Blog Archive

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

In Defense of the South:

I'm a southerner, a Texan to be precise, so whenever I watch a historical film about the South in the Civil War, I intrinsically, instinctively take their side. Even when my ideology is in complete opposition, even when I should be cheering for the other side, my heart goes out to the South and it will not leave their side. When I see the Rebs routing the Yanks, I'm elated, and when I see them getting mowed down by concentrated artillery over an open field, I cry. For some reason the loss of a Southerner is more important than his Northern counterpart. More tragic. More personal. Their songs are more touching than the songs sung by the North. Their tunes are closer to home. Their accent is the 'right' accent, the way people should talk, the accent of distinguished and dapper gentleman, of people full of gravitas, while the North's accent is bland and ugly. Everything about the South is better. Their uniforms. Their cavalry. Their noblesse oblige among the men and the chivalry they show their women, but the respect the men and women show their betters nevertheless. Everything about the South just seems better, more beautiful, more refined, more mature, more honorable.

The problem is my heart and the facts are opposed to each other. The facts are quite simple, the South was a backwater in the United States. The people were less educated than in the North, they had us outnumbered 3:1, and truth to tell, Southern whites had a lower IQ than whites in the North, having come from a poorer stock. These West Virginia types are still among us today, still as poor and low-scoring on standardized tests as ever, still the mockery of the East Coast that attacked us so long ago. Some of the states were so infested with Negroes that they had crossed the 50% threshold. Can you imagine a state being majority Negro? When your state consists primarily of slaves from the most benighted and retarded race on Earth, there is nothing commendable about your state. You are a disgrace and a blot upon the world. If someone had given me an option to simply Noah's Flood a state populated mostly by black slaves I would have given the go-ahead. But much of the South was past that point or approaching that point already. The South was not responsible for practically any scientific or artistic achievement. As Human Accomplishment showed, everything of interest was concentrated in New England. Today, still, the places of true prestige in the Arts and Sciences are on the East Coast and the West Coast. The South has the best football teams and that's about all their colleges are good for. Does it really make sense to cheer for the backwards, retrograde force over the advanced, prosperous civilization to our North?

The answer is a qualified, but determined: Yes. In the end, the South was the more advanced civilization of the two, in the ways that really counted.

The institution of slavery was completely understandable. Blacks as a race cannot look after themselves, they must be treated like eternal children or they will simply self-destruct. There isn't a single black nation on Earth that can take care of itself, and in moments of honesty, even blacks admit this: For instance, a poll was taken in Jamaica asking whether, now that they have been free for some time, they wished they could become once again a colony of the United Kingdom. The poll was overwhelmingly in favor, though of course the U.K. has no desire whatsoever to have them back. Time and again we have run the experiment of black freedom, of black self-rule. In Haiti, it became a disaster of epic proportions. We have had to send constant relief to a country that used to be rich when run by whites, a jewel of the Atlantic, and have had to constantly invade the country to set its politics right after yet another repressive dictatorship emerged from Blacks own choices. Even then it isn't enough, as America must continuously take in Haitian immigrants as a release valve from their self-created Hell on Earth.

Some islands in the Caribbean populated by blacks are relatively wealthy and well off, but this is just an illusion. Their well being depends entirely upon white tourists who make their lifestyles possible. If America weren't there to help them through our luxury spending, a product of the productivity of whites, who make so much money they can afford to go on silly cruises among black-populated islands full of nice beaches, then those countries would look exactly like Haiti. The nice beaches sitting right next to America are a natural resource not unlike huge oil reserves, which allow Arabs to live well beyond their civilization-building capacity in countries like Kuwait or Bahrain. When left to their own devices, blacks are wreckers. They are destroyers. They are more destructive than atomic bombs, as shown by the contrast between cities given over to blacks, versus Hiroshima or Nagasaki that are now perfectly nice places to live again. South African blacks were better off under Apartheid, when at least there was still law and order and a working economy. Now their infrastructure is falling apart, their President is a polygamous rapist constantly dogged by corruption scandals, and the majority of their women are raped multiple times across their lifetime -- starting as early as infancy, since supposedly sex with an infant can cure AIDS. In the same way, black slaves were better off than free blacks are today. At least in the past, they had a job, a steady income, a stable family, a place in their community, and a moral upbringing. The South looked after their slaves better than the North looked after their workers. Irish died like flies but slaves usually outlived their free white compatriots. Nowadays, matters are different. Blacks cannot find a job. 70% of black children do not have a father. 50% of black men have been convicted of a felony, and many of them now live behind bars. There are probably more black prisoners today than there were slaves in 1861, and no one can tell me slaves were worse off than black prisoners. Those blacks who are outside of jail (for the moment) must deal with the drugs, crime, poverty, and child abandonment of the blacks around them. A black slave living in a master's home was surrounded by conscientious, polite whites who cared for them. Black slaves working on plantations were treated as valuable merchandise and given wages, room and board, Sunday off to go to church, and a normal family life with a wife and children. There were not scourges like drugs, alcohol, single mothers, and rampant crime to deal with. You could not go unemployed. There weren't any gangs to join. Cities were not trash heaps full of graffiti and litter and broken infrastructure crawling with sullen black teenagers looking to rape, rob, or kill anyone who passes by. A black slave had the privilege of living in white-run areas, and when whites run things, they are always clean, civilized, safe, and prosperous places.

The South had two problems: A crop that required intensive manual labor and a climate that killed any whites who tried to live in it. To meet these problems, they had to resort to importing black field hands. Economically, there was no other way for the South to viably exist. Slavery was simply the system that saw to the well being of both parties. If it had been called some other term, like permanent employment, it would have been just as accurate. Blacks must be taken care of like eternal children, because they cannot, have not, and will not ever take care of themselves like adults. Rules must be set for them, guidelines for their behavior enforced, simple jobs with simple tasks provided, and so on. This is the only way blacks can function in the modern world -- they must be controlled by someone else with discipline, yes, but also with compassion and understanding. The South had all of that for their slaves -- the North could not and did not understand this essential truth. Blacks NEED masters. They are like dogs. They cannot fend for themselves, and when they do fend for themselves, they become wild packs who savagely attack everyone and everything around them, and as a result must simply be put down. There is no middle way.

As time passed, however, reality stopped being so mutually beneficial. The South slowly but surely terraformed its environment to be more hospitable to white life. We drained our swamps and cured the curse of malaria. We invented air conditioning, vaccines, and antibiotics. We invented machines that could handle cotton without all the manual labor. Whites soon had no more use for black slaves, and at this point, we began to realize the horrible mistake we had made. For the black race could only be of use to their white masters, and to the American continent, while the initial conditions they were introduced into remained the same. If technology changed, if the environment changed, if world trade changed, if cotton became less important a commodity, all our decisions, all the blacks we had imported as a necessary part of our economic life cycle, were just an albatross around our necks.

Some slave masters tried switching from farming to manufacturing, but the North violently objected to this pernicious practice, because it would bring about working conditions equally poor in the North just to keep up. It was the exact same issues argued about 40 years later by the Progressives -- fair wages, safe working conditions, no child labor -- and certainly no slave labor undercutting our unions! Labor at the time would rather go to war with the South than see slavery become the new 'norm' for manufacturing. Farming was rapidly becoming impossible due to depleted soil. The whole thing was a mess. And yet the South knew it must keep blacks slaves, or, God help them, what was to become of Southern whites? In some states physically outnumbered by blacks? In many places populations that were 20, 30, 40% black? They knew, unlike the North, that negroes were subhuman, that they would destroy anything they touched, that they would rape and murder white people with abandon the moment they were given a chance. They knew our future! The future we see today in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Detroit, Philadelphia, and wherever these roving bands of black flash mobs appear. They needed slavery no longer for its economic use, but simply as a way to stop crime, to stop rebellion, to stop black malingering as they sat around collecting welfare, single mothers raising gaggles of prison-bound kids taking drugs and drinking themselves into oblivion daily.

The South was sitting on top of a volcano and the North was just adding more and more tectonic pressure underneath. It was insane. Did the North want to kill us all? What had we ever done to them to merit a future dominated by blacks? We had a system that, however painful to both sides, at least kept the peace and kept a working civilization going, however obsolete it had become. But the North wanted to throw that system away, a system they only heard rumors about and had no practical understanding of how it functioned or why it was set up. The North overthrew that system and replaced it with nothing. It was pure chaos during Reconstruction, until the South was allowed to put in place a new system, this time 'Jim Crow.' In the new system, blacks were technically free, but they still had to do whatever whites told them and live in a white-run society. They still had to respect their betters and live according to white role models, or there would be swift and certain justice (hangings and visits in the night by the men in sheets.) Again, the South was pacified, and blacks lived relatively benign lives. They had jobs as sharecroppers, intact families, dressed well, and functioned in the modern world. Again, the North said that wasn't good enough, and overthrew it all. Again, the South was thrown into chaos. And now we have reached the third equilibrium: welfare for all blacks outside of prison, prison for the rest. The system is no prettier, no happier, than the previous two. By any birds-eye view it is worse. If blacks are better off today, it isn't because they are either on welfare or in prison, as opposed to under Segregation or Slavery. It is only because technology has lifted all standards of living and given everyone a rising boat. If this same technological progress had occurred with Segregation or Slavery still in place, blacks would be better off in either timeline than they are today.

Upwardly mobile blacks, the talented tenth, were generally recognized by slavemasters and encouraged, paid, and eventually freed. There were tons of free blacks in the South who had proven their worth to their masters and been treated respectfully accordingly. Some even owned their own black slaves. The only blacks who remained slaves were the ghetto blacks, the no good blacks, the same blacks we keep in jail today. The same is true of segregation. There were black colleges available for the talented tenth, it was possible to get a job of any sort back during Segregation, doctor, lawyer, whatever -- but the no good blacks couldn't harass our women in our parks or our busses. The no good blacks had to stay away and be no good among themselves. Now they are allowed to be no good everywhere, and so whites can't live around blacks anymore -- they retreat to far off suburbs. They retreat to private schools. They retreat to cars. They retreat to gated communities. In the end, we're right back where we started -- more segregated than ever, with only the upwardly mobile blacks allowed to join our community -- but the price in blood and treasure is infinitely higher.

I can't blame the South for its backwardness -- they were backwards because the climate forced them to be. The south was almost an uninhabitable jungle when they got here. It was death to 2/3 of whites on landing within 5 years. In comparison, the cool, fresh air of the North was a piece of paradise that extended the lifespan of any Englishmen who made the journey across the sea. The South could either give up on its landmass entirely and wait for air conditioning and the cure to malaria to be invented, or they could import blacks. If you import blacks, you must keep them under control through one system or another. Slavery is just a word, it doesn't mean anything except: "the system the South used to control blacks, who must always be controlled because they Cannot control themselves, genetically," We weren't putting them on galleys or having them fight in gladiatorial shows. We were treating them better than the North treated its immigrants. The word slave is a complete misnomer. These weren't sugar plantation blacks dying in droves and being replaced weekly like they did in the Caribbean and Brazil. These weren't Janissaries like the Ottomans forced to wage wars on their own mothers and fathers for the glory of Islam. They weren't castrated like the Chinese would have done to their eunechs. They were our field workers, genetically resistant to Southern heat and disease, our ideal workers who were just a little too slow and violent to look after themselves. We made a fair deal with them -- you do the work, we'll handle the higher order civilization building stuff, and we'll both end up far better off than either of us could have managed alone. This is definitively proven by Haiti vs. Antebellum South black standard of living. Even at this time, Haiti was free -- and a hellhole, compared to black slaves living in the South.

If Southerners had landed at Cape Cod and Northerners had landed at Jamestown, they would have done the exact same things, word for word, as transpired. It was written in the book of fate, by the land itself, what whites who landed in those locations would end up doing to make a living. The holier than thou North could only afford its moral sneering because of two things: A hospitable climate at first, and second no black minority with its black dysfunction to worry about once blacks were unleashed. If the situation were reversed, they could have done no better. In fact, now that the North is in control, and we've now observed their preferred solution: Throw most black men in jail and put most black women on welfare, it's a straight out fact that they couldn't do any better. They have the worst system imaginable currently in IMPLEMENTATION.

But I do thank the North for one thing: By freeing the slaves and ending the cotton plantation economy, the North did the South two great favors -- they erased the evolutionary niche for blacks in North America, which meant fewer blacks were born, and they took a large number of blacks off our hands, to babysit themselves (like in Chicago, New York City, and Detroit.) Thanks, North! Have at them! By this redistribution, we saved several Southern States from becoming complete blackouts -- like South Carolina. Now blacks are a manageable 13% spread all over the US, instead of the over 50% populations in some Southern states that would have been complete wrecks.

I do not, however, thank them for preserving the Union. If the South had been allowed to secede, white Southerners would have no doubt freed the slaves sooner or later, as the age of field labor farming was coming to an end all over the world. But we would not have given them free rein to do whatever they like, not like we have today. They would not have become drug dealers, gang members, and rapists of our Southern white belles. They would have been forced to look sharp, bow when we walked by, and marry their damn wives and take care of their damn children. The black issue would have been contained, permanently contained, in a permanent caste system that allowed the talented tenth their fair shot in life, but kept the worthless 90% down, where they belong, on LEASHES, both cultural and legal, safely away from the public at large. We might have even sent them all back to Africa. If we had had our way, our independence, we could have found a real solution to the black problem. The North had no solution, they just had moral dictates from on high, without consequence, since they didn't live around any blacks. They were just a foreign scourge that unleashed a domestic scourge on our states that still haven't recovered from the harm done.

The South also wouldn't have made the mistakes the North made in so many other ways. Can you imagine the South treating homosexuality as equally right and normal to heterosexuality? Could the South have ever pushed for feminism and no-fault divorce? The South may have conquered Mexico, but would the South have ever allowed Mexico to conquer it????? Unthinkable. The South, its gentleman and lady Christian culture and hard-fisted realism about racial differences, would have preserved us from all these absurdities. The liberalism, the East Coast, Jewish, Bolshevik, Frankfurt-School liberalism, would have found no place in the South. Even today, the South is stridently against this liberal nonsense, far more so than the North. But we are overwhelmed by their electoral votes, by their media presence, by their law courts that overthrow every state law we try to pass -- by the fact that we didn't win our independence when we had the chance.

What would a Southern media have looked like, uncontaminated by New York Jews? Would the South have gone to war in World War I and World War II, for the sake of bankers and assorted other scoundrels, on the wrong damn side?

I wonder and I dream about a nation that asserted its right to remain free a second time in less than 100 years. How strong would their constitutional rights have been? How free would their people be, compared to us, who are taxed and regulated and spent into serfdom? Would they have allowed a Supreme Court to unilaterally allow abortion, against the will of the people? To unilaterally bus white children into black schools where they would be molested and beaten? To unilaterally make us fund the education of invaders from across the border who won't even speak English? I just can't see it. I can't believe the South would put up with any of the tyranny we expect and accept from our Northern-image Union. The Union that was founded on coercion and force, or the Confederacy founded on Secession and Freedom, who would have been a better template for the future? What if states could freely leave the Confederacy if they felt the Confederate Government had overstepped its authority? In the Confederacy, by their own precedent, they would have had to allow it, or the hypocrisy would have been ridiculous. But in our Union, states can't leave the Union, no matter how tyrannical the Federal Government becomes, because they already established that they can, regardless of morality, crush anyone who seeks to escape their Iron Curtain.

If only the South had won! What would our politics be like today? What would our culture look like? What would our demographics look like? I don't know. It's impossible to know. Maybe it would have been worse. Maybe. But it had so much potential to be something so much better than where we've arrived today, as part of the Union. A potential we'll never know, because we weren't allowed the freedom to try. Simply to give it our best shot and see what we could make of ourselves. we were denied that freedom, that God-given right, and forced to do as we were told and just accept the decisions that were handed to us at the point of a bayonet -- you Will allow sodomy, you Will allow blacks to run loose like packs of wild dogs, you Will dress your women in overalls and cut their hair short, you Will become majority Hispanic, on and on and on. The North decides and we, reluctantly and against our better judgment, are forced to follow.

600,000 men died in the civil war so that the North could run the South from the comfort of their minority-free, cool climate, comfy homes. It was like a giant, old fashioned game of sim-City. Sim-Life. Sim-South. The north is still playing their favorite video game, the game of striking moral poses and letting the South live with the consequences. They did it with our blacks, and now they're doing it with our Hispanics. They never live in the places they rule. They just rule those places, like Imperialists, and let the chips fall where they may. "After all, it doesn't make any difference to US what happens. We're in the safe, white North. What matters is looking good and feeling superior to our brethren across the Mason-Dixon line. If the South goes to hell, well, that's Their problem. We're Sophisticated. We don't deal with Consequences. We only deal with Theories."

The lowest circle in Hell is occupied by theorists.


Anonymous said...

Too bad you're a nut; because you had me going there. I agreed with maybe 75% of what you were saying until you tried to justify slavery. Nobody, no matter how primitive or unintelligent, deserves to be uprooted and enslaved.

Taking blacks out of their native and natural habitats and tribal culture is a part of what has caused their problems. I agree they aren't as intelligent or capable as the majority of white people and can't really make it in white societies. That's why it was a crime to bring them to a culture where they would be fish-out-of-water. They have been forced to live in ways that are not usual or typical for them.

I consider myself to be, I guess, a racial-realist who believes there are major differences between races. But, it's people like you who make excuses for slave owners, and try to pass slavery off as a positive, that make it hard on people with sensible views on race to have a respected voice, you jackass.

Diamed said...

Calling people names is a waste of time. Either refute my arguments or admit I'm right, those are the only options in any debate.

I brought forth plenty of evidence that blacks were better off as slaves, or under Jim Crow, than they are today as free and 'equal' individuals in the modern USA. You brought forth no evidence whatsoever refuting this belief. You just called me names. What kind of response is that?

By the way, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners. If you throw slave owners under the bus, you throw our founding fathers under the bus. Were they nutcases and jackasses too?