166 thoughts on “Reflections On Neo-Confederacy During A Visit To Ole Miss”

1. For those who want the truth about Lincoln and ‘Civil’ War search for author Thomas DiLorenzo.

2. I hate the South. It’s too hot, too Christian and far too black.
   Knock this “History not hate” bullshit off too. If you want to fly your nigger hating flag then fly it with pride.

   1. Sounds pretty nihilistic to me. As I stated in my own post good educated officers used to and probably still do fly confederate flags on their homes on military bases across the south. I doubt very seriously if any of them are “nigger haters” as you so poetically put it. Being a Christian in the evil hot south does not make you a hater. People who hate because of things like skin color are not Christians. They belong in a cult like the KKK. Real white Christians walked beside Martin Luther King and got beaten up and knocked down with fire hoses beside their black brothers and sisters. Most racists today are not white.

      1. Cool story bro,
         And my swastika arm band is just an ancient good luck symbol that’s been around for 5000 years.
         If you want to fly the flag of a defeated traitor’s army, then do it. Fly it high. But don’t pretend it’s anything other than the flag of a defeated traitor’s army. Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the secessionist. But, unfortunately for them the victor writes the history books.
         The Army is as PC as the post office. You wont find any officer, who plans on staying in for any length of time, or ever getting a command, flying the Stars and Bars.

         1. Yup:
            http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2014/12/29/stihie-model-soldier

         2. you are quite honestly the most entertaining person on the internet.

   2. The south is hot, but winter in the rest of the US, minus California, is awful. It’s too Christian but America as a whole is a fairy tale believing land of dimwits. It’s black, but I seem to notice that anywhere I travel, unless you are in the rural Midwest. Most southerners are Republican, but only for the racial reasons, as they don’t truly believe in limited government or fiscal responsibility. They are some of the most hard core statists around. A lot of military troops come from here, especially the poor areas.

3. Here’s to the new South. May you live long and prosper.

4. The south did rise again. The south is the only part of the country that is really doing well economically. Lower taxes, less Union regulations, attract more companies and create jobs. Every day we stick our finger in the eye of big imperialist government. I grew up in the north, in the only state to secede from the south. My family was poor, we never owned slaves, but I despise what the Union has become. Virtually all freedom has been taken away from us.
   When I lived in Mississippi at Keesler AFB I was surprised to see officers flying confederate flags next to their American flags on a US military base. Which side are you on people? Didn’t we already win that war? So I ordered a 35 star US flag and flew it next to my WV state flag in my own anti-protest. But now that I’ve lived half my life in the south I understand. It’s not about the confederacy or slavery or racism. It’s about pride of being a southerner. Pride of being self sufficient. And pride in sticking it to the federal govt. And while it might be mostly a white culture thing it’s not meant to be racist. Blacks have their own culture and their own symbols that equally excludes us.
   So while I would never fly a confederate flag and those that I see who do are most definitely rednecks and most likely racists the flag itself doesn’t offend me. It’s what the flag means to the person who flies it that determines it’s meaning. The person who sees it determines their own meaning.

   1. This is incorrect. The southeast and the west are doing poorly. You can find some aberrations. Texas is doing well. Detroit is doing shitty. But overall, the southeast is not doing well. The south does have a lower union workforce, but it also has lower wages that benefit corporations at the expense of the workforce. Unions overstepped their original intent, and became bloated and bureaucratic, but some level of worker organization is what helped build solid middle class wages for workers.
      I don’t see this attitude of “sticking a finger in the eye of big government” anywhere in the south. I find that southerners are among the biggest statists anywhere. Yes, you will hear them rant and rave against the current president, but that’s because he is of the opposite skin color and political party as they are; but they ideologically agree with most of the statist moves (evisceration of the bill of rights, expansion of the police state, expansion of the war economy, disdain for civil liberties).
      Alabama has it’s own “department of homeland security”. Yeah, because we have to protect all those cotton fields. That’s pretty Orwellian and paranoid.
      http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/06/22/Great-Recession-Hurt-Some-States-More-Than-Others
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/poverty-increase-map_n_5548577.html

      1. And all props to Texas for managing their natural resources well but they are sitting on an ocean of them, so its not really a case of superior Southern economic policy.

5. The making of the Confederate flag persona non grata is part of the cultural marxism’s long march thru the institutions and traditions..

   1. Its like forcing the redskins to change their name because somebody who works at a tribal casino claims it offends their culture.

      1. Yes, what about “diversity?”

         1. Diversity is code word for anti-white.

         2. The white people who preach it and actually rage against white people do need to have their numbers reduced.

   2. No, “cultural marxism” is the boogie man that the Right uses to simplify and shut down debate. The cultural marxists will get you! It’s the same thing the Left does with the Koch brothers. It’s all simple us vs them. It wasn’t people actually wanting segregation to end because they considered it an unequal system. It was the marxist Jews trying to take down America. Propaganda 101, find or create an enemy.

      1. You mean the way the left uses the terms “racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobia” and so forth to describe anyone winning an argument with them? Also, how exactly does the term “cultural marxist” shut down debate? I’ve never heard anyone on the right use that term as though it ended all discussion. In fact, it’s usually just the beginning of their critique.

         1. Yep, exactly like that. It shuts down debate because you have both a handy ad hominem and strawman argument. 1. The person is evil and trying to destroy our culture. 2. Whatever the person’s actual argument is can be dismissed to address their true argument – America needs to be a Communist utopia.
            By calling it all cultural marxism you can dismiss it the way the Left dismisses the Rights arguments as racist, homophobic. It’s both stupid and cowardly, Because the argument for the Confederate flag is simple and powerful – freedom of speech and expression. What you can’t take is that the other side might have some valid arguments as well. Argue the points, not this bullshit ideological paradigm that is frankly just as myopic as the Left’s.

         2. …and when they don’t have a clear cut accusation of racism they fall back to suggesting you’re racist by saying things like “check your privilege”. Meaning you’re on double secret probation by the self appointed enforcers of political correctness.

         3. Well, I definitely agree with you in essence: the arguments should be addressed substantively and on their merits rather than through name-calling. That being said, people invent labels for many reasons, and one of them is convenience. You have to call your enemies SOMETHING if for no other reason than to identify them. Also, if you honestly believe that the policies and ideas put forward by a certain group will harm or even destroy the culture, I see no reason not to say so, although constantly predicting the apocalypse can become an embarrassment when it never happens.

         4. Yep. And I’m not saying cultural Marxism isn’t real. I just believe the Left and the Right have become these ideological echo chambers in which the other side is viewed like fantastical supervillains with doomsday devices. And this is not me being all “cumbaya, we all need to get along”. It’s me saying don’t let ideology dull your powers of reason and skepticism. I have to believe the people with the better ideas win (although that could just be me being naive).

         5. Use of the term ‘cultural Marxist,’ two words – Anders Brevik.

         6. We talk about cultural marxism here because the people who read this website understands what it is, and its dangers. There is no shutting down of the debate in this context. If someone makes a rational point and the reply is, “well you’re a cultural marxist!” then that is an ad hominem, yes. We use it as shorthand here to describe an ideology that’s prevalent today. Whenever I debate someone, I never use the phrase “cultural marxist,” “feminist,” or anything like that. I stick with the evidence, because that’s really all that matters anyway.

         7. You use cultural marxist exactly the way the Left uses terms like Neoconservative. And its just as vague and amorphous. Seeing you understand it so well, give me a couple succinct statements about what a cultural marxist is, what they want and why they want it.

         8. I can give you my definition. First you must understand what Marxism is, which is the idea that economics is dominated by oppressors and the oppressed. Next, the idea that we must create laws to make the oppressors and oppressed equal in outcome. Marxism is moral theory. Now remove the economic aspect of it, and apply it to elements of culture. Thus you have “Cultural Marxism.”
            For example, the centerpiece of feminism, “Patriarchy Theory,” was developed by a Communist named Gerda Lerner. She basically took Marx’s theory of the rich (bourgeoisie) oppressing the poor (proletariat) and reinterpreted Marx’s “class struggle” as “gender struggle,” with men playing the role of the bourgeoisie and women playing the role of the oppressed proletariat. Of course, this is a completely cherry picked view of history that’s become mainstream, but lacks evidence to support itself.
            What do they want? That’s up for debate, but most likely money and increased power. Why do they want it? Uh, who doesn’t want it?

         9. I see Cultural Marxism as the intellectual response to early 20th Century Marxism’s failure to win over the working class of Europe. The intellectuals of the Frankfurt School saw the nationalism coming from the working class as a huge obstacle to destroy, and so they committed to a campaign of deconstructing identity and culture amongst the natives of Europe.
            Hence why they are called cultural Marxists, because they focus on pushing Marxist egalitarian ideals through the culture, rather than trying to take over via violent revolution and mass murder. Of course their social policies will probably lead to that anyway.

      2. AHHH WOT? The left attacks the Koch brothers because they are not part of the financial institutions that promote the middle eastern involvement propaganda. These groups profit from American dependance on foreign oil and military involvement. Barry O’s big bank buddies at Goldman Sachs. Is there any wonder that oil prices are dropping with Saudi Arabia aided by OPEC trying to destroy US oil production and this is even without the keystone pipeline. The left are the mad dogs of the rich and powerful. They claim to defend the poor in the same way that the Middle Age’s Vatican claimed to defend the meek and poor. While the merchant class who produce capital goods are seen as the right wing parasites. This is the essence of cultural marxism like any other form of marxism. Under the pretension of trying to help the weak they are made dependant on limited compassion and have them despising those who could truly lead them away from serfdom. Any exposing of this is shouted down with the “sexist,racist, —phobic” yelp that is in no way dissimilar from the cries of heresy that destroyed men. which were used by those priests in rags who were invested in retaining the power structure of the elite.

         1. The Left attacks the Koch brothers because they see them as part of a corporatist elite that controls the political system through their wealth. You say “cultural marxists” they say Birch Society that wants to re-segregate America, put gays in internment camps, force women out of the office and back into the kitchen, abolish trade unions and turn America back into a neo-Victorian era nightmare where poor 12 year old children work in coal mines while elites parcel up the US into fiefdoms.
            Sounds crazy eh? That’s just how you sound.

         2. Koch brothers largely support libertarian think tanks. it is easy to put a name to a face with the Koch brothers. If one was to say the Lehman brothers were large Obama supporters. That Obama came out to defend their corporate interests(on the record fact). That there was likely a large amount of money moved between their company and Israel. So widespread was this account that Hareetz news focused on it. One of the focal ways for the left to end any dialogue is to shout it down as a “conspiracy theory” where their opposition sounds crazy. They will do anything to make their political opponents to look like nut jobs who are only preparing for the end of times. yet they spill the most conspiratorial claims without any evidence e.g the patriarchy and how all men are somehow involved in the plot to suppress women, claims that global warming whether will result in near all costal cities being under water(unlikely outside of the next 1000 years). This stuff is absurd yet it is constantly put forward. The essence of the red pill is understanding that most of what you claim that will get you called crazy is indeed fact and most of what the establishment calls fact is indeed crazy.

         3. Such as the idea that a country in the middle east that none of its neighbors like and feigns helplessness is not nearly as helpless or good as it claims. But it owns the media and has America do it’s bidding.

      3. I would like to point out that nothing was keeping blacks from leaving the South during Jim Crow. I say this not to say that ‘they should just leave’ but to point out that oppressive regimes usually keep people inside like the USSR and North Korea did/do.
         There was probably something more to it than “melanin be bad.”

         1. You don’t think the segregated South was oppressive to blacks? Do you know what took place in the South during segregation?
            I don’t understand your final statement about melanin. You’ll have to elaborate.

         2. I think it is a useful club to beat white america with, and as such the accuracy of the situation takes backseat.
            I know lynching myths abound for example.

         3. Can you post some links on those myths? I’ll take a read.

         4. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22099

         5. I’d argue it wasn’t. I’d rather have the segregated South than what we have currently in every American inner city. If the price for no riots, massive black crime, a poisonous black ghetto culture and the election of irresponsible politicians is segregation then I’m a staunch supporter of segregation.

         6. “I’d argue it wasn’t.”
            But you didn’t. You argued that what exists now is worse than segregation, not that segregation wasn’t oppressive. It’s an easy enough argument to make if you aren’t the one on the shitty end of the segregation stick.

         7. Ok, read the link. Frankly I didn’t see any lynching myths. The writer of that article created strawmen and then knocked them down. I’ve looked at the Tuskegee statistics on lynching. Just because white people were also lynched doesn’t mean the lynching of blacks in the Segregated South was not a form of race-based social control.
            The author concedes that almost three times as many blacks were lynched but that could be because they “committed more crimes”. But that’s the thing about lynching – nobody is tried or convicted of a crime, nobody goes before a judge or jury. The mob decides if a crime was committed and the mob determines your guilt or innocence. Why would you accept that as debunking anything?

         8. Shitty end? You mean the blacks weren’t allowed to leach off white institutions? You ever asked yourself what all the blacks slaves were supposed to do with their lives pre-war? You people act like they were supposed to be a bunch of scientists or artists or something if only they were free. The blacks had it good. Probably more discipline then they’d prefer but children don’t like any sort or discipline when left to their our devices.

         9. What exactly do you mean leach off white institutions? You mean the institutions in the society in which they lived and worked?
            And anything a black person was after slavery in the South was on the South. You had complete control over their lives. So if they weren’t scientists or artists blame the slaveowners. Where exactly were they supposed to get their education from? Weren’t the schools some of those white institutions you didn’t want them leaching off of? Try and be coherent.

         10. You obviously have never been around blacks. If you had you’d realize it’s pretty clear that blacks aren’t capable of intellectual achievements. White people have no obligation to include blacks in their society. They don’t fit in and bring only negatives to the table. Currently an overbearing federal government compels whites to include blacks at a great detriment to society and the individuals lives of whites. One day the federal government won’t be in total control like it is now and when that day happens you will see whites take initiative to remove themselves from the situation they find themselves in currently.

         11. Let me blow your mind now. I’m black. I have my masters degree. I run a private consultancy and one of my main clients is a well-recognised university. I’m a writer, student of history, philosophy, politics and many more things. The difference between me and those blacks who “aren’t capable of intellectual achievements” is culture and opportunity. I grew up in a culture where I was expected to achieve and where the system didn’t want me either in the gutter or out the door. You on the other hand, don’t seem that fucking smart at all.
             Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for people of any race self-selecting and doing there thing by themselves. I’m all for people no matter where they are from being proud of their heritage. But the South came for black people way before black people came to the South.

         12. I figured you were black. BTW, I have a masters degree as well. It’s not a big deal. I also know that blacks are coddled in academia. I also know that institutions are compelled to due business with black businesses, especially academia. It would be hilarious if you were some sort of diversity consultant. This conversation just proves that blacks and whites don’t have any common ground and ultimately should live in seperate nations.

         13. It proves that segregationists should have separate nations. I have a ton of white friends. And there are many aspects of southern culture I like. But I certainly don’t need or want to find common ground with people who don’t want to find common ground with me. So knock yourself out with your segregation. Build your pure society.

         14. What part of lynching as mob justice eluded you? It was not explicitly a racial matter

         15. One of the reasons you will never see a republican mayor in Philadelphia.

      4. Read up on the Frankfurt school. Cultural marxism isn’t a flash in the pan buzzword but a carefully crafted and well-promoted ideology, although the average person wouldn’t call it anything so academic.

      5. Totally agree.The Jews are indeed the ones who want Whites gone and demand that Whites must mix with every race until they cease to exist.I didn’t really what Gladius said when I praised him but I was assuming he meant Jewish Marxism because they are behind it.Well said.

   3. Heritage not hate, well…

   4. What could be more Marxist than the confederacy? A bunch of rich old guys with black slaves and white landless serfs working on the plantation. It actually is a parallel quiet nicely of what the real marxist oligarchs in russia who were also slave owners had.

      1. That’s not an accurate depiction. The South was the most egalitarian place on the planet in regards to relations between whites, which is frankly the only thing a white person should be concerned with. The South also had the highest per capita income in the world. It was a Herrenvolk democracy.

         1. It is true the South was very rich and those riches came off the cotton trade which was due to cotton shortages at the time and primitive technology.
            The South was not egalitarian, not even for white people. It was quiet communist, the income inequality was actually quiet bad, even between whites. You had the white slave owner and plantation owner, who had hundreds of slaves and was unbelievable rich. Then you had the poor landless, toothless, whites who worked on his plantation to keep the slaves in order. And he’d crack the whip on the slaves back, and was usually an illiterate poor white himeself. They call them white trash, hilly billy, redneck, whatever. They were white and poor and often poorly paid and couldn’t even spell their own name.
            The South was the perfect example of communism. Small rich elite, poor uneducated white masses, blaming blackey for their woes in life instead of the rich commrad, ripping them off.
            “Slaves also pejorate* the Families that use them; the white children become proud, disgusted with labour, and being educated in idleness, are rendered unfit to get a Living
            by industry.”
            Benjamin Franklin
            OBSERVATIONS concerning the Increase of Mankind,
            Peopling of Countries
            http://archive.org/stream/increasemankind00franrich/increasemankind00franrich_djvu.txt
            The south would have failed because the children of slave owners were notoriously lazy and unfit for work and pretty much anything. They were pampered by a black person fromt he day they were born, and completely unfit to compete with the rest of the world.
            And all whites were not even treated equally amongst southern whites. All you mix breed whites from southern europe and eastern europe wouldn’t even count as white to people using the one drop rule. Most people outside northwest europe have either asian or african or turk admixture. Many Italians were lynched as well by other whites.
            PS: Half the time, the white men would run off with some black prostitute, leaving his white family destitute and leaving all his riches to the black mistresshe paid for sex.

         2. And even the slaves looked down on poor free whites…I suggest you look up the origins of the phrase ‘poor white trash…’

         3. In a world where stuff like farms and plantations were a way to make money. As soon as the economy changed and brains became necessary the south basically drooled on itself.

         4. Or they lost a war, lost most of its capital wealth and lived under a hostile occupational government.

         5. yeah, like 600 years ago or something. Blaming the loss of the civil war for current economic situation is no different than blacks asking for reparations. It was a very very long time ago. It’s time to stop wallowing and using excuses for inability or general laziness.

         6. Try having 1/3 of your population be black and see how functional your society is. That being said, the South isn’t bad at all except for all the blacks.

   5. If you ever want to shock and leave a cultural marxist wide-eyed and speechless, just mention that Abraham Lincoln originally supported the Corwin Amendment, which would’ve made slavery an irrevocable right in the USA.

      No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (Corwin Amendment, 1860)

      Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist, and didn’t believe blacks should have equal rights. He was an opportunist and a flip-flopper. Don’t believe the historical revisionism.
      In 1862, he said he wanted to send the blacks back to Africa, to the American colony of Liberia. By the time the war had ended in 1865, the North wanted to punish the South for the war (even though the war started when the North refused to peacefully abandon Fort Sumter, which was on Confederate land). To punish the South, and forever resolve the issue of slavery, the North abolished slavery. After all, what did they care? All the blacks were in the South. Had the South rejoined the Union in 1860 and ratified the Corwin Amendment, slavery would still be legal in the USA.
      Shhhh…. you’re not supposed to know this stuff!

   6. Its too bad you didn’t write this article because you are totally correct.The moron writing it focused on brainwashed dimwits who know nothing of their heritage and allow themselves to be mocked and called rednecks.Many people correctly see segregation as preservation of our race(unlike the dark races we have something worth preserving)but are so beaten down they would never express such.In fact people are so full of fear and brainwashing I doubt most know what they really originally thought on their on.Great comment Gladius!

6. Not quite sure how anyone who ISNT brainwashed can really say the US turned out better that the north won.

7. “Realistically, the way people use it is not for hatred or for history but for redneck pride”
   Redneck pride still has a lot to do with hating blacks. It doesn’t always, and it is less now than it was before. However, even liberal white families are only one degree of separation away from old Dixie style racism. Probably, the real misconception is the idea that racist attitudes, when present, are always the dominating factor of someone’s behavior. The difference between the South and the rest of the nation (ignoring that mass culture has made the majority of any region part of the indistinguishable suburbs and strip-malls set) is how open many southerners are about it. Strangely, in some cases, this leads to better race relations. It’s not uncommon for a good ol’ boy to keep black friends or even date black women.

   1. Look at ROK. We are open about our racial allegiances and grievances, yet we get along well enough. Even after cussing eachother out there is dialogue and sharing of knowledge. We’re more diverse than feminist blogs yet they would call us racists!

8. There is really no good reason whatsoever for universities/colleges to have football/basketball/baseball teams. College is supposed to be for learning.
   A college with a football team is like a college that offers women’s studies courses.

   1. hear hear. In Europe they don’t do this. In Europe universities are for learning. You can join athletic clubs but they don’t have these ghastly sports stadiums and infrastructures. College sports is nothing more than a farm system for professional sports. Some university could discover the cure for cancer and it would be unknown whereas the football/sports teams are worshipped as gods. We must appear as savages to the rest of the world.

      1. And a good way to graduate a few Blacks.

         1. Exactly, it’s educational welfare for blacks who have no business even stepping foot on campus.

         2. If you take away race based admission quotas, you end up with student profile like UC Berkeley where the asians replace all the blacks and hispanics.

         3. Okay.

         4. Being a person of Asian decent attending a college, I’ve realized that Asians and whites get no love (aka scholarship assistance) from colleges because we’re the “privileged” races, which is absolute bullshit. Even with my high ACT score and high GPA, I still couldn’t afford the college I wanted to go to because I didn’t get a large enough scholarship from them. But when I thought about how if only I was black or Hispanic with the same grades and scores, that school would have given me an automatic full ride and would probably be sucking my dick trying to make me go there. Knowing that didn’t make me feel so “privileged”.

         5. So? Is it a bad thing to accept students only based on merit as opposed to race?

         6. Who is privileged and who is downtrodden is a matter of result to the Left. If everybody is equal, then if one excels, it must have been at the expense of the one who has not.
            Personally I think the Asian cultural obsession with success and social status is gauche and wholly incompatible with Western culture, but there’s no doubt that it results in academic and social success, which is reflected in their disproportionate representation at the university level. Even so, I don’t begrudge them their successes, for unlike other minorities, they’ve earned their way into the places which they occupy.

         7. untrue. Hispanics and black with lower grades getting scholarships are student athletes. A black person with low grades who can’t drain a 3 pointer from half court isn’t getting any assisttance or admitance either.

         8. So why are most student athletes whites?

         9. The stats on the uc system do not reflect this. The percentage of blacks has remained the same despite the abolishing of the affirmative action in the uc system. Hispanics numbers went up since 1996 by 20% and asians up by 1% and whites fell by 20%. Whites fell from 40% of the uc system in affirmative action days to their current low of 19% in the post affirmative action. Revealing the true beneficiaries of affirmative action has always been unqualified whites at the expense of hispanics.

         10. I personally don’t believe it’s wrong to have a merit based system for anything, however that just isn’t how America is run. If you are poor or a minority and you haven’t the clout, go to community college. There it’s no shame in it. Then when you got the gpa to back you up, matriculate.
             But getting in strictly because you are darker, that just is not fair. If we are aiming to be a fairer society, lets just start with being fair first.

         11. In our post-modern dystopia, all humans are “equal” and any difference in outcome is “proof” of discrimination. There’s no way differences in outcome could be caused by differences in IQ. The moment they drop those racially discriminatory policies, which are really what they are, Darwin’s left-behinds will fall back to the bottom of the heap where they belong.

         12. Wrong, they just switched from race-based admissions to income-based. Last year more than 40% of UC’s freshmen were first-generation college students. Filtering out applicants who’s parents have already gone to college is an effective way to exclude whites. Stop with the anti-white bullshit.

         13. Most white families had to build their wealth over multiple generations. Leftists lose their minds when a homeless kid faces more odds than a rich kid. Don’t blame white people, blame the poor kid’s shitty lineage.

         14. Wealth is by no means the measure of a family. Depends on the moral character of the family. My mother’s side came over from Europe in beginning of WWI and they were piss poor and they managed to only be middle class by the time I was born. That was because they focused more on family than wealth, they were by no means shitty. Some families are messed up (drug addicts,alcoholics,mentally or physically abusive parents,etc) and kids inherit that mess to a degree.
             Do I believe that government does have some obligation to the betterment of the less fortunate? Yes, to a degree. Our tax dollars should actually go to something that we can benefit from. I think that everyone should have opportunity to go to college. Opportunity is not a right, there has to be criteria to get in. It shouldn’t be how high you can jump or if you can catch and throw a ball, but this is America. They value these things. It will factor in their decline

         15. Yes, that is exactly what I was going to say to him.

         16. So you now admit that whites were not qualified to begin with and were getting in not based on merit but based on family connections. I rest my case.

         17. Jesus, you’re an idiot.

         18. Very few top tier schools give merit based scholarships. No Ivy League school awards academic scholarships, only need based. Top ranked schools already attract the best applicants. Even at schools that do give merit based assistance, only a small percentage (often below 10%) of students receive such scholarships.

      2. You might want to check out the world universities ranking as US colleges totally dominate the top spots. In the Times of London rankings, 21 of the world’s 30 best universities are American. Four UK schools crack the top 30, but only one college in Continental Europe (from Germany at #29) sneaks into the top 30. The other major European countries, France, Italy and Spain, are in the “also ran” category when it comes to colleges. A look at the list of Wealthiest Universities is even more skewed in favor of US schools, with 42 of the top 50 wealthiest universities being American. Oxford and Cambridge are the only two European schools to make the top 50. A historical reading of Nobel Prize awards demonstrates similar American dominance.
         Did you also know that the better college football programs bring in revenues well over $100 million a year? And that Harvard fields 40 intercollegiate sports teams? So if there are correlations to be drawn about having college sports and university excellence, I would suggest the Europeans better get cracking on forming those college sports teams.

   2. “There is really no good reason…”
      Three words: The Almighty Dollar.

   3. College sports have become a true monstrosity, truly a tail wagging the dog. Originally they were meant to instill pride in one’s alma mater. Additionally, the philosophical reasoning was that physical discipline would aid mental discipline. A return to true student athletes would be welcome, as well as jettisoning the money making aspect. But that’s what colleges are anymore. Just moneymaking ventures with a large side of Marxist indoctrination.

      1. Agreed. The rowing clubs of Oxford and Cambridge are a fine example of student athletes.

   4. As much as I hate the Mandangos of the NCAA, Football and Basketball programs usually bring money into the school.

   5. This is why I firmly believe that the death of sports teams both at the college and high school level is a blessing in disguise.
      The public school systems and universities (outside of STEM) haven’t been about education in the classical sense AT LEAST the 1960s. The Left has been quite open about the purpose of the university now being a force for the Leftist ideas in society. Yet, conservatives in red states continue to send their little darlings to become indoctrinated against everything had been raised to believe, in these “schools” planting like a virus among the fields of corn and forests of pine, largely out of a faux sense of nostalgia and community wrapped up in the traditions of sports. (Not to mention effect of turning their daughters into unpaid drunken whores).
      Look at 1-A college football. How many of those players even vaguely resemble the term “scholar athlete?” Maybe a lineman who’s planning on going to med school, but they’re far and few between. Most players are paid entertainers, who send an equal amount of time in weight room, as they would if they were in prison. Which in many cases was their only other option.
      Intercollieigate sports were originally about students from one school, having a fun little competition with students from another school. It had nothing to do with people who didn’t or hadn’t or wouldn’t attend that school.
      If all the faux glitz and tradition are finally stripped from high school and college, perhaps ordinary people will begin to these those institutions for what they are; festering gangrenous wounds that need to be excised from society.
      If conservatives really wanted to play hardball, and were really serious about fighting the Left, they’d cut funding to these indoctrination camps.

   6. Earns the schools hundreds of billions in revenue and they don’t pay a cent in wages.

      1. The athletes are paid many, many cents millions over in tuition, room, board, travel expenses. Football and Men’s Basketball athletes at Division one schools literally are paid by the federal government subsidizing the outrageous student loans of all the non-athletes at top sports schools.

         1. That is nothing compared to the revenue they generate. And student loans have to be repaid, it is a LOAN.

         2. Workers get paid for labor. Shares of profits are for owners and investors. Student loans are subsidized by the U.S. Govt, ergo the taxpayer pays.

         3. That is why they say invest in an education, you are an investor in the school. And yes, the DOL would be forced to define this as labour because it is essentially a full time job to be on a team like this. They do everything that a paid employee would in a paid sports league would they are an employee who is being unpaid. Go and try to hire a cook and pay them nothing, see how fast you get shut down.

   7. Ha. I was thinking the opposite. Each State gets one college and the rest are just turned into a amateur spots league. Too many “colleges” anyway. People dumping a half a mil on a job that pays 28 dollars an hour. Why the hell does Illinois need DePaul, U. of Ill or any of their other shit hole diploma factories. University of Chicago is plenty big if the tuition is reduced to 0 and the standards of admission are raised exponentially. Everyone else can get out of the education business and go into the very lucrative athletic biz.

   8. Yes, it got out of hand when you have universities basically paying illiterate people to pull in money for them. You have to be incredibly stupid to take it seriously.
      Having athletic activities for students is good, in my opinion, as the point is to give them extracurricular activities to blow off steam and bond. It is just when you pull in non-students and make them “students” to “represent the school” that the whole system becomes self-defeating.

9. “Very few people today want segregation of any kind”
   Speak for yourself.

   1. People naturally self segregate all of their own accord.

      1. Yea even in middle school all the black kids would sit at their own table away from the white kids under their own free will.

10. This article is a how to on how to be a loser. Fat ugly women? Wtf? Ole Miss is covered in good looking little girls. Most of them worthless but covered in it.

    1. Would add . Hot southern girls in sundresses glistening with perspiration. And that southern accent makes me weak in the knees.

    2. The article was a very accurate and unbiased look at the South, collegiate football, and the city of Oxford. However, Mississippi has the best looking girls of any state, at least the south for sure. And I always thought Ole Miss was one of the best places to see this on display, so this confused me. I’m sure there are plenty of overweight middle aged folks, as college sports is now entertainment for the masses, with students usually given a small corner of the end zone to sit.
       The only other part I take issue with is the discussion of the civil war. The USA is too large of a nation. It is essentially what the USSR was. It would be much more effective as smaller nations. How many times have you complained about a valid point, only to hear “America! Love it or leave it!” Well, if we had a competing country to move to, with a similar lifestyle and standard of living, then that competition would prevent both countries from doing a lot of bad things that the governments now can freely do (Sorry, Canada is too cold). What if only the “north” instituted a TSA and forced health insurance? Wouldn’t you see people move to the “confederacy” then? The fight for independence was at least as valid in 1865 as it was in 1776.

11. “Even in Lincoln’s time, many northerners had no desire to kill a stranger in his own backyard. The south—at least initially—did not want a war; it was Lincoln who would not let them have peace. Lincoln enslaved the white majority in order to free the black minority, and by “free,” I mean throw most of them into a worse standard of living than they had as slaves even to this day in every region of the United States. ”
    I’m not one of those that idealizes Lincoln but come on. No US President was going to allow secession and secession was the South’s immediate play when Lincoln became president. He was seen as anti-slavery and they hated him so they decided to secede. You can argue that waging war on the South for seceding was aggression but fighting a rebellion is a bit more than “not letting them have peace.” And Lincoln didn’t do it for the slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. As to black’s lower standard of living (how do you quantify that exactly or is that just rhetoric?) who are you to determine the trade off between slavery and freedom in poverty?

    1. But why can’t any state leave the union for any reason they want? What if Alaska wanted to go it alone, or even join Canada, for whatever reason moral or not according to Washington? At that point isn’t Washington like Moscow trying to hold together the former USSR?

       1. I’m not debating if secession was right or wrong. I’m just taking exception with how the author describes the events that led to the war and what the war was about. It’s not as simple as Lincoln would “not let them have peace.”

          1. Well, the Civil War started when the North refused to abandon Fort Sumter, which was on Confederate land. The North was indeed quite hostile toward the South, although this isn’t the story we typically get. The winners write the history after all.

       2. It’s always about the money.
          States get federal funding in some way, shape or form….so when that thought enters their mind they stop for a minute and think “What about the federal funding?”.
          Sure, it may hurt at first but in the long wrong some states (and the people) may be better off.

       3. It’s because we’re not actually free. Duh. We’re part of an Empire that’s run out of Washington DC.

    2. States had threatened to leave the Union many times before it actually finally happened. (New England for example.)
       Lincoln wasn’t really anti-slavery as much as he was a very competent politician. Lincoln drove the Civil War forward to protect Northern business interests – particulary tariffs and the railroads. (No, that’s not a conspiracy theory.)

       1. I think he was anti-slavery but he was far more politically-minded and certainly would not have abolished slavery at such a high political cost. He was already making conciliatory gestures towards the South. But he was so identified with anti-slavery that they seceded. I don’t agree with all the historical revisionists on Lincoln but i definitely agree that the North did not start a war to abolish slavery or free the existing slaves in the South. They were driven by economic and state considerations first and foremost.

          1. The Reconstruction Amendments were meant to punish the South for the War and Lincoln’s assassination. After all, those amendments didn’t really affect the North as all the blacks were in the South, just as they mostly are today. Freeing the slaves didn’t really affect the North… until the “Great Migration” in the 20th century. Today the most segregated cities in the USA are in the North and cities with “Northern” politics.
             Lincoln didn’t give a shit about the slaves. He just wanted to “save the Union.” He made this clear. He would’ve sucked off Robert E. Lee and gave a handy to Stonewall Jackson if he had to.
             People tend to confuse “opposing slavery” with “giving blacks equal rights.” In 1860, Americans did not see them as the same thing. Lincoln didn’t consider blacks equal to whites, but nor did he think that they deserved to be enslaved. In 1862 he hosted a delegation of of freed slaves at the White House. There he told them he wanted to them them back to Africa, to Liberia. There a big difference between the real Lincoln and the Hollywood Lincoln.
             http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

          2. ‘Lincoln didn’t give a shit about the slaves. He just wanted to “save the Union.” He made this clear. He would’ve sucked off Robert E. Lee and gave a handy to Stonewall Jackson if he had to.’
             Lincoln built his political career on anti-slavery. He was most definitely against the institution of slavery (which isn’t the same as “giving a fuck about the slaves” obviously). But he was a politician first and foremost and he was trying to compromise with the South. He most certainly did not want war and did not think ending slavery was worth losing the Union.
             So I agree with a lot of what you are saying and think the idealization of Lincoln is just more of the foolish, watered down history that they teach (no it has nothing to do with cultural marxism, they do the same thing with the Founding Fathers).
             But apart from it proving that Lincoln was a politician first, it also shows what blunderers the Southern slave powers were. Secession was poor strategy based on emotional thinking. Slavery’s days were numbered, either with or without Lincoln and he was not going to force their hand on it. They could of had at least another decade to prepare for a post-slavery economic world.
             Honestly, just because Lincoln was no saint doesn’t make the slave powers any less immoral buffoons.

          3. it also shows what blunderers the Southern slave powers were. Secession was poor strategy based on emotional thinking. Slavery’s days were numbered, either with or without Lincoln

             Lincoln ran as a compromise candidate, but the South didn’t want to even compromise. It’s true the South could have played their hand better, but the North also thought the war would be over in a few weeks. After all, the South was agriculture and the North was industry. Nope. It took 5 years! The North had some of the most incompetent generals in military history, and the South was better prepared than you give them credit for.
             Had the colonies lost when they seceded from Britain in 1776 you would probably also be saying that was a “poor strategy based on emotional thinking” as well. Hands are rarely played perfectly during wars. Had the South got France or England on their side the outcome would’ve been different.

          4. True, hindsight is 20/20, and stranger things have happened. Maybe the South could have won the war. But was there really any need for war? Slavery was a crumbling institution. Wasn’t it more a futile fight for dead ideas and pride? Even if they won the war, was the initial gamble worth it? Was the initial gamble even considered strategically? If the intervention of France or England were required to win the war, shouldn’t they have secured some sort of agreement before the first shots were fired?

          5. The South probably would’ve eventually phased out slavery, but on their terms, not the North’s terms. Southerners did not think kindly of Yankees meddling in their affairs. They still don’t. What isn’t widely talked about is that the South had a laundry list of complaints with the North.
             The North offered up the Corwin Amendment to the South prior to the war, which would’ve made slavery permanently legal and irrevocable in the USA. All the Southern states had to do was rejoin the Union and ratify it. The South ignored the offer because the division between North and South ran much deeper than just slavery, and it still does. The Corwin Amendment is still pending, waiting to be ratified by the states. The South wanted independence, and honestly they still do. The 1860 election was the final straw, just as several relatively minor incidents set off American Independence in 1776. To the South it was worth the gamble.

       2. Another valuable comment. If people were allowed to learn the Old South’s criticism of the North, we would not see the Civil War in such a black and white way.

12. Hot toddy – in the UK half a shot of whisky topped up with half a shot of hot water, maybe sugar mixed in to taste, usually taken medicinally for a cold.

    1. It is here as well, but the hoi polloi just like the way it sounds, not so much the way it tastes.

13. Which team did the author play for? Ole miss played his team according to the article.

    1. I suspect Blair is a disgruntled Bama fan. Bama got their asses handed to them at Ole Miss this year, as rarely happens, they REALLY are very inexperienced at defeat.

       1. I just mean that unless you actually PLAY for the team, to call it “my team” is the signal that you are a brainwashed loser.
          “We are playing really well this year” said by a fan about a team of which they aren’t a member should be looked upon as being a weak dreamer, a pussy. Like the author of this story.

          1. I know what you mean Ben, I’ve been amazed at the lack of self awareness of ‘fans’ who will be overbearingly harsh about a player who’s blundered when they themselves have little to no athletic ability AT ALL & never did.

14. My family has Southern roots; an Hot Toddy is hot tea (usually black), with honey and whiskey (or rum), and a bit of lemon juice. It is good for what ails you when you’re under the weather.
    Happy New Year to all; perhaps have an Hot Toddy tonight!

15. The South did win the Civil War. It just took them 130 years to do it. Look at Atlanta vs Cleveland, Dallas vs. Detroit, Charlotte vs. Buffalo, and the list goes on and on.
    After they set up a plant in SC, what did BMW stand for? Bubba’s Motor Works.
    The rest of the world will wake up to the South’s victory once all of the financial firms in and around New York City go “Fuck these bullshit taxes, regulations, and rents!” and relocate to somewhere in Dixie.

    1. Eeh,hemmm……..
       Maryland.
       Florida.
       Virginia.
       North Carolina.
       Atlanta and soon the rest of GA.
       Should I go on?
       The more you bring northern business down south, the more liberal/moderates will come and the rest of your precious Southland will go the way of the above.

    2. New York City is the Financial Capital of The United States by Far! And rivals Washington D.C. itself in terms of importance. The city has had many tough periods but always bounces back. New York is also a World Wide symbol, surpassing any other State including Texas, or California. However Wall Street and big corporations in the way they operate now has proven negative to the city itself. New York is a microcosm of Wage Disparity in America, and actually surpasses the National numbers.

       1. D.C. is nothing more than a company town, and that company is the U.S. federal government. NYC is a real city. There is no comparison. Liberals don’t understand economic incentive and insist on biting the hand that feeds them–the wealthy. It’s the politics of jealousy.
          If it weren’t for Texas, the USA would have fewer jobs than it did in 2007. Cracks me up whenever liberals try to give Obama credit for that.

16. Although I understand why many would view the Confederate Flag negatively I personally don’t care unless the person who waves that flag infringes on my own Rights. This argument that states that Southern Whites can celebrate their heritage is false. But also acknowledging a complete factual history is necessary. A southerner can celebrate their State their music and their way of life, just as Irish can show Irish Pride on St. Patrick’s Day by throwing Parades, their music and food. Just like German Americans celebrate their Heritage like Oktoberfest, which I personally enjoy for the food and festivities. Just as the Italians can celebrate their heritage or parades….things like “Columbus Day” understandably will face problems with certain communities namely Latinos and Natives, just as preposterous as Americans celebrating The British burning down the Whitehouse. However no one would have any problems celebrating Galileo Galilee or many of the Italian Painters and Scientists for example.
    “Lincoln enslaved the white majority in order to free the black minority, and by “free,” I mean throw most of them into a worse standard of living than they had as slaves even to this day in every region of the United States.” This statement is not an accurate portrayal of the overall situation and almost suggests Slavery was “good” for the Blacks. In fact many groups like the Irish wanted Blacks to remain enslaved as they didn’t want competition for their blue collar jobs. Obviously there were Irish who were abolitionists as well. The Civil War was mainly about money, with Slavery being an issue that Lincoln didn’t initially make a focus. Obviously slavery was very beneficial to the United States…White settlers who lived in Mexico Tax free for ten year…and by Mexico I mean Texas also brought Slaves Illegally as it was illegal in Mexico at the time. This focus on the Left always excuses the Right who openly support the very same practice that many in this forum openly complain about, which is ironic. I personally don’t care if a person likes to hunt, listen to bluegrass music, or has a confederate flag on his vehicle, as long as he doesn’t infringe on my rights.
    These “Cultural Marxists” as you say can be debated openly but this “problem” many complain here is nothing compared to people who actually created an institution of subjugation and false science for hundreds of years, and openly distorted Religion and History. And this is not my opinion these are basic facts you can quickly look up in 2 minutes.
    No one is saying that people should “write off” their entire history. But many choose to ignore negatives of their history or even lie about it which is ridiculous as well. History is History the present is the present and the future is in our hands.

    1. “But many choose to ignore negatives of their history or even lie about it which is ridiculous as well. History is History the present is the present and the future is in our hands.”
       That’s what gets me, not the flag or pride in your homeland, its the mental gymnastics required to make the other side look like villains. They hate the Confederate flag because they are trying to destroy our culture. Foolishness. Maybe they (rightly or wrongly) hate the flag because they see it as a symbol of slavery and brutality – which most moral human beings tend to hate. Ironically, if you go back to segregation times the segregationists were saying the same thing. It was all a commie plot to destroy society. King was regularly called a communist.

       1. They get the Gold medal for Mental Gymnastics!! No one is trying to destroy their culture especially Black people who have their own issues they deal with. Just a side note is your avatar name “Long Shanks” inspired by King Edward I of England “The Hammer of the Scotts”?

          1. Yep, both the actual King and the highly inaccurate movie version played by Patrick McGoohan, best movie villain.

          2. Lol yes very interesting, not accurate but enjoyable movie.

17. Southerners and college football/sweet tea/ camaros/ whiskey/country music/ WTF White trash lives on. Never understood how college football created such a following of people that barely graduated high school. Fuck all that noise.

    1. Invariably the biggest fans are the ones who did not attend that college. Usually they did not attend college at all. The alumni will go to homecoming, and perhaps watch some games on TV, but the hard core fans are GED holders.

       1. Being a sports fan in general is right there with video games- crap you should have left behind when you turned 18.

    2. Exactly. This entire subculture of America is shit.

18. Of course the author doesn’t have a funny accent. He’s from the South.

19. I live 8 miles from the Ole Miss campus. It’s a good place to live, out here in the woods one could have all the solitude they need & in about an hour one can be in Memphis & board a plane to anywhere. I know why some of the things are the way they are around here. The ‘Hotty Totty’ cheer came about in the teens & twenties back when Ole Miss REALLY WAS the school of the delta aristocrats ( along with Vanderbilt, Suwanee, & Washington Lee). Hotty Totty is a corruption of the term Hoity Toity from the early twentieth century meaning elitist & snobby. Not so exclusive these days, of course, though one can see some of the finest store bought cleavage east of Hollywood here.
    As for the sports teams bearing the name Rebels, the confederate flag & traditional mascot, that was in honor of the lost class of 1861. The men of the class of 1861 formed a platoon known as the University Greys. They were mowed down in Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. All killed except, I think, one or two who were cripples for life. There were many towns in the South where few or no young men who left to fight the war returned whole or at all. Quite traumatic. Half the state budget of the state of Mississippi was spent on prosthetics for veterans in 1865/66. No other region of our country has endured the same sort of tragedy.

20. I was born in Oxford and I’m dying to visit there again after thirty-three years. I’m sure it will be totally surreal.

21. I’m from small town north Mississippi, graduated from ole miss, even had a great great grandfather fight with university greys for all five years of the war. He was one of the few survivors but had several brothers and cousins that fought with him. Of the ones that survived to Gettysburg the rest but him were killed in picketts charge. He was wounded and taken prisoner. Was traded out a little while after That shit sticks with a family, especially when there are letters and diaries still around from the time.
    This guy isn’t being fair to my alma mater. Yea it is changing mainly due to liberals taking over the faculty but I assure you boys our girls are not ugly. There are slobs in the grove but has he been to any sporting event lately? Grove keeps it pretty classy comparatively.
    You Yankees are so perfect and great. Obviously by the way you treated the Indians yall wouldn’t let economics effect the way you treat groups of people. Genocide is way better than slavery. Plus yall fought the war like such gentlemen. And they all fought to end slavery just look up about the nyc riots.
    Whatever I know we are a conquered people and victors write the history books. For the record southerners these days do recognize the need for organized government, they just prefer state power as opposed to federal power- I’d hardly call them statist.
    Btw I know a lot of black folks that I genuinely like. You feminist social Yankees though good lord.

22. This whole screed reads like an Alabama fan that is pissed that the Crimson Tide (sounds like a woman’s menstruation) went in to Oxford and suffered the rare loss.
    I have had a chance to travel the United States and the world. Mostly thanks to business. I have actually been to major soccer matches in England, Spain, and Italy, even though I don’t care about soccer at all. Fans the world over all have their own thing that they do, even though tailgating obviously isn’t practical in places with narrow lanes and go-cart size parking places.
    The United States has a historic high in that 20% of all of it’s adult citizens have a college or university degree. So, even if there are a number of fans that have never completed a degree there are a large number of folks that really do have a degree. Then you take the name of the Universities, University of Mississippi, a private institution that represents a state thanks to it’s name. It’s always easy to root for the home team.

23. Everyone in my family for five generations has gone to ole miss but me. He’s right about the tailgaiting, with all those nauseating double-chinned fratboys in khakis talking through their teeth- some prick from Clarksdale or Yazoo City eating mama’s fingerfood- anorexic airheads calling everything “nahce” (nice). I love my Southern people, and will never leave here, but an Ole Miss fan is the fucking worst.

24. Confederate flags is a symbol for slavery and dehumanization of actual humans. That flag should be perpetually hated, reviled and defecated on.
    The staunch defenders of this flag, and anything that comes with it, only demonstrate their inherently evil nature.

    1. Ah, you probably think the North attacked the South because they wanted to end slavery, don’t you?

    2. Your opinion is an ignorance of the causes of secession. The “Stars and Bars” was NOT about slavery but about sharp regional differences between the Northern States and Southern States. Slavery was an issue that exacerbated those tensions. And when you discuss slavery, you have to remember that the States had started rolling it back. By the late 18th century most of the 13 states, and later 14 with the acceptance of Vermont, had either abolished it or were taking steps to eliminate it. In 1787, the National Government under the Articles of Confederation passed a national law where slavery was to be prohibited in the Northwest. This sets a precedent and it is more than likely that slavery would only have existed in those first 13 where slavery was legal. There weren’t enough votes in the Confederation Congress to continue expansion beyond those slave states.
       It wasn’t until the ratification of the Constitution where slavery had been imposed upon the young nation as a whole. Under the Articles slavery was being “rolled back” whereas under the Constitution, it was nationalized. First under the “Fugitive Slave Clause” and later under the Dredd Scott decision. The Supreme Court overturned the restriction of slavery in the 1787 law I mentioned earlier. This doesn’t happen under the Articles because there was not judicial branch that had the power to compel the States to follow laws that violated their sovereignty.
       In typical SJW fashion, your analysis of an issue is an oversimplification to the point of ignorance. In typical SJW fashion, you resort to a variation of the slavery and racism as cause but that is dreadfully insufficient for, as you see, it was the very national government that the Union sought to preserve that laid ALL the groundwork and foundations for the sectionalist tensions that resulted in secession and the ensuing Civil War.
       Herein lies the problem with the SJWs, they don’t know jack shit about U.S. History, opting instead for a poorly cobbled together series of myths and superstitions which they attempt to pass of as an understanding of U.S. History. In other words, you commentary is shallow and reveals a complete ignorance of the causal issues related to the Civil War and its origins with the increase in government power that occurred near the turn of the 18th century.
       Now I will wait for you to respond with “I laugh at you because the everyone knows the Articles of Confederation was a failure” and nothing more. Please toss me that softball so I can CRUSH that shit!

       1. A lot of what you said here is absolutely irrelevant to the issue. The original seven states of the Confederacy were all slave states and they themselves gave their reason for secession as the election of Lincoln, who campaigned on ending the expansion of slavery.
          You are just as bad as SJWs, actually worse, because at least they are just mindless drones who are indoctrinated in main stream misinformation. You revisionists have to dig deep to find bullshit excuses for what went on just to satisfy your rationalization hamsters.
          And I’m not even against anyone hanging the Confederate flag. I’m against emotional people who need to rewrite history because they can’t take the truth.

          1. No, it is relevant you are playing the “irrelevant card” as a means of changing the subject. The ratification of the Constitution resulted in the spread of slavery. It also allowed for centralized authority, the federal government, to intrude upon trade which contributed to the sectional differences that caused the sharp regional differences between the North and South. The spread of slavery that occurred under the Constitution resulted in slavery becoming the issue that exacerbated the sectionalist tensions that caused both secession and the civil war that followed.
             Furthermore, By the time the Ordinance of 1787 was passed into law, the slave holding interests did not have enough votes in the Confederation Congress to extend slavery into any new territories. These are all facts that you fail to address. Instead you “skip” over these important details and resume the discourse as if they were not mentioned. In other words, you employed a classic dishonest discussion tactic: Changing the subject via an omission of the central point. Nice job!

          2. From Confederate States of America Vice President Alexander Stephens in the “Cornerstone Speech”
             “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

          3. We are not talking about the Confederate States of America. I made the point that ratification of the Constitution increased the size of central authority, and the actions of that central authority, through its policies, laid the groundwork for the strife that ensued in the Southern Secession and Civil War. You are changing the subject again. My initial commentary was focused exclusively on this and not what you are attempting to change it to.

          4. And your point is irrelevant to the essential argument, which was made by the initial poster you responded to. He said the flag represented slavery and dehumanization. It was the flag of the CSA and the CSA, in its own words, was founded on the belief that slavery is the natural condition of the negro and that the negro is less human than the white man. So please tell me the relevance of your points about the constitution.

          5. I told you the relevance of my point: you cannot talk about sectionalism, secession, and the Civil War independent of the increase in the size of central authority that occurred after the ratification of the Constitution. The former is a cause of the latter. You want to discuss the latter as if it exists in a vacuum. You cannot do that with history. That is like trying to divorce the Renaissance from the Reformation, and the Reformation from the Thirty Years Wars, and the Thirty Years Wars from the rise of the nation state in Europe. There are substantial connections between the increase in the power of national authority that occurred as a result of the ratification of the Constitution, and this increase in power is directly related to sectionalist tensions, the expansion of slavery, and how these two dynamics interfaced with one another to lead to secession and civil war. All you want to do is talk about secession and a flag. It’s time to step up your game.

          6. Yes but its a matter of degree isn’t it? I agree that slavery wasn’t the only cause of the Civil War. And certainly the push to end slavery had a lot to do with economic forces and industrial development, perhaps even more than any humanitarian urge to stop the practice. But even with these other factors you have not made a strong enough case that this is not true:
             “Confederate flags is a symbol for slavery and dehumanization of actual humans.”
             Historians argue that one of the key causes of the rise of Nazism was the rush to democratize Europe after the First World War. And it’s true. But it doesn’t make it any less true that the swastika is the symbol of fascist dictatorship and imperial aggression.

          7. Were the “Stars and Bars” a symbol of slavery or was it a symbol of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government? All that I’ve focused on is the “why”. The South did not secede because of slavery. Secession was the result of sectionalist tensions which were exacerbated by slavery. At this point I focus on the “what”? What caused the sectionalist tensions? This was the result of an attempt to govern and entire nation under a single authority under the guise of “federalism”. And then I ask “why” again. “Why did slavery become a national issue?” It is at this question when I go backwards in time only to discover that the States under the Articles of Confederation had taken very important steps in “rolling back” slavery whether it be within the boundaries of the 13 states or restricting its spread into new territories. Here is the foundation. Here are the factors that set things in motion for the Civil War as well as the flag that came as a result of Southern Secession.
             The greatest irony in all this is that the Federalists argued that the ratification of the Constitution would prevent war between the states. That turned out to be wrong.

          8. “Were the “Stars and Bars” a symbol of slavery or was it a symbol of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government?”
             It was both. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It was also an affirmation of Southern identity. It was also a “fuck you” to the North. But you cannot minimize how central slavery was.

          9. I’m not minimizing slavery. However, I am saying that sectionalism played a huge role and that slavery was fuel to the fire for it was tearing the nation apart. And my central idea is that these “things” were only able to carry the influence they did as a result of the expansion in the size of central authority which occurred with the ratification of the Constitution. I am a firm believer that an increase in the size of government usually results in social, economic, and political distortion.

25. This article reads like something from the Slate or Rawstory. I’m surprised the ROK editors allowed it. Honestly who cares about the antidotal opinionated rantings of one carpet bagger? So the author doesn’t like college football, who cares? He seems to resent its popularity.

    1. You are putting “RawStory” on the same level as “Slate”? That’s like comparing comparing a beat up Hyundai with a beat up Yugo. While they both are not reliable for their purposes, the Hyundai (Slate) is slightly more reliable.

26. Yo, Blair Naso, you need to move to a different part of the country. Southerners are way too stupid for you. It takes a special kind of idiot to enjoy living around people like that.
    If you want to stay in the South, go to NC or VA, where at least there are intellectual people and real universities.

    1. Yo! Are you like for real? Yall can have him.

       1. I am for real, and I am from the South. Spent the first 22 years of my life there. It sucks. Like I said, the only good areas are in Virginia and NC cities. Atlanta would be good if there weren’t niggs killing people all over the place. Florida is not the south. Texas is its own thing. Other areas of the south have a much shittier economy than other parts of the USA. Blair can do better elsewhere, and enjoy life more in the Pacific NW, Cali, Midwest, North.
          The culture in the South is absolutely anti-intellectual all over. It is a race to the bottom. Being a serious human being is not considered a good thing; you are expected to “party” for no reason constantly, with ugly, fat old people, wasting tons of money on the stupidest forms of entertainment. The “southern belles” have the worst sense of entitlement in the world, and try to run the homes. The men are more beta than Northern men.
          There are two ways to enjoy the South: 1) be a retard, 2) not give a fuck anymore about the idiots around you, and somehow find a way to entertain yourself through the boredom and lonliness.
          Blair, you need to get out.

27. Have a little more pride in your people boy! It’s just sad to see a self-g southerner.

28. Anyone who makes any definite statement on what the Confederate flag symbolizes is equally wrong, including the author of this article. Symbols don’t have any inherent, objective meaning, they have whatever meaning people choose to ascribe to them.

29. The war didn’t have shit to do with freeing slaves as some statement of morality. Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without abolishing slavery he would. The fight was at its core about capitalism and destroying the economic advantage the southern states had gained. Plain and simple. Capitalism requires competition. If I can hire you to do a job for the next twenty years @ $400/year or buy somebody once @ $400 the choice is pretty easily made. No self respecting (or sane) white people are competing for THAT. The exchange was something like this:
    North: Hey look, you having these slaves is choking capitalism in this country
    South: Ok, what do you want me to do about that?
    North: You have to free your slaves.
    South: Say what??? And how am I supposed to get my money?
    North: Don’t worry about that part I’ll take care of it for you.
    South: Nah. I can’t trust that. I’ll pass.
    North: You don’t understand, you have to. You’re going to choke us with your overproduction. We can’t sell all this stuff.
    South: Uh, that’s not a problem. I can sell raw materials pretty much anywhere.
    North: Yeah but what about us? We have factories.
    South: Sounds like a personal problem buddy.
    North: Well you can’t do that.
    South: I’m not talking to you anymore. I don’t want any parts of this bullshit. I’m out.
    North: You can’t do that either.
    South: Watch me.
    Fight time.
    Throughout history, the fastest way to start a fight has always been and still is messing with people’s money. This conflict was no different.

30. “Really, Ole Miss is not even a very good school academically, but its people have a strong sense of culture with it, and even many poor white trash love it.”
    White trash are those Whites who advocate for open borders,spit on European history,indict their own ancestors as being uniquely guilty of slavery,genocide, or colonization when in fact everyone on Earth participated in it,or practice race-mixing,not rednecks who live in trailers or even criminal drug manufacturers. Those people are simply rednecks and criminals,they are not some regressive or criminal “breed” of Whites as Yankees insinuate because they are in fact of the same mixture of European ethnicities as the Yankees themselves are.
    “I could be wrong, but I get the impression that most of us neo-confederates are secretly glad we lost the war.”
    You are. You may be from the South,if you are,but you are no Southron.I know exactly why you act the way that you do,because I used to be like you. You can’t escape your roots,boy. And if you’re afraid of being labeled inbred,moronic, or a redneck because of where you come from,you’re just acting like a pussy and a faggot. You probably think you’re aspiring to something “higher” but there is nothing higher in this life than carrying on the ideas and culture of your ancestors. Nothing.
    I have a decent education. I’m not inbred,parochial,narrow-minded or moronic,but I am a Southerner.I’m proud to have this distinction.
    “Very few people today want segregation of any kind, and the neo-confederate will be quick to change the debate away from slavery or the Klu Klux Klan.”
    No,because segregation is merely the solution you go with if complete removal of certain types of hominids is unworkable or impermissible. I doubt even Southrons of the day preferred segregation to the option of repatriation of American blacks.
    That’s what I want. Segregation solves the problem for one generation,if that, and then what? Some smartass liberal finds a hi-yellow black who can control his urge to rape everything with a hole in it for long enough to give a speech in passable English about he “done been wronged by dem whiteys” and “let’s no forget about slaberee” and then we’re right back in the mess of 2 incompatible civilizations living side-by-side against their will. Southerners don’t make these observations because they are Southerners but because they,unlike Northerners, had bayonets pointed at their children in a campaign of forced integration (which we call White Genocide) and before that they lived and worked side-by-side with blacks in the fields for 100+ years. Plenty of time to make bare bones common sense observations about blacks and their behavior that anyone not prejudiced against Whites beforehand would have come to.
    “Furthermore, with the way people migrate across state lines, most of us never would have been conceived.”
    So what? What impact could that possibly have upon any of us who weren’t conceived?
    “No neo-confederate has ever given me a reason for why they wish the south had won beyond the abstract concept of states’ rights.”
    I’ll give you a few concrete reasons.
    1.Education. People laugh at the state of Southern public schools. This is,in reality, the depressing effect of the average 85 black IQ. Northerners, who go to 90%+ White schools with the self-selected cream of the negro crop like to pretend that the problem is poor White students who are too dumb to get along. This is because they are self-deluded retards who’ve never gone to a minority White school. Keep pouring billions of dollars down that rat hole,liberals. You are the smartest cocksuckers on the planet,according to yourselves.
    If the South had won, these negroes would have been repatriated and the smug Northern dickheads wouldn’t be in the state where they are about to be pushed out of their own schools by the black mob mentality that they have created. Yes, even in your Ivy League schools that require all that money to go to,which you think will insulate you from lower-class blacks,you or your children will be pushed aside by the blacks. Your children will end up in the unemployment line behind millions of Central Americans with diversity quotas working against the possibility of them receiving gainful employment.
    2. The economy. The 2008 economic recession is now acknowledged to have been created,in part, by the practice put in place under the Clinton Administration to loan large sums of money to prospective black “homeowners”,even knowing that they had no means of paying back their loans and in the absence of collateral. If the South had won, there would have been no negroes in America in 2008,as they had outlived their usefulness to the civilized world by 1865.
    3.Foreign wars. 90% of the wars conducted after 1940 would have never happened if the South had won the war, as the majority of the soldiers for those wars came from the occupied South and Dixie had no strategic interests in Iraq,Afghanistan,Vietnam,Korea,etc.
    4.States’ Rights. Seriously. You think that’s an abstract concept? Maybe it is to a fool or someone who is willfully short-sighted. States’ Rights is essentially the mechanism whereby the yearning of a group of people with their own culture can realize their aspirations to full nationhood in a country like America. It is not merely a means to ban abortion,or faggot marriage or what-have-you so that provincial people can have their superstitions or sensibilities enshrined in law. No Southerner wants “states’ rights” in order to validate their beliefs or culture, they want states’ rights in order to EXERCISE their culture,which has been suppressed by the federal government since the 1800’s because they fear, rightly, that if Southerners were able to attain nationhood then it would be the END of the top half of this country exercising cultural hegemony over the bottom half. No longer would Northern culture and its beliefs and sensibilities be written into the law without respect for the differing beliefs and sensibilities of about 60% of the country.
    No longer would Northern culture be held up as the ideal to which we should aspire, and IT IS NOT. Southerners are not stupid mouth-breathing hicks whose observational abilities are limited to “Gonna rain tonight” and “Warm out today”. We are not a group of people who need to be infantilized or treated as though we are too primitive to take care of ourselves. We are 21st century Americans,just like everyone else in this country. If you prick us, we both feel pain and bleed, just like you.We never did treat blacks or ANY OTHER GROUP as if they were as a whole constitutionally incapable of governing themselves. We even freed them and integrated them into our society,after being forced, knowing that it would destroy many aspects of our lives.
    And yet the North, with their primitive beliefs and practices,cannot see their way clear to liberate the people of the South and cower before the effects it would have on their society. I’ll give you all the callous words of your ancestors to ours, “Well, you just have to learn to adapt (to circumstances we are forcing on you while avoiding for ourselves). There’s a new [North] now”.

31. Hoddy Toddy….and these are the people who tell me to speak English….lol.

Comments are closed.