization. Richard Gatling probably had a pretty big influence on what became of the West, too. Anyway the list of Southern contribution is very long and if you open a book, maybe you can enlighten yourself a bit.
    , @Anonymous
    What does the West really owe America in general when you really think about it.
    , @jocose
    What's owed...let's see. the first successful submarine attack in history, Rock and Roll,Jazz and R&B, BBQ of the first degree,Cotton for various types of clothes,much of the oil used in the west-just a few items...
    , @piefacedprince
    Your comment reveals that you are not a literate person. Ever read a novel?
    , @Ace
    Define "forward."
    , @Tradecraft46
    Stupid but I don't think you share the history. The South provided the positive trade balance, before the Civil War.

    The North preempted it through tariffs, to finance infrastructure.

    I think you should read more and bloat less.
    , @Texan1
    I respectfully disagree. I think the West owes a great deal to the American South.

    I'll inform you that General R. Edward Lee was related to George Washington and was a man of great integrity.

    I think that General Lee also greatly valued and carried on the military traditions of George Washington.

    I think a lot of that carried on down to men like General George S. Patton, Jr.
    , @Carroll Price

    What does the West really owe he? V American Southery little, indeed.
     
    The Southern people do not think they are owed anything, and have never asked for anything except to be left alone. A simple request from a courteous people that busy-body, self-righteous Yankees find impossible to do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/why-do-they-hate-the-south-and-its-symbols/#comment-734391
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "Andrea Ostrov Letania"] says:

    Isn’t the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny ‘genocide’ of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    Besides, weren’t FDR and Truman very chummy with Southern Democrats?

    And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too."
    Yeah, like the SPLC....LOL.
    , @matt
    Isn’t the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny ‘genocide’ of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    What an excellent idea.
    , @Carroll Price
    Today, and for the past 70+ years, The American flag has symbolized global terror on a mass scale not previously thought possible.
    , @smarba
    As for symbols of the rebellion. I for one do not hate them I merely despise them as symbol sof treason.
  3. In Southern traditionalists they see those who are still celebrating a pre-bourgeois, agrarian, and communally structured world.

    But Southern traditionalists today and over the last century have celebrated those things while at the same time condemning slavery, which is what made the whole, traditional southern way of life possible. Antebellum southern conservatives understood the connection. They used to emphasize to their northern conservative counterparts that slavery was essential to their traditional way of life: end slavery, they said, and you end our southern way of life.

    As Eugene Genovese pointed out, southern conservatives over the last century or so love to glorify all the hierarchy, honor, etc., of the Old South, but unlike antebellum conservatives, they ignore the fact that the southern tradition they want to preserve can’t be supported in a modern, capitalist economy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Biff
    The North(threw taxation and tariffs) made a lot more money off slavery then the South did..
    , @Dutch Boy
    Furthermore, the Southern planters were the bottom feeders of Capitalism, their slave laborers providing the cotton for the satanic mills of Britain, France and Yankeeland.
    , @carnac
    I am an unrepentant, unreconstructed Southerner. I have researched my ancestors and they go back to old Virginia in the 1700's. In all of that time our family never owned a slave and you can say that about 90% (or more) of Southern families. I am not denying there were slaves but they were not among the average folk. The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely. I know....slavery is wrong. That was a different era and time. Do you Yankees think that Southern boys left home to fight the Union army over owning slaves or for the rich man to own them?? You are believing your own wartime propaganda again. These Southerners were fighting over States Rights which they considered Lincoln to be eroding. The Southerners (even the poor) knew the constitution and still do. We follow it. We believe it is almost holy. The constitution lays out what a federal government is supposed to do and everything else is under the power of the individual states. To us....(especially back in 1860) each state was its own nation united for defense and other issues. Look at the power the government has now. Are you enjoying their idiotic dictates?? Do you like being ordered around by the likes of Obama (or anyone else). Southerners saw this day and time coming. We still want States Rights. We still want independence. Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see.
    , @Sir Padre
    I find it interesting to note that while everyone goes on and on about Southern support for slavery, they conveniently ignore the FACT that the majority of slave OWNERS were in the North (that's why they were exempted from Lincoln"s Emancipation Proclamation) or that some of these owners were free blacks.
  4. The primary problem here is failure to properly identify who the “they” are in the title. It is, of course, forbidden to talk about the small minority group who own almost all of America’s media, that is a forbidden move, but it is they who have quite methodically decided and moved against the Conservative South and the world of Islam. The sleepy world of the South and the Muslims were until rather recently amazingly similar in many many ways, and both places will be far safer, healthier places to be living when this latest and greatest usury bubble breaks than the urban wildernesses of New Jerk and Hell A.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epaminondas
    Spot on!
    , @Druid
    So trie, except that Southern evangelism has been twisted and taught to hate Islam.
    , @Carroll Price
    "They" also built the ships, owned the ships, and made the rum used to buy and transport slaves from Africa to North America. "They" became so prominent in the slave trade until slave markets remained closed on Jewish holidays.
  5. ‘ [T]he South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. [ That's exactly what it was. ]

    ‘ Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities [ because the Southern planters shipped vast amounts of slave grown cotton to England and vast amounts of manufactured/luxury goods back ?] that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms [ to use their slaves as cannon fodder in defense of slavery! ], as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery … [ "even if" ... and you don't, obviously ... hope the Old South will rise again? In the lands the USA's military is devastating, laying waste to and making ripe for exploitation? Southerners have always been over-represented in the Imperial expeditionary/occupational armies of the USA. ] ‘

    Americans who live in Dixie are just like all other Americans. And all Americans hate slavery and the slave culture that flourished in the Old South … and is flourishing again in the guise of low-wage slavery throughout the globalized neo-liberal empire and has now rolled back home. The only difference is that they are constantly called to the side of the Old South, by the political wedge driven by paleo- and neo-conservatives, as though the southerners of today had anything at all in common with the slave-holding oligarchs pre-Civil War.

    The Old South, reincarnated, is attempting to rise again. Globally. It was the Stars and Bars the neo-Nazis flew in Kiev along with their swastikas at the Maiden.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    I hate what those #@$&% Southerners did in Kiev. Is there no end to their perfidy?!
    , @Rhett Hardwick
    [ to use their slaves as cannon fodder in defense of slavery! ],

    And what is it that you imagine the north did with their black troops? Watch "Glory" and blow off the fluff.

  6. fnn says:

    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861. The South has always been the section of the US most eager to be led into war. It seems unlikely that a USA minus Dixie would have entered the Great War. The South was the only part of the country without a single America First Committee chapter in 1940-41. Today, the extreme and unthinking philo-Semitism of the South provides major support for the USG-Israel program of endless war in the Middle East.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lasher
    Thank you for your comment.
    , @Carroll Price
    You are correct. I've have never figured out why large numbers of individuals belonging to Southern heritage groups, eagerly wave the US government's flag with the right hand, while waving the Confederate Battle flag with the left. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they fail to understand that the US flag represents the exact opposite of what the Confederate Battle flag represents, which is defiance of centralized authority.
    , @Low Voltage
    I remember reading an article years ago by a Russian historian where he argued that the Romanov's biggest mistake was supporting the North during America's civil war. The American South would have been allied with Great Britain, and the North would have sided with the Kaiser. There would have been no Versailles, no Hitler, no WW2, etc...
    , @johnnyreb
    Thank you for this comment. I support secession in general. I am a descendant of slave owners in the South. And I feel shame, not for my great-grandfathers, but their descendants who were not involved in the America First Committee. I was not aware of that fact, if it's really true. But I do know that my fellow Southerners are more likely than most to be supporters of the wars of the past and the eternal present. And of course they are mostly uncritical supporters of Israel, which makes them even more likely to support war in the Middle East, and to support sanctions against Russia, North Korea, and others.
  7. SFG says:

    I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years. Even Woody Allen spent little time making fun of the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years."

    Not so. First off, Abolitionists were not the dominant force in the North. Rather, Lincoln and the ruling North elites used Abolitionist rhetoric to justify their war on the South.
    It's like US had no interest in liberating Asia from Japan during WWII. Rather, US sought supremacy over the Pacific and defeated Japan for that reason. The stuff about US liberating Asia from Japan was just a useful moral excuse. (Same thing with the Iraq War. It was essentially a War for Israel but it was promoted as spreading democracy in the Middle East.) After all, if US cared so much about Asia, why did FDR ask Stalin to swallow up North Asia and hand it over to Mao... who then took all of China?

    Northern ruling elites weren't so enlightened on race themselves. They supported the westward expansion that took lands from Indians who were forced into reservations.
    Furthermore, the last thing that most Northern whites wanted to see was white southerners raped and murdered en masse by blacks... no more than Chinese government enjoyed watching boatloads of Vietnamese-Chinese sent to near-certain death in the seas in the late 70s. During the Boat People fiasco, China was communist and Vietnam was communist, but Chinese were angry with the Vietnamese treatment of Vietnamese-Chinese capitalist population who were dispossessed and pushed into the seas(in an event that was not unlike what Turks did to Armenians).

    True, there were lots of self-righteous Northerners who'd read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN and saw the Negro as some saint and felt white loathing and all that, but the real power and most sentiments in the North was not particularly anti-south after the war. If anything, there was far more anti-north sentiment in the south because (1) resentment of having lost the war (2) sense of betrayal that northern whites killed fellow whites in the south for the sake of blacks.

    For the most part, North and South buried the hatchet. Also, as the Democratic Party traditionally depended on both urban northern whites---especially Catholic Irish---and rural southern white voters, it wouldn't have made much sense for American Progressives to especially vilify the South. Indeed, Wilson, FDR, and Truman all relied on the South. Kennedy chose LBJ to carry Texas. And before the final political realignment in the 1994 Congressional election, there were still some vestiges of southern Democratic power. Since then, the Deep South has become totally Republican while the Northeast has become almost totally Democratic. So, it's politically much safer for Northern/Western Democrats to attack the South wholesale. They no longer have any political allies there.

    The North/South enmity in the past need not be exaggerated. Especially as masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe poured into the Northeast Coast, even many white Anglo-Americans in the North began to sympathize with whites in the South. With so many swarthy foreign-looking people---even thought to be non-white by some Northern Europeans---cramming into big cities, especially New York, Northern whites thought they finally better understood the problem that Southern whites were having with blacks.

    But as it turned out, European immigrants---even from southern and eastern Europe---turned out to be pretty solid civilizational material and they assimilated and made the social climb and became like any other Americans. So, the North lost its fears about the 'other', at least in regards to European immigrants.
    In contrast, blacks in the South remained the dangerous 'other'. Some progressive types blamed this on the discriminatory attitudes in the South, but blacks turned out to be as or even more problematic in the North in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and etc. Of course, as there were discriminatory policies in the North as well, black failings in the North could be blamed on white 'racism' too, but in truth, black problems owed really to the fact that black character/personality had been forged for 100,000 yrs in hot Africa with lots of nasty diseases and monstrous wildlife that chased Negroes all around and drove them crazy.

    Anyway, since Southern blacks moved to the North, the North could always blame the South for having turned the blacks crazy---though one wonders why a whole bunch of blacks in France and England are also crazy even though they came directly from Edenic Africa.

    North and South seemed to be getting more or less fine, but then the Civil Rights Movement happened. Initially, the North felt smugly sanctimonious about racial discrimination in the South, especially as such sentiments were egged on Jews in Hollywood and media.
    It was as if the North was so advanced whereas the South was still stuck in the 19th century.

    But there were few reasons why the North/South divide became stalled n the 60s and 70s. One reason was US was still far from the blue state/red state political divide that has become so iconic in our politics.
    Back then, there were forces in both the Republican and Democratic Parties that were for the Civil Rights Movement and against the Civil Rights Movement. George Wallace was a Democrat before he was an Independent. And there were Northern Republicans who were for the Civil Rights Movement and Western Republicans who saw it as an encroachment of the Federal government on states rights--not only against the South but against the West as well.

    Another huge factor was the wild 6os. As blacks began to burn down cities, riot, and act crazy, many in the North had second thoughts about the Civil Rights Movement. Also, black crime began to climb precipitously at this period. So, even in a city like NY, there was a lot of fear of black crime, finally culminating in the undreamt of triumph of Giuliani in the 90s.
    Of course, the hardened white working class was never much with the blacks in the North. But prior to the Civil Rights Movement, whites mostly had their own communities and blacks had theirs. So, they could tolerate one another. Also, prior to the rise of civil liberties, the police had been much tougher on black crime, and that kept the black community in line. But in the 60s, with the triumphal march of blacks, rise of youth culture, rise of Jewish radicalism, the rise of new optimism with the Kennedy presidency, the popularity of black music, the cult of Muhammad Ali, and etc., Northern white youth became more idealistic/naive/optimistic and northern blacks got rowdier, more aggressive, more demanding, and etc. Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey.

    Prior to the 60s, because white power seemed so monolithic and dominant, even tough blacks in the North and South thought the best way would be mind their manners somewhat, but in the new era when the heavyweight champion of the world was a loud-mouthed Negro who taunted his opponents, made fun of whitey, and acted the thug-loon, blacks began to show their true nature. With no more fear of whites, city after city became beset with crime, looting, and rioting. When blacks acted crazy, whites mostly ran as whites knew, deep in their hearts, that blacks could whup their ass like Muhammad Ali whupped all them white boys.

    So, the North vs South narrative was broken. Many Northern whites in 1968 came to see eye-to-eye with Southern Whites about the race problem: blacks are indeed dangerous and crazy. And when MLK marched through some Northern towns, he was met with even more hostility than in the South. Northern whites began to see MLK's Trojan Horse bulljive for what it was. After all, MLK was no saintly Negro but a loutish thug who'd cheated his way through college, led a life of debauchery, and even beat up a woman unconscious and laughed/joked about it. But he had a boom box voice and a penchant for bellowing cliches that naive white folks couldn't resist. He was the Oprah of his day. MLK's assassination is now remembered as some great national tragedy. But in 1968, it meant burning cities and more Negro mayhem, and so, if anything, it helped Nixon and drove many more Northern whites to the anti-black camp.

    At this time, many Northern whites fled to the suburbs and voted Republican. And they loathed blacks more than they loathed Southern Whites. And even ultra-liberals in big cities began to have second thoughts about the preponderance of black crime and violence. Also, no matter what policies were tried on blacks, too many of them seem to be getting only crazier. And the Great Society was a massive failure.

    When we look at Nixon's second election, Reagan's victory, and Bush I's victory, it was obvious how so many Northern Whites and Southern whites saw eye to eye on lots of things. Though MLK was elevated to iconic status and Civil Rights Movement came to be sacralized, there were too many race problems in the North for white Northerners to get too rosy about that stuff. They were mainly concerned about black crime and violence, and as such, sort of understood why the South hadn't been too keen on blacks either.

    Even so, history is controlled by the elites, and as the moral narrative sacralized the black struggle, and lionized MLK; and with PC censoring and blacklisting all competing views, the black issue went from a political and social(or even moral) one to a spiritual one. It's like MLK wasn't just a great man but the greatest man of all time, maybe a messiah. Thus, it became taboo to even question the sacred narrative of the civil rights movement that came to be mythologized in Manichean terms.
    Also, as American Conservatism caved into this mythology, it went on the defensive, and the policy of the GOP became one of seeking the approval of Jews and blacks.
    Also, as Jews became very powerful and as Neocons were insistent on stamping out white 'racism' in the GOP, American Conservatism became increasingly intolerant of any dissenting views that might be deemed 'offensive'. But for some reason, the GOP under Neocons became more 'racist' against Arabs and Palestinians. I guess you gotta win moral credits in one area to use it to cover up moral lapses in another area. If GOP is with the MLK cult, I guess it can help Israel bash Palestinians with a clearer conscience. 'With MLK on our side' is the new 'With God on our side'.
    Jews especially love MLK since MLK gave his full blessing to the Zionist war on Palestinians.

    Of course, the rise of rap music also had an effect. Before rise of rap, white kids listen to white rock mostly and blacks had their own music, but with rap as the big musical act among all kids in America, white kids became more worshipful toward blacks.

    And then, there is the Jewish factor. It's not surprising that Jews view the Civil War through the prism of WWII. After all, even though Germany was defeated and crushed, US had gone relatively easy on Germany soon after the war. This angered a lot of Jews who thought Germany should pretty much have been wiped off the map.
    As USSR was the new enemy, Germany was allowed to rebuild quickly. And it wasn't until the 1960s that Germans really began to face all the horrors they committed during WWII. Also, with the Cold War, many Jews in America came under suspicion as subversives, and many Jews panicked that McCarthyism is New Nazism in America.

    So, the way Jews see the postwar era, white Americans and white Germans patched up their differences rather too quickly and white Americans set their eyes on Jews as the enemy. Philip Roth's PLOT AGAINST AMERICA dramatizes this very Jewish fear.

    Indeed, what if Churchill had sided with Hitler as Hitler wished him too? What if US had come to a peaceful solution with Japan and there had been no Pearl Harbor. There would have been no great war among white nations. And all three might have ganged up on the Jews. It was because UK fought Germany and because US got embroiled in the war thanks to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor that Nazi Germany was finally defeated. It wasn't so much the result of 'good guys' prevailing over the 'bad guys' because history always chooses the good but a matter of an accident of history. So, there was nothing assured about what happened during WWII. There were plenty of American whites who didn't want to fight Germany. What gave the Jews a crucial opening in their survival and eventual chance at supremacist power was cracks/divisions among white nation and groups. Jews lucked out because UK chose to fight Germany, because Hitler decided to fight white Russia, because white American fought white Germany. And during the Cold War, it was the white America/Western Europe vs white Russia/Eastern Europe. Because of the Cold War, white America came under moral pressure to open up its society and make it more tolerant to win the propaganda battle with the white Soviets who inspired and aided people of color all over the Third World to take up arms against white nations/imperialists.
    So, it is in the interest of Jews to make white people hate and fight other white people. Similarly, Jewish-controlled US government employs a foreign policy that seeks to maximize and exploit the differences among various Muslim sects and groups. Jews love to see Muslims/Arabs slaughter one another.

    The last thing Jews want is any kind of united white consciousness in the US or around the globe. Indeed, what is all this business with Russia and Putin about. Cold War is long over. Russia wants closer economic and political ties with the West. He wants peace and brotherhood. But Jews don't want Russian whites to become chummy Western European whites, especially as Putin's brand of nascent nationalism and respect/revitalization of tradition might rub off on Western Europeans who've been injected with the New Normal culture of homomania. Jews especially dislike Russians because it's impossible for Jews to morally browbeat Russians about the Holocaust and WWII. Russians lost more lives in WWII than any other people and did most to defeat Germany.
    So, Jews have used their financial and media power to vilify and isolate Russia, and since most of global media are owned by Jews and since most elites in US and EU are slavish to Jews, Russia has been hit with all kinds of sanctions. And of course, the homomania cult is very useful in making Russia out to be the bad guy. Jews, in having sacralized homosexuality and transvestism in the West, have persuaded a whole bunch of Western morons that it's evil to ban 'gay marriage' or 'gay poo-ride' parade. Since Russia won't allow homos to parade down Red Square, a lot of idiot Americans see Russia as 'new Nazi nation'. This is how dumb Americans have become. Of course, Jews are ecstatic with hideous glee as nothing makes them happier than seeing goy hate goy. Jews are also working in Asia to increase tensions among China, Japan, Vietnam, India, and other nations. A truly nasty and vicious people.

    So, just like Jews want to divide Western Europe from Russia, Jews wanna divide 'blue state whites' from 'red state whites'. Though most of the racial violence in the South has been black-on-white, Jews who run the media have suppressed the truth and perpetrated the myth of permanent black victimhood and nobility through fantasy movies like GREEN MILE, THE HELP, MISSISSIPPI BE BURNING, DJANGO UNCHAINED, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, and etc. And of course, TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is like a required reading bible for young ones.

    As for all the white folks robbed, beaten, raped, bullied, terrorized, and murdered by black thugs since the 1960s, forget it. Jews in the media don't care and don't want us to care either. Let us worry about some mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse as the new messiah.

    Furthermore, new tough policies in the North have made it safer for white liberal elites in cities. Today, the posh parts of NY, Chicago, San Fran, Washington DC, and etc are nicer and richer than ever. It is in those areas that the urban elites work, and they feel safe. And as they feel safe, they feel holier-than-thou in pointing fingers of blame at other whites, especially white southerners.
    If downtown areas of cities were run down and filled with crime--as in the 1970s--these liberal elites wouldn't be so glib and conceited.
    Also, generations of PC-brainwashing has stamped out much of honest talk that used to prevail even up to the 1980s. The kinds of columns Mike Royko wrote back then---hard-nosed, tough, cynical, politically incorrect, personal, etc---wouldn't be allowed today. And if older folks spoke candidly, young ones(as pod people) would shout them down as 'racist'. We don't have people like Jim Traficant anymore. Sure, he was a nut but he was also a straight talker---even when he was full of shit. Today, all white folks have to be so mindful of what they say. Indeed, we now live in a world where if someone says he thinks a male fecal hole isn't a proper sex organ, he will be censured, fired, and blacklisted forever in elite community. So, forget about honest talk about race.

    But if we were to have an honest talk about race, I'd argue that the Confederate flag is a useful, indeed necessary, symbol. The meaning of symbols change. Statue of Liberty wasn't originally a symbol of immigration that it came to be.
    Whatever the Confederate Flag used to symbolize, it should now symbolize the need for white unity, the need for white interests, the need for white sympathy for whites suffering at the hands of non-whites, the need to defy Jewish power, and the rightness of a people to prevent biological slavery of their own people at the hands of another race.

    Indeed, the South only had two choices in the past: social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks. Whites and blacks are not the same, i.e. whites are not blacks with white skin, and blacks are not whites with black skin. We can sort of make the case that Asian-Indians(the Hindus)are something like whites with brown/black skin. If indeed whites had brought Asian-Indians as slaves in the American South, then, maybe upon the end of slavery, both groups could have worked to live peacefully side by side or intermingle. But it was different with blacks since evolution had made blacks stronger, more aggressive, wilder, more dangerous, bigger, and more fearsome. Unless whites held social control over blacks, blacks would whup the white man's ass and conquer white women. Or white women would voluntarily ditch the white male as loser dork and go off with the Negro deemed to be sexually/physically/racially superior.
    Of course, Libs will denounce such talk as 'racial or sexual paranoia', but look at rap culture. Much of it's about muscled black thugs howling about how badass they be, how they gonna whup punkass white boys, how white girls are all gonna be their sex slave cattle. And Jewish-run music industry promotes this sort of stuff. Look at TV advertising during the superbowl that feature white women throwing themselves at big muscled Negroes. Look at rape statistics along racial lines, and the sexual violence is overwhelmingly black on white, black on brown, and black on yellow. And the man-to-man violence is black whupping white boys, blacks whupping brown boys, blacks whupping yellow boys, and etc. Black guys used to have fun whupping wimpy Jewish boys too, but as Jews ar so rich, most of them live in safe neighborhoods and use their political muscle to push dangerous blacks to other places.

    While social slavery of blacks was wrong--Lincoln was right to want to free the slaves and send them back to Africa or set up a separate black nation--, it was also wrong to force whites to live under biological slavery of blacks. Every race should live in safety, with male pride, with self-respect, and its own autonomy. This was impossible with blacks in the South since too many blacks are too mean and strong and aggressive. So, it wasn't simply an issue of freedom vs slavery in the south. It was an issue of social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks.

    Though white libs and Jews will deny it, actions speak louder than words. If you look at the social, economic, and behavioral patterns of urban white libs, they also wanna segregate themselves from mostly black areas. This doesn't mean they are 'racist' against blacks, but they too sense a problem with blacks insofar as blacks cause the most mayhem and trouble all across America. Is black violence due to the legacy of slavery? No, it is the legacy of blacks realizing during the Civil Rights Movement that whites have lost it, are vulnerable, and no longer have the guts to stand against black thuggery. After all, when blacks began to attack whites in the 60s, most whites ran, hid, or cowered and didn't dare fight back because they were afraid of bigger and stronger blacks.

    Also, Jews need to shut up since, when faced with the same problem, they've done the same thing in Israel and Occupied Territories. As Palestinians hate Zionists and have used violence against Jews, Jews have used ultra-violence and ultra-segregation to teach Palestinians a lesson not to mess with Jews. And it appears even most Liberal American Jews are pretty much with the program of Jews in Israel and West Bank using harsh measures to keep the Palestinians in their place and teach them a tough lesson. If indeed Jews act this way for their own security --- and Jews in America work tirelessly to force all politicians to sign a pledge to AIPAC --- , who the hell are they to be lecturing white southerners about the Confed flag? Isn't the Zionist flag associated with ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the killing of innocent women and children, gangsterism, terrorism, and the attack on USS Liberty? And of course, long before Jews sought to stamp out the Confederate Flag, they(as Bolsheviks) tried to blow up every Church in Russia. And today, Jews fund garbage like Pussy Riot to desecrate Russian Churches. There is simply no limit to the foul hypocrisy of the Jew.

    Jews and glib Northern white liberals would us believe that slavery was the 'original sin' of America, as if slavery had been invented in America. Furthermore, Brazil brought over 10x the number of blacks to the New World than the US, and lots of Jews were involved in the Brazilian slave trade and plantation. So, Jews need to shut the F up.

    But if we must talk of America's 'original sin', why is it black slavery and not the conquest of America and the 'genocide' of the Indians? After all, something like 300,000 blacks w were brought to the US whereas something like 5 million native Americans might have been wiped out by diseases and then guns brought by white folks. Furthermore, this was the ancestral land of Indians who were pushed out, rubbed out, and forced into reservations? Sounds to me worse than slavery. And this process began before a single black dude was brought over as a slave.

    So, why isn't this Narrative used as the original sin of American? Is it because what whites did to Indians sounds a bit too much like what Jews did to the Palestinians?
    , @Carroll Price
    When it comes to wars and politics, Jews do not choose sides based on ideological reasoning. They choose sides based on which affords the best opportunity for making large profits.
  8. The Left hates the South for one reason alone: it ceased to support the Democratic Party. (And why would it, after being turned on?) Were white Southerners to turn back to their wayward child, all would be forgiven overnight! It would take the GOP granting US citizenship to the entire population of Mexico to bring that about, though.

    As I see it, Dixie has just two great sins on her record: importing Africans to live among white men– an epic betrayal of their own race– and ruining American, and eventually all Western, music. Funny, that’s the only Southern accomplishment the Left will celebrate.

    I can see why planters would bitch about paying the bulk of the tariff, but I don’t see why anyone else should feel sorry for them. It’s not like that income came from the sweat of their brows. Southern senators didn’t cry tears for that sliver of the population subject to the income tax they helped push through in 1913. And which their own native son, TWW, turned around and hit them with as well. Sending our sons to France is expensive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    importing Africans to live among white men– an epic betrayal of their own race
     
    The original white settlers--the Puritans, Virginians, Carolinians-- chose to leave the company of white men to live in a country full of red men. Was that also an epic betrayal of their race? Should they just have stayed in Europe and not ventured out?
    , @delmas
    The authors of comments here who vituperate against "Southerners" are obviously despicably ignorant of history. Yes slavery was that "peculiar institution" which existed not only as a mainstay to the Southern economy but also to the economy in many places up North of Mason-Dixon. General Grant and other Yankee leaders as well possessed slaves. House slaves were even common in Northern cities, in New York for example. And if you want a good look at the racism of the Yankee troops, just peruse for example, the eyewitness testimony of both slave and freeman in Walter Brian Cisco's "War Crimes against Southern Civilians."

    Of course, Yankee hypocrisy and cynicism is nothing new.
    The old folks always had you all pretty well pegged.
    So these latter-day carpet-bagging and scalawag Liberators had better keep in mind, that they may just not be able to "bind up the wounds" this time around, replacement politics notwithstanding.
  9. “What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.”

    That’s like beating a prisoner then asking what he’s done to deserve something besides the beating.

    Read More
  10. Got some problems with this article. Plays too much to the old stereotypes without getting to the real point of the matter.

    “White Southerner”? What exactly is the distinction between this term and “Black Southerner”? I think we’re talking about the same culture, white & black. The “other” in Southern culture is the Yankee: all one need do is read some good Southern literature to see that. That of course would require going back to the traditional Southern values of Agrarianism, old school Christianity, and community, which of course links black with white, the one being incomprehensible without the other.

    “Leftist”? Please, like these poor ole hopelessly confused “Progressives” are the problem, and not just another version of corporate stooge. No, at this point it should be obvious . . . it’s the neo-con Cheneyites . . . the radical right who are destroying this country and have been doing so for some time.

    Ironically the electoral base of this threat is in the South today, the one region which through our Agrarian heritage could offer a real alternative to Industrialism run amok linked with endless scams coming out of Wall Street.

    The real problem is that Southerners to a large extent have lost any sense of what our culture is. Sorry, but cheap beer, spectator sports, guns, racism, waving a made-in-China flag and talking stupid are hardly exclusive to the South, let alone making up a culture.

    Read More
  11. Hepp says:

    [A major oration, previously unpublished, by Prof. Paul Gottfried]

    I actually remember reading this years ago.

    Read More
  12. Biff says:
    @Aaron Gross

    In Southern traditionalists they see those who are still celebrating a pre-bourgeois, agrarian, and communally structured world.
     
    But Southern traditionalists today and over the last century have celebrated those things while at the same time condemning slavery, which is what made the whole, traditional southern way of life possible. Antebellum southern conservatives understood the connection. They used to emphasize to their northern conservative counterparts that slavery was essential to their traditional way of life: end slavery, they said, and you end our southern way of life.

    As Eugene Genovese pointed out, southern conservatives over the last century or so love to glorify all the hierarchy, honor, etc., of the Old South, but unlike antebellum conservatives, they ignore the fact that the southern tradition they want to preserve can't be supported in a modern, capitalist economy.

    The North(threw taxation and tariffs) made a lot more money off slavery then the South did..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Not to speak of the fact that a vast majority of slave dealers and merchants were from New England states. With Massachusetts and Rhode Island being two Yankee states where a majority of slave ships were built and where the rum was produced as payment for the slaves purchased on the coast of Africa. But of course you will never hear any of this mentioned by the two-faced hypocrites who criticize the South.
  13. Realist says:
    @Priss Factor
    Isn't the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny 'genocide' of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    Besides, weren't FDR and Truman very chummy with Southern Democrats?

    And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too.

    “And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too.”
    Yeah, like the SPLC….LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The VP of the Confederate States of America was Jewish.
  14. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Southerners inconveniently tell us exactly why they went to war. Four states went to the bother of writing up “Declarations of Seccession”. Just about all they talk about is the necessity of slavery and the threat posed by the abolitionism and the Republicans. South Carolina helpfully points out that tariffs are no longer an issue.

    America fought its bloodiest war over what was at root a moral question. I find that to be incredible. Hard to think of any historical precedent other than religious wars. Of course you could argue that abolitionism was a religious cause. It’s leaders talked like Jerry Falwell in a bad mood.

    Read More
  15. I’ve addressed this in my blog, part is reposted here, the rest is here, near the bottom of the long page. http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm

    The President of the CSA, Jefferson Davis, was a West Point graduate who led an American regiment into Mexico during the Mexican-American war. He was a U.S. Senator and a U.S. Secretary of War for four years. As Davis explained in his 1881 memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, he believed that each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union, but he never supported secession. Yet he was popular and accepted the Confederate Presidency because of a sense of duty, and immediately attempted to make peace by offering Lincoln compensation for abandoned federal property in the South. After Lincoln refused, the CSA realized that defeat by the far more powerful Union was inevitable, unless it launched a hasty offensive to seize Washington DC and end the conflict quickly. The CSA failed, yet that surprise attack demoralized and disrupted the Union Army’s organizational efforts for two years.

    Preserving and Expanding the Union

    So why have the Power Elite now targeted the Civil War for revision? They fear the massive job losses and lower wages they inflicted on American workers might encourage “states rights” movements and talk of secession from the USA. The idea of state independence floats around in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Texas. This is never reported in the media, and whenever organizations form to promote this, they are quickly under investigation by the Feds.

    When it was learned that Sarah Palin’s husband once belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party, she was ordered to denounce the group and describe it as just a club. When Arizonans passed a minor law to deal with mass illegal immigration, the Power Elite aimed its media and business guns at that state. Conventions were cancelled and all white Arizonans labeled as a racists for demonstrating a tiny element of autonomy.

    The Power Elite have spent the last two decades trying to add Canada and Mexico to a “North American Union” with some success. They have used “free trade” to ensure to the flow of duty free natural resources from Canada and the transfer of factories to Mexico. Canada is an oil-rich nation and a major oil exporter, yet it citizens pay more for gasoline than those in the USA, which imports 80% of its oil. However, Americans and Canadians strongly oppose their “open borders” effort to allow more cheap labor to migrate northward. Watch your corporate media closely to follow this effort to demolish talk of state rights, autonomy, or state laws against illegal immigration. And watch the ongoing effort to rewrite the Civil War as a war against slavery, rather than Lincoln’s disastrous crusade to reclaim abandoned federal property.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
    C. Meyer, to what sneak attack do you refer? that demoralized the Union for two years? Demoralized? ongoing effort to rewrite the CW as a war against slavery? when was the CW ever written as a war that didn't have slavery as a major cause?
    , @Long Feather
    They can pull down all the monuments, rewrite all the books and propagandize all they want. You won't change people.
    I would recommend a book called "The Battle for the Mind" by William Sargent.
    The bottom line is this. Southerners do not and will not buy in to Northern or West Coast propaganda. Those are to a very great extent the propaganda centers of the country.
    You can look at any country on Earth and every one of them are segregated by race, religion, politics, education or wealth.
    The war was only a manifestation of what people have felt and will feel for millenia.
    The more people keep pushing the narrative forward the more it will grow. Like a good magician they keep the people of this country watching the right hand while the left picks their pocket.
    Because of this narrative, I now refuse to spend money which may counter my belief system. Where I shop, eat, tip, drive, watch, listen or worship.
    Vote with your money, presence, attention and effort.
    Even Hollywood, the recent episode of Speilberg calling the director of a young actress to get rid of her because of a comment. Well, free speech aside I guess such unilateral authoritative behavior is ok for some but not for others. No movies for me.
    Bottom line is keep pushing. People are waking up. People do not watch entertainment to be proselytized.
    NFL, down. Movies, down. TV down.
    I am pleased to have more free time to spend on things truly more inportant.
  16. rod1963 says:

    Because we are taught to by the state and it’s educational apparatus. As to why, maybe because the Southerners are whites, generally Christian and heterosexual. Each of which is a considered a sin by the metrosexual coastal Elites and the political class.

    The state always needs a enemy and white, Southerners have served as one for a long time. Often portrayed as sub-human creatures with a drawl.

    The funny thing about slavery, is that it’s been reconstituted by our enlightened corporate and political classes under the guise of globalism and various free trade agreements. The people at the top of the food chain reap enormous financial benefits exploiting the shit out of 3rd world peasants. And if that’s not enough, they continue to import large amounts of low wage foreign workers into the U.S. to replace Americans.

    The wonderful thing about this approach it’s not the in your face slavery of the pre-Civil War South. It’s hidden, out of the way overseas and in factories in the U.S. So modern day Liberals and Conservatives can pretend they are morally superior to those plantation owners of the 19th century. They are not, IMO they are worse because they hide their evil deeds where few can see them and should know better, but don’t care.

    So much for progress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Generally speaking, American slave owners took reasonably good care of their property to maximize return on investment. Today's wage- and debt-slaves are nominally not property so there is no compulsion to take care of them. There are always other desperate individuals waiting for those jobs.
    , @Ace
    >> Often portrayed as sub-human creatures with a drawl. <<

    Brad Pitt portrayed an American army infantry officer who led a small unit of Jewish war criminals in France in Inglorious Basterds, a joke of a movie but for the guy who portrayed the SS colonel. Absolutely brilliant.

    Anyway, Pitt had a Southern accent you could cut with a chain saw. He was supposed to be doing wondrous works in France but for some reason it was necessary to also suggest he was a moron.
  17. And more history for the miseducated.

    Sep 5, 2011 – Congress Freed the Slaves

    For some reason, I was taught that President Lincoln freed the slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. I just learned that in July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the “Second Confiscation Act” to liberate slaves, but Lincoln took the position that Congress lacked power to free slaves unless Lincoln as commander-in-chief deemed it a proper military measure. Lincoln was concerned that it would cause more states to secede. A few months later, he bowed to pressure and announced that law would be enforced while taking credit for freeing slaves.

    May 4, 2013 – Union Slave States

    Our history books and corporate media simplify our greatest national disaster – the Civil War. For example, four slave states never declared a secession: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. They were allowed to keep 800,000 slaves during the war as they sent troops with Union armies to reclaim federal property in the South, not to free slaves. (see my Jan 2, 2011 blog for details) These states are referred to as “border states” in books, rather than loyal slave states, so as not to confuse the public.

    Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to these states. Missouri and Maryland abolished slavery during the war. In Kentucky and Delaware, 40,000 slaves remained after the war, until freed by the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    The reason Maryland didn't join their fellow Southerners and secede from the Union, is because Abe Lincoln had the entire Maryland legislature arrested to prevent them from meeting and drawing up legislation to withdraw from the Union.
  18. Rich says:
    @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    You are obviously unfamiliar with the American South and its many contributions to American and, therefore, Western Civilization. In literature alone names like Faulkner, Twain, Williams and Mencken to name a few. Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Jackson might have had a little influence on Western Civilization. Richard Gatling probably had a pretty big influence on what became of the West, too. Anyway the list of Southern contribution is very long and if you open a book, maybe you can enlighten yourself a bit.

    Read More
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Realist
    "And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too."
    Yeah, like the SPLC....LOL.

    The VP of the Confederate States of America was Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    No, the *secretary of state* of the CSA, Judah Benjamin,was Jewish. David Levy Yulee was another early Jewish congressman; he was a Florida senator who built a few railroads. Ben Jonas was a Jewish senator from Louisiana.

    The whole strong link between Jews and the north starts around the turn of the century with Russian Jewish immigrants, though you had an older bunch of German Jews such as the Goldmans (of Goldman Sachs fame) in New York.

    , @Seamus Padraig
    Wikipedia says Alexander Stephens was Presbyterian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens
    , @Lasher
    No, he wasn't Jewish at all. The one you are thinking of was probably the Secretary of the Treasury, one Judah P. Benjamin. The Vice-President was Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia.
  20. Numinous says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    The Left hates the South for one reason alone: it ceased to support the Democratic Party. (And why would it, after being turned on?) Were white Southerners to turn back to their wayward child, all would be forgiven overnight! It would take the GOP granting US citizenship to the entire population of Mexico to bring that about, though.

    As I see it, Dixie has just two great sins on her record: importing Africans to live among white men-- an epic betrayal of their own race-- and ruining American, and eventually all Western, music. Funny, that's the only Southern accomplishment the Left will celebrate.

    I can see why planters would bitch about paying the bulk of the tariff, but I don't see why anyone else should feel sorry for them. It's not like that income came from the sweat of their brows. Southern senators didn't cry tears for that sliver of the population subject to the income tax they helped push through in 1913. And which their own native son, TWW, turned around and hit them with as well. Sending our sons to France is expensive.

    importing Africans to live among white men– an epic betrayal of their own race

    The original white settlers–the Puritans, Virginians, Carolinians– chose to leave the company of white men to live in a country full of red men. Was that also an epic betrayal of their race? Should they just have stayed in Europe and not ventured out?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    They didn't leave "Europe", they left England. (The Pilgrims-- not Puritans-- technically did leave from Europe: Leiden.)
  21. @Numinous

    importing Africans to live among white men– an epic betrayal of their own race
     
    The original white settlers--the Puritans, Virginians, Carolinians-- chose to leave the company of white men to live in a country full of red men. Was that also an epic betrayal of their race? Should they just have stayed in Europe and not ventured out?

    They didn’t leave “Europe”, they left England. (The Pilgrims– not Puritans– technically did leave from Europe: Leiden.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    'Reg' must be British; they're the only people on earth who think Britain is not in Europe.
    , @dcite
    They also didn't come to a "country" full of red men. They came to a Continent that had a lot of red(ish) tribes, some more organized and cohesive than others, but nothing resembling a unified nation-state. It is fairly well known that many of the "Indians" in what is now the eastern seaboard of the U.S., were not that different in general racial phenotype, from Europeans. Because there haven't been any full-blood eastern seaboard native Americans since the 1700s, we can't know that exactly, but writers of the era, described native women as often attractive and resembling Euros, wanting only a "fair complexion" (well, they weren't into suntans yet) but features otherwise similar. They wouldn't have that impression of most natives further west. But the middle-American natives, and especially the Cherokee, showed evidence of non-native-American ancestry long before the English touched down, probably European and Middle Eastern. Their cultural artifacts (of some tribes, esp Cherokee) also showed similarity to middle eastern culture. I think the only tribe that already had some sort of writing are thought to have had middle eastern roots, though that's still not proven.
    The Spanish brought Filipinos who jumped ship. Everybody was over here before Columbus, that's no secret. The Atlantic was criss-crossed many times.
  22. quit aligning yourself with the slaveowners.

    only 1.5% of all white americans owned slaves, per the 1860 census. It cost several years of the median wage to buy a slave. It was the upper class, not whites in general who owned slaves.

    I support the right of states to secede. I hope to see the USA dissolved someday.

    I reject multiculturalism and I support white nationalism.

    But I reject the culture of the slaveowning south. I am of the working class, not the slaveowning class.

    Now go get yer #$#%@ shinebox!

    Read More
    • Replies: @bubba
    yes, but wasn't the percentage of slave-owning free blacks in the south
    much higher than that of the white population?
  23. matt says:
    @Priss Factor
    Isn't the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny 'genocide' of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    Besides, weren't FDR and Truman very chummy with Southern Democrats?

    And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too.

    Isn’t the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny ‘genocide’ of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    What an excellent idea.

    Read More
  24. And the same reasons explain why Lincoln’s first inaugural address is never taught in government schools.

    ” I declare that—

    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

    http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

    Read More
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @rod1963
    Because we are taught to by the state and it's educational apparatus. As to why, maybe because the Southerners are whites, generally Christian and heterosexual. Each of which is a considered a sin by the metrosexual coastal Elites and the political class.

    The state always needs a enemy and white, Southerners have served as one for a long time. Often portrayed as sub-human creatures with a drawl.

    The funny thing about slavery, is that it's been reconstituted by our enlightened corporate and political classes under the guise of globalism and various free trade agreements. The people at the top of the food chain reap enormous financial benefits exploiting the shit out of 3rd world peasants. And if that's not enough, they continue to import large amounts of low wage foreign workers into the U.S. to replace Americans.

    The wonderful thing about this approach it's not the in your face slavery of the pre-Civil War South. It's hidden, out of the way overseas and in factories in the U.S. So modern day Liberals and Conservatives can pretend they are morally superior to those plantation owners of the 19th century. They are not, IMO they are worse because they hide their evil deeds where few can see them and should know better, but don't care.

    So much for progress.

    Generally speaking, American slave owners took reasonably good care of their property to maximize return on investment. Today’s wage- and debt-slaves are nominally not property so there is no compulsion to take care of them. There are always other desperate individuals waiting for those jobs.

    Read More
  26. Wladyslaw says:

    Some hint at this but don’t name what is known by historians (e.g. Sellers, Jacksonian Market Revolution) . Sellers notes that the term “wage slave” was first used by American evangelical ministers in the 1820s noting that wage slavery was just as pernicious as chattel slavery. Is it any wonder that the New England industrialists aupported and promoted tha abolitionist movement as a misdirection tactic to draw ire away from wage slavery that at first expolited only women, children and immigrants. The non-slave holding Southern yeomen were fighting in order to not become wage slaves among other things. Note how this fact is buried and yet is so relevant today. The Old South (God bless the Confederate soldiers who fought for their freedom, and all honor to those who memorialize them.), the Scots, the Russian Navy, and the Novorussiyans all use variations of the flag of St. Andrew. And what did Braveheart yell out as his last word?
    Post-modernism is morally, spiritually, and financially totally bankrupt, but the post-bourgeosie leftist intellectuals and their Trotskyite Neocon fellow travelers are ideologically blind to how they promote slavery. The new fighters for freedom once again fight under the flag of St Andrew. They fight for all of us against a truly evil empire. I was born in a Nazi slave labor camp the day of liberation, and now I live in a new slave camp. And once again, misdirection and lies abound.
    Death would be merciful, but someone must live to fight. FREEDOM!!!!

    Read More
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    What does the West really owe America in general when you really think about it.

    Read More
  28. SFG says:
    @Anonymous
    The VP of the Confederate States of America was Jewish.

    No, the *secretary of state* of the CSA, Judah Benjamin,was Jewish. David Levy Yulee was another early Jewish congressman; he was a Florida senator who built a few railroads. Ben Jonas was a Jewish senator from Louisiana.

    The whole strong link between Jews and the north starts around the turn of the century with Russian Jewish immigrants, though you had an older bunch of German Jews such as the Goldmans (of Goldman Sachs fame) in New York.

    Read More
  29. Priss Factor [AKA "Andrea Ostrov Letania"] says:
    @SFG
    I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years. Even Woody Allen spent little time making fun of the South.

    “I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years.”

    Not so. First off, Abolitionists were not the dominant force in the North. Rather, Lincoln and the ruling North elites used Abolitionist rhetoric to justify their war on the South.
    It’s like US had no interest in liberating Asia from Japan during WWII. Rather, US sought supremacy over the Pacific and defeated Japan for that reason. The stuff about US liberating Asia from Japan was just a useful moral excuse. (Same thing with the Iraq War. It was essentially a War for Israel but it was promoted as spreading democracy in the Middle East.) After all, if US cared so much about Asia, why did FDR ask Stalin to swallow up North Asia and hand it over to Mao… who then took all of China?

    Northern ruling elites weren’t so enlightened on race themselves. They supported the westward expansion that took lands from Indians who were forced into reservations.
    Furthermore, the last thing that most Northern whites wanted to see was white southerners raped and murdered en masse by blacks… no more than Chinese government enjoyed watching boatloads of Vietnamese-Chinese sent to near-certain death in the seas in the late 70s. During the Boat People fiasco, China was communist and Vietnam was communist, but Chinese were angry with the Vietnamese treatment of Vietnamese-Chinese capitalist population who were dispossessed and pushed into the seas(in an event that was not unlike what Turks did to Armenians).

    True, there were lots of self-righteous Northerners who’d read UNCLE TOM’S CABIN and saw the Negro as some saint and felt white loathing and all that, but the real power and most sentiments in the North was not particularly anti-south after the war. If anything, there was far more anti-north sentiment in the south because (1) resentment of having lost the war (2) sense of betrayal that northern whites killed fellow whites in the south for the sake of blacks.

    For the most part, North and South buried the hatchet. Also, as the Democratic Party traditionally depended on both urban northern whites—especially Catholic Irish—and rural southern white voters, it wouldn’t have made much sense for American Progressives to especially vilify the South. Indeed, Wilson, FDR, and Truman all relied on the South. Kennedy chose LBJ to carry Texas. And before the final political realignment in the 1994 Congressional election, there were still some vestiges of southern Democratic power. Since then, the Deep South has become totally Republican while the Northeast has become almost totally Democratic. So, it’s politically much safer for Northern/Western Democrats to attack the South wholesale. They no longer have any political allies there.

    The North/South enmity in the past need not be exaggerated. Especially as masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe poured into the Northeast Coast, even many white Anglo-Americans in the North began to sympathize with whites in the South. With so many swarthy foreign-looking people—even thought to be non-white by some Northern Europeans—cramming into big cities, especially New York, Northern whites thought they finally better understood the problem that Southern whites were having with blacks.

    But as it turned out, European immigrants—even from southern and eastern Europe—turned out to be pretty solid civilizational material and they assimilated and made the social climb and became like any other Americans. So, the North lost its fears about the ‘other’, at least in regards to European immigrants.
    In contrast, blacks in the South remained the dangerous ‘other’. Some progressive types blamed this on the discriminatory attitudes in the South, but blacks turned out to be as or even more problematic in the North in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and etc. Of course, as there were discriminatory policies in the North as well, black failings in the North could be blamed on white ‘racism’ too, but in truth, black problems owed really to the fact that black character/personality had been forged for 100,000 yrs in hot Africa with lots of nasty diseases and monstrous wildlife that chased Negroes all around and drove them crazy.

    Anyway, since Southern blacks moved to the North, the North could always blame the South for having turned the blacks crazy—though one wonders why a whole bunch of blacks in France and England are also crazy even though they came directly from Edenic Africa.

    North and South seemed to be getting more or less fine, but then the Civil Rights Movement happened. Initially, the North felt smugly sanctimonious about racial discrimination in the South, especially as such sentiments were egged on Jews in Hollywood and media.
    It was as if the North was so advanced whereas the South was still stuck in the 19th century.

    But there were few reasons why the North/South divide became stalled n the 60s and 70s. One reason was US was still far from the blue state/red state political divide that has become so iconic in our politics.
    Back then, there were forces in both the Republican and Democratic Parties that were for the Civil Rights Movement and against the Civil Rights Movement. George Wallace was a Democrat before he was an Independent. And there were Northern Republicans who were for the Civil Rights Movement and Western Republicans who saw it as an encroachment of the Federal government on states rights–not only against the South but against the West as well.

    Another huge factor was the wild 6os. As blacks began to burn down cities, riot, and act crazy, many in the North had second thoughts about the Civil Rights Movement. Also, black crime began to climb precipitously at this period. So, even in a city like NY, there was a lot of fear of black crime, finally culminating in the undreamt of triumph of Giuliani in the 90s.
    Of course, the hardened white working class was never much with the blacks in the North. But prior to the Civil Rights Movement, whites mostly had their own communities and blacks had theirs. So, they could tolerate one another. Also, prior to the rise of civil liberties, the police had been much tougher on black crime, and that kept the black community in line. But in the 60s, with the triumphal march of blacks, rise of youth culture, rise of Jewish radicalism, the rise of new optimism with the Kennedy presidency, the popularity of black music, the cult of Muhammad Ali, and etc., Northern white youth became more idealistic/naive/optimistic and northern blacks got rowdier, more aggressive, more demanding, and etc. Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey.

    Prior to the 60s, because white power seemed so monolithic and dominant, even tough blacks in the North and South thought the best way would be mind their manners somewhat, but in the new era when the heavyweight champion of the world was a loud-mouthed Negro who taunted his opponents, made fun of whitey, and acted the thug-loon, blacks began to show their true nature. With no more fear of whites, city after city became beset with crime, looting, and rioting. When blacks acted crazy, whites mostly ran as whites knew, deep in their hearts, that blacks could whup their ass like Muhammad Ali whupped all them white boys.

    So, the North vs South narrative was broken. Many Northern whites in 1968 came to see eye-to-eye with Southern Whites about the race problem: blacks are indeed dangerous and crazy. And when MLK marched through some Northern towns, he was met with even more hostility than in the South. Northern whites began to see MLK’s Trojan Horse bulljive for what it was. After all, MLK was no saintly Negro but a loutish thug who’d cheated his way through college, led a life of debauchery, and even beat up a woman unconscious and laughed/joked about it. But he had a boom box voice and a penchant for bellowing cliches that naive white folks couldn’t resist. He was the Oprah of his day. MLK’s assassination is now remembered as some great national tragedy. But in 1968, it meant burning cities and more Negro mayhem, and so, if anything, it helped Nixon and drove many more Northern whites to the anti-black camp.

    At this time, many Northern whites fled to the suburbs and voted Republican. And they loathed blacks more than they loathed Southern Whites. And even ultra-liberals in big cities began to have second thoughts about the preponderance of black crime and violence. Also, no matter what policies were tried on blacks, too many of them seem to be getting only crazier. And the Great Society was a massive failure.

    When we look at Nixon’s second election, Reagan’s victory, and Bush I’s victory, it was obvious how so many Northern Whites and Southern whites saw eye to eye on lots of things. Though MLK was elevated to iconic status and Civil Rights Movement came to be sacralized, there were too many race problems in the North for white Northerners to get too rosy about that stuff. They were mainly concerned about black crime and violence, and as such, sort of understood why the South hadn’t been too keen on blacks either.

    Even so, history is controlled by the elites, and as the moral narrative sacralized the black struggle, and lionized MLK; and with PC censoring and blacklisting all competing views, the black issue went from a political and social(or even moral) one to a spiritual one. It’s like MLK wasn’t just a great man but the greatest man of all time, maybe a messiah. Thus, it became taboo to even question the sacred narrative of the civil rights movement that came to be mythologized in Manichean terms.
    Also, as American Conservatism caved into this mythology, it went on the defensive, and the policy of the GOP became one of seeking the approval of Jews and blacks.
    Also, as Jews became very powerful and as Neocons were insistent on stamping out white ‘racism’ in the GOP, American Conservatism became increasingly intolerant of any dissenting views that might be deemed ‘offensive’. But for some reason, the GOP under Neocons became more ‘racist’ against Arabs and Palestinians. I guess you gotta win moral credits in one area to use it to cover up moral lapses in another area. If GOP is with the MLK cult, I guess it can help Israel bash Palestinians with a clearer conscience. ‘With MLK on our side’ is the new ‘With God on our side’.
    Jews especially love MLK since MLK gave his full blessing to the Zionist war on Palestinians.

    Of course, the rise of rap music also had an effect. Before rise of rap, white kids listen to white rock mostly and blacks had their own music, but with rap as the big musical act among all kids in America, white kids became more worshipful toward blacks.

    And then, there is the Jewish factor. It’s not surprising that Jews view the Civil War through the prism of WWII. After all, even though Germany was defeated and crushed, US had gone relatively easy on Germany soon after the war. This angered a lot of Jews who thought Germany should pretty much have been wiped off the map.
    As USSR was the new enemy, Germany was allowed to rebuild quickly. And it wasn’t until the 1960s that Germans really began to face all the horrors they committed during WWII. Also, with the Cold War, many Jews in America came under suspicion as subversives, and many Jews panicked that McCarthyism is New Nazism in America.

    So, the way Jews see the postwar era, white Americans and white Germans patched up their differences rather too quickly and white Americans set their eyes on Jews as the enemy. Philip Roth’s PLOT AGAINST AMERICA dramatizes this very Jewish fear.

    Indeed, what if Churchill had sided with Hitler as Hitler wished him too? What if US had come to a peaceful solution with Japan and there had been no Pearl Harbor. There would have been no great war among white nations. And all three might have ganged up on the Jews. It was because UK fought Germany and because US got embroiled in the war thanks to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor that Nazi Germany was finally defeated. It wasn’t so much the result of ‘good guys’ prevailing over the ‘bad guys’ because history always chooses the good but a matter of an accident of history. So, there was nothing assured about what happened during WWII. There were plenty of American whites who didn’t want to fight Germany. What gave the Jews a crucial opening in their survival and eventual chance at supremacist power was cracks/divisions among white nation and groups. Jews lucked out because UK chose to fight Germany, because Hitler decided to fight white Russia, because white American fought white Germany. And during the Cold War, it was the white America/Western Europe vs white Russia/Eastern Europe. Because of the Cold War, white America came under moral pressure to open up its society and make it more tolerant to win the propaganda battle with the white Soviets who inspired and aided people of color all over the Third World to take up arms against white nations/imperialists.
    So, it is in the interest of Jews to make white people hate and fight other white people. Similarly, Jewish-controlled US government employs a foreign policy that seeks to maximize and exploit the differences among various Muslim sects and groups. Jews love to see Muslims/Arabs slaughter one another.

    The last thing Jews want is any kind of united white consciousness in the US or around the globe. Indeed, what is all this business with Russia and Putin about. Cold War is long over. Russia wants closer economic and political ties with the West. He wants peace and brotherhood. But Jews don’t want Russian whites to become chummy Western European whites, especially as Putin’s brand of nascent nationalism and respect/revitalization of tradition might rub off on Western Europeans who’ve been injected with the New Normal culture of homomania. Jews especially dislike Russians because it’s impossible for Jews to morally browbeat Russians about the Holocaust and WWII. Russians lost more lives in WWII than any other people and did most to defeat Germany.
    So, Jews have used their financial and media power to vilify and isolate Russia, and since most of global media are owned by Jews and since most elites in US and EU are slavish to Jews, Russia has been hit with all kinds of sanctions. And of course, the homomania cult is very useful in making Russia out to be the bad guy. Jews, in having sacralized homosexuality and transvestism in the West, have persuaded a whole bunch of Western morons that it’s evil to ban ‘gay marriage’ or ‘gay poo-ride’ parade. Since Russia won’t allow homos to parade down Red Square, a lot of idiot Americans see Russia as ‘new Nazi nation’. This is how dumb Americans have become. Of course, Jews are ecstatic with hideous glee as nothing makes them happier than seeing goy hate goy. Jews are also working in Asia to increase tensions among China, Japan, Vietnam, India, and other nations. A truly nasty and vicious people.

    So, just like Jews want to divide Western Europe from Russia, Jews wanna divide ‘blue state whites’ from ‘red state whites’. Though most of the racial violence in the South has been black-on-white, Jews who run the media have suppressed the truth and perpetrated the myth of permanent black victimhood and nobility through fantasy movies like GREEN MILE, THE HELP, MISSISSIPPI BE BURNING, DJANGO UNCHAINED, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, and etc. And of course, TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is like a required reading bible for young ones.

    As for all the white folks robbed, beaten, raped, bullied, terrorized, and murdered by black thugs since the 1960s, forget it. Jews in the media don’t care and don’t want us to care either. Let us worry about some mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse as the new messiah.

    Furthermore, new tough policies in the North have made it safer for white liberal elites in cities. Today, the posh parts of NY, Chicago, San Fran, Washington DC, and etc are nicer and richer than ever. It is in those areas that the urban elites work, and they feel safe. And as they feel safe, they feel holier-than-thou in pointing fingers of blame at other whites, especially white southerners.
    If downtown areas of cities were run down and filled with crime–as in the 1970s–these liberal elites wouldn’t be so glib and conceited.
    Also, generations of PC-brainwashing has stamped out much of honest talk that used to prevail even up to the 1980s. The kinds of columns Mike Royko wrote back then—hard-nosed, tough, cynical, politically incorrect, personal, etc—wouldn’t be allowed today. And if older folks spoke candidly, young ones(as pod people) would shout them down as ‘racist’. We don’t have people like Jim Traficant anymore. Sure, he was a nut but he was also a straight talker—even when he was full of shit. Today, all white folks have to be so mindful of what they say. Indeed, we now live in a world where if someone says he thinks a male fecal hole isn’t a proper sex organ, he will be censured, fired, and blacklisted forever in elite community. So, forget about honest talk about race.

    But if we were to have an honest talk about race, I’d argue that the Confederate flag is a useful, indeed necessary, symbol. The meaning of symbols change. Statue of Liberty wasn’t originally a symbol of immigration that it came to be.
    Whatever the Confederate Flag used to symbolize, it should now symbolize the need for white unity, the need for white interests, the need for white sympathy for whites suffering at the hands of non-whites, the need to defy Jewish power, and the rightness of a people to prevent biological slavery of their own people at the hands of another race.

    Indeed, the South only had two choices in the past: social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks. Whites and blacks are not the same, i.e. whites are not blacks with white skin, and blacks are not whites with black skin. We can sort of make the case that Asian-Indians(the Hindus)are something like whites with brown/black skin. If indeed whites had brought Asian-Indians as slaves in the American South, then, maybe upon the end of slavery, both groups could have worked to live peacefully side by side or intermingle. But it was different with blacks since evolution had made blacks stronger, more aggressive, wilder, more dangerous, bigger, and more fearsome. Unless whites held social control over blacks, blacks would whup the white man’s ass and conquer white women. Or white women would voluntarily ditch the white male as loser dork and go off with the Negro deemed to be sexually/physically/racially superior.
    Of course, Libs will denounce such talk as ‘racial or sexual paranoia’, but look at rap culture. Much of it’s about muscled black thugs howling about how badass they be, how they gonna whup punkass white boys, how white girls are all gonna be their sex slave cattle. And Jewish-run music industry promotes this sort of stuff. Look at TV advertising during the superbowl that feature white women throwing themselves at big muscled Negroes. Look at rape statistics along racial lines, and the sexual violence is overwhelmingly black on white, black on brown, and black on yellow. And the man-to-man violence is black whupping white boys, blacks whupping brown boys, blacks whupping yellow boys, and etc. Black guys used to have fun whupping wimpy Jewish boys too, but as Jews ar so rich, most of them live in safe neighborhoods and use their political muscle to push dangerous blacks to other places.

    While social slavery of blacks was wrong–Lincoln was right to want to free the slaves and send them back to Africa or set up a separate black nation–, it was also wrong to force whites to live under biological slavery of blacks. Every race should live in safety, with male pride, with self-respect, and its own autonomy. This was impossible with blacks in the South since too many blacks are too mean and strong and aggressive. So, it wasn’t simply an issue of freedom vs slavery in the south. It was an issue of social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks.

    Though white libs and Jews will deny it, actions speak louder than words. If you look at the social, economic, and behavioral patterns of urban white libs, they also wanna segregate themselves from mostly black areas. This doesn’t mean they are ‘racist’ against blacks, but they too sense a problem with blacks insofar as blacks cause the most mayhem and trouble all across America. Is black violence due to the legacy of slavery? No, it is the legacy of blacks realizing during the Civil Rights Movement that whites have lost it, are vulnerable, and no longer have the guts to stand against black thuggery. After all, when blacks began to attack whites in the 60s, most whites ran, hid, or cowered and didn’t dare fight back because they were afraid of bigger and stronger blacks.

    Also, Jews need to shut up since, when faced with the same problem, they’ve done the same thing in Israel and Occupied Territories. As Palestinians hate Zionists and have used violence against Jews, Jews have used ultra-violence and ultra-segregation to teach Palestinians a lesson not to mess with Jews. And it appears even most Liberal American Jews are pretty much with the program of Jews in Israel and West Bank using harsh measures to keep the Palestinians in their place and teach them a tough lesson. If indeed Jews act this way for their own security — and Jews in America work tirelessly to force all politicians to sign a pledge to AIPAC — , who the hell are they to be lecturing white southerners about the Confed flag? Isn’t the Zionist flag associated with ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the killing of innocent women and children, gangsterism, terrorism, and the attack on USS Liberty? And of course, long before Jews sought to stamp out the Confederate Flag, they(as Bolsheviks) tried to blow up every Church in Russia. And today, Jews fund garbage like Pussy Riot to desecrate Russian Churches. There is simply no limit to the foul hypocrisy of the Jew.

    Jews and glib Northern white liberals would us believe that slavery was the ‘original sin’ of America, as if slavery had been invented in America. Furthermore, Brazil brought over 10x the number of blacks to the New World than the US, and lots of Jews were involved in the Brazilian slave trade and plantation. So, Jews need to shut the F up.

    But if we must talk of America’s ‘original sin’, why is it black slavery and not the conquest of America and the ‘genocide’ of the Indians? After all, something like 300,000 blacks w were brought to the US whereas something like 5 million native Americans might have been wiped out by diseases and then guns brought by white folks. Furthermore, this was the ancestral land of Indians who were pushed out, rubbed out, and forced into reservations? Sounds to me worse than slavery. And this process began before a single black dude was brought over as a slave.

    So, why isn’t this Narrative used as the original sin of American? Is it because what whites did to Indians sounds a bit too much like what Jews did to the Palestinians?

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Wladyslaw
    Very good Andrea. I'll add this much that you are not aware of. After coming to the U.S. in '47 I grew up in Cleveland . Cleveland has the notorious reputation of having a police department that in the 50s and early 60s patrolled the Hough ghetto with Nazi flags attached to their squad car antennas. Extant photos exist for the sceptics who think "never in America". The Hough had been previously a Jewish neighborhood, but in the postwar period they became prosperous and moved mostly to at that time exclusive Shaker Heights. Many rented their properties to incoming black Americans migrating from the South to jobs in the auto and steel industry. Most of the slave traders were Jewish, and later they become landlords to the descendants of who they brought here and sold into slavery. You ask the blacks yourself what they think of Jewish landlords. Is it any wonder the blacks burnt down much of the Hough in the riots after MLK's assassination. Also there are regional differences in black behavior, the California ones being the worst. Here is a situation where you have the most politically correct state bending over backwards in providing the most discrimination free opportunities and yet you have the greatest black anger. You figure. Also, the worst racism I ever encountered was as a teacher in Oakland CA: black against Cambodian. No excuse exists for that.
    , @Sam J.
    "... Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey..."

    I don't think this is true at all. Pound for pound Whites, who have any experience at fighting, can beat Blacks. Whites are stronger and have more stamina. It is true that Whites want to get into fights less as they don't want to go to a jail filled with Blacks. Most of the time Blacks attack in packs or the greatly outsize the Whits they attack.
    , @Chris Dakota
    The left often quotes George Carlin so how about this one.

    "political correctness is fascism"
    -George Carlin
  30. Svigor says:

    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861.

    Far better for the South, that’s for sure. Pick a libtard law enacted since. 90% chance it was passed over Southern objections.

    Read More
  31. @Carlton Meyer
    I've addressed this in my blog, part is reposted here, the rest is here, near the bottom of the long page. http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm

    The President of the CSA, Jefferson Davis, was a West Point graduate who led an American regiment into Mexico during the Mexican-American war. He was a U.S. Senator and a U.S. Secretary of War for four years. As Davis explained in his 1881 memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, he believed that each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union, but he never supported secession. Yet he was popular and accepted the Confederate Presidency because of a sense of duty, and immediately attempted to make peace by offering Lincoln compensation for abandoned federal property in the South. After Lincoln refused, the CSA realized that defeat by the far more powerful Union was inevitable, unless it launched a hasty offensive to seize Washington DC and end the conflict quickly. The CSA failed, yet that surprise attack demoralized and disrupted the Union Army's organizational efforts for two years.

    Preserving and Expanding the Union

    So why have the Power Elite now targeted the Civil War for revision? They fear the massive job losses and lower wages they inflicted on American workers might encourage "states rights" movements and talk of secession from the USA. The idea of state independence floats around in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Texas. This is never reported in the media, and whenever organizations form to promote this, they are quickly under investigation by the Feds.

    When it was learned that Sarah Palin's husband once belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party, she was ordered to denounce the group and describe it as just a club. When Arizonans passed a minor law to deal with mass illegal immigration, the Power Elite aimed its media and business guns at that state. Conventions were cancelled and all white Arizonans labeled as a racists for demonstrating a tiny element of autonomy.

    The Power Elite have spent the last two decades trying to add Canada and Mexico to a "North American Union" with some success. They have used "free trade" to ensure to the flow of duty free natural resources from Canada and the transfer of factories to Mexico. Canada is an oil-rich nation and a major oil exporter, yet it citizens pay more for gasoline than those in the USA, which imports 80% of its oil. However, Americans and Canadians strongly oppose their "open borders" effort to allow more cheap labor to migrate northward. Watch your corporate media closely to follow this effort to demolish talk of state rights, autonomy, or state laws against illegal immigration. And watch the ongoing effort to rewrite the Civil War as a war against slavery, rather than Lincoln's disastrous crusade to reclaim abandoned federal property.

    C. Meyer, to what sneak attack do you refer? that demoralized the Union for two years? Demoralized? ongoing effort to rewrite the CW as a war against slavery? when was the CW ever written as a war that didn’t have slavery as a major cause?

    Read More
  32. Far better for the South, that’s for sure. Pick a libtard law enacted since. 90% chance it was passed over Southern objections.

    You think South Carolina and Mississippi would be better off with a 60% black majority today? Forget 1860. Those states should have been expelled after the 1820 census was tabulated. Pour encourager les autres.

    Name a “libtard law”? How about those crown jewels of libtardation, the 16th and 18th Amendments? And the World Wars, with their unnecessary conscription and civilian regimentation? All had lockstep Southern support, even leadership.

    Read More
  33. @Anonymous
    The VP of the Confederate States of America was Jewish.

    Wikipedia says Alexander Stephens was Presbyterian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    He no doubt had in mind Judah P. Benjamin, who occupied a number of high posts in the Confederate government (but not the Vice presidency).
  34. @Reg Cæsar
    They didn't leave "Europe", they left England. (The Pilgrims-- not Puritans-- technically did leave from Europe: Leiden.)

    ‘Reg’ must be British; they’re the only people on earth who think Britain is not in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    ‘Reg’ must be British; they’re the only people on earth who think Britain is not in Europe.

     

    Gee, that's the nicest thing anyone's said about me here. But, no, only my paternal ancestry is British, and that just missed the Mayflower.

    Genealogists, geneticists and geographers don't think Britain is in Europe, either. Nor is Japan in Asia.
  35. The flag of the Confederacy in going to be forever linked with the practice of owning human beings as slaves, because that is the issue that was central to secession and its creation.

    The current U.S. flag should not be idolized, but its existence reflects the reality that there is a country called the Unites States of America. The Confederacy doesn’t exist.

    It was no less an American than Mark Twain who loathed the practice of what he called “rag worship” and that loving his own country should require despising all others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wladyslaw
    Poppycock. This is the usual Northern Union narrative to CYA. I did a grad school paper on the historiography of CW material which is an interesting history in itself. I advise you look at the late 19th century Southern historians. It took a century (after much nonsense in between) for later economic historians to confirm the ancedotal evidence maintained by Southern historians. The advent of computers made it possible to crunch the massive numbers data. Years ago I met the descendant of the largest Alabama slave holder (over a thousand slaves) who on the eve of the CW was about to free his slaves because they were just too damn expensive. In the Old South chattel slavery was an expensive cradle to grave welfare system. Genovese was originally a flaming liberal. Study of the situation turned him around. He crunched the numbers and learned that the rate of return on chattel slavery was 4% as opposed to the 6% return on wage slavery being earned by Northern industrialists exploiting women, children, and immigrants. It's simple business sense: replace the chattel slaves with wage slaves. You make 50% more profit for yr labor investment.
    No, this was not about chattel slaves. As I told my U.S. History students: men do not march toward each other and at 30 yards fire .50 and .65 caliber lead miniballs at each other (the wounds were horrendous) over someone's slaves . Get real and deal with facts. Ideology blinds you. Most telling is the story behind the high water mark of the Confederacy: the 300 men under Armistead who made it to the Wall at Gettysburg in Picket's Charge only to meet their old buddies under Hancock's command. Everyone was a Californian. The height of the CW was decided by Californian against Californian. No guns were fired it was strictly hand to hand among old friends. Armistead and Hancock were close friends from the town of Sonoma CA, the birthplace of the Bear Flag Republic. NONE. I repeat. NONE of the Californians were chattel slave holders. So what were they fighting for? The men under Armistead did not want to join the Northern Union. Instead they wanted to form along with Oregon/WA a new country. Lake Cty CA use to be Confederate. A rancher below the pass separating Lake Cty from Mendocino Cty use to fly a giant Confederate flag. Whenever I drove pass I looked on that flag, a variation of the flag of St. Andrew, with great pride and respect for those who fought to be free of bankers and exploitive industrialists. How different is that from today when the Scots, again the flag of St. Andrew first used by Wallace on his shield, want to regain their independence from England and its bankers? How different is that when fighters from France, Spain, Greece ( Greece has 60% poverty reeling under IMF austerity measures to ensure banker profits) go to the Donbass and fight with the rebels who want to be free of the stooges installed by the U.S., an outlaw nation, the world's hated new Nazis. I refuse to use any stamp with a U.S. flag. That flag stands for murder and plunder. And those of you who support it have much blood on yr hands. God have mercy on you.The Confederacy will live on in the hearts of many forever. Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen! Holy Russia will teach the land of secular humanism and Wicca a lesson to remember. Evidently the Poles forgot the lesson of 1612, the French and Poles the lesson of 1812, and the Germans the lesson of 1942. And Americans (90% wage and debt slaves) are too stupid and arrogant, full of hubris, to get it. An American tragedy awaits, far exceeding the CW.
    , @Gypsy
    Fran, your comments made more sense than anything I've read in a very long time.
  36. Art says:

    The great crime of the South is not slavery – slavery in one form or another was a intractable human species problem from primordial times on.

    The great crime of the South was Jim Crow – a hundred years of race hate and government sanctioned political suppression. It was nothing less than institutionalized meanness. Who can be proud of that?

    The subsequent destruction of the black family by northern liberals is another political crime against the black peoples.

    Sorry – those are the gross undisputable facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Want to know another "gross undisputable" fact?

    Jim Crow was dismantled in the US. The entire public and private infrastructure of many Eastern seaboard cities was simply ceded to blacks, who turned them into broke, corrupt hellholes as the net producers all fled to the 'burbs.

    Wise men have told us what happens since antiquity.
    , @Rich
    The purpose of Jim Crow laws in the South had little to do with"meanness", it had to do with protecting whites from Negro crime. Check the statistics for Negro on White crime before and after Jim Crow.
  37. (First, let me say that my name has no connection to the subject of the article. It’s just a coincidence, it’s just my name.)

    Humans are tribal. They will seek and find a tribal identity, and then everyone else becomes “the other”. It’s human behavior at its most primitive, compelling, and unavoidable.

    Then, predictably, those who seek to manipulate and dominate –the political class and the “elites” –will use this fact of human behavior to their advantage: divide and conquer. All the way to the bank. The larger and more diverse the population is, the more available and effective is the divide and conquer strategy. Hate is highly profitable.

    “Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
    And the black folks hate the white folks.
    To hate all but the right folks
    Is an old established rule.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    Lena horne and sheriff clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
    It’s fun to eulogize
    The people you despise,
    As long as you don’t let ‘em in your school.

    Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
    And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
    All of my folks hate all of your folks,
    It’s american as apple pie.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    New yorkers love the puerto ricans ’cause it’s very chic.
    Step up and shake the hand
    Of someone you can’t stand.
    You can tolerate him if you try.

    Oh, the protestants hate the catholics,
    And the catholics hate the protestants,
    And the hindus hate the moslems,
    And everybody hates the jews.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    It’s national everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood week.
    Be nice to people who
    Are inferior to you.
    It’s only for a week, so have no fear.
    Be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!

    Tom Lehrer – “National Brotherhood Week”

    Read More
    • Replies: @gT
    Its all just part of the great game of control, get rid of identities / tribes and then some can rule unopposed. The South is one of the great identities of the USA, once it is gone the traditional USA is gone. Some want the traditional USA gone, just like they want the traditional France, England, Germany, etc, gone. They want the world to be one big country ruled by one big government, them.

    A tribe is able to do much more than an individual, a tribe can go to war, can build a road, a bridge, a church, a town, etc. The South forms the last remaining white tribe in the US, once it is gone the US is gone, all that remains will be a land owned by the rich, with no "tribes" left being able to provide any backbone of resistance to their objectives, one of which is increased immigration to further breakdown the traditional US identity.

    There is a famous line in Nigerian author Chinua Achebe's book Things fall Apart. The line is "He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart." A knife has been put to the symbols of the South so that it can fall apart. Those racist, gun crazy Redneck cousin screwing bastards with bad dental hygiene pose a grave risk to the elite, much better to make them fall apart now by getting rid of their symbols and their identity.
  38. @Art
    The great crime of the South is not slavery – slavery in one form or another was a intractable human species problem from primordial times on.

    The great crime of the South was Jim Crow – a hundred years of race hate and government sanctioned political suppression. It was nothing less than institutionalized meanness. Who can be proud of that?

    The subsequent destruction of the black family by northern liberals is another political crime against the black peoples.

    Sorry – those are the gross undisputable facts.

    Want to know another “gross undisputable” fact?

    Jim Crow was dismantled in the US. The entire public and private infrastructure of many Eastern seaboard cities was simply ceded to blacks, who turned them into broke, corrupt hellholes as the net producers all fled to the ‘burbs.

    Wise men have told us what happens since antiquity.

    Read More
  39. Rich says:
    @Art
    The great crime of the South is not slavery – slavery in one form or another was a intractable human species problem from primordial times on.

    The great crime of the South was Jim Crow – a hundred years of race hate and government sanctioned political suppression. It was nothing less than institutionalized meanness. Who can be proud of that?

    The subsequent destruction of the black family by northern liberals is another political crime against the black peoples.

    Sorry – those are the gross undisputable facts.

    The purpose of Jim Crow laws in the South had little to do with”meanness”, it had to do with protecting whites from Negro crime. Check the statistics for Negro on White crime before and after Jim Crow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    It is amazing what people will justify in the name of “security.”

    In the last century white governments killed 100,000,00 people in the name of “security.”

    Hmm – now who is really REALLY mean?
  40. Art says:
    @Rich
    The purpose of Jim Crow laws in the South had little to do with"meanness", it had to do with protecting whites from Negro crime. Check the statistics for Negro on White crime before and after Jim Crow.

    It is amazing what people will justify in the name of “security.”

    In the last century white governments killed 100,000,00 people in the name of “security.”

    Hmm – now who is really REALLY mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    I blame the Western propensity for historical curiosity and research for the fact that people who want to denounce this or that made by past Westerners always find enough ammunition. Someone here linked to a free copy of Imperium by Ulick Varange, where he states the same thing, that the West is very historically minded, even though our understanding of history is a reflection of our current age and mores.

    You can't find any chronicle or proof or statistic about how many Africans have been killed in the permanent low level conflicts of their homes, in this century or any other. Not even right now. You can't even get a reliable census in Africa. Every political murder in the West is rehashed ad nauseam until it becomes a crime against humanity, because those are the easiest to investigate, but the gleeful massacres of the East and the South barely rate a foot note in history. Having read Into the Cannibal's Pot by Ilana Mercer, it is striking how enamored of procedure, legalism and proper forms the Apartheid era government of South Africa was. You can find out in excruciating details everything about the hundreds of people tortured and suicided in their jails over the course of three decades, but the current SA government doesn't even publish crime statistics, let alone give you a peek into all the thousands of political and racial victims that get it over the course of a single year.

    And, of course, one can only speculate on how many Africans were enslaved by their fellow Africans or by Arabs, or how many were brutalized and murdered, but the f***ing Euros kept the receipts!!!!

    , @Ace
    John, those white governments killed all those people in the name of communism and socialism. They were able to do that because they had such a degree of government power that there was no stopping the implementation of the stupidist, most destructive, most murderous ideas to create a utopia.

    Try to keep up.
    , @jake
    Then all the blacks, browns, reds, and yellows; all the Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, need to segregate themselves away from us. They must save themselves by refusing to live in any country that is majority white Gentile.
  41. Wladyslaw says:
    @Priss Factor
    "I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years."

    Not so. First off, Abolitionists were not the dominant force in the North. Rather, Lincoln and the ruling North elites used Abolitionist rhetoric to justify their war on the South.
    It's like US had no interest in liberating Asia from Japan during WWII. Rather, US sought supremacy over the Pacific and defeated Japan for that reason. The stuff about US liberating Asia from Japan was just a useful moral excuse. (Same thing with the Iraq War. It was essentially a War for Israel but it was promoted as spreading democracy in the Middle East.) After all, if US cared so much about Asia, why did FDR ask Stalin to swallow up North Asia and hand it over to Mao... who then took all of China?

    Northern ruling elites weren't so enlightened on race themselves. They supported the westward expansion that took lands from Indians who were forced into reservations.
    Furthermore, the last thing that most Northern whites wanted to see was white southerners raped and murdered en masse by blacks... no more than Chinese government enjoyed watching boatloads of Vietnamese-Chinese sent to near-certain death in the seas in the late 70s. During the Boat People fiasco, China was communist and Vietnam was communist, but Chinese were angry with the Vietnamese treatment of Vietnamese-Chinese capitalist population who were dispossessed and pushed into the seas(in an event that was not unlike what Turks did to Armenians).

    True, there were lots of self-righteous Northerners who'd read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN and saw the Negro as some saint and felt white loathing and all that, but the real power and most sentiments in the North was not particularly anti-south after the war. If anything, there was far more anti-north sentiment in the south because (1) resentment of having lost the war (2) sense of betrayal that northern whites killed fellow whites in the south for the sake of blacks.

    For the most part, North and South buried the hatchet. Also, as the Democratic Party traditionally depended on both urban northern whites---especially Catholic Irish---and rural southern white voters, it wouldn't have made much sense for American Progressives to especially vilify the South. Indeed, Wilson, FDR, and Truman all relied on the South. Kennedy chose LBJ to carry Texas. And before the final political realignment in the 1994 Congressional election, there were still some vestiges of southern Democratic power. Since then, the Deep South has become totally Republican while the Northeast has become almost totally Democratic. So, it's politically much safer for Northern/Western Democrats to attack the South wholesale. They no longer have any political allies there.

    The North/South enmity in the past need not be exaggerated. Especially as masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe poured into the Northeast Coast, even many white Anglo-Americans in the North began to sympathize with whites in the South. With so many swarthy foreign-looking people---even thought to be non-white by some Northern Europeans---cramming into big cities, especially New York, Northern whites thought they finally better understood the problem that Southern whites were having with blacks.

    But as it turned out, European immigrants---even from southern and eastern Europe---turned out to be pretty solid civilizational material and they assimilated and made the social climb and became like any other Americans. So, the North lost its fears about the 'other', at least in regards to European immigrants.
    In contrast, blacks in the South remained the dangerous 'other'. Some progressive types blamed this on the discriminatory attitudes in the South, but blacks turned out to be as or even more problematic in the North in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and etc. Of course, as there were discriminatory policies in the North as well, black failings in the North could be blamed on white 'racism' too, but in truth, black problems owed really to the fact that black character/personality had been forged for 100,000 yrs in hot Africa with lots of nasty diseases and monstrous wildlife that chased Negroes all around and drove them crazy.

    Anyway, since Southern blacks moved to the North, the North could always blame the South for having turned the blacks crazy---though one wonders why a whole bunch of blacks in France and England are also crazy even though they came directly from Edenic Africa.

    North and South seemed to be getting more or less fine, but then the Civil Rights Movement happened. Initially, the North felt smugly sanctimonious about racial discrimination in the South, especially as such sentiments were egged on Jews in Hollywood and media.
    It was as if the North was so advanced whereas the South was still stuck in the 19th century.

    But there were few reasons why the North/South divide became stalled n the 60s and 70s. One reason was US was still far from the blue state/red state political divide that has become so iconic in our politics.
    Back then, there were forces in both the Republican and Democratic Parties that were for the Civil Rights Movement and against the Civil Rights Movement. George Wallace was a Democrat before he was an Independent. And there were Northern Republicans who were for the Civil Rights Movement and Western Republicans who saw it as an encroachment of the Federal government on states rights--not only against the South but against the West as well.

    Another huge factor was the wild 6os. As blacks began to burn down cities, riot, and act crazy, many in the North had second thoughts about the Civil Rights Movement. Also, black crime began to climb precipitously at this period. So, even in a city like NY, there was a lot of fear of black crime, finally culminating in the undreamt of triumph of Giuliani in the 90s.
    Of course, the hardened white working class was never much with the blacks in the North. But prior to the Civil Rights Movement, whites mostly had their own communities and blacks had theirs. So, they could tolerate one another. Also, prior to the rise of civil liberties, the police had been much tougher on black crime, and that kept the black community in line. But in the 60s, with the triumphal march of blacks, rise of youth culture, rise of Jewish radicalism, the rise of new optimism with the Kennedy presidency, the popularity of black music, the cult of Muhammad Ali, and etc., Northern white youth became more idealistic/naive/optimistic and northern blacks got rowdier, more aggressive, more demanding, and etc. Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey.

    Prior to the 60s, because white power seemed so monolithic and dominant, even tough blacks in the North and South thought the best way would be mind their manners somewhat, but in the new era when the heavyweight champion of the world was a loud-mouthed Negro who taunted his opponents, made fun of whitey, and acted the thug-loon, blacks began to show their true nature. With no more fear of whites, city after city became beset with crime, looting, and rioting. When blacks acted crazy, whites mostly ran as whites knew, deep in their hearts, that blacks could whup their ass like Muhammad Ali whupped all them white boys.

    So, the North vs South narrative was broken. Many Northern whites in 1968 came to see eye-to-eye with Southern Whites about the race problem: blacks are indeed dangerous and crazy. And when MLK marched through some Northern towns, he was met with even more hostility than in the South. Northern whites began to see MLK's Trojan Horse bulljive for what it was. After all, MLK was no saintly Negro but a loutish thug who'd cheated his way through college, led a life of debauchery, and even beat up a woman unconscious and laughed/joked about it. But he had a boom box voice and a penchant for bellowing cliches that naive white folks couldn't resist. He was the Oprah of his day. MLK's assassination is now remembered as some great national tragedy. But in 1968, it meant burning cities and more Negro mayhem, and so, if anything, it helped Nixon and drove many more Northern whites to the anti-black camp.

    At this time, many Northern whites fled to the suburbs and voted Republican. And they loathed blacks more than they loathed Southern Whites. And even ultra-liberals in big cities began to have second thoughts about the preponderance of black crime and violence. Also, no matter what policies were tried on blacks, too many of them seem to be getting only crazier. And the Great Society was a massive failure.

    When we look at Nixon's second election, Reagan's victory, and Bush I's victory, it was obvious how so many Northern Whites and Southern whites saw eye to eye on lots of things. Though MLK was elevated to iconic status and Civil Rights Movement came to be sacralized, there were too many race problems in the North for white Northerners to get too rosy about that stuff. They were mainly concerned about black crime and violence, and as such, sort of understood why the South hadn't been too keen on blacks either.

    Even so, history is controlled by the elites, and as the moral narrative sacralized the black struggle, and lionized MLK; and with PC censoring and blacklisting all competing views, the black issue went from a political and social(or even moral) one to a spiritual one. It's like MLK wasn't just a great man but the greatest man of all time, maybe a messiah. Thus, it became taboo to even question the sacred narrative of the civil rights movement that came to be mythologized in Manichean terms.
    Also, as American Conservatism caved into this mythology, it went on the defensive, and the policy of the GOP became one of seeking the approval of Jews and blacks.
    Also, as Jews became very powerful and as Neocons were insistent on stamping out white 'racism' in the GOP, American Conservatism became increasingly intolerant of any dissenting views that might be deemed 'offensive'. But for some reason, the GOP under Neocons became more 'racist' against Arabs and Palestinians. I guess you gotta win moral credits in one area to use it to cover up moral lapses in another area. If GOP is with the MLK cult, I guess it can help Israel bash Palestinians with a clearer conscience. 'With MLK on our side' is the new 'With God on our side'.
    Jews especially love MLK since MLK gave his full blessing to the Zionist war on Palestinians.

    Of course, the rise of rap music also had an effect. Before rise of rap, white kids listen to white rock mostly and blacks had their own music, but with rap as the big musical act among all kids in America, white kids became more worshipful toward blacks.

    And then, there is the Jewish factor. It's not surprising that Jews view the Civil War through the prism of WWII. After all, even though Germany was defeated and crushed, US had gone relatively easy on Germany soon after the war. This angered a lot of Jews who thought Germany should pretty much have been wiped off the map.
    As USSR was the new enemy, Germany was allowed to rebuild quickly. And it wasn't until the 1960s that Germans really began to face all the horrors they committed during WWII. Also, with the Cold War, many Jews in America came under suspicion as subversives, and many Jews panicked that McCarthyism is New Nazism in America.

    So, the way Jews see the postwar era, white Americans and white Germans patched up their differences rather too quickly and white Americans set their eyes on Jews as the enemy. Philip Roth's PLOT AGAINST AMERICA dramatizes this very Jewish fear.

    Indeed, what if Churchill had sided with Hitler as Hitler wished him too? What if US had come to a peaceful solution with Japan and there had been no Pearl Harbor. There would have been no great war among white nations. And all three might have ganged up on the Jews. It was because UK fought Germany and because US got embroiled in the war thanks to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor that Nazi Germany was finally defeated. It wasn't so much the result of 'good guys' prevailing over the 'bad guys' because history always chooses the good but a matter of an accident of history. So, there was nothing assured about what happened during WWII. There were plenty of American whites who didn't want to fight Germany. What gave the Jews a crucial opening in their survival and eventual chance at supremacist power was cracks/divisions among white nation and groups. Jews lucked out because UK chose to fight Germany, because Hitler decided to fight white Russia, because white American fought white Germany. And during the Cold War, it was the white America/Western Europe vs white Russia/Eastern Europe. Because of the Cold War, white America came under moral pressure to open up its society and make it more tolerant to win the propaganda battle with the white Soviets who inspired and aided people of color all over the Third World to take up arms against white nations/imperialists.
    So, it is in the interest of Jews to make white people hate and fight other white people. Similarly, Jewish-controlled US government employs a foreign policy that seeks to maximize and exploit the differences among various Muslim sects and groups. Jews love to see Muslims/Arabs slaughter one another.

    The last thing Jews want is any kind of united white consciousness in the US or around the globe. Indeed, what is all this business with Russia and Putin about. Cold War is long over. Russia wants closer economic and political ties with the West. He wants peace and brotherhood. But Jews don't want Russian whites to become chummy Western European whites, especially as Putin's brand of nascent nationalism and respect/revitalization of tradition might rub off on Western Europeans who've been injected with the New Normal culture of homomania. Jews especially dislike Russians because it's impossible for Jews to morally browbeat Russians about the Holocaust and WWII. Russians lost more lives in WWII than any other people and did most to defeat Germany.
    So, Jews have used their financial and media power to vilify and isolate Russia, and since most of global media are owned by Jews and since most elites in US and EU are slavish to Jews, Russia has been hit with all kinds of sanctions. And of course, the homomania cult is very useful in making Russia out to be the bad guy. Jews, in having sacralized homosexuality and transvestism in the West, have persuaded a whole bunch of Western morons that it's evil to ban 'gay marriage' or 'gay poo-ride' parade. Since Russia won't allow homos to parade down Red Square, a lot of idiot Americans see Russia as 'new Nazi nation'. This is how dumb Americans have become. Of course, Jews are ecstatic with hideous glee as nothing makes them happier than seeing goy hate goy. Jews are also working in Asia to increase tensions among China, Japan, Vietnam, India, and other nations. A truly nasty and vicious people.

    So, just like Jews want to divide Western Europe from Russia, Jews wanna divide 'blue state whites' from 'red state whites'. Though most of the racial violence in the South has been black-on-white, Jews who run the media have suppressed the truth and perpetrated the myth of permanent black victimhood and nobility through fantasy movies like GREEN MILE, THE HELP, MISSISSIPPI BE BURNING, DJANGO UNCHAINED, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, and etc. And of course, TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is like a required reading bible for young ones.

    As for all the white folks robbed, beaten, raped, bullied, terrorized, and murdered by black thugs since the 1960s, forget it. Jews in the media don't care and don't want us to care either. Let us worry about some mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse as the new messiah.

    Furthermore, new tough policies in the North have made it safer for white liberal elites in cities. Today, the posh parts of NY, Chicago, San Fran, Washington DC, and etc are nicer and richer than ever. It is in those areas that the urban elites work, and they feel safe. And as they feel safe, they feel holier-than-thou in pointing fingers of blame at other whites, especially white southerners.
    If downtown areas of cities were run down and filled with crime--as in the 1970s--these liberal elites wouldn't be so glib and conceited.
    Also, generations of PC-brainwashing has stamped out much of honest talk that used to prevail even up to the 1980s. The kinds of columns Mike Royko wrote back then---hard-nosed, tough, cynical, politically incorrect, personal, etc---wouldn't be allowed today. And if older folks spoke candidly, young ones(as pod people) would shout them down as 'racist'. We don't have people like Jim Traficant anymore. Sure, he was a nut but he was also a straight talker---even when he was full of shit. Today, all white folks have to be so mindful of what they say. Indeed, we now live in a world where if someone says he thinks a male fecal hole isn't a proper sex organ, he will be censured, fired, and blacklisted forever in elite community. So, forget about honest talk about race.

    But if we were to have an honest talk about race, I'd argue that the Confederate flag is a useful, indeed necessary, symbol. The meaning of symbols change. Statue of Liberty wasn't originally a symbol of immigration that it came to be.
    Whatever the Confederate Flag used to symbolize, it should now symbolize the need for white unity, the need for white interests, the need for white sympathy for whites suffering at the hands of non-whites, the need to defy Jewish power, and the rightness of a people to prevent biological slavery of their own people at the hands of another race.

    Indeed, the South only had two choices in the past: social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks. Whites and blacks are not the same, i.e. whites are not blacks with white skin, and blacks are not whites with black skin. We can sort of make the case that Asian-Indians(the Hindus)are something like whites with brown/black skin. If indeed whites had brought Asian-Indians as slaves in the American South, then, maybe upon the end of slavery, both groups could have worked to live peacefully side by side or intermingle. But it was different with blacks since evolution had made blacks stronger, more aggressive, wilder, more dangerous, bigger, and more fearsome. Unless whites held social control over blacks, blacks would whup the white man's ass and conquer white women. Or white women would voluntarily ditch the white male as loser dork and go off with the Negro deemed to be sexually/physically/racially superior.
    Of course, Libs will denounce such talk as 'racial or sexual paranoia', but look at rap culture. Much of it's about muscled black thugs howling about how badass they be, how they gonna whup punkass white boys, how white girls are all gonna be their sex slave cattle. And Jewish-run music industry promotes this sort of stuff. Look at TV advertising during the superbowl that feature white women throwing themselves at big muscled Negroes. Look at rape statistics along racial lines, and the sexual violence is overwhelmingly black on white, black on brown, and black on yellow. And the man-to-man violence is black whupping white boys, blacks whupping brown boys, blacks whupping yellow boys, and etc. Black guys used to have fun whupping wimpy Jewish boys too, but as Jews ar so rich, most of them live in safe neighborhoods and use their political muscle to push dangerous blacks to other places.

    While social slavery of blacks was wrong--Lincoln was right to want to free the slaves and send them back to Africa or set up a separate black nation--, it was also wrong to force whites to live under biological slavery of blacks. Every race should live in safety, with male pride, with self-respect, and its own autonomy. This was impossible with blacks in the South since too many blacks are too mean and strong and aggressive. So, it wasn't simply an issue of freedom vs slavery in the south. It was an issue of social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks.

    Though white libs and Jews will deny it, actions speak louder than words. If you look at the social, economic, and behavioral patterns of urban white libs, they also wanna segregate themselves from mostly black areas. This doesn't mean they are 'racist' against blacks, but they too sense a problem with blacks insofar as blacks cause the most mayhem and trouble all across America. Is black violence due to the legacy of slavery? No, it is the legacy of blacks realizing during the Civil Rights Movement that whites have lost it, are vulnerable, and no longer have the guts to stand against black thuggery. After all, when blacks began to attack whites in the 60s, most whites ran, hid, or cowered and didn't dare fight back because they were afraid of bigger and stronger blacks.

    Also, Jews need to shut up since, when faced with the same problem, they've done the same thing in Israel and Occupied Territories. As Palestinians hate Zionists and have used violence against Jews, Jews have used ultra-violence and ultra-segregation to teach Palestinians a lesson not to mess with Jews. And it appears even most Liberal American Jews are pretty much with the program of Jews in Israel and West Bank using harsh measures to keep the Palestinians in their place and teach them a tough lesson. If indeed Jews act this way for their own security --- and Jews in America work tirelessly to force all politicians to sign a pledge to AIPAC --- , who the hell are they to be lecturing white southerners about the Confed flag? Isn't the Zionist flag associated with ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the killing of innocent women and children, gangsterism, terrorism, and the attack on USS Liberty? And of course, long before Jews sought to stamp out the Confederate Flag, they(as Bolsheviks) tried to blow up every Church in Russia. And today, Jews fund garbage like Pussy Riot to desecrate Russian Churches. There is simply no limit to the foul hypocrisy of the Jew.

    Jews and glib Northern white liberals would us believe that slavery was the 'original sin' of America, as if slavery had been invented in America. Furthermore, Brazil brought over 10x the number of blacks to the New World than the US, and lots of Jews were involved in the Brazilian slave trade and plantation. So, Jews need to shut the F up.

    But if we must talk of America's 'original sin', why is it black slavery and not the conquest of America and the 'genocide' of the Indians? After all, something like 300,000 blacks w were brought to the US whereas something like 5 million native Americans might have been wiped out by diseases and then guns brought by white folks. Furthermore, this was the ancestral land of Indians who were pushed out, rubbed out, and forced into reservations? Sounds to me worse than slavery. And this process began before a single black dude was brought over as a slave.

    So, why isn't this Narrative used as the original sin of American? Is it because what whites did to Indians sounds a bit too much like what Jews did to the Palestinians?

    Very good Andrea. I’ll add this much that you are not aware of. After coming to the U.S. in ’47 I grew up in Cleveland . Cleveland has the notorious reputation of having a police department that in the 50s and early 60s patrolled the Hough ghetto with Nazi flags attached to their squad car antennas. Extant photos exist for the sceptics who think “never in America”. The Hough had been previously a Jewish neighborhood, but in the postwar period they became prosperous and moved mostly to at that time exclusive Shaker Heights. Many rented their properties to incoming black Americans migrating from the South to jobs in the auto and steel industry. Most of the slave traders were Jewish, and later they become landlords to the descendants of who they brought here and sold into slavery. You ask the blacks yourself what they think of Jewish landlords. Is it any wonder the blacks burnt down much of the Hough in the riots after MLK’s assassination. Also there are regional differences in black behavior, the California ones being the worst. Here is a situation where you have the most politically correct state bending over backwards in providing the most discrimination free opportunities and yet you have the greatest black anger. You figure. Also, the worst racism I ever encountered was as a teacher in Oakland CA: black against Cambodian. No excuse exists for that.

    Read More
  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey… With no more fear of whites, city after city became beset with crime, looting, and rioting. When blacks acted crazy, whites mostly ran as whites knew, deep in their hearts, that blacks could whup their ass like Muhammad Ali whupped all them white boys.

    Sheesh. It takes a special breed of troll to hammer out a 4,000-word blog comment just so he can keep trying to pound his black dominance fantasy into anyone unfortunate enough to stumble across such inane rambling.

    Read More
  43. @Seamus Padraig
    'Reg' must be British; they're the only people on earth who think Britain is not in Europe.

    ‘Reg’ must be British; they’re the only people on earth who think Britain is not in Europe.

    Gee, that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said about me here. But, no, only my paternal ancestry is British, and that just missed the Mayflower.

    Genealogists, geneticists and geographers don’t think Britain is in Europe, either. Nor is Japan in Asia.

    Read More
  44. Wladyslaw says:
    @Fran Macadam
    The flag of the Confederacy in going to be forever linked with the practice of owning human beings as slaves, because that is the issue that was central to secession and its creation.

    The current U.S. flag should not be idolized, but its existence reflects the reality that there is a country called the Unites States of America. The Confederacy doesn't exist.

    It was no less an American than Mark Twain who loathed the practice of what he called "rag worship" and that loving his own country should require despising all others.

    Poppycock. This is the usual Northern Union narrative to CYA. I did a grad school paper on the historiography of CW material which is an interesting history in itself. I advise you look at the late 19th century Southern historians. It took a century (after much nonsense in between) for later economic historians to confirm the ancedotal evidence maintained by Southern historians. The advent of computers made it possible to crunch the massive numbers data. Years ago I met the descendant of the largest Alabama slave holder (over a thousand slaves) who on the eve of the CW was about to free his slaves because they were just too damn expensive. In the Old South chattel slavery was an expensive cradle to grave welfare system. Genovese was originally a flaming liberal. Study of the situation turned him around. He crunched the numbers and learned that the rate of return on chattel slavery was 4% as opposed to the 6% return on wage slavery being earned by Northern industrialists exploiting women, children, and immigrants. It’s simple business sense: replace the chattel slaves with wage slaves. You make 50% more profit for yr labor investment.
    No, this was not about chattel slaves. As I told my U.S. History students: men do not march toward each other and at 30 yards fire .50 and .65 caliber lead miniballs at each other (the wounds were horrendous) over someone’s slaves . Get real and deal with facts. Ideology blinds you. Most telling is the story behind the high water mark of the Confederacy: the 300 men under Armistead who made it to the Wall at Gettysburg in Picket’s Charge only to meet their old buddies under Hancock’s command. Everyone was a Californian. The height of the CW was decided by Californian against Californian. No guns were fired it was strictly hand to hand among old friends. Armistead and Hancock were close friends from the town of Sonoma CA, the birthplace of the Bear Flag Republic. NONE. I repeat. NONE of the Californians were chattel slave holders. So what were they fighting for? The men under Armistead did not want to join the Northern Union. Instead they wanted to form along with Oregon/WA a new country. Lake Cty CA use to be Confederate. A rancher below the pass separating Lake Cty from Mendocino Cty use to fly a giant Confederate flag. Whenever I drove pass I looked on that flag, a variation of the flag of St. Andrew, with great pride and respect for those who fought to be free of bankers and exploitive industrialists. How different is that from today when the Scots, again the flag of St. Andrew first used by Wallace on his shield, want to regain their independence from England and its bankers? How different is that when fighters from France, Spain, Greece ( Greece has 60% poverty reeling under IMF austerity measures to ensure banker profits) go to the Donbass and fight with the rebels who want to be free of the stooges installed by the U.S., an outlaw nation, the world’s hated new Nazis. I refuse to use any stamp with a U.S. flag. That flag stands for murder and plunder. And those of you who support it have much blood on yr hands. God have mercy on you.The Confederacy will live on in the hearts of many forever. Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen! Holy Russia will teach the land of secular humanism and Wicca a lesson to remember. Evidently the Poles forgot the lesson of 1612, the French and Poles the lesson of 1812, and the Germans the lesson of 1942. And Americans (90% wage and debt slaves) are too stupid and arrogant, full of hubris, to get it. An American tragedy awaits, far exceeding the CW.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hacienda
    So you're saying the CW was caused for a 2% gain in yearly returns. Returns that no soldier
    had any guarantee of realizing. (Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance).
    And you got a PhD? No wonder PhDs have no prestige associated with them anymore.

    As the Ghetto Lords say "Sheee-iuuut".
    , @Reg Cæsar

    …men do not march toward each other and at 30 yards fire .50 and .65 caliber lead miniballs at each other (the wounds were horrendous) over someone’s slaves.
     
    No, but the men who order them to, appear to do so over someone's slaves. With the sole exception of the Republic of Texas, the CSA states seceded in exact descending order of their blackness. The Border states which debated secession were whiter than any CSA state and blacker than any other Union state.

    So if secession wasn't about servitude, it was in some measure about negritude. Whether directly or indirectly.

  45. Dutch Boy says:
    @Aaron Gross

    In Southern traditionalists they see those who are still celebrating a pre-bourgeois, agrarian, and communally structured world.
     
    But Southern traditionalists today and over the last century have celebrated those things while at the same time condemning slavery, which is what made the whole, traditional southern way of life possible. Antebellum southern conservatives understood the connection. They used to emphasize to their northern conservative counterparts that slavery was essential to their traditional way of life: end slavery, they said, and you end our southern way of life.

    As Eugene Genovese pointed out, southern conservatives over the last century or so love to glorify all the hierarchy, honor, etc., of the Old South, but unlike antebellum conservatives, they ignore the fact that the southern tradition they want to preserve can't be supported in a modern, capitalist economy.

    Furthermore, the Southern planters were the bottom feeders of Capitalism, their slave laborers providing the cotton for the satanic mills of Britain, France and Yankeeland.

    Read More
  46. Dutch Boy says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Wikipedia says Alexander Stephens was Presbyterian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens

    He no doubt had in mind Judah P. Benjamin, who occupied a number of high posts in the Confederate government (but not the Vice presidency).

    Read More
  47. @Leslie Garrett
    The primary problem here is failure to properly identify who the "they" are in the title. It is, of course, forbidden to talk about the small minority group who own almost all of America's media, that is a forbidden move, but it is they who have quite methodically decided and moved against the Conservative South and the world of Islam. The sleepy world of the South and the Muslims were until rather recently amazingly similar in many many ways, and both places will be far safer, healthier places to be living when this latest and greatest usury bubble breaks than the urban wildernesses of New Jerk and Hell A.

    Spot on!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Leslie Garrett
    Epaminondas,

    You might like this book:

    http://www.steidl.de/flycms/en/Afghan+Gold/0104182248.html?SID=m30Rcnc1652f

    After a minute the site begins to give you photographs from the book, but it is the books text volume that you might particularly enjoy.
  48. Hacienda says:
    @Wladyslaw
    Poppycock. This is the usual Northern Union narrative to CYA. I did a grad school paper on the historiography of CW material which is an interesting history in itself. I advise you look at the late 19th century Southern historians. It took a century (after much nonsense in between) for later economic historians to confirm the ancedotal evidence maintained by Southern historians. The advent of computers made it possible to crunch the massive numbers data. Years ago I met the descendant of the largest Alabama slave holder (over a thousand slaves) who on the eve of the CW was about to free his slaves because they were just too damn expensive. In the Old South chattel slavery was an expensive cradle to grave welfare system. Genovese was originally a flaming liberal. Study of the situation turned him around. He crunched the numbers and learned that the rate of return on chattel slavery was 4% as opposed to the 6% return on wage slavery being earned by Northern industrialists exploiting women, children, and immigrants. It's simple business sense: replace the chattel slaves with wage slaves. You make 50% more profit for yr labor investment.
    No, this was not about chattel slaves. As I told my U.S. History students: men do not march toward each other and at 30 yards fire .50 and .65 caliber lead miniballs at each other (the wounds were horrendous) over someone's slaves . Get real and deal with facts. Ideology blinds you. Most telling is the story behind the high water mark of the Confederacy: the 300 men under Armistead who made it to the Wall at Gettysburg in Picket's Charge only to meet their old buddies under Hancock's command. Everyone was a Californian. The height of the CW was decided by Californian against Californian. No guns were fired it was strictly hand to hand among old friends. Armistead and Hancock were close friends from the town of Sonoma CA, the birthplace of the Bear Flag Republic. NONE. I repeat. NONE of the Californians were chattel slave holders. So what were they fighting for? The men under Armistead did not want to join the Northern Union. Instead they wanted to form along with Oregon/WA a new country. Lake Cty CA use to be Confederate. A rancher below the pass separating Lake Cty from Mendocino Cty use to fly a giant Confederate flag. Whenever I drove pass I looked on that flag, a variation of the flag of St. Andrew, with great pride and respect for those who fought to be free of bankers and exploitive industrialists. How different is that from today when the Scots, again the flag of St. Andrew first used by Wallace on his shield, want to regain their independence from England and its bankers? How different is that when fighters from France, Spain, Greece ( Greece has 60% poverty reeling under IMF austerity measures to ensure banker profits) go to the Donbass and fight with the rebels who want to be free of the stooges installed by the U.S., an outlaw nation, the world's hated new Nazis. I refuse to use any stamp with a U.S. flag. That flag stands for murder and plunder. And those of you who support it have much blood on yr hands. God have mercy on you.The Confederacy will live on in the hearts of many forever. Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen! Holy Russia will teach the land of secular humanism and Wicca a lesson to remember. Evidently the Poles forgot the lesson of 1612, the French and Poles the lesson of 1812, and the Germans the lesson of 1942. And Americans (90% wage and debt slaves) are too stupid and arrogant, full of hubris, to get it. An American tragedy awaits, far exceeding the CW.

    So you’re saying the CW was caused for a 2% gain in yearly returns. Returns that no soldier
    had any guarantee of realizing. (Past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance).
    And you got a PhD? No wonder PhDs have no prestige associated with them anymore.

    As the Ghetto Lords say “Sheee-iuuut”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wladyslaw
    The entire matter around the Confederate version of the flag of St. Andrew reflects political correctness that is a form of totalitarianism and cultural cleansing to hide the truth. Nothing you have attributed to me was said or even inferred. I advise you read Genovese yourself, and not just snippets. I would also advise that you and a number of others here read the accounts of the various secession congresses that took place on the eve of the CW and learn what it was really about. Look at the votes, especially Louisiana. Look at who was against secession. You're in for a surprise. The late 19th century Southern historians were very correct, but they didn't have modern computers to crunch the massive numbers to prove what they ancedotally knew to be correct. And are you aware that in the border state of Kentucky chattel slaves remained chattel slaves during the CW? The only way to be free was to fight for the Union army. So much for phoney idealism and the Yankee narrative, a CYA narrative. The North invaded the South at a time when the individual states were sovereign. Also read the various works on the New York Draft riots. To say that the Northern soldiers were going off to fight to free chattel slaves is ludicrous. Some? Yes. (Abolitionists did a good job of misdirecting attention from industrialist wage slavery.) Most? No.
  49. Wladyslaw says:
    @Hacienda
    So you're saying the CW was caused for a 2% gain in yearly returns. Returns that no soldier
    had any guarantee of realizing. (Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance).
    And you got a PhD? No wonder PhDs have no prestige associated with them anymore.

    As the Ghetto Lords say "Sheee-iuuut".

    The entire matter around the Confederate version of the flag of St. Andrew reflects political correctness that is a form of totalitarianism and cultural cleansing to hide the truth. Nothing you have attributed to me was said or even inferred. I advise you read Genovese yourself, and not just snippets. I would also advise that you and a number of others here read the accounts of the various secession congresses that took place on the eve of the CW and learn what it was really about. Look at the votes, especially Louisiana. Look at who was against secession. You’re in for a surprise. The late 19th century Southern historians were very correct, but they didn’t have modern computers to crunch the massive numbers to prove what they ancedotally knew to be correct. And are you aware that in the border state of Kentucky chattel slaves remained chattel slaves during the CW? The only way to be free was to fight for the Union army. So much for phoney idealism and the Yankee narrative, a CYA narrative. The North invaded the South at a time when the individual states were sovereign. Also read the various works on the New York Draft riots. To say that the Northern soldiers were going off to fight to free chattel slaves is ludicrous. Some? Yes. (Abolitionists did a good job of misdirecting attention from industrialist wage slavery.) Most? No.

    Read More
  50. @Wladyslaw
    Poppycock. This is the usual Northern Union narrative to CYA. I did a grad school paper on the historiography of CW material which is an interesting history in itself. I advise you look at the late 19th century Southern historians. It took a century (after much nonsense in between) for later economic historians to confirm the ancedotal evidence maintained by Southern historians. The advent of computers made it possible to crunch the massive numbers data. Years ago I met the descendant of the largest Alabama slave holder (over a thousand slaves) who on the eve of the CW was about to free his slaves because they were just too damn expensive. In the Old South chattel slavery was an expensive cradle to grave welfare system. Genovese was originally a flaming liberal. Study of the situation turned him around. He crunched the numbers and learned that the rate of return on chattel slavery was 4% as opposed to the 6% return on wage slavery being earned by Northern industrialists exploiting women, children, and immigrants. It's simple business sense: replace the chattel slaves with wage slaves. You make 50% more profit for yr labor investment.
    No, this was not about chattel slaves. As I told my U.S. History students: men do not march toward each other and at 30 yards fire .50 and .65 caliber lead miniballs at each other (the wounds were horrendous) over someone's slaves . Get real and deal with facts. Ideology blinds you. Most telling is the story behind the high water mark of the Confederacy: the 300 men under Armistead who made it to the Wall at Gettysburg in Picket's Charge only to meet their old buddies under Hancock's command. Everyone was a Californian. The height of the CW was decided by Californian against Californian. No guns were fired it was strictly hand to hand among old friends. Armistead and Hancock were close friends from the town of Sonoma CA, the birthplace of the Bear Flag Republic. NONE. I repeat. NONE of the Californians were chattel slave holders. So what were they fighting for? The men under Armistead did not want to join the Northern Union. Instead they wanted to form along with Oregon/WA a new country. Lake Cty CA use to be Confederate. A rancher below the pass separating Lake Cty from Mendocino Cty use to fly a giant Confederate flag. Whenever I drove pass I looked on that flag, a variation of the flag of St. Andrew, with great pride and respect for those who fought to be free of bankers and exploitive industrialists. How different is that from today when the Scots, again the flag of St. Andrew first used by Wallace on his shield, want to regain their independence from England and its bankers? How different is that when fighters from France, Spain, Greece ( Greece has 60% poverty reeling under IMF austerity measures to ensure banker profits) go to the Donbass and fight with the rebels who want to be free of the stooges installed by the U.S., an outlaw nation, the world's hated new Nazis. I refuse to use any stamp with a U.S. flag. That flag stands for murder and plunder. And those of you who support it have much blood on yr hands. God have mercy on you.The Confederacy will live on in the hearts of many forever. Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen! Holy Russia will teach the land of secular humanism and Wicca a lesson to remember. Evidently the Poles forgot the lesson of 1612, the French and Poles the lesson of 1812, and the Germans the lesson of 1942. And Americans (90% wage and debt slaves) are too stupid and arrogant, full of hubris, to get it. An American tragedy awaits, far exceeding the CW.

    …men do not march toward each other and at 30 yards fire .50 and .65 caliber lead miniballs at each other (the wounds were horrendous) over someone’s slaves.

    No, but the men who order them to, appear to do so over someone’s slaves. With the sole exception of the Republic of Texas, the CSA states seceded in exact descending order of their blackness. The Border states which debated secession were whiter than any CSA state and blacker than any other Union state.

    So if secession wasn’t about servitude, it was in some measure about negritude. Whether directly or indirectly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wladyslaw
    Nicely stated Reg, but may I remind you that correlation is not causation. Taxation was the major issue for the South with the Northern states, who had already freed their slaves, being at an advantage due to the fact that the South was saddled with the two-thirds rule in representation. The fact is if you look at the accounts of the various secession congresses, especially that of Louisiana with its critical port city of New Orleans, that a surprising number of large plantation owners, the very ones reeling under the expense of a cradle to grave care of chattel slaves and planning manumission, were against secession. Andrea pointed out that Brazil brought in 10X as many slaves as the South. Why don't they have race relation problems? The power of the Roman Catholic Church in Spanish and Portugeuse colonies. Rome was opposed to slavery but understood human weakness and thus made this accomodation under the penalty of excommunication for its violation. Slaves could not be worked on Sunday; they could work as chattel slaves for only five days a week; and, the sixth day of work in a week had to be for pay so that a diligent chattel slave could work, save their pay, and then buy back their freedom. It generally took seven years to buy back freedom. That is not much more than the five years of indentured servitude that was common for passage to the colonies and later the U.S. Protestants and Jews made such nice bedfellows, didn't they? And where was virulent racism exposed in post-Civil Rights Act America? Well, hells bells, but in the seat of Abolitionism and Yankeedom, Boston.
    Jee-e-e-z, do you think maybe those devious Yankees were fighting to keep Negritude where it was? Just a thought:)
    , @Anonymous
    Nice that there is an unexplained exception to that pattern.
    The states seceded in order of their production of cotton for export/ economic dependence on international trade in plantation products. Also proximity to northern states influenced whether a state voted to secede. Missouri did not vote to secede because Arkansas voted not to secede.
    One of the fears of secession was that joining the CSA would cause the state from losing constitutional protection in the form of federal fugitive slave laws. In the Union the runaways had to be returned, out of it, they did not. So why didn't Lincoln just let the CSA go in peace and offer refuge to the CSA's slaves? Slaves are not grown in pots. They have legs. There was no need invade to emancipate slaves who wanted to be free.
    People seem to forget that the slaves were actually doing work and producing products on the plantations. They also seem to forget they had minds of their own. Ezra Pound once said a slave is someone who waits for someone to free them. Peaceful secession of the CSA would have given them an opportunity to free themselves.
  51. Wladyslaw says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    …men do not march toward each other and at 30 yards fire .50 and .65 caliber lead miniballs at each other (the wounds were horrendous) over someone’s slaves.
     
    No, but the men who order them to, appear to do so over someone's slaves. With the sole exception of the Republic of Texas, the CSA states seceded in exact descending order of their blackness. The Border states which debated secession were whiter than any CSA state and blacker than any other Union state.

    So if secession wasn't about servitude, it was in some measure about negritude. Whether directly or indirectly.

    Nicely stated Reg, but may I remind you that correlation is not causation. Taxation was the major issue for the South with the Northern states, who had already freed their slaves, being at an advantage due to the fact that the South was saddled with the two-thirds rule in representation. The fact is if you look at the accounts of the various secession congresses, especially that of Louisiana with its critical port city of New Orleans, that a surprising number of large plantation owners, the very ones reeling under the expense of a cradle to grave care of chattel slaves and planning manumission, were against secession. Andrea pointed out that Brazil brought in 10X as many slaves as the South. Why don’t they have race relation problems? The power of the Roman Catholic Church in Spanish and Portugeuse colonies. Rome was opposed to slavery but understood human weakness and thus made this accomodation under the penalty of excommunication for its violation. Slaves could not be worked on Sunday; they could work as chattel slaves for only five days a week; and, the sixth day of work in a week had to be for pay so that a diligent chattel slave could work, save their pay, and then buy back their freedom. It generally took seven years to buy back freedom. That is not much more than the five years of indentured servitude that was common for passage to the colonies and later the U.S. Protestants and Jews made such nice bedfellows, didn’t they? And where was virulent racism exposed in post-Civil Rights Act America? Well, hells bells, but in the seat of Abolitionism and Yankeedom, Boston.
    Jee-e-e-z, do you think maybe those devious Yankees were fighting to keep Negritude where it was? Just a thought:)

    Read More
  52. @Epaminondas
    Spot on!

    Epaminondas,

    You might like this book:

    http://www.steidl.de/flycms/en/Afghan+Gold/0104182248.html?SID=m30Rcnc1652f

    After a minute the site begins to give you photographs from the book, but it is the books text volume that you might particularly enjoy.

    Read More
  53. Jo s'more says:

    It seems worth noting that the South started the shooting war. If states had seceded one by one starting at the margins or in hard to reach places like Alabama or Mississippi but had not joined into a confederacy that attacked the union, the appeal to fight to force, say, Alabama to stay might not have got much sympathy from the northern states. They would have had to discuss it in Congress and the generals would have had to figure it would be really hard to go after Alabama or Texas because they would have to first get there by going through other states that would not be too pleased. Not sure they could have got the states to go for it. Remember that was before direct election of senators.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jay
    Your logic is AWOL. Alabama and Texas had sea coasts and Federal tariff enforcement centers (forts) on those coasts, just like South Carolina. Lincoln refused to remove Federal forces from the Charleston harbor fort and hence South Carolina took it. The same thing would have happened in Alabama or Texas.
  54. J1234 says:

    It wasn’t the plan to rob the white South of it’s history. The plan was to make make white Southerners prosperous and comfortable, first, THEN rob them of their history. It’s much easier that way. It worked in the North. It worked in the South, too. Holding people hostage to their addiction always works. Long gone is the once prevalent “ain’t got nuthin’ to lose” perspective of Southern whites.

    Read More
  55. Gypsy says:
    @Fran Macadam
    The flag of the Confederacy in going to be forever linked with the practice of owning human beings as slaves, because that is the issue that was central to secession and its creation.

    The current U.S. flag should not be idolized, but its existence reflects the reality that there is a country called the Unites States of America. The Confederacy doesn't exist.

    It was no less an American than Mark Twain who loathed the practice of what he called "rag worship" and that loving his own country should require despising all others.

    Fran, your comments made more sense than anything I’ve read in a very long time.

    Read More
  56. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Reg Cæsar

    …men do not march toward each other and at 30 yards fire .50 and .65 caliber lead miniballs at each other (the wounds were horrendous) over someone’s slaves.
     
    No, but the men who order them to, appear to do so over someone's slaves. With the sole exception of the Republic of Texas, the CSA states seceded in exact descending order of their blackness. The Border states which debated secession were whiter than any CSA state and blacker than any other Union state.

    So if secession wasn't about servitude, it was in some measure about negritude. Whether directly or indirectly.

    Nice that there is an unexplained exception to that pattern.
    The states seceded in order of their production of cotton for export/ economic dependence on international trade in plantation products. Also proximity to northern states influenced whether a state voted to secede. Missouri did not vote to secede because Arkansas voted not to secede.
    One of the fears of secession was that joining the CSA would cause the state from losing constitutional protection in the form of federal fugitive slave laws. In the Union the runaways had to be returned, out of it, they did not. So why didn’t Lincoln just let the CSA go in peace and offer refuge to the CSA’s slaves? Slaves are not grown in pots. They have legs. There was no need invade to emancipate slaves who wanted to be free.
    People seem to forget that the slaves were actually doing work and producing products on the plantations. They also seem to forget they had minds of their own. Ezra Pound once said a slave is someone who waits for someone to free them. Peaceful secession of the CSA would have given them an opportunity to free themselves.

    Read More
  57. Jay says:
    @Jo s'more
    It seems worth noting that the South started the shooting war. If states had seceded one by one starting at the margins or in hard to reach places like Alabama or Mississippi but had not joined into a confederacy that attacked the union, the appeal to fight to force, say, Alabama to stay might not have got much sympathy from the northern states. They would have had to discuss it in Congress and the generals would have had to figure it would be really hard to go after Alabama or Texas because they would have to first get there by going through other states that would not be too pleased. Not sure they could have got the states to go for it. Remember that was before direct election of senators.

    Your logic is AWOL. Alabama and Texas had sea coasts and Federal tariff enforcement centers (forts) on those coasts, just like South Carolina. Lincoln refused to remove Federal forces from the Charleston harbor fort and hence South Carolina took it. The same thing would have happened in Alabama or Texas.

    Read More
  58. bubba says:
    @leftist conservative
    quit aligning yourself with the slaveowners.

    only 1.5% of all white americans owned slaves, per the 1860 census. It cost several years of the median wage to buy a slave. It was the upper class, not whites in general who owned slaves.

    I support the right of states to secede. I hope to see the USA dissolved someday.

    I reject multiculturalism and I support white nationalism.

    But I reject the culture of the slaveowning south. I am of the working class, not the slaveowning class.

    Now go get yer #$#%@ shinebox!

    yes, but wasn’t the percentage of slave-owning free blacks in the south
    much higher than that of the white population?

    Read More
  59. Controlling the interpretation of history is strategically important in the present. That’s why Turkey fights historical recognition of Armenian genocide so aggressively. The left is successful at controlling the interpretation of US history.

    Abraham Lincoln was basically a mass murderer that murdered 620,000 innocent Americans for wanting to rule themselves. In hindsight it’s quite reasonable to want to secede from a leader that will eventually mass murder your people and loot/raze cities to the ground, etc. You can’t have regular people making this simple observation, so you cook up this crap about slavery to make the Confederates the bad guys, and blocking flags and tearing down statues is just part of the intimidation and suppression of conflicting historical interpretations.

    Read More
  60. @Biff
    The North(threw taxation and tariffs) made a lot more money off slavery then the South did..

    Not to speak of the fact that a vast majority of slave dealers and merchants were from New England states. With Massachusetts and Rhode Island being two Yankee states where a majority of slave ships were built and where the rum was produced as payment for the slaves purchased on the coast of Africa. But of course you will never hear any of this mentioned by the two-faced hypocrites who criticize the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @carnac
    True! In fact the first slaves that ever landed in the US were brought to Maryland to work tobacco farms early in the formation of the country. Some were even in Massachusetts. The weather in both states was too cold for the slaves and they died out in the winter with pneumonia and other diseases. They stopped using them. This was before the South began using them to grow cotton.
  61. @Carlton Meyer
    And more history for the miseducated.

    Sep 5, 2011 - Congress Freed the Slaves

    For some reason, I was taught that President Lincoln freed the slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. I just learned that in July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the "Second Confiscation Act" to liberate slaves, but Lincoln took the position that Congress lacked power to free slaves unless Lincoln as commander-in-chief deemed it a proper military measure. Lincoln was concerned that it would cause more states to secede. A few months later, he bowed to pressure and announced that law would be enforced while taking credit for freeing slaves.

    May 4, 2013 - Union Slave States

    Our history books and corporate media simplify our greatest national disaster - the Civil War. For example, four slave states never declared a secession: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. They were allowed to keep 800,000 slaves during the war as they sent troops with Union armies to reclaim federal property in the South, not to free slaves. (see my Jan 2, 2011 blog for details) These states are referred to as "border states" in books, rather than loyal slave states, so as not to confuse the public.

    Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to these states. Missouri and Maryland abolished slavery during the war. In Kentucky and Delaware, 40,000 slaves remained after the war, until freed by the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

    The reason Maryland didn’t join their fellow Southerners and secede from the Union, is because Abe Lincoln had the entire Maryland legislature arrested to prevent them from meeting and drawing up legislation to withdraw from the Union.

    Read More
  62. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Why does Vdare loved the south so much. There are states like Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Utah that has less blacks and Latinos but Vdare is always crazy about Georgia or South Carolina that have high black populations but never the northern states mention above. I would picked Utah over South Carolina anytime. SC is humid and Utah just gets cold in the winter, Mormons don’t bother me. In fact whites that don’t like minorities as much are better off in the white conservative north like Idaho than South Carolina anyways.

    Read More
  63. The ‘flag’ behind all the outrage is bogus. It is not an historical artifact but a product of early 2oth century. See ‘ dont-rally-round-bogus-flag-boys’

    http://noabominoidshere.blogspot.com/2010/01/dont-rally-round-bogus-flag-boys.ht

    Read More
    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
    The rectangular flag is an ensign of the Confederate Navy.

    The square flag is the flag of the Confederate Army.
  64. Romanian says:
    @Art
    It is amazing what people will justify in the name of “security.”

    In the last century white governments killed 100,000,00 people in the name of “security.”

    Hmm – now who is really REALLY mean?

    I blame the Western propensity for historical curiosity and research for the fact that people who want to denounce this or that made by past Westerners always find enough ammunition. Someone here linked to a free copy of Imperium by Ulick Varange, where he states the same thing, that the West is very historically minded, even though our understanding of history is a reflection of our current age and mores.

    You can’t find any chronicle or proof or statistic about how many Africans have been killed in the permanent low level conflicts of their homes, in this century or any other. Not even right now. You can’t even get a reliable census in Africa. Every political murder in the West is rehashed ad nauseam until it becomes a crime against humanity, because those are the easiest to investigate, but the gleeful massacres of the East and the South barely rate a foot note in history. Having read Into the Cannibal’s Pot by Ilana Mercer, it is striking how enamored of procedure, legalism and proper forms the Apartheid era government of South Africa was. You can find out in excruciating details everything about the hundreds of people tortured and suicided in their jails over the course of three decades, but the current SA government doesn’t even publish crime statistics, let alone give you a peek into all the thousands of political and racial victims that get it over the course of a single year.

    And, of course, one can only speculate on how many Africans were enslaved by their fellow Africans or by Arabs, or how many were brutalized and murdered, but the f***ing Euros kept the receipts!!!!

    Read More
  65. carnac says:
    @Aaron Gross

    In Southern traditionalists they see those who are still celebrating a pre-bourgeois, agrarian, and communally structured world.
     
    But Southern traditionalists today and over the last century have celebrated those things while at the same time condemning slavery, which is what made the whole, traditional southern way of life possible. Antebellum southern conservatives understood the connection. They used to emphasize to their northern conservative counterparts that slavery was essential to their traditional way of life: end slavery, they said, and you end our southern way of life.

    As Eugene Genovese pointed out, southern conservatives over the last century or so love to glorify all the hierarchy, honor, etc., of the Old South, but unlike antebellum conservatives, they ignore the fact that the southern tradition they want to preserve can't be supported in a modern, capitalist economy.

    I am an unrepentant, unreconstructed Southerner. I have researched my ancestors and they go back to old Virginia in the 1700′s. In all of that time our family never owned a slave and you can say that about 90% (or more) of Southern families. I am not denying there were slaves but they were not among the average folk. The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely. I know….slavery is wrong. That was a different era and time. Do you Yankees think that Southern boys left home to fight the Union army over owning slaves or for the rich man to own them?? You are believing your own wartime propaganda again. These Southerners were fighting over States Rights which they considered Lincoln to be eroding. The Southerners (even the poor) knew the constitution and still do. We follow it. We believe it is almost holy. The constitution lays out what a federal government is supposed to do and everything else is under the power of the individual states. To us….(especially back in 1860) each state was its own nation united for defense and other issues. Look at the power the government has now. Are you enjoying their idiotic dictates?? Do you like being ordered around by the likes of Obama (or anyone else). Southerners saw this day and time coming. We still want States Rights. We still want independence. Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely."

    Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

    "Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see."

    Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

    What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested.
  66. carnac says:
    @Carroll Price
    Not to speak of the fact that a vast majority of slave dealers and merchants were from New England states. With Massachusetts and Rhode Island being two Yankee states where a majority of slave ships were built and where the rum was produced as payment for the slaves purchased on the coast of Africa. But of course you will never hear any of this mentioned by the two-faced hypocrites who criticize the South.

    True! In fact the first slaves that ever landed in the US were brought to Maryland to work tobacco farms early in the formation of the country. Some were even in Massachusetts. The weather in both states was too cold for the slaves and they died out in the winter with pneumonia and other diseases. They stopped using them. This was before the South began using them to grow cotton.

    Read More
  67. Do Americans no longer understand that chattel slavery put more money in Northern hands than in Southern? It seems incomprehensible to me that we are no longer taught that the Confederate flag never flew on a vessel that brought slaves to these shores. The largest slave markets were in Boston and later, New York. And why are we wringing our hands over slaves that were brought only to America? America was the recipient of a tiny percentage of the total number of slaves transported to the Western Hemisphere. Seventy five percent of all African slaves ended up in Brazil. Most of the rest went to the Caribbean and the nations ringing that sea. Only about 300,000 negroes were ever brought to American shores. And they thrived here and multiplied…unlike in other nations where black slaves died so rapidly their numbers had to be constantly replenished with new importations. And yet we only hear about the horrors of slavery in connection to the South. Something is very strange and dishonest about this narrative and its origins.

    Read More
  68. Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?

    The US has wealth+resources+status worth taking.

    People want to take them.

    A coalition has built a politically viable cover to hate on the US South and whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin

    A coalition has built a politically viable cover to hate on the US South and whites.

     

    More like a cult, a victim cult.

    Victim cultist don't need to cooperate to get ahead, unlike people in a coalition.

    Victim cultists need only vote for compliant politicians that offer them privileges and goodies.

  69. What’s detestable about the battle flag of traitors who caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in a war to defend slavery?

    Give me a break.

    Read More
  70. Ace says:
    @rod1963
    Because we are taught to by the state and it's educational apparatus. As to why, maybe because the Southerners are whites, generally Christian and heterosexual. Each of which is a considered a sin by the metrosexual coastal Elites and the political class.

    The state always needs a enemy and white, Southerners have served as one for a long time. Often portrayed as sub-human creatures with a drawl.

    The funny thing about slavery, is that it's been reconstituted by our enlightened corporate and political classes under the guise of globalism and various free trade agreements. The people at the top of the food chain reap enormous financial benefits exploiting the shit out of 3rd world peasants. And if that's not enough, they continue to import large amounts of low wage foreign workers into the U.S. to replace Americans.

    The wonderful thing about this approach it's not the in your face slavery of the pre-Civil War South. It's hidden, out of the way overseas and in factories in the U.S. So modern day Liberals and Conservatives can pretend they are morally superior to those plantation owners of the 19th century. They are not, IMO they are worse because they hide their evil deeds where few can see them and should know better, but don't care.

    So much for progress.

    >> Often portrayed as sub-human creatures with a drawl. <<

    Brad Pitt portrayed an American army infantry officer who led a small unit of Jewish war criminals in France in Inglorious Basterds, a joke of a movie but for the guy who portrayed the SS colonel. Absolutely brilliant.

    Anyway, Pitt had a Southern accent you could cut with a chain saw. He was supposed to be doing wondrous works in France but for some reason it was necessary to also suggest he was a moron.

    Read More
  71. Ace says:
    @Art
    It is amazing what people will justify in the name of “security.”

    In the last century white governments killed 100,000,00 people in the name of “security.”

    Hmm – now who is really REALLY mean?

    John, those white governments killed all those people in the name of communism and socialism. They were able to do that because they had such a degree of government power that there was no stopping the implementation of the stupidist, most destructive, most murderous ideas to create a utopia.

    Try to keep up.

    Read More
  72. @Massimo Heitor

    Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?
     
    The US has wealth+resources+status worth taking.

    People want to take them.

    A coalition has built a politically viable cover to hate on the US South and whites.

    A coalition has built a politically viable cover to hate on the US South and whites.

    More like a cult, a victim cult.

    Victim cultist don’t need to cooperate to get ahead, unlike people in a coalition.

    Victim cultists need only vote for compliant politicians that offer them privileges and goodies.

    Read More
  73. Sir Padre says:
    @Aaron Gross

    In Southern traditionalists they see those who are still celebrating a pre-bourgeois, agrarian, and communally structured world.
     
    But Southern traditionalists today and over the last century have celebrated those things while at the same time condemning slavery, which is what made the whole, traditional southern way of life possible. Antebellum southern conservatives understood the connection. They used to emphasize to their northern conservative counterparts that slavery was essential to their traditional way of life: end slavery, they said, and you end our southern way of life.

    As Eugene Genovese pointed out, southern conservatives over the last century or so love to glorify all the hierarchy, honor, etc., of the Old South, but unlike antebellum conservatives, they ignore the fact that the southern tradition they want to preserve can't be supported in a modern, capitalist economy.

    I find it interesting to note that while everyone goes on and on about Southern support for slavery, they conveniently ignore the FACT that the majority of slave OWNERS were in the North (that’s why they were exempted from Lincoln”s Emancipation Proclamation) or that some of these owners were free blacks.

    Read More
  74. Would it be OK for Americans of British descent to rally round the Union Jack, then? After all, the British fought bravely in the War of American Independence, but were outnumbered.

    Read More
  75. Not that it matters, but as I recall, Quentin’s anguished outcry is from “Absalom, Absalom !”, not from “The Sound and the Fury”.

    Read More
  76. jocose says:
    @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    What’s owed…let’s see. the first successful submarine attack in history, Rock and Roll,Jazz and R&B, BBQ of the first degree,Cotton for various types of clothes,much of the oil used in the west-just a few items…

    Read More
  77. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    There are so many inventions from the South, it’s impossible to list, but the very oil and gas industry was developed in Louisiana. By developed, I mean the ability to extract oil using directional drilling and deep sea oil rigs. I know personally many people who sold their various technical inventions for millions of dollars, and my own grandfather built boats such as the airboat and spud barges and other workboats used for locating and drilling oil. I’m not even going into the wonderful food and what’s left of the old architecture, so much of it burned down by the Freemasons, whose Southern members were traitors to the cause and mainly responsible for the the burning of targeted Catholic plantations, or the fact that Yankee soldiers were promised ‘bounty’ which is the right to steal or that arriving immigrant Irishmen were enslaved to do the fighting and that it was after the Civil War that the Jim Crow laws were put in place because these Irish rightfully hated the blacks for the situation.

    But there is no use wasting anyone’s time speaking the truth about anything, much less the South or the Civil War, until the Jewish media monopoly and troll army is shut down. In order to do that, we may need Trump, or we may need a war, but as long as nothing concrete is done about it, the situation gets worse and worse. There is no Southerner happy about the situation as it stands right now.

    White men are not ‘weaker’ than blacks and Americans aren’t stupid. But the biggest story that needs to be told is that the leaders of the Secession movement were Jewish and that black votes were obtained by herding them into warehouses and giving them liquor, and that after the illegal sale of the entire Louisiana territory to the Jewish North in 1803, what resulted was Jewish take over of most of the large plantations, along with military repression and violence against the predominantly French inhabitants of the Gulf Coast region. There is so much to say about this, and I look forward to the day that it can all be taught in the schools. But until the Jewish stranglehold on media and academia is removed, this is one Southerner that will limit my efforts to a bit of a blog comment. First things first.

    Read More
  78. I am a Southerner and proud of it. It is shameful that young Southerners have been taught crap in schools and don’t know their real history. Lincoln was the first terrorist and 600000 men died because of him.

    Read More
  79. carnac123 says: • Website

    The victor writes the history books and also can liable the loser at will. That is what happened to the South. The government, the Northeastern writers, and Hollywood lies about the South and its people constantly. The South knows the reason for that war. Slavery was an afterthought by the North. The South left the US and took over half of the money the US had with them. The South was richer than the north (at that time) even though the Yanks had more factories. They took with them the money that they were paying to the government on unfair taxes and tariffs. In all of the South only about 5% of Southerners had slave. There were slaves in Southern Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, and Maryland. More slaves were scattered around the North so the North cannot say it had no slaves. The first slaves on the US mainland were in Massachusetts and later Maryland. The ones in Massachusetts died of the cold and the farmers gave up on that experiment. Do you people think a bunch of dirt farmers in the South were going to war for a rich man to own slaves? The Confederate Soldier knew more of politics in his time than people do now. The Confederacy could see the route the Federal government was taking and they could see the future. The Constitution was holy to the South. They knew that in the Constitution the individual states were (in a sense) their own countries and there were only a few things the Federal government had the right to do. Confederates could see that the federal government was already aiming for domination and they were prophets. The South wanted freedom from the USA and their instincts were correct. We would still benefit from some sort of secessions. Look at what a bully and a disaster the federal government has become and tell me the Confederacy was not right in trying to leave. Every state should leave.

    Read More
  80. Mark F. says:

    Read the Secession Resolutions of the Southern States. All mention wanting to keep slavery as a major reason for leaving the Union. Had they given up slavery and then seceded over other matters, they would have had an honorable cause. But not the way they did it.

    Read More
  81. Lasher says:
    @fnn
    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861. The South has always been the section of the US most eager to be led into war. It seems unlikely that a USA minus Dixie would have entered the Great War. The South was the only part of the country without a single America First Committee chapter in 1940-41. Today, the extreme and unthinking philo-Semitism of the South provides major support for the USG-Israel program of endless war in the Middle East.

    Thank you for your comment.

    Read More
  82. Lasher says:
    @Anonymous
    The VP of the Confederate States of America was Jewish.

    No, he wasn’t Jewish at all. The one you are thinking of was probably the Secretary of the Treasury, one Judah P. Benjamin. The Vice-President was Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia.

    Read More
  83. Lasher says:
    @Anonymous
    There are so many inventions from the South, it's impossible to list, but the very oil and gas industry was developed in Louisiana. By developed, I mean the ability to extract oil using directional drilling and deep sea oil rigs. I know personally many people who sold their various technical inventions for millions of dollars, and my own grandfather built boats such as the airboat and spud barges and other workboats used for locating and drilling oil. I'm not even going into the wonderful food and what's left of the old architecture, so much of it burned down by the Freemasons, whose Southern members were traitors to the cause and mainly responsible for the the burning of targeted Catholic plantations, or the fact that Yankee soldiers were promised 'bounty' which is the right to steal or that arriving immigrant Irishmen were enslaved to do the fighting and that it was after the Civil War that the Jim Crow laws were put in place because these Irish rightfully hated the blacks for the situation.

    But there is no use wasting anyone's time speaking the truth about anything, much less the South or the Civil War, until the Jewish media monopoly and troll army is shut down. In order to do that, we may need Trump, or we may need a war, but as long as nothing concrete is done about it, the situation gets worse and worse. There is no Southerner happy about the situation as it stands right now.

    White men are not 'weaker' than blacks and Americans aren't stupid. But the biggest story that needs to be told is that the leaders of the Secession movement were Jewish and that black votes were obtained by herding them into warehouses and giving them liquor, and that after the illegal sale of the entire Louisiana territory to the Jewish North in 1803, what resulted was Jewish take over of most of the large plantations, along with military repression and violence against the predominantly French inhabitants of the Gulf Coast region. There is so much to say about this, and I look forward to the day that it can all be taught in the schools. But until the Jewish stranglehold on media and academia is removed, this is one Southerner that will limit my efforts to a bit of a blog comment. First things first.

    God bless you, brother!

    Read More
  84. jake says:
    @Art
    It is amazing what people will justify in the name of “security.”

    In the last century white governments killed 100,000,00 people in the name of “security.”

    Hmm – now who is really REALLY mean?

    Then all the blacks, browns, reds, and yellows; all the Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, need to segregate themselves away from us. They must save themselves by refusing to live in any country that is majority white Gentile.

    Read More
  85. Let’s not forget a few facts which trouble the Northern Social Justice Warrior narrative: that General Ulysses S Grant of the Yankee forces was also a slaveowner.
    President Lincoln even authorized the return of runaway slaves to their owners.
    Pope Pius IX even sent a papal blessing to Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oh its just me too
    grant banned jews from military zones, the south had a jewish secretary and the majority of jews in america supported the south (not to mention jews dominated the slave trade).

    the NYT east coast hatred of the south comes from:
    transferred fears: (cossacks=southerners)
    projection
  86. @Divine Right
    "What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed."

    That's like beating a prisoner then asking what he's done to deserve something besides the beating.

    Cahokia sounds like some idiot from Nooo Joizey.

    Read More
  87. Erin says:

    Thank you for writing this. This article describes EXACTLY what has been happening to southerners. Really, thank you for paying attention and thank you for publishing this article.

    Read More
  88. Sam J. says:
    @Priss Factor
    "I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years."

    Not so. First off, Abolitionists were not the dominant force in the North. Rather, Lincoln and the ruling North elites used Abolitionist rhetoric to justify their war on the South.
    It's like US had no interest in liberating Asia from Japan during WWII. Rather, US sought supremacy over the Pacific and defeated Japan for that reason. The stuff about US liberating Asia from Japan was just a useful moral excuse. (Same thing with the Iraq War. It was essentially a War for Israel but it was promoted as spreading democracy in the Middle East.) After all, if US cared so much about Asia, why did FDR ask Stalin to swallow up North Asia and hand it over to Mao... who then took all of China?

    Northern ruling elites weren't so enlightened on race themselves. They supported the westward expansion that took lands from Indians who were forced into reservations.
    Furthermore, the last thing that most Northern whites wanted to see was white southerners raped and murdered en masse by blacks... no more than Chinese government enjoyed watching boatloads of Vietnamese-Chinese sent to near-certain death in the seas in the late 70s. During the Boat People fiasco, China was communist and Vietnam was communist, but Chinese were angry with the Vietnamese treatment of Vietnamese-Chinese capitalist population who were dispossessed and pushed into the seas(in an event that was not unlike what Turks did to Armenians).

    True, there were lots of self-righteous Northerners who'd read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN and saw the Negro as some saint and felt white loathing and all that, but the real power and most sentiments in the North was not particularly anti-south after the war. If anything, there was far more anti-north sentiment in the south because (1) resentment of having lost the war (2) sense of betrayal that northern whites killed fellow whites in the south for the sake of blacks.

    For the most part, North and South buried the hatchet. Also, as the Democratic Party traditionally depended on both urban northern whites---especially Catholic Irish---and rural southern white voters, it wouldn't have made much sense for American Progressives to especially vilify the South. Indeed, Wilson, FDR, and Truman all relied on the South. Kennedy chose LBJ to carry Texas. And before the final political realignment in the 1994 Congressional election, there were still some vestiges of southern Democratic power. Since then, the Deep South has become totally Republican while the Northeast has become almost totally Democratic. So, it's politically much safer for Northern/Western Democrats to attack the South wholesale. They no longer have any political allies there.

    The North/South enmity in the past need not be exaggerated. Especially as masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe poured into the Northeast Coast, even many white Anglo-Americans in the North began to sympathize with whites in the South. With so many swarthy foreign-looking people---even thought to be non-white by some Northern Europeans---cramming into big cities, especially New York, Northern whites thought they finally better understood the problem that Southern whites were having with blacks.

    But as it turned out, European immigrants---even from southern and eastern Europe---turned out to be pretty solid civilizational material and they assimilated and made the social climb and became like any other Americans. So, the North lost its fears about the 'other', at least in regards to European immigrants.
    In contrast, blacks in the South remained the dangerous 'other'. Some progressive types blamed this on the discriminatory attitudes in the South, but blacks turned out to be as or even more problematic in the North in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and etc. Of course, as there were discriminatory policies in the North as well, black failings in the North could be blamed on white 'racism' too, but in truth, black problems owed really to the fact that black character/personality had been forged for 100,000 yrs in hot Africa with lots of nasty diseases and monstrous wildlife that chased Negroes all around and drove them crazy.

    Anyway, since Southern blacks moved to the North, the North could always blame the South for having turned the blacks crazy---though one wonders why a whole bunch of blacks in France and England are also crazy even though they came directly from Edenic Africa.

    North and South seemed to be getting more or less fine, but then the Civil Rights Movement happened. Initially, the North felt smugly sanctimonious about racial discrimination in the South, especially as such sentiments were egged on Jews in Hollywood and media.
    It was as if the North was so advanced whereas the South was still stuck in the 19th century.

    But there were few reasons why the North/South divide became stalled n the 60s and 70s. One reason was US was still far from the blue state/red state political divide that has become so iconic in our politics.
    Back then, there were forces in both the Republican and Democratic Parties that were for the Civil Rights Movement and against the Civil Rights Movement. George Wallace was a Democrat before he was an Independent. And there were Northern Republicans who were for the Civil Rights Movement and Western Republicans who saw it as an encroachment of the Federal government on states rights--not only against the South but against the West as well.

    Another huge factor was the wild 6os. As blacks began to burn down cities, riot, and act crazy, many in the North had second thoughts about the Civil Rights Movement. Also, black crime began to climb precipitously at this period. So, even in a city like NY, there was a lot of fear of black crime, finally culminating in the undreamt of triumph of Giuliani in the 90s.
    Of course, the hardened white working class was never much with the blacks in the North. But prior to the Civil Rights Movement, whites mostly had their own communities and blacks had theirs. So, they could tolerate one another. Also, prior to the rise of civil liberties, the police had been much tougher on black crime, and that kept the black community in line. But in the 60s, with the triumphal march of blacks, rise of youth culture, rise of Jewish radicalism, the rise of new optimism with the Kennedy presidency, the popularity of black music, the cult of Muhammad Ali, and etc., Northern white youth became more idealistic/naive/optimistic and northern blacks got rowdier, more aggressive, more demanding, and etc. Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey.

    Prior to the 60s, because white power seemed so monolithic and dominant, even tough blacks in the North and South thought the best way would be mind their manners somewhat, but in the new era when the heavyweight champion of the world was a loud-mouthed Negro who taunted his opponents, made fun of whitey, and acted the thug-loon, blacks began to show their true nature. With no more fear of whites, city after city became beset with crime, looting, and rioting. When blacks acted crazy, whites mostly ran as whites knew, deep in their hearts, that blacks could whup their ass like Muhammad Ali whupped all them white boys.

    So, the North vs South narrative was broken. Many Northern whites in 1968 came to see eye-to-eye with Southern Whites about the race problem: blacks are indeed dangerous and crazy. And when MLK marched through some Northern towns, he was met with even more hostility than in the South. Northern whites began to see MLK's Trojan Horse bulljive for what it was. After all, MLK was no saintly Negro but a loutish thug who'd cheated his way through college, led a life of debauchery, and even beat up a woman unconscious and laughed/joked about it. But he had a boom box voice and a penchant for bellowing cliches that naive white folks couldn't resist. He was the Oprah of his day. MLK's assassination is now remembered as some great national tragedy. But in 1968, it meant burning cities and more Negro mayhem, and so, if anything, it helped Nixon and drove many more Northern whites to the anti-black camp.

    At this time, many Northern whites fled to the suburbs and voted Republican. And they loathed blacks more than they loathed Southern Whites. And even ultra-liberals in big cities began to have second thoughts about the preponderance of black crime and violence. Also, no matter what policies were tried on blacks, too many of them seem to be getting only crazier. And the Great Society was a massive failure.

    When we look at Nixon's second election, Reagan's victory, and Bush I's victory, it was obvious how so many Northern Whites and Southern whites saw eye to eye on lots of things. Though MLK was elevated to iconic status and Civil Rights Movement came to be sacralized, there were too many race problems in the North for white Northerners to get too rosy about that stuff. They were mainly concerned about black crime and violence, and as such, sort of understood why the South hadn't been too keen on blacks either.

    Even so, history is controlled by the elites, and as the moral narrative sacralized the black struggle, and lionized MLK; and with PC censoring and blacklisting all competing views, the black issue went from a political and social(or even moral) one to a spiritual one. It's like MLK wasn't just a great man but the greatest man of all time, maybe a messiah. Thus, it became taboo to even question the sacred narrative of the civil rights movement that came to be mythologized in Manichean terms.
    Also, as American Conservatism caved into this mythology, it went on the defensive, and the policy of the GOP became one of seeking the approval of Jews and blacks.
    Also, as Jews became very powerful and as Neocons were insistent on stamping out white 'racism' in the GOP, American Conservatism became increasingly intolerant of any dissenting views that might be deemed 'offensive'. But for some reason, the GOP under Neocons became more 'racist' against Arabs and Palestinians. I guess you gotta win moral credits in one area to use it to cover up moral lapses in another area. If GOP is with the MLK cult, I guess it can help Israel bash Palestinians with a clearer conscience. 'With MLK on our side' is the new 'With God on our side'.
    Jews especially love MLK since MLK gave his full blessing to the Zionist war on Palestinians.

    Of course, the rise of rap music also had an effect. Before rise of rap, white kids listen to white rock mostly and blacks had their own music, but with rap as the big musical act among all kids in America, white kids became more worshipful toward blacks.

    And then, there is the Jewish factor. It's not surprising that Jews view the Civil War through the prism of WWII. After all, even though Germany was defeated and crushed, US had gone relatively easy on Germany soon after the war. This angered a lot of Jews who thought Germany should pretty much have been wiped off the map.
    As USSR was the new enemy, Germany was allowed to rebuild quickly. And it wasn't until the 1960s that Germans really began to face all the horrors they committed during WWII. Also, with the Cold War, many Jews in America came under suspicion as subversives, and many Jews panicked that McCarthyism is New Nazism in America.

    So, the way Jews see the postwar era, white Americans and white Germans patched up their differences rather too quickly and white Americans set their eyes on Jews as the enemy. Philip Roth's PLOT AGAINST AMERICA dramatizes this very Jewish fear.

    Indeed, what if Churchill had sided with Hitler as Hitler wished him too? What if US had come to a peaceful solution with Japan and there had been no Pearl Harbor. There would have been no great war among white nations. And all three might have ganged up on the Jews. It was because UK fought Germany and because US got embroiled in the war thanks to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor that Nazi Germany was finally defeated. It wasn't so much the result of 'good guys' prevailing over the 'bad guys' because history always chooses the good but a matter of an accident of history. So, there was nothing assured about what happened during WWII. There were plenty of American whites who didn't want to fight Germany. What gave the Jews a crucial opening in their survival and eventual chance at supremacist power was cracks/divisions among white nation and groups. Jews lucked out because UK chose to fight Germany, because Hitler decided to fight white Russia, because white American fought white Germany. And during the Cold War, it was the white America/Western Europe vs white Russia/Eastern Europe. Because of the Cold War, white America came under moral pressure to open up its society and make it more tolerant to win the propaganda battle with the white Soviets who inspired and aided people of color all over the Third World to take up arms against white nations/imperialists.
    So, it is in the interest of Jews to make white people hate and fight other white people. Similarly, Jewish-controlled US government employs a foreign policy that seeks to maximize and exploit the differences among various Muslim sects and groups. Jews love to see Muslims/Arabs slaughter one another.

    The last thing Jews want is any kind of united white consciousness in the US or around the globe. Indeed, what is all this business with Russia and Putin about. Cold War is long over. Russia wants closer economic and political ties with the West. He wants peace and brotherhood. But Jews don't want Russian whites to become chummy Western European whites, especially as Putin's brand of nascent nationalism and respect/revitalization of tradition might rub off on Western Europeans who've been injected with the New Normal culture of homomania. Jews especially dislike Russians because it's impossible for Jews to morally browbeat Russians about the Holocaust and WWII. Russians lost more lives in WWII than any other people and did most to defeat Germany.
    So, Jews have used their financial and media power to vilify and isolate Russia, and since most of global media are owned by Jews and since most elites in US and EU are slavish to Jews, Russia has been hit with all kinds of sanctions. And of course, the homomania cult is very useful in making Russia out to be the bad guy. Jews, in having sacralized homosexuality and transvestism in the West, have persuaded a whole bunch of Western morons that it's evil to ban 'gay marriage' or 'gay poo-ride' parade. Since Russia won't allow homos to parade down Red Square, a lot of idiot Americans see Russia as 'new Nazi nation'. This is how dumb Americans have become. Of course, Jews are ecstatic with hideous glee as nothing makes them happier than seeing goy hate goy. Jews are also working in Asia to increase tensions among China, Japan, Vietnam, India, and other nations. A truly nasty and vicious people.

    So, just like Jews want to divide Western Europe from Russia, Jews wanna divide 'blue state whites' from 'red state whites'. Though most of the racial violence in the South has been black-on-white, Jews who run the media have suppressed the truth and perpetrated the myth of permanent black victimhood and nobility through fantasy movies like GREEN MILE, THE HELP, MISSISSIPPI BE BURNING, DJANGO UNCHAINED, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, and etc. And of course, TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is like a required reading bible for young ones.

    As for all the white folks robbed, beaten, raped, bullied, terrorized, and murdered by black thugs since the 1960s, forget it. Jews in the media don't care and don't want us to care either. Let us worry about some mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse as the new messiah.

    Furthermore, new tough policies in the North have made it safer for white liberal elites in cities. Today, the posh parts of NY, Chicago, San Fran, Washington DC, and etc are nicer and richer than ever. It is in those areas that the urban elites work, and they feel safe. And as they feel safe, they feel holier-than-thou in pointing fingers of blame at other whites, especially white southerners.
    If downtown areas of cities were run down and filled with crime--as in the 1970s--these liberal elites wouldn't be so glib and conceited.
    Also, generations of PC-brainwashing has stamped out much of honest talk that used to prevail even up to the 1980s. The kinds of columns Mike Royko wrote back then---hard-nosed, tough, cynical, politically incorrect, personal, etc---wouldn't be allowed today. And if older folks spoke candidly, young ones(as pod people) would shout them down as 'racist'. We don't have people like Jim Traficant anymore. Sure, he was a nut but he was also a straight talker---even when he was full of shit. Today, all white folks have to be so mindful of what they say. Indeed, we now live in a world where if someone says he thinks a male fecal hole isn't a proper sex organ, he will be censured, fired, and blacklisted forever in elite community. So, forget about honest talk about race.

    But if we were to have an honest talk about race, I'd argue that the Confederate flag is a useful, indeed necessary, symbol. The meaning of symbols change. Statue of Liberty wasn't originally a symbol of immigration that it came to be.
    Whatever the Confederate Flag used to symbolize, it should now symbolize the need for white unity, the need for white interests, the need for white sympathy for whites suffering at the hands of non-whites, the need to defy Jewish power, and the rightness of a people to prevent biological slavery of their own people at the hands of another race.

    Indeed, the South only had two choices in the past: social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks. Whites and blacks are not the same, i.e. whites are not blacks with white skin, and blacks are not whites with black skin. We can sort of make the case that Asian-Indians(the Hindus)are something like whites with brown/black skin. If indeed whites had brought Asian-Indians as slaves in the American South, then, maybe upon the end of slavery, both groups could have worked to live peacefully side by side or intermingle. But it was different with blacks since evolution had made blacks stronger, more aggressive, wilder, more dangerous, bigger, and more fearsome. Unless whites held social control over blacks, blacks would whup the white man's ass and conquer white women. Or white women would voluntarily ditch the white male as loser dork and go off with the Negro deemed to be sexually/physically/racially superior.
    Of course, Libs will denounce such talk as 'racial or sexual paranoia', but look at rap culture. Much of it's about muscled black thugs howling about how badass they be, how they gonna whup punkass white boys, how white girls are all gonna be their sex slave cattle. And Jewish-run music industry promotes this sort of stuff. Look at TV advertising during the superbowl that feature white women throwing themselves at big muscled Negroes. Look at rape statistics along racial lines, and the sexual violence is overwhelmingly black on white, black on brown, and black on yellow. And the man-to-man violence is black whupping white boys, blacks whupping brown boys, blacks whupping yellow boys, and etc. Black guys used to have fun whupping wimpy Jewish boys too, but as Jews ar so rich, most of them live in safe neighborhoods and use their political muscle to push dangerous blacks to other places.

    While social slavery of blacks was wrong--Lincoln was right to want to free the slaves and send them back to Africa or set up a separate black nation--, it was also wrong to force whites to live under biological slavery of blacks. Every race should live in safety, with male pride, with self-respect, and its own autonomy. This was impossible with blacks in the South since too many blacks are too mean and strong and aggressive. So, it wasn't simply an issue of freedom vs slavery in the south. It was an issue of social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks.

    Though white libs and Jews will deny it, actions speak louder than words. If you look at the social, economic, and behavioral patterns of urban white libs, they also wanna segregate themselves from mostly black areas. This doesn't mean they are 'racist' against blacks, but they too sense a problem with blacks insofar as blacks cause the most mayhem and trouble all across America. Is black violence due to the legacy of slavery? No, it is the legacy of blacks realizing during the Civil Rights Movement that whites have lost it, are vulnerable, and no longer have the guts to stand against black thuggery. After all, when blacks began to attack whites in the 60s, most whites ran, hid, or cowered and didn't dare fight back because they were afraid of bigger and stronger blacks.

    Also, Jews need to shut up since, when faced with the same problem, they've done the same thing in Israel and Occupied Territories. As Palestinians hate Zionists and have used violence against Jews, Jews have used ultra-violence and ultra-segregation to teach Palestinians a lesson not to mess with Jews. And it appears even most Liberal American Jews are pretty much with the program of Jews in Israel and West Bank using harsh measures to keep the Palestinians in their place and teach them a tough lesson. If indeed Jews act this way for their own security --- and Jews in America work tirelessly to force all politicians to sign a pledge to AIPAC --- , who the hell are they to be lecturing white southerners about the Confed flag? Isn't the Zionist flag associated with ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the killing of innocent women and children, gangsterism, terrorism, and the attack on USS Liberty? And of course, long before Jews sought to stamp out the Confederate Flag, they(as Bolsheviks) tried to blow up every Church in Russia. And today, Jews fund garbage like Pussy Riot to desecrate Russian Churches. There is simply no limit to the foul hypocrisy of the Jew.

    Jews and glib Northern white liberals would us believe that slavery was the 'original sin' of America, as if slavery had been invented in America. Furthermore, Brazil brought over 10x the number of blacks to the New World than the US, and lots of Jews were involved in the Brazilian slave trade and plantation. So, Jews need to shut the F up.

    But if we must talk of America's 'original sin', why is it black slavery and not the conquest of America and the 'genocide' of the Indians? After all, something like 300,000 blacks w were brought to the US whereas something like 5 million native Americans might have been wiped out by diseases and then guns brought by white folks. Furthermore, this was the ancestral land of Indians who were pushed out, rubbed out, and forced into reservations? Sounds to me worse than slavery. And this process began before a single black dude was brought over as a slave.

    So, why isn't this Narrative used as the original sin of American? Is it because what whites did to Indians sounds a bit too much like what Jews did to the Palestinians?

    “… Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey…”

    I don’t think this is true at all. Pound for pound Whites, who have any experience at fighting, can beat Blacks. Whites are stronger and have more stamina. It is true that Whites want to get into fights less as they don’t want to go to a jail filled with Blacks. Most of the time Blacks attack in packs or the greatly outsize the Whits they attack.

    Read More
  89. @Rich
    You are obviously unfamiliar with the American South and its many contributions to American and, therefore, Western Civilization. In literature alone names like Faulkner, Twain, Williams and Mencken to name a few. Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Jackson might have had a little influence on Western Civilization. Richard Gatling probably had a pretty big influence on what became of the West, too. Anyway the list of Southern contribution is very long and if you open a book, maybe you can enlighten yourself a bit.

    Ezra Pound and Truman Capote also come to mind.

    Read More
  90. Druid says:
    @Leslie Garrett
    The primary problem here is failure to properly identify who the "they" are in the title. It is, of course, forbidden to talk about the small minority group who own almost all of America's media, that is a forbidden move, but it is they who have quite methodically decided and moved against the Conservative South and the world of Islam. The sleepy world of the South and the Muslims were until rather recently amazingly similar in many many ways, and both places will be far safer, healthier places to be living when this latest and greatest usury bubble breaks than the urban wildernesses of New Jerk and Hell A.

    So trie, except that Southern evangelism has been twisted and taught to hate Islam.

    Read More
  91. Ivy Mike says:

    The Traitor South was and always will be an apt description of the Confederacy.

    Read More
  92. CalDre says:

    Unlike the Nazis, these slave-owners were not out to exterminate a race of people;

    Will we never stop hearing this outrageous lie and libel against Germany?

    Germany did exactly what White Southerners did – they enslaved a group of people. Concentration camps were work camps. That’s why the Auschwitz banner read: “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Brings Freedom). And that’s why Auschwitz had a football pitch, a theater, and a swimming pool – but no gas chambers, those were Stalin’s post-war additions (as admitted by the Auschwitz librarian in an interview with a Jewish “holocaust denier”, David Cole).

    And unlike Southerners, Germans actually did not want Jews as slaves – i.e., they did not pluck Jews from faraway lands to enslave them. The German plan was to re-settle Jews outside Europe as they surmised that “200 years together” (actually much longer) wasn’t working out that well and a divorce was in order. The camps only became work camps when Germany was unable to settle Jews in Madagascar (first choice) or Palestine (second choice) due to Allied objections and it made no sense to have them sit idle, being housed and fed at State expense, while Germany was in this frantic war effort and faced a severe manpower shortage.

    I can understand wanting to correct Liberal lies about the South but why try to buttress your case by repeating their hateful lies against Germany?

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    footnote:

    Ernst Zündel has died.

    RIP Ernst Zündel, hounded throughout his adult life, for thought crimes.


    In Memoriam Ernst Zündel Christof Friedrich Zündel
    April 24, 1939 August 5, 2017


    By David Merlin

    "It was his dedication to Truth and Folk which caused his woes. He was unable to silently standby as a sewer of ugly, impossible anti-German propaganda flowed across Canadian society. Ernst seemed amazed that people could believe absurd Holocaust stories and was horrified that the politicians would try to force these stories on society. Ernst educated himself and took action. But, as he spoke out with cogent scientific arguments, the Establishment reacted with a vengeance: attacking him with criminal charges for "spreading false news," mob violence, deportation, jailing, smears in the media, inaction of the Toronto police when Ernst's house was firebombed. Such things should not happen in a free society but they did and very few people spoke out against the persecution of Ernst Zundel. In fact, all decent citizens should be worried by what happened to Ernst."

    http://codoh.com/library/document/4842/?lang=en
     

    ---
    In the introduction to one of my favorite books, Joseph Campbell recounted an anecdote about a young boy who refuted his mother's claims about creation with the statement, "We have the bones!"
    Campbell praises the young lad, then summarizes:

    "Lies are what the world lives on. Those who seek the truth and lives their lives in accord are, finally, not the many but the few."

    Ernst Zündel was one of those "few."
    (So was Robert E. Lee)

    Requiescant in Pace

  93. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    The left hates the South and attacks it because it’s trying to take over the South. New Englanders have been flooding into Virginia and North Carolina because they’re fleeing high taxes, high housing prices, and lousy weather. Blacks are leaving places like Illinois and heading for Georgia to find jobs. But those three states are traditional Southern states. Therefore, the left wants to conquer them and turn them into little Californias.

    The left wants to flip these states. They want to claim their electorial votes, break them out of the southern bloc, and turn them into liberal states. They’ve been trying to do the same to Texas, but haven’t gotten anywhere yet. By attacking everything conservative, the left wants to intimidate, convert, or force conservatives to move out. They’re block-busting, except they’re trying to do it with an entire state. Call it ‘state-busting,’ if you will.

    Also, the left takes it personally when they move into a conservative place and find it cheap, safe, and comfortable because of conservative values. This ticks leftists off, because it means that leftist social ideas are a lot of nonsense, and leftists are afraid their own offspring might grow up conservative if conservative values are allowed to dominate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    About ten years ago one could see this bumper sticker on Virginia cars up and down Rte. 29, especially around Stanardsville, where the first Scots-Irish to settle in the hills still live on their land:

    "We don't give a damn HOW you do it in New York."
  94. themann says:

    Make a Venn diagram.

    Label the first circle “physically brave”

    Label the second circle “physically cowardly”

    Then start plotting Yankees and Southerners.

    And that will show why Yankees hate us.

    Read More
  95. @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    Your comment reveals that you are not a literate person. Ever read a novel?

    Read More
  96. Ace says:
    @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    Define “forward.”

    Read More
  97. Ace says:
    @psuedohandle
    ' [T]he South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. [ That's exactly what it was. ]

    ' Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities [ because the Southern planters shipped vast amounts of slave grown cotton to England and vast amounts of manufactured/luxury goods back ?] that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms [ to use their slaves as cannon fodder in defense of slavery! ], as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery ... [ "even if" ... and you don't, obviously ... hope the Old South will rise again? In the lands the USA's military is devastating, laying waste to and making ripe for exploitation? Southerners have always been over-represented in the Imperial expeditionary/occupational armies of the USA. ] '

    Americans who live in Dixie are just like all other Americans. And all Americans hate slavery and the slave culture that flourished in the Old South ... and is flourishing again in the guise of low-wage slavery throughout the globalized neo-liberal empire and has now rolled back home. The only difference is that they are constantly called to the side of the Old South, by the political wedge driven by paleo- and neo-conservatives, as though the southerners of today had anything at all in common with the slave-holding oligarchs pre-Civil War.

    The Old South, reincarnated, is attempting to rise again. Globally. It was the Stars and Bars the neo-Nazis flew in Kiev along with their swastikas at the Maiden.

    I hate what those #@$&% Southerners did in Kiev. Is there no end to their perfidy?!

    Read More
  98. gT says:
    @Jeff Davis
    (First, let me say that my name has no connection to the subject of the article. It's just a coincidence, it's just my name.)

    Humans are tribal. They will seek and find a tribal identity, and then everyone else becomes "the other". It's human behavior at its most primitive, compelling, and unavoidable.

    Then, predictably, those who seek to manipulate and dominate --the political class and the "elites" --will use this fact of human behavior to their advantage: divide and conquer. All the way to the bank. The larger and more diverse the population is, the more available and effective is the divide and conquer strategy. Hate is highly profitable.

    "Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
    And the black folks hate the white folks.
    To hate all but the right folks
    Is an old established rule.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    Lena horne and sheriff clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
    It's fun to eulogize
    The people you despise,
    As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

    Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
    And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
    All of my folks hate all of your folks,
    It's american as apple pie.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    New yorkers love the puerto ricans 'cause it's very chic.
    Step up and shake the hand
    Of someone you can't stand.
    You can tolerate him if you try.

    Oh, the protestants hate the catholics,
    And the catholics hate the protestants,
    And the hindus hate the moslems,
    And everybody hates the jews.

    But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
    It's national everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood week.
    Be nice to people who
    Are inferior to you.
    It's only for a week, so have no fear.
    Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

    Tom Lehrer - "National Brotherhood Week"

    Its all just part of the great game of control, get rid of identities / tribes and then some can rule unopposed. The South is one of the great identities of the USA, once it is gone the traditional USA is gone. Some want the traditional USA gone, just like they want the traditional France, England, Germany, etc, gone. They want the world to be one big country ruled by one big government, them.

    A tribe is able to do much more than an individual, a tribe can go to war, can build a road, a bridge, a church, a town, etc. The South forms the last remaining white tribe in the US, once it is gone the US is gone, all that remains will be a land owned by the rich, with no “tribes” left being able to provide any backbone of resistance to their objectives, one of which is increased immigration to further breakdown the traditional US identity.

    There is a famous line in Nigerian author Chinua Achebe’s book Things fall Apart. The line is “He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart.” A knife has been put to the symbols of the South so that it can fall apart. Those racist, gun crazy Redneck cousin screwing bastards with bad dental hygiene pose a grave risk to the elite, much better to make them fall apart now by getting rid of their symbols and their identity.

    Read More
  99. Not surprisingly, those who claim that the Holocaust was unique and that comparing it to any other mass murders, particularly those committed by the Communists, is an impermissible outrage have never to my knowledge protested the likening of American slavery or segregation to the ghastliness of Auschwitz.

    That’s one.

    Second is:

    The corruption of the historians you mentioned, Mr. Gottfried, who give in to such parallels.
    Those historians don’t manage to point out/explain, that human history is never anything else than that: Human. Which necessarily means: Not perfect. They therefor give in to an expectation, that is in itself unfullfillable and deeply inhuman: That human affairs should be without faults.

    To understand history can not mean: To find bygone perfectness. Such might be the wish of an uneducated person – for others it’s clear, that such thinking has nothing to offer than frustration, at times even rage and despair.

    A flash of cold water (=irony) from Goethe’s “Maxims and Refelctions” against such unreflected idealism by this man of absolutely True Grit (The Coen brothers) :

    To write hisory is a way, to get rid of the past.

    PS

    Goethes sentence could be understood in many ways – I think about it this way: Don’t you bother too much with this thing, the past, since there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it! – and that’s the most importatnt thing: To try and act here and now – in s sound an sober and responsible and productive way.

    Read More
  100. @CalDre

    Unlike the Nazis, these slave-owners were not out to exterminate a race of people;
     
    Will we never stop hearing this outrageous lie and libel against Germany?

    Germany did exactly what White Southerners did - they enslaved a group of people. Concentration camps were work camps. That's why the Auschwitz banner read: "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work Brings Freedom). And that's why Auschwitz had a football pitch, a theater, and a swimming pool - but no gas chambers, those were Stalin's post-war additions (as admitted by the Auschwitz librarian in an interview with a Jewish "holocaust denier", David Cole).

    And unlike Southerners, Germans actually did not want Jews as slaves - i.e., they did not pluck Jews from faraway lands to enslave them. The German plan was to re-settle Jews outside Europe as they surmised that "200 years together" (actually much longer) wasn't working out that well and a divorce was in order. The camps only became work camps when Germany was unable to settle Jews in Madagascar (first choice) or Palestine (second choice) due to Allied objections and it made no sense to have them sit idle, being housed and fed at State expense, while Germany was in this frantic war effort and faced a severe manpower shortage.

    I can understand wanting to correct Liberal lies about the South but why try to buttress your case by repeating their hateful lies against Germany?

    footnote:

    Ernst Zündel has died.

    RIP Ernst Zündel, hounded throughout his adult life, for thought crimes.

    In Memoriam Ernst Zündel Christof Friedrich Zündel
    April 24, 1939 August 5, 2017

    By David Merlin

    “It was his dedication to Truth and Folk which caused his woes. He was unable to silently standby as a sewer of ugly, impossible anti-German propaganda flowed across Canadian society. Ernst seemed amazed that people could believe absurd Holocaust stories and was horrified that the politicians would try to force these stories on society. Ernst educated himself and took action. But, as he spoke out with cogent scientific arguments, the Establishment reacted with a vengeance: attacking him with criminal charges for “spreading false news,” mob violence, deportation, jailing, smears in the media, inaction of the Toronto police when Ernst’s house was firebombed. Such things should not happen in a free society but they did and very few people spoke out against the persecution of Ernst Zundel. In fact, all decent citizens should be worried by what happened to Ernst.”

    http://codoh.com/library/document/4842/?lang=en


    In the introduction to one of my favorite books, Joseph Campbell recounted an anecdote about a young boy who refuted his mother’s claims about creation with the statement, “We have the bones!”
    Campbell praises the young lad, then summarizes:

    “Lies are what the world lives on. Those who seek the truth and lives their lives in accord are, finally, not the many but the few.”

    Ernst Zündel was one of those “few.”
    (So was Robert E. Lee)

    Requiescant in Pace

    Read More
  101. @Anon
    The left hates the South and attacks it because it's trying to take over the South. New Englanders have been flooding into Virginia and North Carolina because they're fleeing high taxes, high housing prices, and lousy weather. Blacks are leaving places like Illinois and heading for Georgia to find jobs. But those three states are traditional Southern states. Therefore, the left wants to conquer them and turn them into little Californias.

    The left wants to flip these states. They want to claim their electorial votes, break them out of the southern bloc, and turn them into liberal states. They've been trying to do the same to Texas, but haven't gotten anywhere yet. By attacking everything conservative, the left wants to intimidate, convert, or force conservatives to move out. They're block-busting, except they're trying to do it with an entire state. Call it 'state-busting,' if you will.

    Also, the left takes it personally when they move into a conservative place and find it cheap, safe, and comfortable because of conservative values. This ticks leftists off, because it means that leftist social ideas are a lot of nonsense, and leftists are afraid their own offspring might grow up conservative if conservative values are allowed to dominate.

    About ten years ago one could see this bumper sticker on Virginia cars up and down Rte. 29, especially around Stanardsville, where the first Scots-Irish to settle in the hills still live on their land:

    “We don’t give a damn HOW you do it in New York.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    Good for them, those 'do it this way' bumper stickers are pretty annoying.

    I had tea with a 92yo lady yesterday who told me her husband was part of the raf bombing of Dresden. She said he cried bitterly over what he had done. His Lancaster just made it back but his co-navigator didn't survive. And he never spoke publically of being part of the operation.

    It was amusing in a way because we were sitting in a hotel lobby. In fact there were 2 92yo ladies and they were discussing the war. One was confused as to why Hess was shot and the other kept talking loudly about H. So I had to intervene. This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.
  102. Logan says:

    “One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities that led to the Southern bid for independence.”

    Sure, it contributed. But crushing is a pretty strong word. The entire federal budget for 1860 was $60M. Hard to do a lot of crushing with that amount of taxation.

    ” One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms, as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control.”

    Sure, on March 13, 1865. And the law they passed refused to free the slaves it enrolled, regardless of the fact that General Lee had requested they do so. A last-ditch desperate efforts less than one month before the end of the war is hardly “willingness.”

    “And even if one deplores slavery, this commendable attitude, which was also shared by some Confederate leaders, does not justify the federal invasion of the South, with all of its attendant killing and depredation. That invasion took place, moreover, in violation of a right to secede, with which several states, including Virginia, had entered the Union.”

    I have seen this claim made several times, but never referenced. This guy addresses that it does not apply to VA, RI or NY, and that in fact VA and NY both considered and rejected such a conditional ratification.

    https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/did-the-states-reserve-a-right-to-secede/

    I have myself researched the claim for Texas, which would make sense as it was previously an independent nation. But Texas reserved no such right either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Thank you, Logan, for calling out an entire paragraph of bogus claims referenced by Gottfried (third paragraph of his piece) - in particular the claim that I have so often heard repeated over the years by so many people who seem to believe it as though it were scripture, the claim that the states had a right to secede and form the CSA. These people (including Gottfried) have never read the Constitution!

    QUOTE
    Section 10

    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    UNQUOTE

    So, no state could enter into any "treaty, alliance or confederation" and could not "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." Maybe a single state could "secede" but there would be precious little it could do without the consent of Congress. Oh, sure, they could cut off the nose to spite the face by refusing to send anybody to represent them in Congress (and then Congress could appoint "representatives" for the seceding states) ... but really, all any state could ever do was like what happened in Canada a few years ago, when Quebec seceded from Canada ... and then the next day, it was business-as-usual and nobody noticed any change from the day before.

    The states never had a "right to secede" and the CSA was formed in violation of the Constitution.

    The pity is that the Court and the Congress and the Executive, all, have virtually repealed the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) such that there is no limit to Federal power.

    As Mr. Justice Thomas said in dissent to Gonzales v. Raich:

    QUOTE
    The majority’s opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from “ ‘commerce,’ ... to “commercial” and “economic” activity, ... and finally to all “production, distribution, and consumption” of goods or services for which there is an “established … interstate market,” ... Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.
    UNQUOTE
    and
    QUOTE
    In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation. 514 U.S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause.
    UNQUOTE
  103. @Delmas DuBois
    Let's not forget a few facts which trouble the Northern Social Justice Warrior narrative: that General Ulysses S Grant of the Yankee forces was also a slaveowner.
    President Lincoln even authorized the return of runaway slaves to their owners.
    Pope Pius IX even sent a papal blessing to Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy.

    grant banned jews from military zones, the south had a jewish secretary and the majority of jews in america supported the south (not to mention jews dominated the slave trade).

    the NYT east coast hatred of the south comes from:
    transferred fears: (cossacks=southerners)
    projection

    Read More
  104. The comparison of Southern slavery and the Holocaust had been made by Arnold Toynbee.

    Read More
  105. Blue says:

    Racism is a southern phenom, yeh, right.

    Even a baseball fan knows that African-Americans were only allowed on baseball fields with “whites” some 80+ years after the Civil War; and all of these major league fields were in the North Eastern states, none in the south. Let’s ban the original 16 MLB franchises for their past racism, and erase all MLB records prior to Jackie Roninson from the record book!

    I also remember the “race riots” in the 1960s in such southern bastions as Detroit. Needless to say, racism has violently upticked recently thanks to the Obama administration in places like St. Louis and Chicago. St. Louis is sort of south, I guess.

    Context of the times: Slavery was only banned in the British Empire some 28 years before the civil war started. It took Wilbur Wilberforce and the British Anti-Slavery Society 58 years of sponsoring anti-slavery legislation in parliament before abolition was successful.

    Just think, if “Americans” hadn’t won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier, but of course racism and worker exploitation would have persisted as before. Maybe we should abolish the United States and return them to Britain and Spain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    "Just think, if “Americans” hadn’t won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier"

    Not necessarily. 4M slaves embedded in a population of 6M determined to prevent their freeing is a very different matter from 800,000 slaves scattered widely, most of them on small islands where any owner resistance can be isolated and crushed in short order.
    , @dcite
    Why are you putting quotes around "whites?" If you say "blacks", do you put quotes around that word? I rarely hear black people used the term African American except in some formal speech. Is it because the color is a metaphor? Do the SJWs tell you to use quotes? Genuinely curious. If whites are "whites", are blacks, "blacks?" Are brown people "brown?" Call me "curious" or perhaps, "confused"; so kindly un-confuse me.
    Thanks (not "thanks")
  106. @fnn
    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861. The South has always been the section of the US most eager to be led into war. It seems unlikely that a USA minus Dixie would have entered the Great War. The South was the only part of the country without a single America First Committee chapter in 1940-41. Today, the extreme and unthinking philo-Semitism of the South provides major support for the USG-Israel program of endless war in the Middle East.

    You are correct. I’ve have never figured out why large numbers of individuals belonging to Southern heritage groups, eagerly wave the US government’s flag with the right hand, while waving the Confederate Battle flag with the left. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that they fail to understand that the US flag represents the exact opposite of what the Confederate Battle flag represents, which is defiance of centralized authority.

    Read More
  107. @SFG
    I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years. Even Woody Allen spent little time making fun of the South.

    When it comes to wars and politics, Jews do not choose sides based on ideological reasoning. They choose sides based on which affords the best opportunity for making large profits.

    Read More
  108. @Logan
    "One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities that led to the Southern bid for independence."

    Sure, it contributed. But crushing is a pretty strong word. The entire federal budget for 1860 was $60M. Hard to do a lot of crushing with that amount of taxation.

    " One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms, as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control."

    Sure, on March 13, 1865. And the law they passed refused to free the slaves it enrolled, regardless of the fact that General Lee had requested they do so. A last-ditch desperate efforts less than one month before the end of the war is hardly "willingness."

    "And even if one deplores slavery, this commendable attitude, which was also shared by some Confederate leaders, does not justify the federal invasion of the South, with all of its attendant killing and depredation. That invasion took place, moreover, in violation of a right to secede, with which several states, including Virginia, had entered the Union."

    I have seen this claim made several times, but never referenced. This guy addresses that it does not apply to VA, RI or NY, and that in fact VA and NY both considered and rejected such a conditional ratification.

    https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/did-the-states-reserve-a-right-to-secede/

    I have myself researched the claim for Texas, which would make sense as it was previously an independent nation. But Texas reserved no such right either.

    Thank you, Logan, for calling out an entire paragraph of bogus claims referenced by Gottfried (third paragraph of his piece) – in particular the claim that I have so often heard repeated over the years by so many people who seem to believe it as though it were scripture, the claim that the states had a right to secede and form the CSA. These people (including Gottfried) have never read the Constitution!

    QUOTE
    Section 10

    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    UNQUOTE

    So, no state could enter into any “treaty, alliance or confederation” and could not “enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” Maybe a single state could “secede” but there would be precious little it could do without the consent of Congress. Oh, sure, they could cut off the nose to spite the face by refusing to send anybody to represent them in Congress (and then Congress could appoint “representatives” for the seceding states) … but really, all any state could ever do was like what happened in Canada a few years ago, when Quebec seceded from Canada … and then the next day, it was business-as-usual and nobody noticed any change from the day before.

    The states never had a “right to secede” and the CSA was formed in violation of the Constitution.

    The pity is that the Court and the Congress and the Executive, all, have virtually repealed the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) such that there is no limit to Federal power.

    As Mr. Justice Thomas said in dissent to Gonzales v. Raich:

    QUOTE
    The majority’s opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from “ ‘commerce,’ … to “commercial” and “economic” activity, … and finally to all “production, distribution, and consumption” of goods or services for which there is an “established … interstate market,” … Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.
    UNQUOTE
    and
    QUOTE
    In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation. 514 U.S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause.
    UNQUOTE

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Why, thank you. I do get tired of the constantly repeated inaccuracies about this period.

    Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

    Where I suppose I disagree with you is about whether it's a fact, rather than an opinion, that states have no right to secede. You'd be entirely right, if the southern states had claimed they were seceding under a right as spelled out in the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    Under this theory, the federal government was created by the states, and any state had an undoubted right to secede whenever it chose for whatever reason.

    I do not agree with this theory, but it is, roughly, how they justified secession. Citing constitutional provisions to show why secession was illegal is irrelevant if the secessionists were not basing their actions on the Constitution.

  109. Logan says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Thank you, Logan, for calling out an entire paragraph of bogus claims referenced by Gottfried (third paragraph of his piece) - in particular the claim that I have so often heard repeated over the years by so many people who seem to believe it as though it were scripture, the claim that the states had a right to secede and form the CSA. These people (including Gottfried) have never read the Constitution!

    QUOTE
    Section 10

    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    UNQUOTE

    So, no state could enter into any "treaty, alliance or confederation" and could not "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." Maybe a single state could "secede" but there would be precious little it could do without the consent of Congress. Oh, sure, they could cut off the nose to spite the face by refusing to send anybody to represent them in Congress (and then Congress could appoint "representatives" for the seceding states) ... but really, all any state could ever do was like what happened in Canada a few years ago, when Quebec seceded from Canada ... and then the next day, it was business-as-usual and nobody noticed any change from the day before.

    The states never had a "right to secede" and the CSA was formed in violation of the Constitution.

    The pity is that the Court and the Congress and the Executive, all, have virtually repealed the Tenth Amendment (and the Ninth) such that there is no limit to Federal power.

    As Mr. Justice Thomas said in dissent to Gonzales v. Raich:

    QUOTE
    The majority’s opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from “ ‘commerce,’ ... to “commercial” and “economic” activity, ... and finally to all “production, distribution, and consumption” of goods or services for which there is an “established … interstate market,” ... Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.
    UNQUOTE
    and
    QUOTE
    In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation. 514 U.S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause.
    UNQUOTE

    Why, thank you. I do get tired of the constantly repeated inaccuracies about this period.

    Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

    Where I suppose I disagree with you is about whether it’s a fact, rather than an opinion, that states have no right to secede. You’d be entirely right, if the southern states had claimed they were seceding under a right as spelled out in the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    Under this theory, the federal government was created by the states, and any state had an undoubted right to secede whenever it chose for whatever reason.

    I do not agree with this theory, but it is, roughly, how they justified secession. Citing constitutional provisions to show why secession was illegal is irrelevant if the secessionists were not basing their actions on the Constitution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Thank you, Logan, I have learned something from you!

    Generally, if in the USA context, any person or group makes any claim about "rights," I assume that they must be talking about constitutional rights! But of course, the Ninth Amendment itself references limitless other rights, as follows:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Is that a loophole to drive a Mack truck through, or what?

    So they really did have pretty solid legal or constitutional grounds for secession!

    On the other hand, advocates for the North (the USA) could have argued that some or many of the restrictions on the states enumerated in Art. I, Sect. 10,, still applied - even to the states that had seceded pursuant to their extra-constitutional right of secession. Of course, it would have taken more than a year just to decide exactly what is to be made of the phrase "others [rights] retained by the people" considering that it does not say "by the States." Beyond that, the Court could have said, well okay, you can secede but you cannot, without the consent of Congress, "engage in war, unless actually invaded." And maybe that was why Lincoln, early in the war, was very reluctant to avoid anything that might look like "actual" invasion.

    In that way, the case before the SCOTUS might have dragged on for years ... which could have been better than enduring the CW. As the Oracle of the I Ching says about the hexagram for Kung Fu: Thus the superior man "deliberates about cases of litigation and delays (the infliction of) death."
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.
     
    You're right that to secede you don't need anything in the constitution. But I don't think you need any theories either. It's just a matter of fait accompli. You declare independence, you form the government, you establish control over the territory - and voila, you seceded. Now, if you manage to defend it, you have a country.
  110. Logan says:
    @Blue
    Racism is a southern phenom, yeh, right.

    Even a baseball fan knows that African-Americans were only allowed on baseball fields with "whites" some 80+ years after the Civil War; and all of these major league fields were in the North Eastern states, none in the south. Let's ban the original 16 MLB franchises for their past racism, and erase all MLB records prior to Jackie Roninson from the record book!

    I also remember the "race riots" in the 1960s in such southern bastions as Detroit. Needless to say, racism has violently upticked recently thanks to the Obama administration in places like St. Louis and Chicago. St. Louis is sort of south, I guess.

    Context of the times: Slavery was only banned in the British Empire some 28 years before the civil war started. It took Wilbur Wilberforce and the British Anti-Slavery Society 58 years of sponsoring anti-slavery legislation in parliament before abolition was successful.

    Just think, if "Americans" hadn't won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier, but of course racism and worker exploitation would have persisted as before. Maybe we should abolish the United States and return them to Britain and Spain.

    “Just think, if “Americans” hadn’t won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier”

    Not necessarily. 4M slaves embedded in a population of 6M determined to prevent their freeing is a very different matter from 800,000 slaves scattered widely, most of them on small islands where any owner resistance can be isolated and crushed in short order.

    Read More
  111. dcite says:
    @Blue
    Racism is a southern phenom, yeh, right.

    Even a baseball fan knows that African-Americans were only allowed on baseball fields with "whites" some 80+ years after the Civil War; and all of these major league fields were in the North Eastern states, none in the south. Let's ban the original 16 MLB franchises for their past racism, and erase all MLB records prior to Jackie Roninson from the record book!

    I also remember the "race riots" in the 1960s in such southern bastions as Detroit. Needless to say, racism has violently upticked recently thanks to the Obama administration in places like St. Louis and Chicago. St. Louis is sort of south, I guess.

    Context of the times: Slavery was only banned in the British Empire some 28 years before the civil war started. It took Wilbur Wilberforce and the British Anti-Slavery Society 58 years of sponsoring anti-slavery legislation in parliament before abolition was successful.

    Just think, if "Americans" hadn't won the Revolutionary War, slavery would have ended in the US 33 years earlier, but of course racism and worker exploitation would have persisted as before. Maybe we should abolish the United States and return them to Britain and Spain.

    Why are you putting quotes around “whites?” If you say “blacks”, do you put quotes around that word? I rarely hear black people used the term African American except in some formal speech. Is it because the color is a metaphor? Do the SJWs tell you to use quotes? Genuinely curious. If whites are “whites”, are blacks, “blacks?” Are brown people “brown?” Call me “curious” or perhaps, “confused”; so kindly un-confuse me.
    Thanks (not “thanks”)

    Read More
  112. dcite says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    They didn't leave "Europe", they left England. (The Pilgrims-- not Puritans-- technically did leave from Europe: Leiden.)

    They also didn’t come to a “country” full of red men. They came to a Continent that had a lot of red(ish) tribes, some more organized and cohesive than others, but nothing resembling a unified nation-state. It is fairly well known that many of the “Indians” in what is now the eastern seaboard of the U.S., were not that different in general racial phenotype, from Europeans. Because there haven’t been any full-blood eastern seaboard native Americans since the 1700s, we can’t know that exactly, but writers of the era, described native women as often attractive and resembling Euros, wanting only a “fair complexion” (well, they weren’t into suntans yet) but features otherwise similar. They wouldn’t have that impression of most natives further west. But the middle-American natives, and especially the Cherokee, showed evidence of non-native-American ancestry long before the English touched down, probably European and Middle Eastern. Their cultural artifacts (of some tribes, esp Cherokee) also showed similarity to middle eastern culture. I think the only tribe that already had some sort of writing are thought to have had middle eastern roots, though that’s still not proven.
    The Spanish brought Filipinos who jumped ship. Everybody was over here before Columbus, that’s no secret. The Atlantic was criss-crossed many times.

    Read More
  113. @Logan
    Why, thank you. I do get tired of the constantly repeated inaccuracies about this period.

    Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

    Where I suppose I disagree with you is about whether it's a fact, rather than an opinion, that states have no right to secede. You'd be entirely right, if the southern states had claimed they were seceding under a right as spelled out in the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    Under this theory, the federal government was created by the states, and any state had an undoubted right to secede whenever it chose for whatever reason.

    I do not agree with this theory, but it is, roughly, how they justified secession. Citing constitutional provisions to show why secession was illegal is irrelevant if the secessionists were not basing their actions on the Constitution.

    Thank you, Logan, I have learned something from you!

    Generally, if in the USA context, any person or group makes any claim about “rights,” I assume that they must be talking about constitutional rights! But of course, the Ninth Amendment itself references limitless other rights, as follows:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Is that a loophole to drive a Mack truck through, or what?

    So they really did have pretty solid legal or constitutional grounds for secession!

    On the other hand, advocates for the North (the USA) could have argued that some or many of the restrictions on the states enumerated in Art. I, Sect. 10,, still applied – even to the states that had seceded pursuant to their extra-constitutional right of secession. Of course, it would have taken more than a year just to decide exactly what is to be made of the phrase “others [rights] retained by the people” considering that it does not say “by the States.” Beyond that, the Court could have said, well okay, you can secede but you cannot, without the consent of Congress, “engage in war, unless actually invaded.” And maybe that was why Lincoln, early in the war, was very reluctant to avoid anything that might look like “actual” invasion.

    In that way, the case before the SCOTUS might have dragged on for years … which could have been better than enduring the CW. As the Oracle of the I Ching says about the hexagram for Kung Fu: Thus the superior man “deliberates about cases of litigation and delays (the infliction of) death.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    You are of course very welcome!

    IMO the 9th Amendment isn't particularly applicable to secession, as it references "the people," which throughout the Constitution, from its very first sentence, refers to "the people of the United States," not to the people of the individual states or to the states themselves.

    Your point would be much better justified by the 10th Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Now, THERE'S a loophole!

    The problem is that, AFAIK, nobody knows what 10A means and it has seldom, I believe, been used to support any court decision. Probably less often than any other of the Bill of Rights with probable exceptions of the 3rd, which has never really been an issue, and of course the 9th, which is just as obscure.
  114. Corvinus says:
    @carnac
    I am an unrepentant, unreconstructed Southerner. I have researched my ancestors and they go back to old Virginia in the 1700's. In all of that time our family never owned a slave and you can say that about 90% (or more) of Southern families. I am not denying there were slaves but they were not among the average folk. The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely. I know....slavery is wrong. That was a different era and time. Do you Yankees think that Southern boys left home to fight the Union army over owning slaves or for the rich man to own them?? You are believing your own wartime propaganda again. These Southerners were fighting over States Rights which they considered Lincoln to be eroding. The Southerners (even the poor) knew the constitution and still do. We follow it. We believe it is almost holy. The constitution lays out what a federal government is supposed to do and everything else is under the power of the individual states. To us....(especially back in 1860) each state was its own nation united for defense and other issues. Look at the power the government has now. Are you enjoying their idiotic dictates?? Do you like being ordered around by the likes of Obama (or anyone else). Southerners saw this day and time coming. We still want States Rights. We still want independence. Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see.

    “The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely.”

    Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will…and you claim they were treated “humanely” because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

    “Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see.”

    Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

    What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Yo, Corvie the normie,

    What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

    Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
    Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

    Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

    Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

    Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

  115. Logan says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    Thank you, Logan, I have learned something from you!

    Generally, if in the USA context, any person or group makes any claim about "rights," I assume that they must be talking about constitutional rights! But of course, the Ninth Amendment itself references limitless other rights, as follows:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Is that a loophole to drive a Mack truck through, or what?

    So they really did have pretty solid legal or constitutional grounds for secession!

    On the other hand, advocates for the North (the USA) could have argued that some or many of the restrictions on the states enumerated in Art. I, Sect. 10,, still applied - even to the states that had seceded pursuant to their extra-constitutional right of secession. Of course, it would have taken more than a year just to decide exactly what is to be made of the phrase "others [rights] retained by the people" considering that it does not say "by the States." Beyond that, the Court could have said, well okay, you can secede but you cannot, without the consent of Congress, "engage in war, unless actually invaded." And maybe that was why Lincoln, early in the war, was very reluctant to avoid anything that might look like "actual" invasion.

    In that way, the case before the SCOTUS might have dragged on for years ... which could have been better than enduring the CW. As the Oracle of the I Ching says about the hexagram for Kung Fu: Thus the superior man "deliberates about cases of litigation and delays (the infliction of) death."

    You are of course very welcome!

    IMO the 9th Amendment isn’t particularly applicable to secession, as it references “the people,” which throughout the Constitution, from its very first sentence, refers to “the people of the United States,” not to the people of the individual states or to the states themselves.

    Your point would be much better justified by the 10th Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Now, THERE’S a loophole!

    The problem is that, AFAIK, nobody knows what 10A means and it has seldom, I believe, been used to support any court decision. Probably less often than any other of the Bill of Rights with probable exceptions of the 3rd, which has never really been an issue, and of course the 9th, which is just as obscure.

    Read More
  116. @Corvinus
    "The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely."

    Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

    "Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see."

    Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

    What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested.

    Yo, Corvie the normie,

    What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?

    Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
    Or is the notion of killing civilians — women and children — abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

    Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago — waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity — (don’t you just love that term? moral clarity — Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

    Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

    Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?"

    There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

    We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact thing.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

    "Or is the notion of killing civilians — women and children — abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?"

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    "Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more."

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come back"?
  117. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Yo, Corvie the normie,

    What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

    Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
    Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

    Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

    Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

    Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

    “What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?”

    There are myths in Sherman’s March that need to be explored.

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

    We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no “honor” in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to “northern aggression”, southern apologists would say the exact thing.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

    “Or is the notion of killing civilians — women and children — abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?”

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    “Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.”

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT “come back”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT “come back”?
     
    You're absolutely right, Corvinus.

    From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children

    There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated.

    They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration.

    Nothing should stop them -- no "Just war theory" -- that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you.

    Nice knowing you Corvinus, even if just thru this Forum, but powers mightier than you think you should be obliterated; they think your children should cease to exist as well. They intend to go one better than merely salting the earth: they intend to pollute with DPU the land that had given you sustenance . Maybe you can do without food for a thousand years.

    btw --
    Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?

  118. helena says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    About ten years ago one could see this bumper sticker on Virginia cars up and down Rte. 29, especially around Stanardsville, where the first Scots-Irish to settle in the hills still live on their land:

    "We don't give a damn HOW you do it in New York."

    Good for them, those ‘do it this way’ bumper stickers are pretty annoying.

    I had tea with a 92yo lady yesterday who told me her husband was part of the raf bombing of Dresden. She said he cried bitterly over what he had done. His Lancaster just made it back but his co-navigator didn’t survive. And he never spoke publically of being part of the operation.

    It was amusing in a way because we were sitting in a hotel lobby. In fact there were 2 92yo ladies and they were discussing the war. One was confused as to why Hess was shot and the other kept talking loudly about H. So I had to intervene. This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.
     
    Maybe I'm dense, helena. It seems to me that if people cannot discuss events as momentous as WWII in reasoned and civil ways -- or over a cup of tea -- then they will do so in angry and violent ways. One way or another, people need to tell their stories and have their stories heard.
  119. @helena
    Good for them, those 'do it this way' bumper stickers are pretty annoying.

    I had tea with a 92yo lady yesterday who told me her husband was part of the raf bombing of Dresden. She said he cried bitterly over what he had done. His Lancaster just made it back but his co-navigator didn't survive. And he never spoke publically of being part of the operation.

    It was amusing in a way because we were sitting in a hotel lobby. In fact there were 2 92yo ladies and they were discussing the war. One was confused as to why Hess was shot and the other kept talking loudly about H. So I had to intervene. This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.

    This sort conversation is illegal. By the laws that be, if someone wants to sit and discuss H then by association they are guilty.

    Maybe I’m dense, helena. It seems to me that if people cannot discuss events as momentous as WWII in reasoned and civil ways — or over a cup of tea — then they will do so in angry and violent ways. One way or another, people need to tell their stories and have their stories heard.

    Read More
  120. @Corvinus
    "What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?"

    There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

    We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact thing.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

    "Or is the notion of killing civilians — women and children — abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?"

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    "Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more."

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come back"?

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT “come back”?

    You’re absolutely right, Corvinus.

    From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children

    There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated.

    They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration.

    Nothing should stop them — no “Just war theory” — that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you.

    Nice knowing you Corvinus, even if just thru this Forum, but powers mightier than you think you should be obliterated; they think your children should cease to exist as well. They intend to go one better than merely salting the earth: they intend to pollute with DPU the land that had given you sustenance . Maybe you can do without food for a thousand years.

    btw —
    Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children"

    Just a Christian. Not evangelical.

    "There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated."

    And there are organizations who think people who are non-white, non-Christian should be obliterated.

    That's why both groups are considered radicals.

    "They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration."

    Yes, both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Fringe Left.

    "Nothing should stop them — no “Just war theory” — that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you."

    You are overgeneralizing, per usual.

    "Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?"

    Clearly your parents neglected to teach you that fundamental principle.
  121. delmas says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    The Left hates the South for one reason alone: it ceased to support the Democratic Party. (And why would it, after being turned on?) Were white Southerners to turn back to their wayward child, all would be forgiven overnight! It would take the GOP granting US citizenship to the entire population of Mexico to bring that about, though.

    As I see it, Dixie has just two great sins on her record: importing Africans to live among white men-- an epic betrayal of their own race-- and ruining American, and eventually all Western, music. Funny, that's the only Southern accomplishment the Left will celebrate.

    I can see why planters would bitch about paying the bulk of the tariff, but I don't see why anyone else should feel sorry for them. It's not like that income came from the sweat of their brows. Southern senators didn't cry tears for that sliver of the population subject to the income tax they helped push through in 1913. And which their own native son, TWW, turned around and hit them with as well. Sending our sons to France is expensive.

    The authors of comments here who vituperate against “Southerners” are obviously despicably ignorant of history. Yes slavery was that “peculiar institution” which existed not only as a mainstay to the Southern economy but also to the economy in many places up North of Mason-Dixon. General Grant and other Yankee leaders as well possessed slaves. House slaves were even common in Northern cities, in New York for example. And if you want a good look at the racism of the Yankee troops, just peruse for example, the eyewitness testimony of both slave and freeman in Walter Brian Cisco’s “War Crimes against Southern Civilians.”

    Of course, Yankee hypocrisy and cynicism is nothing new.
    The old folks always had you all pretty well pegged.
    So these latter-day carpet-bagging and scalawag Liberators had better keep in mind, that they may just not be able to “bind up the wounds” this time around, replacement politics notwithstanding.

    Read More
  122. Miller says:

    Civil War was about slavery, not State’s Rights.

    The CSA offered to rejoin the Union if the Fed Govt used its power to overturn individual state laws restricting slavery and guarantee it in the new territories.

    The secession documents issued by CS as well as period literature newspapers etc etc are unequivocal on this point. Revisionist narratives to the contrary are intended to provide ethical wiggle room for those who want to glorify the Confederacy, and somehow separate it from this defining institution.

    To spread slavery to the new territories the political leadership of the slave states was willing to go to war, and they did. The Union had every right to take the fight, once begun, to the CSA, and to finish it decisively – which they did.

    The only question is whether the Union had any right to force the CSA back into the Union afterward, in my opinion they didn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Dakota
    The civil war was not about slavery or states rights it was about commerce.
    The north wanted control of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers plus New Orleans.
    It was about building railroads and funny Lincoln as a lawyer represented railroad companies before he was president. Go figure.
    The cotton gin made slavery obsolete anyway so it was time to go.
  123. Ivy Mike says:

    Har, the US broke apart in the 1850′s over slavery, Lincoln decided to put it back together emancipation or no. History testifies that it was a Republican who decided the 10th Amendment didn’t protect the individual states from Federal Sovereignty. All you right wingers hollering willi willi over State’s Rights best un f yourselves and understand it was the GOP that created the Federal Monster. What a joke, almost as big a joke as the above mealy mouthed pseudo intellectual defense of ‘Southern Heritage.’ Dad gummit I’m from the South and I’ll GD guarantee you there was not one thing in Antebellum culture worth preserving. Yeah yeah, they fought heroically, bunch of traitors and losers…

    Read More
  124. Nandarani says:

    Good good article. Met descendants of former slaves living in homes on a large plantation still owned by the same white family .in Virginia, the family of my godfather. No question of the closeness of the association or the treatment.

    This article sums up the truth adroitly after the writer succeeded in finding it and putting it on the record. Thank you. From someone with 1/2 the heritage from the deep south and planning to return there from …. Hawaii

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Experiential learning can be quite compelling when applied judiciously. One experience well worth a trip is to visit a place like the Carter's Grove Plantation (which used to be open, near Wiliamsburg, VA) or similar locales. See and feel and hear and imagine how slaves and poor whites, the overwhelming majority of the whites in colonial times, lived in their wattle and daub shacks or similar hovels as they slaved, worked off their indenture or otherwise attempted to survive. Kids can read about such lives but there is a reason for the old saying "seeing is believing". Looking at a dirt floor abode that had little heat and worse ventilation and seeing where you'd eat, sleep and survive would tend to make a kid complain a little less about not having the latest gadget, at least for a short while.

    Those few large houses on Duke of Gloucester Street in Colonial Wiliamsburg were occupied by the few members of that era's 1%. I am grateful that more recent 1%er families, the Rockefellers and their relatives the Aldrichs, preserved that valuable piece of American history for subsequent generations to appreciate. I know, not fashionable, practically deplorable.

  125. Ivy says:
    @Nandarani
    Good good article. Met descendants of former slaves living in homes on a large plantation still owned by the same white family .in Virginia, the family of my godfather. No question of the closeness of the association or the treatment.

    This article sums up the truth adroitly after the writer succeeded in finding it and putting it on the record. Thank you. From someone with 1/2 the heritage from the deep south and planning to return there from .... Hawaii

    Experiential learning can be quite compelling when applied judiciously. One experience well worth a trip is to visit a place like the Carter’s Grove Plantation (which used to be open, near Wiliamsburg, VA) or similar locales. See and feel and hear and imagine how slaves and poor whites, the overwhelming majority of the whites in colonial times, lived in their wattle and daub shacks or similar hovels as they slaved, worked off their indenture or otherwise attempted to survive. Kids can read about such lives but there is a reason for the old saying “seeing is believing”. Looking at a dirt floor abode that had little heat and worse ventilation and seeing where you’d eat, sleep and survive would tend to make a kid complain a little less about not having the latest gadget, at least for a short while.

    Those few large houses on Duke of Gloucester Street in Colonial Wiliamsburg were occupied by the few members of that era’s 1%. I am grateful that more recent 1%er families, the Rockefellers and their relatives the Aldrichs, preserved that valuable piece of American history for subsequent generations to appreciate. I know, not fashionable, practically deplorable.

    Read More
  126. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT “come back”?
     
    You're absolutely right, Corvinus.

    From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children

    There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated.

    They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration.

    Nothing should stop them -- no "Just war theory" -- that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you.

    Nice knowing you Corvinus, even if just thru this Forum, but powers mightier than you think you should be obliterated; they think your children should cease to exist as well. They intend to go one better than merely salting the earth: they intend to pollute with DPU the land that had given you sustenance . Maybe you can do without food for a thousand years.

    btw --
    Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?

    “From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children”

    Just a Christian. Not evangelical.

    “There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated.”

    And there are organizations who think people who are non-white, non-Christian should be obliterated.

    That’s why both groups are considered radicals.

    “They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration.”

    Yes, both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Fringe Left.

    “Nothing should stop them — no “Just war theory” — that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you.”

    You are overgeneralizing, per usual.

    “Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?”

    Clearly your parents neglected to teach you that fundamental principle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman's march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught.

    That you find it necessary to slur my parents and to accuse me of what you, yourself endorse, suggests that you do not have sound arguments and must resort to dishonest methods.
  127. LauraMR says:

    Why? Targets of opportunity. Beyond that, it is meaningless. Take away the political element and the removal or maintenance of historical artifacts is of zero consequence.

    Read More
  128. Jim Given says:

    Dear Paul Gottfried,

    I am profoundly concerned with the chaos and insanity that is being promoted at high levels by this latest round of the American Cultural Revolution. Thanks for your typically insightful column.

    I must offer a gentle correction: It is at the very end of William Faulkner’s book “Absalom! Absalom!”
    (not the “Sound and the Fury”) at which Quentin Compson is asked, “Why do you hate the South?”, and he replies, “I don’t hate the South! I don’t hate it!”

    Jim Given

    Read More
  129. @fnn
    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861. The South has always been the section of the US most eager to be led into war. It seems unlikely that a USA minus Dixie would have entered the Great War. The South was the only part of the country without a single America First Committee chapter in 1940-41. Today, the extreme and unthinking philo-Semitism of the South provides major support for the USG-Israel program of endless war in the Middle East.

    I remember reading an article years ago by a Russian historian where he argued that the Romanov’s biggest mistake was supporting the North during America’s civil war. The American South would have been allied with Great Britain, and the North would have sided with the Kaiser. There would have been no Versailles, no Hitler, no WW2, etc…

    Read More
  130. @Corvinus
    "From your comments, you are
    white
    male
    married
    Evangelical Christian
    w/ children"

    Just a Christian. Not evangelical.

    "There are organizations who think people who are white, male, Evangelical Christian should be obliterated."

    And there are organizations who think people who are non-white, non-Christian should be obliterated.

    That's why both groups are considered radicals.

    "They have the ability to influence powerful institutions to carry out that act of obliteration."

    Yes, both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Fringe Left.

    "Nothing should stop them — no “Just war theory” — that would be impractical: after all, their goal is to obliterate you."

    You are overgeneralizing, per usual.

    "Do Evangelicals teach themselves and their children a concept that is larger and broader than Just War theory and even larger than Christianity; namely, the Golden Rule?"

    Clearly your parents neglected to teach you that fundamental principle.

    It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman’s march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught.

    That you find it necessary to slur my parents and to accuse me of what you, yourself endorse, suggests that you do not have sound arguments and must resort to dishonest methods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman’s march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught."

    For those keeping score at home, here is the query you fired at me--“What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?”

    Again, there are myths in Sherman’s March that need to be explored. Did you not read the source and carefully analyze it?

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march

    Second, here is exactly what I said --> We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no “honor” in war itself, just bloodshed by men who were honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to “northern aggression”, southern apologists would say the exact thing [meaning that the only purpose in war is to win].

    1) So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    2) Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    I offered an other than binary response. Now, you have questions posed to you. Answer them.
  131. @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    Stupid but I don’t think you share the history. The South provided the positive trade balance, before the Civil War.

    The North preempted it through tariffs, to finance infrastructure.

    I think you should read more and bloat less.

    Read More
  132. Texan1 says:
    @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    I respectfully disagree. I think the West owes a great deal to the American South.

    I’ll inform you that General R. Edward Lee was related to George Washington and was a man of great integrity.

    I think that General Lee also greatly valued and carried on the military traditions of George Washington.

    I think a lot of that carried on down to men like General George S. Patton, Jr.

    Read More
  133. @Cahokia
    The South is irrelevant because it's contributed precious little to the forward thrust of civilization.

    What does the West really owe the American South? Very little, indeed.

    What does the West really owe he? V American Southery little, indeed.

    The Southern people do not think they are owed anything, and have never asked for anything except to be left alone. A simple request from a courteous people that busy-body, self-righteous Yankees find impossible to do.

    Read More
  134. @Priss Factor
    Isn't the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny 'genocide' of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    Besides, weren't FDR and Truman very chummy with Southern Democrats?

    And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too.

    Today, and for the past 70+ years, The American flag has symbolized global terror on a mass scale not previously thought possible.

    Read More
  135. @Leslie Garrett
    The primary problem here is failure to properly identify who the "they" are in the title. It is, of course, forbidden to talk about the small minority group who own almost all of America's media, that is a forbidden move, but it is they who have quite methodically decided and moved against the Conservative South and the world of Islam. The sleepy world of the South and the Muslims were until rather recently amazingly similar in many many ways, and both places will be far safer, healthier places to be living when this latest and greatest usury bubble breaks than the urban wildernesses of New Jerk and Hell A.

    “They” also built the ships, owned the ships, and made the rum used to buy and transport slaves from Africa to North America. “They” became so prominent in the slave trade until slave markets remained closed on Jewish holidays.

    Read More
  136. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman's march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught.

    That you find it necessary to slur my parents and to accuse me of what you, yourself endorse, suggests that you do not have sound arguments and must resort to dishonest methods.

    “It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman’s march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught.”

    For those keeping score at home, here is the query you fired at me–“What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?”

    Again, there are myths in Sherman’s March that need to be explored. Did you not read the source and carefully analyze it?

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march

    Second, here is exactly what I said –> We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no “honor” in war itself, just bloodshed by men who were honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to “northern aggression”, southern apologists would say the exact thing [meaning that the only purpose in war is to win].

    1) So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    2) Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    I offered an other than binary response. Now, you have questions posed to you. Answer them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    aw shucks, Corvinus, I thought I could slip by without talkin' about that NYTimes article.
    I did read it.
    I even read it real careful like.
    I said to myself, golly, Corvinus is hauling out the big guns: the New York Times. I mean, talk about your Slam Dunk arguments: If the New York Times said it, it must be so!

    Which made a real problem for me, 'cuz I had a hard time with some of the big words:

    Words like Ad Verecundiam, Bifurcus, Casuistry/ Sophism, and Motivated Reasoning/Cognitive dissonance.
    Phew, how was I ever going to get through all of that.

    So let's do that critical analysis you're demanding, and let's take a stand.

    Now, let's talk about those words that tripped me up, starting with Ad Verecundiam.
    Oops, that word didn't really appear in the NYTimes article. But the foundation of your argument is an appeal to the authority of the NYTimes: if NYTimes said it, it must be so.

    But dadblame it, I went and poked around a bit with the NYTimes article.

    First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word "myth," implying that Sherman's March was not really as bad as people think it was, and that people get that very negative impression from getting their facts from movies, like Gone With the Wind (a truly ironic statement, inasmuch as the NYTimes author goes on to compare Sherman's March to World War II about which most people get their information -- or false impressions-- from movies and television).

    Back to the NYTimes article: the author says GWtW gives an impression of total devastation, but that is a "myth," but then he says that Sherman established rules of engagement and that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules, resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people (tho not that many women and children were deliberately killed, in contrast to the situation in WWII. More on that later.)
    In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman's march to the sea is not a "myth."


    The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman's March to the Sea.

    Both you and the NYTimes article relied on the fallacy of motivated reasoning, a form of casuistry by which you replaced Just War theory w/ "Winning is the only thing."
    Both of you evaluated evidence to support your own outcomes.
    According to wikipedia, Motivated Reasoning is an

    " inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe". This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives"
     
    The key word is "rationally."
    The claim(s) I made were for Just War theory as the basis for assessing whether Sherman's scorched earth policy was moral.

    A rational analysis of that question would take a fairly straightforward form:
    a. What are the requirement of Jus in bello (waging war in accord with Just War theory)
    They are discrimination and proportionality --

    "The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. "
     
    ( a somewhat lengthy explanation of Just War Theory can be found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
    I have read it as carefully as I read the NYTimes article. You might wish to do the same.)
    b. Did Sherman's actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No.
    The New York Times author says No.
    You yourself say No.

    That should be the end of the story, and should have been the assessment undertaken by political and military leaders in the course of the Civil War.

    The NYTimes author stated that Sherman and the political leadership fell sway to a false dilemma (Bifurcus) coupled with your own claim that "winning was essential" (discussed later). Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw; it was, in Sherman's mind, essential that the Union achieve a "victory." In Sherman's mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians.

    That was a false dilemma that Sherman -- as well as Ulysses Grant and Lincoln himself snared themselves (and all subsequent US policy) upon, because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman's motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement.

    The wrongness of Sherman's actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the 'peace' that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman's methods and motives (but, as Groce notes, with far more destructiveness -- the result, I suggest, of far more potent weaponry and the bloated hubris that fueled the use of propaganda to demonize the enemy, including civilians, to bring about total war).

    re Your question about 'preserving western civilization"
    If Just war theory is a pillar of western civilization
    and if that pillar is sophistically replaced by the concept "winning is the only thing,"
    then you may have "won," and you may have behaved in accord with your new sophism, but in doing so you have shattered, not upheld, a pillar of western civilization.

    Sherman's March to the Sea was immoral and a crime against humanity.

    Such crimes do not disappear: they infect the heart of a nation, until that crime is called to account and cauterized.
    Instead, and because the people of the United States have not called themselves to account, as Groce listed in his NYTimes article, the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela.

    Such are the behaviors of a psyche addicted to murder that it sophistically labels "victory."

    The old Baltimore Catechism formula still applies:

    Confess your sins
    Do penance
    Make reparations
    Repent (which means, "re-think")
    Resolve to sin no more.

    Such principles used to be the basis of Western Civilization.
  137. smarba says:
    @Priss Factor
    Isn't the American Flag the symbol of imperialism, conquest, Manifest Destiny 'genocide' of Indians, stealing SW territories from Mexico, invasion of the South and wanton destruction, horrors in Philippines, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrors in Vietnam and Laos, invasion of Iraq, support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians, etc?

    Why not ban that too?

    Besides, weren't FDR and Truman very chummy with Southern Democrats?

    And Jews in the South mostly supported the Confederacy too.

    As for symbols of the rebellion. I for one do not hate them I merely despise them as symbol sof treason.

    Read More
  138. The modern multiracial United States as a modern single nation was formed out of the Civil War between a two groups of federated, but semi independent states.

    The problem is that the issue of state’s rights has never really been fully resolved.

    As a foreigner coming to the US, now a US citizen for many years, it is striking to me how incredibly similar most of the states are to each other, with the differences being mostly cosmetic.

    For example the homes in New Mexico have stucco painted brown with rounded corners to make them look like they are made of dung, but once you get inside they are much the same as anywhere else.

    Here in Florida streets will just stop and then start again somewhere else, just the same as they do in North Carolina, and yet the states are not contiguous, so one assumes this happens in all states, for some reason.

    In a recent professional exercise based in Florida, I have been talking on the phone to numerous elderly people thousands of miles away in California about their health, but for practical purposes they might as well be next door.

    It would be very, very strange if, say South Carolina, was still a slave state, or if the de facto apartheid in the South of the first half of the twentieth century when touring black musicians like Louis Armstrong found it hard to find a place where they could legally take a piss was still in effect.

    Read More
  139. @Priss Factor
    "I think this is one of these weird cases where the Jews in the elite picked up a prejudice from the Yankees they were joining, who of course have been fighting the South for 200 years."

    Not so. First off, Abolitionists were not the dominant force in the North. Rather, Lincoln and the ruling North elites used Abolitionist rhetoric to justify their war on the South.
    It's like US had no interest in liberating Asia from Japan during WWII. Rather, US sought supremacy over the Pacific and defeated Japan for that reason. The stuff about US liberating Asia from Japan was just a useful moral excuse. (Same thing with the Iraq War. It was essentially a War for Israel but it was promoted as spreading democracy in the Middle East.) After all, if US cared so much about Asia, why did FDR ask Stalin to swallow up North Asia and hand it over to Mao... who then took all of China?

    Northern ruling elites weren't so enlightened on race themselves. They supported the westward expansion that took lands from Indians who were forced into reservations.
    Furthermore, the last thing that most Northern whites wanted to see was white southerners raped and murdered en masse by blacks... no more than Chinese government enjoyed watching boatloads of Vietnamese-Chinese sent to near-certain death in the seas in the late 70s. During the Boat People fiasco, China was communist and Vietnam was communist, but Chinese were angry with the Vietnamese treatment of Vietnamese-Chinese capitalist population who were dispossessed and pushed into the seas(in an event that was not unlike what Turks did to Armenians).

    True, there were lots of self-righteous Northerners who'd read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN and saw the Negro as some saint and felt white loathing and all that, but the real power and most sentiments in the North was not particularly anti-south after the war. If anything, there was far more anti-north sentiment in the south because (1) resentment of having lost the war (2) sense of betrayal that northern whites killed fellow whites in the south for the sake of blacks.

    For the most part, North and South buried the hatchet. Also, as the Democratic Party traditionally depended on both urban northern whites---especially Catholic Irish---and rural southern white voters, it wouldn't have made much sense for American Progressives to especially vilify the South. Indeed, Wilson, FDR, and Truman all relied on the South. Kennedy chose LBJ to carry Texas. And before the final political realignment in the 1994 Congressional election, there were still some vestiges of southern Democratic power. Since then, the Deep South has become totally Republican while the Northeast has become almost totally Democratic. So, it's politically much safer for Northern/Western Democrats to attack the South wholesale. They no longer have any political allies there.

    The North/South enmity in the past need not be exaggerated. Especially as masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe poured into the Northeast Coast, even many white Anglo-Americans in the North began to sympathize with whites in the South. With so many swarthy foreign-looking people---even thought to be non-white by some Northern Europeans---cramming into big cities, especially New York, Northern whites thought they finally better understood the problem that Southern whites were having with blacks.

    But as it turned out, European immigrants---even from southern and eastern Europe---turned out to be pretty solid civilizational material and they assimilated and made the social climb and became like any other Americans. So, the North lost its fears about the 'other', at least in regards to European immigrants.
    In contrast, blacks in the South remained the dangerous 'other'. Some progressive types blamed this on the discriminatory attitudes in the South, but blacks turned out to be as or even more problematic in the North in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and etc. Of course, as there were discriminatory policies in the North as well, black failings in the North could be blamed on white 'racism' too, but in truth, black problems owed really to the fact that black character/personality had been forged for 100,000 yrs in hot Africa with lots of nasty diseases and monstrous wildlife that chased Negroes all around and drove them crazy.

    Anyway, since Southern blacks moved to the North, the North could always blame the South for having turned the blacks crazy---though one wonders why a whole bunch of blacks in France and England are also crazy even though they came directly from Edenic Africa.

    North and South seemed to be getting more or less fine, but then the Civil Rights Movement happened. Initially, the North felt smugly sanctimonious about racial discrimination in the South, especially as such sentiments were egged on Jews in Hollywood and media.
    It was as if the North was so advanced whereas the South was still stuck in the 19th century.

    But there were few reasons why the North/South divide became stalled n the 60s and 70s. One reason was US was still far from the blue state/red state political divide that has become so iconic in our politics.
    Back then, there were forces in both the Republican and Democratic Parties that were for the Civil Rights Movement and against the Civil Rights Movement. George Wallace was a Democrat before he was an Independent. And there were Northern Republicans who were for the Civil Rights Movement and Western Republicans who saw it as an encroachment of the Federal government on states rights--not only against the South but against the West as well.

    Another huge factor was the wild 6os. As blacks began to burn down cities, riot, and act crazy, many in the North had second thoughts about the Civil Rights Movement. Also, black crime began to climb precipitously at this period. So, even in a city like NY, there was a lot of fear of black crime, finally culminating in the undreamt of triumph of Giuliani in the 90s.
    Of course, the hardened white working class was never much with the blacks in the North. But prior to the Civil Rights Movement, whites mostly had their own communities and blacks had theirs. So, they could tolerate one another. Also, prior to the rise of civil liberties, the police had been much tougher on black crime, and that kept the black community in line. But in the 60s, with the triumphal march of blacks, rise of youth culture, rise of Jewish radicalism, the rise of new optimism with the Kennedy presidency, the popularity of black music, the cult of Muhammad Ali, and etc., Northern white youth became more idealistic/naive/optimistic and northern blacks got rowdier, more aggressive, more demanding, and etc. Also, blacks began to flaunt what they knew to be true for a long time: they are stronger, tougher, and can beat up whitey.

    Prior to the 60s, because white power seemed so monolithic and dominant, even tough blacks in the North and South thought the best way would be mind their manners somewhat, but in the new era when the heavyweight champion of the world was a loud-mouthed Negro who taunted his opponents, made fun of whitey, and acted the thug-loon, blacks began to show their true nature. With no more fear of whites, city after city became beset with crime, looting, and rioting. When blacks acted crazy, whites mostly ran as whites knew, deep in their hearts, that blacks could whup their ass like Muhammad Ali whupped all them white boys.

    So, the North vs South narrative was broken. Many Northern whites in 1968 came to see eye-to-eye with Southern Whites about the race problem: blacks are indeed dangerous and crazy. And when MLK marched through some Northern towns, he was met with even more hostility than in the South. Northern whites began to see MLK's Trojan Horse bulljive for what it was. After all, MLK was no saintly Negro but a loutish thug who'd cheated his way through college, led a life of debauchery, and even beat up a woman unconscious and laughed/joked about it. But he had a boom box voice and a penchant for bellowing cliches that naive white folks couldn't resist. He was the Oprah of his day. MLK's assassination is now remembered as some great national tragedy. But in 1968, it meant burning cities and more Negro mayhem, and so, if anything, it helped Nixon and drove many more Northern whites to the anti-black camp.

    At this time, many Northern whites fled to the suburbs and voted Republican. And they loathed blacks more than they loathed Southern Whites. And even ultra-liberals in big cities began to have second thoughts about the preponderance of black crime and violence. Also, no matter what policies were tried on blacks, too many of them seem to be getting only crazier. And the Great Society was a massive failure.

    When we look at Nixon's second election, Reagan's victory, and Bush I's victory, it was obvious how so many Northern Whites and Southern whites saw eye to eye on lots of things. Though MLK was elevated to iconic status and Civil Rights Movement came to be sacralized, there were too many race problems in the North for white Northerners to get too rosy about that stuff. They were mainly concerned about black crime and violence, and as such, sort of understood why the South hadn't been too keen on blacks either.

    Even so, history is controlled by the elites, and as the moral narrative sacralized the black struggle, and lionized MLK; and with PC censoring and blacklisting all competing views, the black issue went from a political and social(or even moral) one to a spiritual one. It's like MLK wasn't just a great man but the greatest man of all time, maybe a messiah. Thus, it became taboo to even question the sacred narrative of the civil rights movement that came to be mythologized in Manichean terms.
    Also, as American Conservatism caved into this mythology, it went on the defensive, and the policy of the GOP became one of seeking the approval of Jews and blacks.
    Also, as Jews became very powerful and as Neocons were insistent on stamping out white 'racism' in the GOP, American Conservatism became increasingly intolerant of any dissenting views that might be deemed 'offensive'. But for some reason, the GOP under Neocons became more 'racist' against Arabs and Palestinians. I guess you gotta win moral credits in one area to use it to cover up moral lapses in another area. If GOP is with the MLK cult, I guess it can help Israel bash Palestinians with a clearer conscience. 'With MLK on our side' is the new 'With God on our side'.
    Jews especially love MLK since MLK gave his full blessing to the Zionist war on Palestinians.

    Of course, the rise of rap music also had an effect. Before rise of rap, white kids listen to white rock mostly and blacks had their own music, but with rap as the big musical act among all kids in America, white kids became more worshipful toward blacks.

    And then, there is the Jewish factor. It's not surprising that Jews view the Civil War through the prism of WWII. After all, even though Germany was defeated and crushed, US had gone relatively easy on Germany soon after the war. This angered a lot of Jews who thought Germany should pretty much have been wiped off the map.
    As USSR was the new enemy, Germany was allowed to rebuild quickly. And it wasn't until the 1960s that Germans really began to face all the horrors they committed during WWII. Also, with the Cold War, many Jews in America came under suspicion as subversives, and many Jews panicked that McCarthyism is New Nazism in America.

    So, the way Jews see the postwar era, white Americans and white Germans patched up their differences rather too quickly and white Americans set their eyes on Jews as the enemy. Philip Roth's PLOT AGAINST AMERICA dramatizes this very Jewish fear.

    Indeed, what if Churchill had sided with Hitler as Hitler wished him too? What if US had come to a peaceful solution with Japan and there had been no Pearl Harbor. There would have been no great war among white nations. And all three might have ganged up on the Jews. It was because UK fought Germany and because US got embroiled in the war thanks to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor that Nazi Germany was finally defeated. It wasn't so much the result of 'good guys' prevailing over the 'bad guys' because history always chooses the good but a matter of an accident of history. So, there was nothing assured about what happened during WWII. There were plenty of American whites who didn't want to fight Germany. What gave the Jews a crucial opening in their survival and eventual chance at supremacist power was cracks/divisions among white nation and groups. Jews lucked out because UK chose to fight Germany, because Hitler decided to fight white Russia, because white American fought white Germany. And during the Cold War, it was the white America/Western Europe vs white Russia/Eastern Europe. Because of the Cold War, white America came under moral pressure to open up its society and make it more tolerant to win the propaganda battle with the white Soviets who inspired and aided people of color all over the Third World to take up arms against white nations/imperialists.
    So, it is in the interest of Jews to make white people hate and fight other white people. Similarly, Jewish-controlled US government employs a foreign policy that seeks to maximize and exploit the differences among various Muslim sects and groups. Jews love to see Muslims/Arabs slaughter one another.

    The last thing Jews want is any kind of united white consciousness in the US or around the globe. Indeed, what is all this business with Russia and Putin about. Cold War is long over. Russia wants closer economic and political ties with the West. He wants peace and brotherhood. But Jews don't want Russian whites to become chummy Western European whites, especially as Putin's brand of nascent nationalism and respect/revitalization of tradition might rub off on Western Europeans who've been injected with the New Normal culture of homomania. Jews especially dislike Russians because it's impossible for Jews to morally browbeat Russians about the Holocaust and WWII. Russians lost more lives in WWII than any other people and did most to defeat Germany.
    So, Jews have used their financial and media power to vilify and isolate Russia, and since most of global media are owned by Jews and since most elites in US and EU are slavish to Jews, Russia has been hit with all kinds of sanctions. And of course, the homomania cult is very useful in making Russia out to be the bad guy. Jews, in having sacralized homosexuality and transvestism in the West, have persuaded a whole bunch of Western morons that it's evil to ban 'gay marriage' or 'gay poo-ride' parade. Since Russia won't allow homos to parade down Red Square, a lot of idiot Americans see Russia as 'new Nazi nation'. This is how dumb Americans have become. Of course, Jews are ecstatic with hideous glee as nothing makes them happier than seeing goy hate goy. Jews are also working in Asia to increase tensions among China, Japan, Vietnam, India, and other nations. A truly nasty and vicious people.

    So, just like Jews want to divide Western Europe from Russia, Jews wanna divide 'blue state whites' from 'red state whites'. Though most of the racial violence in the South has been black-on-white, Jews who run the media have suppressed the truth and perpetrated the myth of permanent black victimhood and nobility through fantasy movies like GREEN MILE, THE HELP, MISSISSIPPI BE BURNING, DJANGO UNCHAINED, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, and etc. And of course, TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD is like a required reading bible for young ones.

    As for all the white folks robbed, beaten, raped, bullied, terrorized, and murdered by black thugs since the 1960s, forget it. Jews in the media don't care and don't want us to care either. Let us worry about some mountain-sized Negro who loves a little white mouse as the new messiah.

    Furthermore, new tough policies in the North have made it safer for white liberal elites in cities. Today, the posh parts of NY, Chicago, San Fran, Washington DC, and etc are nicer and richer than ever. It is in those areas that the urban elites work, and they feel safe. And as they feel safe, they feel holier-than-thou in pointing fingers of blame at other whites, especially white southerners.
    If downtown areas of cities were run down and filled with crime--as in the 1970s--these liberal elites wouldn't be so glib and conceited.
    Also, generations of PC-brainwashing has stamped out much of honest talk that used to prevail even up to the 1980s. The kinds of columns Mike Royko wrote back then---hard-nosed, tough, cynical, politically incorrect, personal, etc---wouldn't be allowed today. And if older folks spoke candidly, young ones(as pod people) would shout them down as 'racist'. We don't have people like Jim Traficant anymore. Sure, he was a nut but he was also a straight talker---even when he was full of shit. Today, all white folks have to be so mindful of what they say. Indeed, we now live in a world where if someone says he thinks a male fecal hole isn't a proper sex organ, he will be censured, fired, and blacklisted forever in elite community. So, forget about honest talk about race.

    But if we were to have an honest talk about race, I'd argue that the Confederate flag is a useful, indeed necessary, symbol. The meaning of symbols change. Statue of Liberty wasn't originally a symbol of immigration that it came to be.
    Whatever the Confederate Flag used to symbolize, it should now symbolize the need for white unity, the need for white interests, the need for white sympathy for whites suffering at the hands of non-whites, the need to defy Jewish power, and the rightness of a people to prevent biological slavery of their own people at the hands of another race.

    Indeed, the South only had two choices in the past: social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks. Whites and blacks are not the same, i.e. whites are not blacks with white skin, and blacks are not whites with black skin. We can sort of make the case that Asian-Indians(the Hindus)are something like whites with brown/black skin. If indeed whites had brought Asian-Indians as slaves in the American South, then, maybe upon the end of slavery, both groups could have worked to live peacefully side by side or intermingle. But it was different with blacks since evolution had made blacks stronger, more aggressive, wilder, more dangerous, bigger, and more fearsome. Unless whites held social control over blacks, blacks would whup the white man's ass and conquer white women. Or white women would voluntarily ditch the white male as loser dork and go off with the Negro deemed to be sexually/physically/racially superior.
    Of course, Libs will denounce such talk as 'racial or sexual paranoia', but look at rap culture. Much of it's about muscled black thugs howling about how badass they be, how they gonna whup punkass white boys, how white girls are all gonna be their sex slave cattle. And Jewish-run music industry promotes this sort of stuff. Look at TV advertising during the superbowl that feature white women throwing themselves at big muscled Negroes. Look at rape statistics along racial lines, and the sexual violence is overwhelmingly black on white, black on brown, and black on yellow. And the man-to-man violence is black whupping white boys, blacks whupping brown boys, blacks whupping yellow boys, and etc. Black guys used to have fun whupping wimpy Jewish boys too, but as Jews ar so rich, most of them live in safe neighborhoods and use their political muscle to push dangerous blacks to other places.

    While social slavery of blacks was wrong--Lincoln was right to want to free the slaves and send them back to Africa or set up a separate black nation--, it was also wrong to force whites to live under biological slavery of blacks. Every race should live in safety, with male pride, with self-respect, and its own autonomy. This was impossible with blacks in the South since too many blacks are too mean and strong and aggressive. So, it wasn't simply an issue of freedom vs slavery in the south. It was an issue of social slavery of blacks under whites or biological slavery of whites under blacks.

    Though white libs and Jews will deny it, actions speak louder than words. If you look at the social, economic, and behavioral patterns of urban white libs, they also wanna segregate themselves from mostly black areas. This doesn't mean they are 'racist' against blacks, but they too sense a problem with blacks insofar as blacks cause the most mayhem and trouble all across America. Is black violence due to the legacy of slavery? No, it is the legacy of blacks realizing during the Civil Rights Movement that whites have lost it, are vulnerable, and no longer have the guts to stand against black thuggery. After all, when blacks began to attack whites in the 60s, most whites ran, hid, or cowered and didn't dare fight back because they were afraid of bigger and stronger blacks.

    Also, Jews need to shut up since, when faced with the same problem, they've done the same thing in Israel and Occupied Territories. As Palestinians hate Zionists and have used violence against Jews, Jews have used ultra-violence and ultra-segregation to teach Palestinians a lesson not to mess with Jews. And it appears even most Liberal American Jews are pretty much with the program of Jews in Israel and West Bank using harsh measures to keep the Palestinians in their place and teach them a tough lesson. If indeed Jews act this way for their own security --- and Jews in America work tirelessly to force all politicians to sign a pledge to AIPAC --- , who the hell are they to be lecturing white southerners about the Confed flag? Isn't the Zionist flag associated with ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the killing of innocent women and children, gangsterism, terrorism, and the attack on USS Liberty? And of course, long before Jews sought to stamp out the Confederate Flag, they(as Bolsheviks) tried to blow up every Church in Russia. And today, Jews fund garbage like Pussy Riot to desecrate Russian Churches. There is simply no limit to the foul hypocrisy of the Jew.

    Jews and glib Northern white liberals would us believe that slavery was the 'original sin' of America, as if slavery had been invented in America. Furthermore, Brazil brought over 10x the number of blacks to the New World than the US, and lots of Jews were involved in the Brazilian slave trade and plantation. So, Jews need to shut the F up.

    But if we must talk of America's 'original sin', why is it black slavery and not the conquest of America and the 'genocide' of the Indians? After all, something like 300,000 blacks w were brought to the US whereas something like 5 million native Americans might have been wiped out by diseases and then guns brought by white folks. Furthermore, this was the ancestral land of Indians who were pushed out, rubbed out, and forced into reservations? Sounds to me worse than slavery. And this process began before a single black dude was brought over as a slave.

    So, why isn't this Narrative used as the original sin of American? Is it because what whites did to Indians sounds a bit too much like what Jews did to the Palestinians?

    The left often quotes George Carlin so how about this one.

    “political correctness is fascism”
    -George Carlin

    Read More
  140. @Miller
    Civil War was about slavery, not State's Rights.

    The CSA offered to rejoin the Union if the Fed Govt used its power to overturn individual state laws restricting slavery and guarantee it in the new territories.

    The secession documents issued by CS as well as period literature newspapers etc etc are unequivocal on this point. Revisionist narratives to the contrary are intended to provide ethical wiggle room for those who want to glorify the Confederacy, and somehow separate it from this defining institution.

    To spread slavery to the new territories the political leadership of the slave states was willing to go to war, and they did. The Union had every right to take the fight, once begun, to the CSA, and to finish it decisively - which they did.

    The only question is whether the Union had any right to force the CSA back into the Union afterward, in my opinion they didn't.

    The civil war was not about slavery or states rights it was about commerce.
    The north wanted control of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers plus New Orleans.
    It was about building railroads and funny Lincoln as a lawyer represented railroad companies before he was president. Go figure.
    The cotton gin made slavery obsolete anyway so it was time to go.

    Read More
  141. @Corvinus
    "It was you, Corvinus, who argued in favor of Sherman’s march to the sea; I argued against it; I find it morally repulsive and antithetical to everything my parents lived and taught."

    For those keeping score at home, here is the query you fired at me--“What’s your view — you and your fellow normies — on Sherman’s Scorched earth march to the sea?”

    Again, there are myths in Sherman’s March that need to be explored. Did you not read the source and carefully analyze it?

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march

    Second, here is exactly what I said --> We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no “honor” in war itself, just bloodshed by men who were honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to “northern aggression”, southern apologists would say the exact thing [meaning that the only purpose in war is to win].

    1) So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    2) Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    I offered an other than binary response. Now, you have questions posed to you. Answer them.

    aw shucks, Corvinus, I thought I could slip by without talkin’ about that NYTimes article.
    I did read it.
    I even read it real careful like.
    I said to myself, golly, Corvinus is hauling out the big guns: the New York Times. I mean, talk about your Slam Dunk arguments: If the New York Times said it, it must be so!

    Which made a real problem for me, ‘cuz I had a hard time with some of the big words:

    Words like Ad Verecundiam, Bifurcus, Casuistry/ Sophism, and Motivated Reasoning/Cognitive dissonance.
    Phew, how was I ever going to get through all of that.

    So let’s do that critical analysis you’re demanding, and let’s take a stand.

    Now, let’s talk about those words that tripped me up, starting with Ad Verecundiam.
    Oops, that word didn’t really appear in the NYTimes article. But the foundation of your argument is an appeal to the authority of the NYTimes: if NYTimes said it, it must be so.

    But dadblame it, I went and poked around a bit with the NYTimes article.

    First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word “myth,” implying that Sherman’s March was not really as bad as people think it was, and that people get that very negative impression from getting their facts from movies, like Gone With the Wind (a truly ironic statement, inasmuch as the NYTimes author goes on to compare Sherman’s March to World War II about which most people get their information — or false impressions– from movies and television).

    Back to the NYTimes article: the author says GWtW gives an impression of total devastation, but that is a “myth,” but then he says that Sherman established rules of engagement and that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules, resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people (tho not that many women and children were deliberately killed, in contrast to the situation in WWII. More on that later.)
    In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman’s march to the sea is not a “myth.”

    The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman’s March to the Sea.

    Both you and the NYTimes article relied on the fallacy of motivated reasoning, a form of casuistry by which you replaced Just War theory w/ “Winning is the only thing.”
    Both of you evaluated evidence to support your own outcomes.
    According to wikipedia, Motivated Reasoning is an

    ” inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”. This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”

    The key word is “rationally.”
    The claim(s) I made were for Just War theory as the basis for assessing whether Sherman’s scorched earth policy was moral.

    A rational analysis of that question would take a fairly straightforward form:
    a. What are the requirement of Jus in bello (waging war in accord with Just War theory)
    They are discrimination and proportionality –

    “The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. “

    ( a somewhat lengthy explanation of Just War Theory can be found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
    I have read it as carefully as I read the NYTimes article. You might wish to do the same.)
    b. Did Sherman’s actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No.
    The New York Times author says No.
    You yourself say No.

    That should be the end of the story, and should have been the assessment undertaken by political and military leaders in the course of the Civil War.

    The NYTimes author stated that Sherman and the political leadership fell sway to a false dilemma (Bifurcus) coupled with your own claim that “winning was essential” (discussed later). Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw; it was, in Sherman’s mind, essential that the Union achieve a “victory.” In Sherman’s mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians.

    That was a false dilemma that Sherman — as well as Ulysses Grant and Lincoln himself snared themselves (and all subsequent US policy) upon, because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman’s motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement.

    The wrongness of Sherman’s actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the ‘peace’ that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman’s methods and motives (but, as Groce notes, with far more destructiveness — the result, I suggest, of far more potent weaponry and the bloated hubris that fueled the use of propaganda to demonize the enemy, including civilians, to bring about total war).

    re Your question about ‘preserving western civilization”
    If Just war theory is a pillar of western civilization
    and if that pillar is sophistically replaced by the concept “winning is the only thing,”
    then you may have “won,” and you may have behaved in accord with your new sophism, but in doing so you have shattered, not upheld, a pillar of western civilization.

    Sherman’s March to the Sea was immoral and a crime against humanity.

    Such crimes do not disappear: they infect the heart of a nation, until that crime is called to account and cauterized.
    Instead, and because the people of the United States have not called themselves to account, as Groce listed in his NYTimes article, the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela.

    Such are the behaviors of a psyche addicted to murder that it sophistically labels “victory.”

    The old Baltimore Catechism formula still applies:

    Confess your sins
    Do penance
    Make reparations
    Repent (which means, “re-think”)
    Resolve to sin no more.

    Such principles used to be the basis of Western Civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word “myth,” implying that Sherman’s March was not really as bad as people think it was."

    There is no implication, just fact. Few private homes in Georgia were burned; Confederate desertion rates increased as their resolve had been weakened to continue; Savannah surrendered, and their infrastructure remained intact.

    "that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules..."

    Exactly. His underlings went against Sherman's orders. That happens in war.

    "resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people"

    That starvation and subjugation had been primarily the direct result of the Union naval blockade.

    "In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman’s march to the sea is not a “myth.”

    The title is appropriate.

    "The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman’s March to the Sea."

    The Confederacy employed the same logic as Sherman in their murdering of Union fugitives and border ruffianing. Are you vocal in your condemnation of their tactics, or just "Yankees"?

    Moreover, Sherman's military training included ethics and war at West Point. The sources used in a course taught by Chaplain Warner contained "many of the operative strategic and ethical concepts of the Civil War and that these concepts, including retaliation, blockade, emancipation, and unconditional surrender were discussed at West Point more than 20 years before the first short was fired at Fort Sumter." In fact, the content contained in one such book, Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, was also rigorously studied by high ranking members of the Confederacy. Moreover, Sherman's transformation from an advocate of warfare by rules of courtesy to an advocate of warfare by rules of survival was due to Confederate actions of living off the land and terrorizing civilians.

    In August 1862, Sherman wrote to Secretary Chase "The Government of the United States may now safely proceed on the proper role that all in the South are enemies of all in the North; and not only are they unfriendly, but all who can procure arms now bear them as organized regiments or as guerillas. There is not a garrision in Tennessee where a man can go beyond the sight of the flagstaff without being shot or captured".

    http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Articles/1982/1982%20brinsfield.pdf

    "b. Did Sherman’s actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No. The New York Times author says No. You yourself say No."

    I stated that it could be argued Sherman committed a war crime. The legitimate targets were civilians who supported slavery, a moral evil, AND who supported the Confederacy, an illegitimate government, AND who engaged as soldiers in war similar acts of aggression and violence as their northern counterparts, AND who were given the opportunity to unconditionally surrender. The argument could be made with distinction that Sherman's actions met the criteria.

    "Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw..."

    North. Winning.

    "it was, in Sherman’s mind, essential that the Union achieve a “victory.” In Sherman’s mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians."

    It was in the minds of those individuals who supported keeping the Union intact, both northerners and southerners, and who opposed slavery that victory be achieved.

    "because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman’s motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement."

    There was an offer on the table--unconditional surrender. Moreover, southern civilians had the choice to pressure their government to give up, lest they endure the consequences of their decision.

    "The wrongness of Sherman’s actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the ‘peace’ that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman’s methods and motives..."

    Actually, based on the methods and motives of military leaders historically.

    "the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Nations, in their geo-political machinations and engagements of war, have committed crimes against humanity. Not surprising given the complexity of such interactions and given the inherent cruel nature of people.

    "Your question about ‘preserving western civilization”...

    Which you went off on a tangent.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    Answer the questions directly.
  142. @Logan
    Why, thank you. I do get tired of the constantly repeated inaccuracies about this period.

    Everybody is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

    Where I suppose I disagree with you is about whether it's a fact, rather than an opinion, that states have no right to secede. You'd be entirely right, if the southern states had claimed they were seceding under a right as spelled out in the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    Under this theory, the federal government was created by the states, and any state had an undoubted right to secede whenever it chose for whatever reason.

    I do not agree with this theory, but it is, roughly, how they justified secession. Citing constitutional provisions to show why secession was illegal is irrelevant if the secessionists were not basing their actions on the Constitution.

    But AFAIK they did not secede on this rationale. They seceded on the theory that the states were and always had been sovereign. With the Constitution they subcontracted certain aspects of soverignty to the federal government, but retained the essence of it and could resume the subcontracted aspects at will.

    You’re right that to secede you don’t need anything in the constitution. But I don’t think you need any theories either. It’s just a matter of fait accompli. You declare independence, you form the government, you establish control over the territory – and voila, you seceded. Now, if you manage to defend it, you have a country.

    Read More
  143. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    aw shucks, Corvinus, I thought I could slip by without talkin' about that NYTimes article.
    I did read it.
    I even read it real careful like.
    I said to myself, golly, Corvinus is hauling out the big guns: the New York Times. I mean, talk about your Slam Dunk arguments: If the New York Times said it, it must be so!

    Which made a real problem for me, 'cuz I had a hard time with some of the big words:

    Words like Ad Verecundiam, Bifurcus, Casuistry/ Sophism, and Motivated Reasoning/Cognitive dissonance.
    Phew, how was I ever going to get through all of that.

    So let's do that critical analysis you're demanding, and let's take a stand.

    Now, let's talk about those words that tripped me up, starting with Ad Verecundiam.
    Oops, that word didn't really appear in the NYTimes article. But the foundation of your argument is an appeal to the authority of the NYTimes: if NYTimes said it, it must be so.

    But dadblame it, I went and poked around a bit with the NYTimes article.

    First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word "myth," implying that Sherman's March was not really as bad as people think it was, and that people get that very negative impression from getting their facts from movies, like Gone With the Wind (a truly ironic statement, inasmuch as the NYTimes author goes on to compare Sherman's March to World War II about which most people get their information -- or false impressions-- from movies and television).

    Back to the NYTimes article: the author says GWtW gives an impression of total devastation, but that is a "myth," but then he says that Sherman established rules of engagement and that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules, resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people (tho not that many women and children were deliberately killed, in contrast to the situation in WWII. More on that later.)
    In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman's march to the sea is not a "myth."


    The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman's March to the Sea.

    Both you and the NYTimes article relied on the fallacy of motivated reasoning, a form of casuistry by which you replaced Just War theory w/ "Winning is the only thing."
    Both of you evaluated evidence to support your own outcomes.
    According to wikipedia, Motivated Reasoning is an

    " inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe". This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives"
     
    The key word is "rationally."
    The claim(s) I made were for Just War theory as the basis for assessing whether Sherman's scorched earth policy was moral.

    A rational analysis of that question would take a fairly straightforward form:
    a. What are the requirement of Jus in bello (waging war in accord with Just War theory)
    They are discrimination and proportionality --

    "The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. "
     
    ( a somewhat lengthy explanation of Just War Theory can be found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
    I have read it as carefully as I read the NYTimes article. You might wish to do the same.)
    b. Did Sherman's actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No.
    The New York Times author says No.
    You yourself say No.

    That should be the end of the story, and should have been the assessment undertaken by political and military leaders in the course of the Civil War.

    The NYTimes author stated that Sherman and the political leadership fell sway to a false dilemma (Bifurcus) coupled with your own claim that "winning was essential" (discussed later). Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw; it was, in Sherman's mind, essential that the Union achieve a "victory." In Sherman's mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians.

    That was a false dilemma that Sherman -- as well as Ulysses Grant and Lincoln himself snared themselves (and all subsequent US policy) upon, because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman's motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement.

    The wrongness of Sherman's actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the 'peace' that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman's methods and motives (but, as Groce notes, with far more destructiveness -- the result, I suggest, of far more potent weaponry and the bloated hubris that fueled the use of propaganda to demonize the enemy, including civilians, to bring about total war).

    re Your question about 'preserving western civilization"
    If Just war theory is a pillar of western civilization
    and if that pillar is sophistically replaced by the concept "winning is the only thing,"
    then you may have "won," and you may have behaved in accord with your new sophism, but in doing so you have shattered, not upheld, a pillar of western civilization.

    Sherman's March to the Sea was immoral and a crime against humanity.

    Such crimes do not disappear: they infect the heart of a nation, until that crime is called to account and cauterized.
    Instead, and because the people of the United States have not called themselves to account, as Groce listed in his NYTimes article, the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela.

    Such are the behaviors of a psyche addicted to murder that it sophistically labels "victory."

    The old Baltimore Catechism formula still applies:

    Confess your sins
    Do penance
    Make reparations
    Repent (which means, "re-think")
    Resolve to sin no more.

    Such principles used to be the basis of Western Civilization.

    “First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word “myth,” implying that Sherman’s March was not really as bad as people think it was.”

    There is no implication, just fact. Few private homes in Georgia were burned; Confederate desertion rates increased as their resolve had been weakened to continue; Savannah surrendered, and their infrastructure remained intact.

    “that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules…”

    Exactly. His underlings went against Sherman’s orders. That happens in war.

    “resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people”

    That starvation and subjugation had been primarily the direct result of the Union naval blockade.

    “In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman’s march to the sea is not a “myth.”

    The title is appropriate.

    “The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman’s March to the Sea.”

    The Confederacy employed the same logic as Sherman in their murdering of Union fugitives and border ruffianing. Are you vocal in your condemnation of their tactics, or just “Yankees”?

    Moreover, Sherman’s military training included ethics and war at West Point. The sources used in a course taught by Chaplain Warner contained “many of the operative strategic and ethical concepts of the Civil War and that these concepts, including retaliation, blockade, emancipation, and unconditional surrender were discussed at West Point more than 20 years before the first short was fired at Fort Sumter.” In fact, the content contained in one such book, Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy, was also rigorously studied by high ranking members of the Confederacy. Moreover, Sherman’s transformation from an advocate of warfare by rules of courtesy to an advocate of warfare by rules of survival was due to Confederate actions of living off the land and terrorizing civilians.

    In August 1862, Sherman wrote to Secretary Chase “The Government of the United States may now safely proceed on the proper role that all in the South are enemies of all in the North; and not only are they unfriendly, but all who can procure arms now bear them as organized regiments or as guerillas. There is not a garrision in Tennessee where a man can go beyond the sight of the flagstaff without being shot or captured”.

    http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Articles/1982/1982%20brinsfield.pdf

    “b. Did Sherman’s actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No. The New York Times author says No. You yourself say No.”

    I stated that it could be argued Sherman committed a war crime. The legitimate targets were civilians who supported slavery, a moral evil, AND who supported the Confederacy, an illegitimate government, AND who engaged as soldiers in war similar acts of aggression and violence as their northern counterparts, AND who were given the opportunity to unconditionally surrender. The argument could be made with distinction that Sherman’s actions met the criteria.

    “Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw…”

    North. Winning.

    “it was, in Sherman’s mind, essential that the Union achieve a “victory.” In Sherman’s mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians.”

    It was in the minds of those individuals who supported keeping the Union intact, both northerners and southerners, and who opposed slavery that victory be achieved.

    “because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman’s motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement.”

    There was an offer on the table–unconditional surrender. Moreover, southern civilians had the choice to pressure their government to give up, lest they endure the consequences of their decision.

    “The wrongness of Sherman’s actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the ‘peace’ that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman’s methods and motives…”

    Actually, based on the methods and motives of military leaders historically.

    “the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Nations, in their geo-political machinations and engagements of war, have committed crimes against humanity. Not surprising given the complexity of such interactions and given the inherent cruel nature of people.

    “Your question about ‘preserving western civilization”…

    Which you went off on a tangent.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    Answer the questions directly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    You're too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to carry on a meaningful conversation.

    see above,

    Motivated Reasoning is an


    ” inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”. This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”
     
    you're demands to "take a stand" and "make it official," based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before appears to be an instance of Corvinus puffing out his/her chest in moral indignation, and creation hypotheticals -- similar to the hypothetical of "Lee would have done the same thing in Philadelphia . . ." That's not FACT, that's a scenario spun in someone's head -- yours. It's what Francis Bacon called "spider thinking."

    btw, if you're looking for an example of someone advocating use of violence, try
    http://www.unz.com/article/anarcho-tyranny-the-corruption-of-charlottesville-va/#comment-1987106
    and the linked video, Mark Bray interviewed by Amy Goodman on a syndicated broadcast
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhC4AByODE

    which Bray repeated on internationally telecast C Span
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?433052-4/washington-journal-mark-bray-discusses-role-antifa-movement

    In other words, he had a far more powerful platform/microphone that a commenter on an unknown blog.

    Notice Bray uses "Dartmouth" wallpaper -- he's a visiting scholar at a Gender Studies institute at Dartmouth; the President of Dartmouth has "disavowed" Bray's calls for the use of violence to "destroy" "fascists." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/a-dartmouth-antifa-expert-was-disavowed-by-his-college-president-for-supporting-violent-protest-angering-many-faculty/?utm_term=.61304f27c8bf

    You also carefully cherry-picked your way around a key point: knocking down a pillar of violence -- Just War Theory -- undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it.

    ---
    This conversation is over.

  144. @Corvinus
    "First off, the title was not borne out in the text: the title used the word “myth,” implying that Sherman’s March was not really as bad as people think it was."

    There is no implication, just fact. Few private homes in Georgia were burned; Confederate desertion rates increased as their resolve had been weakened to continue; Savannah surrendered, and their infrastructure remained intact.

    "that rampaging Union soldiers violated those rules..."

    Exactly. His underlings went against Sherman's orders. That happens in war.

    "resulting in starvation and the total subjugation by terror of the affected people"

    That starvation and subjugation had been primarily the direct result of the Union naval blockade.

    "In short, the title is misleading: the brutality of Sherman’s march to the sea is not a “myth.”

    The title is appropriate.

    "The claim that I made that started this pleasant conversation had to do with Just War Theory in relation to Sherman’s March to the Sea."

    The Confederacy employed the same logic as Sherman in their murdering of Union fugitives and border ruffianing. Are you vocal in your condemnation of their tactics, or just "Yankees"?

    Moreover, Sherman's military training included ethics and war at West Point. The sources used in a course taught by Chaplain Warner contained "many of the operative strategic and ethical concepts of the Civil War and that these concepts, including retaliation, blockade, emancipation, and unconditional surrender were discussed at West Point more than 20 years before the first short was fired at Fort Sumter." In fact, the content contained in one such book, Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, was also rigorously studied by high ranking members of the Confederacy. Moreover, Sherman's transformation from an advocate of warfare by rules of courtesy to an advocate of warfare by rules of survival was due to Confederate actions of living off the land and terrorizing civilians.

    In August 1862, Sherman wrote to Secretary Chase "The Government of the United States may now safely proceed on the proper role that all in the South are enemies of all in the North; and not only are they unfriendly, but all who can procure arms now bear them as organized regiments or as guerillas. There is not a garrision in Tennessee where a man can go beyond the sight of the flagstaff without being shot or captured".

    http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Articles/1982/1982%20brinsfield.pdf

    "b. Did Sherman’s actions comply with the rules requiring Discrimination and Proportionality?
    I say No. The New York Times author says No. You yourself say No."

    I stated that it could be argued Sherman committed a war crime. The legitimate targets were civilians who supported slavery, a moral evil, AND who supported the Confederacy, an illegitimate government, AND who engaged as soldiers in war similar acts of aggression and violence as their northern counterparts, AND who were given the opportunity to unconditionally surrender. The argument could be made with distinction that Sherman's actions met the criteria.

    "Author Groce wrote that the war had dragged on and was at a draw..."

    North. Winning.

    "it was, in Sherman’s mind, essential that the Union achieve a “victory.” In Sherman’s mind, the only way to achieve a Union victory was by violating the basic rules of civilized people and targeting civilians."

    It was in the minds of those individuals who supported keeping the Union intact, both northerners and southerners, and who opposed slavery that victory be achieved.

    "because there was and is today a third option: a negotiated settlement: the two armies having fought to a draw is an indication that both sides bring equal fervor to the battle, and to the cause. One can only conclude that Sherman’s motives were not justice, but vengeance, and aggrandizement."

    There was an offer on the table--unconditional surrender. Moreover, southern civilians had the choice to pressure their government to give up, lest they endure the consequences of their decision.

    "The wrongness of Sherman’s actions placed an extremely destructive stamp on the ‘peace’ that emerged from the Civil War; on subsequent wars that were fought based on Sherman’s methods and motives..."

    Actually, based on the methods and motives of military leaders historically.

    "the USA has repeated its crimes against humanity in Germany, in Japan, in Viet Nam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Kosovo, in Venezuela."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Nations, in their geo-political machinations and engagements of war, have committed crimes against humanity. Not surprising given the complexity of such interactions and given the inherent cruel nature of people.

    "Your question about ‘preserving western civilization”...

    Which you went off on a tangent.

    So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

    Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, “Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them.”

    Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next “civil war”, will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

    Answer the questions directly.

    You’re too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to carry on a meaningful conversation.

    see above,

    Motivated Reasoning is an

    ” inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”. This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”

    you’re demands to “take a stand” and “make it official,” based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before appears to be an instance of Corvinus puffing out his/her chest in moral indignation, and creation hypotheticals — similar to the hypothetical of “Lee would have done the same thing in Philadelphia . . .” That’s not FACT, that’s a scenario spun in someone’s head — yours. It’s what Francis Bacon called “spider thinking.”

    btw, if you’re looking for an example of someone advocating use of violence, try

    http://www.unz.com/article/anarcho-tyranny-the-corruption-of-charlottesville-va/#comment-1987106

    and the linked video, Mark Bray interviewed by Amy Goodman on a syndicated broadcast

    which Bray repeated on internationally telecast C Span

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?433052-4/washington-journal-mark-bray-discusses-role-antifa-movement

    In other words, he had a far more powerful platform/microphone that a commenter on an unknown blog.

    Notice Bray uses “Dartmouth” wallpaper — he’s a visiting scholar at a Gender Studies institute at Dartmouth; the President of Dartmouth has “disavowed” Bray’s calls for the use of violence to “destroy” “fascists.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/a-dartmouth-antifa-expert-was-disavowed-by-his-college-president-for-supporting-violent-protest-angering-many-faculty/?utm_term=.61304f27c8bf

    You also carefully cherry-picked your way around a key point: knocking down a pillar of violence — Just War Theory — undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it.


    This conversation is over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "you’re demands to “take a stand” and “make it official,” based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before..."

    Irrelevant. What matters is that a member of an Alt Right group that prides itself allegedly on Western Civilization and the Baltimore Catechism formula is contradicting its basic tenets. His sentiments are similar in nature to the antifa. Yet your own beating your chest in moral indignation appears to focus on those groups who have significant air time. I did not realize that calling out someone's ethical indiscretions is based squarely on the extent of a person's or group's ability to use a megaphone.

    It could be argued that the Confederacy violated the Just War Theory by binding its citizens when fighting a war to preserve a corrupt culture. Given your own metrics, there actions should be condemned. Motivating reason got your tongue?

    "knocking down a pillar of violence — Just War Theory — undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it."

    You mean civilization is undermined by war and its participants, who despite theories and covenants, break them in order to emerge victorious. That is the human way, my friend.
  145. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    You're too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to carry on a meaningful conversation.

    see above,

    Motivated Reasoning is an


    ” inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”. This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”
     
    you're demands to "take a stand" and "make it official," based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before appears to be an instance of Corvinus puffing out his/her chest in moral indignation, and creation hypotheticals -- similar to the hypothetical of "Lee would have done the same thing in Philadelphia . . ." That's not FACT, that's a scenario spun in someone's head -- yours. It's what Francis Bacon called "spider thinking."

    btw, if you're looking for an example of someone advocating use of violence, try
    http://www.unz.com/article/anarcho-tyranny-the-corruption-of-charlottesville-va/#comment-1987106
    and the linked video, Mark Bray interviewed by Amy Goodman on a syndicated broadcast
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhC4AByODE

    which Bray repeated on internationally telecast C Span
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?433052-4/washington-journal-mark-bray-discusses-role-antifa-movement

    In other words, he had a far more powerful platform/microphone that a commenter on an unknown blog.

    Notice Bray uses "Dartmouth" wallpaper -- he's a visiting scholar at a Gender Studies institute at Dartmouth; the President of Dartmouth has "disavowed" Bray's calls for the use of violence to "destroy" "fascists." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/a-dartmouth-antifa-expert-was-disavowed-by-his-college-president-for-supporting-violent-protest-angering-many-faculty/?utm_term=.61304f27c8bf

    You also carefully cherry-picked your way around a key point: knocking down a pillar of violence -- Just War Theory -- undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it.

    ---
    This conversation is over.

    “you’re demands to “take a stand” and “make it official,” based on a comment made by an anonymous individual in a blog that I never heard of before…”

    Irrelevant. What matters is that a member of an Alt Right group that prides itself allegedly on Western Civilization and the Baltimore Catechism formula is contradicting its basic tenets. His sentiments are similar in nature to the antifa. Yet your own beating your chest in moral indignation appears to focus on those groups who have significant air time. I did not realize that calling out someone’s ethical indiscretions is based squarely on the extent of a person’s or group’s ability to use a megaphone.

    It could be argued that the Confederacy violated the Just War Theory by binding its citizens when fighting a war to preserve a corrupt culture. Given your own metrics, there actions should be condemned. Motivating reason got your tongue?

    “knocking down a pillar of violence — Just War Theory — undermines Western Civilization, it does not enhance it.”

    You mean civilization is undermined by war and its participants, who despite theories and covenants, break them in order to emerge victorious. That is the human way, my friend.

    Read More
  146. johnnyreb says:
    @fnn
    It would have been far better to let the South secede in 1861. The South has always been the section of the US most eager to be led into war. It seems unlikely that a USA minus Dixie would have entered the Great War. The South was the only part of the country without a single America First Committee chapter in 1940-41. Today, the extreme and unthinking philo-Semitism of the South provides major support for the USG-Israel program of endless war in the Middle East.

    Thank you for this comment. I support secession in general. I am a descendant of slave owners in the South. And I feel shame, not for my great-grandfathers, but their descendants who were not involved in the America First Committee. I was not aware of that fact, if it’s really true. But I do know that my fellow Southerners are more likely than most to be supporters of the wars of the past and the eternal present. And of course they are mostly uncritical supporters of Israel, which makes them even more likely to support war in the Middle East, and to support sanctions against Russia, North Korea, and others.

    Read More
  147. @psuedohandle
    ' [T]he South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. [ That's exactly what it was. ]

    ' Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities [ because the Southern planters shipped vast amounts of slave grown cotton to England and vast amounts of manufactured/luxury goods back ?] that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms [ to use their slaves as cannon fodder in defense of slavery! ], as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery ... [ "even if" ... and you don't, obviously ... hope the Old South will rise again? In the lands the USA's military is devastating, laying waste to and making ripe for exploitation? Southerners have always been over-represented in the Imperial expeditionary/occupational armies of the USA. ] '

    Americans who live in Dixie are just like all other Americans. And all Americans hate slavery and the slave culture that flourished in the Old South ... and is flourishing again in the guise of low-wage slavery throughout the globalized neo-liberal empire and has now rolled back home. The only difference is that they are constantly called to the side of the Old South, by the political wedge driven by paleo- and neo-conservatives, as though the southerners of today had anything at all in common with the slave-holding oligarchs pre-Civil War.

    The Old South, reincarnated, is attempting to rise again. Globally. It was the Stars and Bars the neo-Nazis flew in Kiev along with their swastikas at the Maiden.

    [ to use their slaves as cannon fodder in defense of slavery! ],

    And what is it that you imagine the north did with their black troops? Watch “Glory” and blow off the fluff.

    Read More
  148. I am descended from a Southern family but living in Massachusetts (fortunately went to school in Virginia), I am becoming quite worn out with the desecration of Bobby Lee. I have the Stars and Bars which have come down in my family, and a flagpole. I am tempted to load my shotgun and run the Stars and Bars up the flagpole.
    “Reparations”? Our house was burned by Sherman, I lost 13 collateral ancestors at Gettysburg, and more at Antietam, I think I “gave at the office”.

    I don’t “hate” anyone, leave me alone.

    Read More
  149. @Robert Magill
    The 'flag' behind all the outrage is bogus. It is not an historical artifact but a product of early 2oth century. See ' dont-rally-round-bogus-flag-boys'

    http://noabominoidshere.blogspot.com/2010/01/dont-rally-round-bogus-flag-boys.ht

    The rectangular flag is an ensign of the Confederate Navy.

    The square flag is the flag of the Confederate Army.

    Read More
  150. @Carlton Meyer
    I've addressed this in my blog, part is reposted here, the rest is here, near the bottom of the long page. http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm

    The President of the CSA, Jefferson Davis, was a West Point graduate who led an American regiment into Mexico during the Mexican-American war. He was a U.S. Senator and a U.S. Secretary of War for four years. As Davis explained in his 1881 memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, he believed that each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union, but he never supported secession. Yet he was popular and accepted the Confederate Presidency because of a sense of duty, and immediately attempted to make peace by offering Lincoln compensation for abandoned federal property in the South. After Lincoln refused, the CSA realized that defeat by the far more powerful Union was inevitable, unless it launched a hasty offensive to seize Washington DC and end the conflict quickly. The CSA failed, yet that surprise attack demoralized and disrupted the Union Army's organizational efforts for two years.

    Preserving and Expanding the Union

    So why have the Power Elite now targeted the Civil War for revision? They fear the massive job losses and lower wages they inflicted on American workers might encourage "states rights" movements and talk of secession from the USA. The idea of state independence floats around in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Texas. This is never reported in the media, and whenever organizations form to promote this, they are quickly under investigation by the Feds.

    When it was learned that Sarah Palin's husband once belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party, she was ordered to denounce the group and describe it as just a club. When Arizonans passed a minor law to deal with mass illegal immigration, the Power Elite aimed its media and business guns at that state. Conventions were cancelled and all white Arizonans labeled as a racists for demonstrating a tiny element of autonomy.

    The Power Elite have spent the last two decades trying to add Canada and Mexico to a "North American Union" with some success. They have used "free trade" to ensure to the flow of duty free natural resources from Canada and the transfer of factories to Mexico. Canada is an oil-rich nation and a major oil exporter, yet it citizens pay more for gasoline than those in the USA, which imports 80% of its oil. However, Americans and Canadians strongly oppose their "open borders" effort to allow more cheap labor to migrate northward. Watch your corporate media closely to follow this effort to demolish talk of state rights, autonomy, or state laws against illegal immigration. And watch the ongoing effort to rewrite the Civil War as a war against slavery, rather than Lincoln's disastrous crusade to reclaim abandoned federal property.

    They can pull down all the monuments, rewrite all the books and propagandize all they want. You won’t change people.
    I would recommend a book called “The Battle for the Mind” by William Sargent.
    The bottom line is this. Southerners do not and will not buy in to Northern or West Coast propaganda. Those are to a very great extent the propaganda centers of the country.
    You can look at any country on Earth and every one of them are segregated by race, religion, politics, education or wealth.
    The war was only a manifestation of what people have felt and will feel for millenia.
    The more people keep pushing the narrative forward the more it will grow. Like a good magician they keep the people of this country watching the right hand while the left picks their pocket.
    Because of this narrative, I now refuse to spend money which may counter my belief system. Where I shop, eat, tip, drive, watch, listen or worship.
    Vote with your money, presence, attention and effort.
    Even Hollywood, the recent episode of Speilberg calling the director of a young actress to get rid of her because of a comment. Well, free speech aside I guess such unilateral authoritative behavior is ok for some but not for others. No movies for me.
    Bottom line is keep pushing. People are waking up. People do not watch entertainment to be proselytized.
    NFL, down. Movies, down. TV down.
    I am pleased to have more free time to spend on things truly more inportant.

    Read More
  151. As an aside; I had a Basque Sociology Professor who left us with several gems; “By their Civilizations ye Shall Know them.”
    Yep. Yep. Yes indeed.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS