Category Archives: The South

Why Red States Tend to Be Net Tax Receivers

From Zerohedge:

This is all federal spending, so these totals are a combination of military spending, social welfare programs such as Medicare, and ordinary civilian federal spending, including civilian research facilities and other programs funded by federal grants.

Areas that are more rural and reliant on agriculture will tend to be net tax receiver areas both because farmers and ranchers receive a lot of government subsidies, and also because agricultural work tends to have lower productivity than urban work.

Urban areas, in contrast, produce most of the tax revenue, so highly urbanized states will tend to more often be “break even” or “net tax payer” states.

Additionally, you have retirees in the South and heavy military spending in certain states.

Nationwide, the tax-spending ratio is not one dollar, but it about $1.20. So, states that are getting around $1.20 back for every dollar extracted in taxes are really just at the national average.

On the other hand, the realities of the central bank tend to favor the richer, more urban states at the expense of the poorer tax-receiver states.

Simultaneously, the money creation process tends to favor the financial sectors in large urban areas at the expense of less urban and poorer areas. Thanks to the way the central bank creates money, it is the urban investor classes that get to spend the new money first — before prices adjust to the new, larger money supply — while more rural, less urban, and less productive parts of the country receive this money only after prices have risen. This further perpetuates the tax-spending imbalance.

Mr. Donald Trump Is Gonna Save Us All

Howard Dean once said, “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.” And then had to apologise.

The Donald doesn’t apologise for seeking our vote. He wants everyone’s vote.

Think of the South what one will, but we do vote like everyone else. We’re still part of America. Trump is the great uniter Howard Dean wished he could be.

Spinning Roanoke

Some of our moral and intellectual superiors are trying to convince us the underlying cause of the execution of two Roanoke journalists is an abstract thing called “gun violence.” Others argue it’s bigger than that – it’s actually an unfortunate example of “workplace violence”:

UC Haas School of Business professor Jo-Ellen Pozner says one possible key to addressing workplace violence is to find ways to address employees’ mental health and wellness.

“It seems clear that there was an emotional, mental health issue going on here and that’s I think the key to figuring out how to deal with these things in the workplace,” Pozner said, “I think there’s a public policy question there that we need to address in a larger level, that’s less about workplace violence and more about the violence in our society today.”

This isn’t just nonsense, but dangerous nonsense. Vester Flanagan hated Whites, and was convinced Whites conspired to hold him back and demean him out of racial hate. He was so obsessed with his delusions of racial persecution that anything could set him off, as one ex-coworker commented:

‘We would say stuff like, “The reporter’s out in the field.” And he would look at us and say, “What are you saying, cotton fields? That’s racist”.’

‘We’d be like, “What?’ We all know what that means, but he took it as cotton fields, and therefore we’re all racists.’

Fair added: ‘This guy was a nightmare. ‘Management’s worst nightmare.’

I’ll bet there are thousands more just like him. People like Flanagan constantly hear warnings that Whites are holding them back and oppressing them. That’s the drumbeat you hear from the Social Justice Warriors, antifa thugs, newspaper editors, and race hustlers. According to these prophets of doom, even Whites who appear helpful and supportive are still responsible for something called “institutional racism” that silently and secretly prevents Blacks from getting ahead. White success, on the other hand, is assured by another malevolent and unseen force called “White privilege.” So Vester Flanagan only struck back at those who exerted their mysterious and detrimental power over him.

The gatekeepers of approved thought who bloviated that the Charleston murders were caused by a memorial to Southern war dead are now scrambling to assure us it wasn’t anything THEY said that fueled Vester Flanagan’s hatred of Whites.

News Flash: We’ve Been Betrayed by Establishment Conservatives

As Paul Gottfried pointed out recently, “No one on the Left sounds as unhinged as ‘conservative’ journalists like Max Boot (Furling the Confederate flag is just the start). Or for that matter, Jeff Jacoby (The Confederate flag is anti-American).” And Gottfried is right – it’s not just Establishment Conservatives in the media who are attacking their own base – the most shrill, hysterical slander against Southern heritage has come from “conservative” Republicans in office. For example, here’s Gottfried again in a piece entitled “The NeoCons’ Confederate Problem.” And if you have the stomach for it, watch Republican Jenny Horne screech that the “symbol of hate” flying on the South Carolina capital grounds MUST be removed:

The mania against all things Southern has made a lot of folks realize they have no representation in government. Elected officials who claim to be conservatives actually represent no one but the powers that be. We’ve been stabbed in the back too many times, whether it’s been the issue of same-sex “marriage,” abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, Muslim immigration to this country, citizen surveillance, you name it, and we, the people, are always on the losing end.

A little witticism has popped up online in response. Establishment Conservatives are ridiculed as “cuckservatives.” The term blends the word “cuckold,” a man who’s faithful to his unfaithful wife, with “conservative.” Like all good political jokes, it serves up the truth with a side dish of humor. “Cuckservatives” may claim to represent conservatism, but actually advance leftist and Establishment interests because they have embraced the leftist worldview.

Is the term fitting? Consider this: What do authoritarian leftists do when challenged? They do not debate, but attack, and their go-to position is that only a racist, white supremacist, neo-nazi would DARE question their noble agenda. The most extreme example would be the “anti-racist” thugs who physically attack those who fail to think correctly. The more “respectable” leftists do the same thing, only without the gutter language. For example, here’s Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center slamming Pat Buchanan. At 1:45 into this video, Beirich says: “Neocons for the most part in white-supremacist circles are identified as Jews. So it’s actually an expression of anti-Semitism when he has material like that about Neocons. It comes from his right-wing, crazy, anti-Semitic views.”

Compare that language to that used by the so-called “conservative” Ace of Spades: “The word “#cuckservative” is being used as a banner-of-convenience by a conglomeration of several types of people, who range from what I’d call mere nativists to actual, hard-core, Nazi-flag-in-their-twitter profile white supremacists.”

Robert Stacy McCain, another Establishment Conservative, uses the same terms in his slam against the #Cuckservative revolt: “Thus, also, you don’t necessarily have to like Jews or be pro-Israel to be my friend. But if you start making noises about “international bankers” or “neocons” or otherwise signaling to me that you have a paranoid hostility toward Jews — what I call conspiratorial anti-semitism — well, no, I can’t hang with that.” And just to rub a little more salt into the wound, McCain’s assistant blogger, Wombat-socho, bragged the next day that he’d banned several commenters on the McCain blog, in effect, repelling what he called a “flood of racist/white nationalist/Nazi idiots.”

As a recent Washington Post article on this growing movement has noted, “‘#Cuckservative’ is a full-scale revolt.” For those who have had enough betrayal, and are sick and tired of always losing because we trusted Republican politicians, the “#Cuckservative” meme is at least a start.

Chesterton’s America

Amazon has an uncommonly interesting summary of the book Chesterton’s America: A Distributist History of the United States, which is based around Cecil Chesterton’s work but includes excerpts from GK Chesterton and others.

One of those others is Kentuckian Herbert Agar, editor of the famous I’ll Take My Stand and, from the summary,

according to commentator Herbert Shapiro, “[G.K.] Chesterton’s leading American political disciple.”

More from the summary:

G.K. Chesterton called the approach featured here ‘very brilliant and original,’ but also prophesied that ‘it will not be taken sufficiently seriously; because the reader will have to wrench his mind out of a rut…to imagine anybody saying that a small, limited and agricultural America would have been better for everybody—especially Americans.’ ‘Chesterton’s America’—the first ever Distributist History of the United States—is your chance to prove him wrong!

It sounds wonderful.

Thus Spake Zorg

Under an excellent article by Catholic World Report, a post by “Zorg” was penned on the WBTS.:

Very good article, except I have to quibble over the word “cause.”

“To insist that the only cause of the war was slavery—and it was a
cause of the war—obscures a number of things.” I understand that you mean it was an historical factor, but a *cause* of the *war* it was not. Yes, we habitually speak this way, but it’s not helpful. It’s too much of a propaganda term as it implies inevitability and some sort of quasi-physical “historical process” or whatever. Human beings are exceedingly prone to rationalize war rather easily, so the words used are very important.

War-making is not a matter of physics, but of choice. Human beings with free will directly cause war as it is organized violence. It was Lincoln who decided to make war on the states after they seceded, and because they seceded. His stated goal for making war was to preserve the Union (even at the expense of the slaves if necessary). If Lincoln did not make war against them for seceding, then there would have been no war.

Secession is not war. This is a distinction which cannot be missed. War is a planned aggression, willed and carried out consciously by men. And those who do so are directly responsible for the consequences which follow.

Incredibly monstrous consequences followed Lincoln’s war on the states and the people of the South. We are still feeling the effects after 150 years. Lincoln’s Orwellian “Union” was not the voluntary Union of the Founders or of the Constitution, but more like the Soviet Union – join or die. And now the rotten fruit of this idolatrous doctrine of the central state as an irresistible mystical “Union” is becoming fully manifest.

This current move to cleanse the culture of our historical and cultural symbols is truly un-American. The cultural Marxist narrative that this historical American battle flag is somehow “racist” in itself, and that anyone who displays it must be publicly shamed and vilified, is insane, but it’s par for the course. It’s what these people do. They are hellbent on vilification and thought control. You either toe the line and parrot back to them their social-engineering propaganda or you are a “bigot,” or a “racist,” or a “homophobe,” or “anti-choice,” or “hateful,” or “ignorant,” etc. We must all be “one,” and stop being “divisive.”

I’m guessing that they finally figured out that that X was a St. Andrew’s cross, and they had the usual reaction of vampires.

The quality of argument is really improving!

Paul Gottfried On the Confederate Battle Flag

Paul Gottfried has a good article at on the Confederate Battle Flag.

The most interesting aspect of the war against Confederate symbols is not its predictable backing from black activist groups or the leftist media or members of the Rainbow Coalition. Those are the sources of support one would expect to find in this campaign. Far more striking is the overwhelming, effusive help that is coming from elements of what is imagined to be the conservative movement. Whether we look at the Murdoch media, listen to Republican office-holders throughout the South, or read statements prepared for our capitalist CEOs, the message is hardly different from that of black civil rights activists and organizational heads. Not at all surprising is the evidence of the usual Republican game of triangulating, which takes the form of doing anything to win groups on the left while assuming that what there is of a Right will stay with the GOP. Unfortunately, this game has done very well among Southern whites, who continue to vote overwhelmingly for any so-called moderate the party throws at them, whether McCain, W, or Lindsey Graham.

US South and Utah More Charitable Than Others, Despite Poverty

Market Watch recently published a study showing wealthier neighborhoods give less than do poorer neighborhoods. However, there’s a more interesting trend.

From the map, Utah and the US South appear to be much more charitable than the rest of the US. And notice how “Deep South” Mississippi and Alabama are especially charitable despite poverty. These two states are where we find some of the highest percent of remnant blue-blood Southrons.

Counties in New England tend to give less — yet also have either moderate or high standards of living, while counties in Utah and the Southeast, where religious attendance is higher, have higher rates of giving, despite having low or moderate standards of living. San Juan County in Utah has an “Opportunity Index” — based on educational, economic and involvement in civic life — of 35.6% out of 100% but a giving ratio of 8.8% (anything above 7.9% is considered a high giving ratio). Hamilton County, N.Y., however, has a higher opportunity index of 56.6% and a giving ratio of just 3% (anything below 4.3% is considered low).

I expect there are a variety of trends at play here. Religion, rurality, sense of community (homogeneity helps), rootedness (generations living in same area), ethnicity (whites), and lack of opportunity (making others’ poverty more understandable) all encourage charity. I realise these are dark areas, but such doesn’t mean the blacks give as much as the whites.

It’s interesting that many of the Blue State residents will likely vote for government to step in to help, but they don’t wish to give themselves. So, it’s partly a difference in culture.

Once again we see how wonderful is the dying shell of the remnant Olde South, how sad is its passing. Notice how this is not a “capitalist” vs. “socialist” divide. The divide truly is between the US South and Utah versus much of the rest of the US. This is not a Cold War divide.