This entry is my response to an article from Politico called “How the South Skews America” by Michael Lind. Throughout this entry I will be quoting directly from the article:
We are a special nation, uniquely founded on high ideals like freedom and equality.
What the Founders meant by “equality” was nothing like what the average leftist has in mind. They were talking about equal rights, not equality of outcomes. They also enumerated what those rights were; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, the freedom to be left along by others to rise or fall to the level of your abilities. There is no socialism, or “social contract” rubbish, in the Declaration or Constitution, which were entirely libertarian in nature.
Freedom is incompatible with socialism and MORE government. If you’re skimming 20 to 90% of what I make, then I don’t have the freedom to keep what I earned. That’s not an increase in freedom, and it directly impinges upon my lifestyle choice. I could say a lot more on this, but there are other issues which need to be addressed.
A lot of the traits that make the United States exceptional these days are undesirable, like higher violence and less social mobility. Many of these differences can be attributed largely to the South.
And have you broken it down by race and/or citizenship? Probably not, because that would be against your narrative. Where the violence occurs is less important than WHO is committing it. The fact is that we bear the brunt of illegal aliens, which the Democrats have forced on us. Does California count as the south? It’s a pretty violent place.
Government does not create social mobility, it stands in the way of it, especially when it drains so much money from the economy that jobs become scarce. It’s because of stupid liberal policies that jobs are becoming harder to find. Who attributes this to the South? I want to know who this guy is and where he gets his data from.
Compared to continental European and East Asian democracies, the Anglophone nations tend to be more market-oriented and less statist, with somewhat lower levels of social spending and weaker bureaucracies. We might even speak of “Anglosphere exceptionalism.”
I’d say that’s a good thing, but I can’t tell if this guy is for or against that. Does he want social mobility or equality of outcomes? The two are mutually exclusive.
Also, for someone who talks about Democracy as if it were a moral imperative it would be wantonly inconsistent to condemn secession, or support the top down legislation by fiat, like Obamacare, and Federally mandated “gay marriage.” Personally, I think Democracy is a rubbish concept, but anyone who thinks it’s a moral imperative should support its results, not matter what they are, and should condemn any top down attempts to change the culture.
As we learned after the slaughter last month in Charleston, S.C., some deluded Southerners still pine for secession from the Union.
That’s a lie. People in the south have been talking about secession for a long time, and there’s nothing deluded about it. It’s not in our best interest to be ruled over by people who clearly hate us.
Minus the South, the rest of the U.S. probably would be more like Canada or Australia or Britain or New Zealand—more secular, more socially liberal, more moderate in the tone of its politics and somewhat more generous in social policy.
Minus the South AND Center. Check an electoral map to see which states are blue and red. Again with the “social policy.” Giving away someone else’s money is not generosity, if so then pirates should be treated like Santa Claus. Also, why would I want to live in a dive like England with its Islamic Shariah zones and “hate speech” laws?
Today there is more inter-generational social mobility in Europe than in the United States, contrary to the American myth that the United States is still the world’s No. 1 land of opportunity.
It’s because of leftist policies that there are less jobs, and more people with worthless degrees. It’s also due to the swarms of unskilled barely literate 3rd world immigrants that are being allowed to flood in. That will mess up most of the averages.
Economic inequality? Apart from California and New York, where statistics reflect the wealth of Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley, the South is the region with the greatest income inequality.
Social mobility lends itself to economic inequality, as people are free to rise and fall to the level of their natural abilities. Economic equality/equality of outcomes is not natural. If you want economic equality then you have to force everyone down to the lowest common denominator, because not everyone who pushes baskets for a living is qualified to be a doctor or engineer. But then, in order to force everyone down into poverty together, there still has to be some dictator and his band of thugs enforcing the equality. Social mobility cannot be separated from inequality.
As for California, it’s worth noting that businesses are leaving for Texas. You can only tax the life out of businesses for so long before they go elsewhere.
The mythology of American exceptionalism holds that ever since 1776 the United States has led the rest of the world in expanding individual liberty and the growth of the middle class.
Governments don’t expand liberty, they curtail it. Everything government does is done with force. They cannot help someone do anything that lies beyond their natural abilities, but they can crack down on you and keep you from doing something you can and want to do. Sometimes this is a good thing, for example, we don’t want a continual migration of illiterate thugs from the 3rd world continually streaming into our neighborhoods and having a body that coordinates a defense force to protect us from invaders isn’t a bad thing. But it’s asinine to say that government is expanding freedoms, when the most government can do is curtail actions which people can already take on their own.
In reality, the United States has frequently lagged behind Britain and her other offspring in these areas.
We’re lagging behind them in Islamization and censorship.
And today white Southern Republicans are at the forefront of efforts to roll back the voting rights revolution by making voter registration more difficult.
This is a blatant lie. A truthful statement would have been to say, “Democrats are at the forefront of the push to make it possible for ILLEGAL ALIENS to vote in US elections.”
Religiosity is one example of American exceptionalism among English-speaking countries that is largely the result of Southern exceptionalism within the United States. “We don’t do God,” Tony Blair’s aide Alastair Campbell famously remarked, emphasizing that religion is kept out of the public sphere in modern-day Britain. In most modern English-speaking countries, voters find ostentatious piety on the part of political candidates troubling, not reassuring.
This is why England has such abysmally low birthrates and a nearly complete absence of patriotism. For the most part, the only people in Western Europe willing to stand up for Europe are the atheistic nationalist movements, which I doubt Michael would find any more palatable than Christian conservatives, and would be even less willing to touch. Everyone else in Western Europe is willing to sell Europe or give it away to Muslims and other 3rd worlders.
But in the U.S., born-again Southern evangelical politicians like Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush who troll for votes with piety have given U.S. presidential politics a flavor more reminiscent of Tehran than of London or Ottawa or Canberra.
And why should the choice be between communism and Islam? Both of those ideologies are 100% anti-Christian, anti-western, and anti-American. Last time I checked it was the liberals who wanted to let Muslims in this country. I live have lived in Georgia for nearly 12 years, and in all that time I would see someone wearing Muslim garb maybe once a year. Now I see it more than once a week, unless I take off and stay home for a week. Sometimes I see it twice a day.
According to Gallup, in 2014 the most religious Americans were all found in Southern states, with the exceptions of Mormon Utah and semi-Southern Oklahoma. Mississippi led the nation in zeal.
What poll? Citation needed. And why is this a bad thing exactly? The US was much more Christian at the time of its founding than it is now.
White Southerners are more likely than white northerners to respond to insults with increased testosterone and aggression, according to social scientists.
Liberals are actually much more thin skinned. A southerner is more likely to respond to a liberal in a truthful manner than the reverse, and will not care about the liberal’s feelings. Southerners, and right wingers in general, don’t believe in “safe zones” or “free speech zones.” The entire country is a free speech zone. A liberal is more likely to use the government to violently protect his feelings, and to force others to “agree” with him.
According to the FBI in 2012, the South as a region, containing only a quarter of the population, accounted for 40.9 percent of U.S. violent crime.
Citation needed. It’s worth noting that “Hispanics” are lumped in as white in all the crime statistics.
Compared to other Americans, Southerners disproportionately support sanctioned violence in all of its forms, from military intervention abroad to capital punishment to corporal punishment of children.
This is a lie. We do not support killing unborn babies. We do not support releasing dangerous illegal aliens into the general population where they can and do murder people. We do not support Islam and it’s attacks on free speech. We do not, in general, support the initiation of force. The calls for the use of force are almost always in reaction to something else.
It was Obama who armed terrorists in Syria (ISIS), who gave money to Hamas, and who took down Ghadaffi for no reason at all.
According to Gallup, Southern households have a far higher rate of gun ownership (38 percent) than households in the East (21 percent), Midwest (29 percent) or West (27 percent).
So what? Government has more guns than all the civilians put together.
The death penalty has been abolished in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Isolated among the major English-speaking nations, the U.S. is among the world’s leaders when it comes to per capita executions, competing with the regimes in Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and North Korea.
The alternative is to privatize executions, because one way or another, murderers need to be punished, and the tax payer should not have to support them.
The U.S. owes this dubious honor to the South. Between the time the Supreme Court ended the ban on the death penalty and mid-June of this year, the South was responsible for 81 percent of the executions in the United States, with Texas and Oklahoma alone accounting for 45 percent of the whole.
The fact that liberals have sympathy for murderers only reflects poorly on them.
The racial polarization of the American electorate is exacerbated by the white Southern electorate. In 2012, Barack Obama, the first African-American president, won only 39 percent of the white vote. But low numbers among white voters in the South dragged down his nationwide total.
Obama is a horrible “president” and the worst human disaster ever to hit this country. The fact that he is part black does not excuse him from being horrible. It’s not our fault if the majority of black Americans decide to vote for the dismantling of America. Nothing is stopping them from coming over to our side. The bulk of black Americans started voting for Democrats because of LBJ, and would have still voted for Obama even if he were fully white. They did not start voting Democrat just because Obozo happened to be part black. He may be part black, but he bears very little resemblance to the average Black American. He’s weak and effeminate, and throws like a girl.
Acharya, Matthew Blackwell and Maya Sen, “the larger the number of slaves in his or her county of residence in 1860, the greater the probability that a white Southerners today will identify as a Republican, express opposition to race-coded policies such as affirmative action and express greater racial resentment towards African Americans.”
It took me a minute to decipher this nonsense statement. No one alive today was alive during those times, and during those times most southerners voted DEMOCRAT. Yes I know that the Democrat party has changed since then, but as affirmative action offers no advantages to white people, there is no reason why we should support it. It’s not in our best interests, and it’s not in the best interests of white people in general to vote Democrat, which is why most do not.
I know there was probably some implication here about white southerners passing down their resentment over losing their slaves to every generation, but the fact is the bulk of white southerners never owned slaves and could not afford to. It’s not possible to resent losing something you never had.
White Southern political culture has shown remarkable continuity, despite the half-century flight of Southern conservatives from the Democratic to the Republican Party.
Ironically the southern colonies were originally secular and mercantile, while the northern colonies were founded upon religion. Over time the roles gradually reversed. Slavery was a horrible institution, but now the south is much more free than most of the libtard states, where taxes and regulations are high, and where they want to ban people from owning guns or having large sodas.
Indeed, on issues from gay marriage to immigration to public investment in infrastructure, the business community and the GOP’s white Southern base are increasingly at odds.
“Gay marriage” and unlimited immigration are things that the liberals want, not things that traditional Americans want, be they southern or whatever.
The northern progressives who joke about the U.S. jettisoning “Jesusland” and merging with Canada will not get their wish. But there is hope: A combination of demographic change and generational change is weakening the ability of the old-fashioned South to skew American politics and culture in the future. Peripheral Southern states like Florida and Virginia are increasingly competitive, and the Deep South may join them in time. In Texas once-reactionary cities like Houston and Dallas are competing with Austin as tolerant meccas for transplants who prefer the Sun Belt to the Old South. Immigration into the South from other countries and American regions is breaking down local oligarchies and old folkways.
“Tolerant mecca” is an oxymoron. But please, we don’t want liberals coming down from the north. Stay where you are and like it. Maybe you can have your politicians legislate the external temperature to go up to your comfort level?
What Michael is really saying here is “We’re not going to let you go, but we are going to destroy your culture and way of life through immigration and legislation.”
The decline in Southern exceptionalism in time may lead to more of a convergence among the U.S. and other modern democracies. Let us hope so. We have had enough of the wrong kind of American exceptionalism.
So then the solution is to stay out of our part of the country. It’s not hard. The thing is, we don’t want anything from anyone else. As long as others leave us alone, we will leave them alone, but this is incongruous with the leftist psyche. The leftist believes that all must conform, even if they are not harming anyone else, and if they do not want to conform, they must be made to. I find this controlling sort of mentality absolutely sick and evil.
So if Michael loves England and Canada so much, then why doesn’t he go there? If he hates the South so much, then why doesn’t he advocate for a separate country of his own, independent of the evil racist white southerners (many, if not most, of which are part Native American)? He should be glad see the south go. But no, he won’t advocate for that, and he won’t leave, because he makes his living off of bad mouthing traditional America, and if he went somewhere else he might have to get a real job, and since he’s got no real skills, that would not go very well.