Comments on: US conservatism vs Southern nationalism

By: Dixiegirl

Dixiegirl — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 22:36:57 +0000

One person told me northeasterners on her road claimed they “felt sympathetic” with the south, for the reasons mentioned. She was stunned. To her, the couple was the perfect nyc transplant couple, par excellence. She couldn’t even “get” why the yankees would even say that. But to them, the “south” is some kind of t.v. image “red stater” thing. It meant they were some form of christian (although the transplants were catholics and said they thought they had the only true path to God, lol, but still they “were compadre.”)

Anyway, she finally recovered and asked them to name some southern writers or musicians, to express some of the non-mainstream narrative about the war, etc. They had no idea what she was talking about.

Most northeasterns have absolutely no clue about the war—- nor about the sense people had in sharing a life, what a culture IS, a different literature, culture, trajectory to the country, musics, foods, customs, systems of manners, etc.

They don’t realize that the southerner is always (on a level) many of them, sort of dissimulating. It’s the “others” culture, their Lady gag/ Madonna/ Hollywood world— it is their only frame of reference—- so southerners often do sort of “meet them on their level.”

Because they never see groups of southerners alone— they never see the other way of relating.

It’s like— how it cracks me up when people go ON AND ON about the (supposed) stuffiness of anglo-saxons and the English. Tons of commercials and so on, degrading them for priggishness.

They NEVER CONSIDER that the “priggishness” might be because they don’t want to be around the people in question. That it’s a form of self-protection—- that VANISHES when the others aren’t around, lol.

Maybe they are only priggish… around YOU— but they are too self-centered to assume that

By: Virginian Secessionist

Virginian Secessionist — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:24:13 +0000

That’s why I am a Reactionary (or, if you prefer, either “17th Century Conservative” or “Pre-Enlightened Conservative”). Those who call themselves “Conservatives” today are really the heirs of the liberal tradition. Modern liberals are really just more ridiculously liberal than the liberals now known as “Conservatives.” But ultimately, anyone who follows Enlightenment principles, and worships at the altar of men like Locke and Voltaire, is a liberal.

Ultimately, I think some sort of reformed feudalism would be ideal. Feudal society is very much a hierarchy, and very resistant to the assaults of “equality” and “liberalism.” Medieval Feudalism was well suited to its time, but wouldn’t work well “as is” in our time. It would need to be adapted. How exactly we do that, I’m not sure yet. But I think it is something to consider.

By: Harold Crews

Harold Crews — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:47:12 +0000

Southern conservatives are people whose instincts are more or less correct but who lack the historical knowledge that would prevent that instinct from rooting them in the present or at most recent past which distorts their perspective. What do they know of the ‘Civil Rights’ movement but what they know from ‘school’ or television? They neither know that there was a coherent, reasoned and broad opposition to it or that it was enforced at the points of bayonets. Nor do they know that what those who opposed it warned against has come to pass.

They are moderns because they know of nothing else. It has become the default position.