The Beauty of Pan-Secessionism & the Ugliness of Consolidation 6

by Michael Cushman

The beautiful thing about pan-secessionism is that it greatly limits the extent to which one culture can impose its values or laws upon another culture. On the other hand, the ugliness of the present system (US democracy and Federal supremacy) is that all political and cultural matters in the end come down to what US Senator and early Southern nationalist leader Robert Barnwell Rhett referred to as ‘the despotism of numbers.’ In such a system as we suffer under today the people of the cultural and political majority rule over those of the minority; the people of the more populous region of a polity rule over those of less populous regions. This rule is re-enforced through the majority’s control of the institutions of media and education which perpetuate negative stereotypes about the minority. The majority also wields its power to push historical narratives which support its position of dominance. As a Southerner, and therefore someone of a minority culture and ethnic group within the US political system and society, I am painfully aware of how this works. CNN’s recent story on the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg entitled ‘150th anniversary of Battle of Gettysburg provides a bigger story’ is a perfect example of how a certain (in this case politically-correct, anti-Southern) historical narrative is used to justify the subjugation of my people and culture. The majority’s claim to moral superiority is the primary basis upon which it justifies its position relative to the South.

THE PROBLEM OF CONSOLIDATION: ABUSE AND RESENTMENT

Recently a New Jersey-based group led by Massachusetts-native David Silverman called American Atheists sued to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments that stood in the courtyard in the small Southern town of Starke, Florida. The atheists were unsuccessful in removing the statue but a deal was struck which allowed the New Jersey group to put its own statue beside that of the Ten Commandants. The money was raised and a couple of days ago the group held a ceremony in which it unveiled what is purportedly the first statue to atheism ever erected on government property in the United States. David Silverman, Ian Goldberg and other atheist leaders spoke to the small public gathering and many media representatives who were there for the event. The Florida League of the South, led by Chairman Michael Tubbs and Pastor Greg Wilson, conducted a protest against the American Atheists with Southern flags and signs that read ‘The South is a Christian Nation’ and ‘Yankee Go Home.’ Mr Tubbs was quoted by the Washington Post as saying:

We reject outsiders coming to Florida — especially from outside what we refer to as the Bible Belt — and trying to remake us in their own image…. We do feel like it’s a stick in the eye to the Christian people of Florida to have these outsiders come down here with their money and their leadership and promote their outside values here.

The Florida League of the South has noted that it has received numerous hateful emails from people denouncing the South, Christianity and perpetuating negative anti-Southern stereotypes. The various articles and videos that have been posted online since the event have been full of similar comments, which I have collected in order to document. Likewise, within Southern circles there is a great deal of anger at the American Atheists and their supporters.

THE ANSWER IS SECESSION

The New Jersey atheist group is celebrating its victory in Florida and Southern nationalists are celebrating all of the media attention that they gained. However, hard feelings exist on both sides of the conflict. What is often lost in the debate is that the small town of Starke, which lies in a largely-homogeneous Baptist region, has had an atheist monument imposed upon it. Though no polls have been taken of the townspeople, it is almost certain that the vast majority oppose the monument and the group which placed it in the centre of their town. Yet, what is the recourse of the people of Starke? To (legally) remove the statue they will have to take the matter to Federal Court. A court system of a consolidated government which rules over 310 million people (and which has a long record of opposing local autonomy while supporting a culturally Leftist agenda) has the final word in the matter. What sort of influence can the people of Starke (population 5,593) possibly have upon the US court system, especially given that they will be opposed by the well-funded Northern atheist group?

The solution to this problem (and many others like it) is secession. Clearly, the people of Starke, Florida do not share a common culture with the people Massachusetts or New Jersey. Their values, politics, religious views and ethnicity are different. From everything to homosexual marriage to property rights to gun control it seems likely that the people of Starke would disagree with the peoples of Massachusetts or New Jersey – and possibly the US as a whole. If Starke or Florida were independent it is difficult to imagine that the New Jersey atheist group would be able to impose a statue upon the small Southern town. Likewise, if secession were embraced it would be impossible for Southern Baptists to impose their views upon the peoples of the Northeast – or anywhere else for that matter. In the present system, given the South’s minority status and the US-orchestrated demographic displacement of Southerners that is well under way, there is little danger of the latter occurring any time soon, though. This may embolden those such as Silverman and Goldberg to gloat in their victory and scoff at any call to break up the present system. Why break up a system which people such you dominate, right?

The cultural Left’s dominance in the present system is largely unrecognised for what it is. The power that it wields over traditional areas such as Starke, Florida is rarely discussed in terms of domination and imposition. Rather, the narrative is littered with appeals to anti-Southern stereotypes which the US Left employs to maintain its presumed moral superiority. What is really going on in cases such this that one group is using consolidated government force to impose its values and culture upon the people of another group. It happens at the polls, in the schools and even in courtyards in the rural South. It can be justified in terms of democracy (rule of the majority) or in terms of cultural superiority (and the supposedly backwardness of people of the Bible Belt). But it is wrong. It’s morally wrong and it leads to abuse and resentment. And its only possible because of consolidation. The artificial, multi-national, 310-million strong regime known as the United States of America is truly an ugly thing to behold.

6 comments

  1. “The artificial, multi-national, 310-million strong regime known as the United States of America is truly an ugly thing to behold.”

    It certainly is. And that is why it will end up just like Yugoslavia one day real soon.

  2. Great article. I wonder if this is the same atheist group I heard of before, I’m trying to remember what the state was but again they were from another part of the country and came in to campaign to have a nativity scene taken away from a small town’s centre, even though this particular town was deeply Christian. I’m sure it was a small town in NY but I might be wrong.

    • Ironically, the organized atheist movement in the United States often acts like a bunch of religious fanatics. It’s a really strange paradox in that we have a formally secular regime where entanglement of government and religion is prohibited by the Constitution to a much more formal degree than what is the norm in most liberal democracies, and yet we have a huge subculture of religious fundamentalists of different kinds, which is also rare for a modern liberal democracy (the only other nation I know of that might be comparable is Turkey, although they’re Muslims and we’re Christians). This creates a situation where we end up having an “atheist fundamentalist” movement that considers religion to be a dangerous threat, and consequently insists on interpreting separation of church and state in the most rigid and fanatical way possible.

      You’re English, aren’t you? Sean Gabb once told me that he could never understand why so many American libertarians were so zealously anti-religious…until he started examining the religious views of some of the religious subcultures in the U.S. like Christian Zionists, Christian Identity, Christian Reconstructionists, snake-handlers, tongues speakers, wanna be prophets, “End Times” apocalyptists, the “prosperity gospel,” every kind of wackiness you could possibly imagine. Whenever I explain some the ideas of some of these to Europeans and Australians they can hardly believe such tendencies exist.

    • Well, that’s true here for the most part. Most Christians in the US belong to one of the two broad tendencies you describe, i.e. those who take the Apostles’ Creed literally, and those who take a more Tillichian approach. The other stuff is on the margins but it’s still a huge subculture (or collection of subcultures).I was involved with some of those myself when I was young. The difference though is that religious commitment of a serious nature tends to be much more common here as this data indicates: https://www.google.com/search?q=which+countries+are+the+most+religious&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyg9zp-o3VAhUEMz4KHUH_CjcQ_AUICCgD&biw=1280&bih=915&dpr=1#imgrc=YCgRT57ANJTaMM:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance#Statistics

      For instance, regular church attendance is much more common in the USA than in most Western countries. So it’s interesting how even though we formally separate church and state to a greater degree than most countries, we’re still comparatively very religious by the standards of the developed world.

      “We do have our militant atheists though.”

      Dawkins is English, and so was Hitchens. Although I get the feeling they were more aggravated by Islam than Christianity. Hitchens used to say he wanted to “bomb the Taliban out of the Stone Age,” and Dawkins has even referred to himself as a “cultural Christian.” The idea that Christianity is some kind of dangerous medieval threat to Europe is crazy. Even in the USA the main objections the militant atheists have to Christianity is that the more conservative Christian church denominations oppose gay marriage, abortion, and having women in the clergy. Some of the seriously conservative Christians also oppose things like teaching Darwinism in public schools which pisses off scientists but seems irrelevant to anyone who is not a scientist. But even that is fairly marginal and only takes place in some of the redder zones of the US.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s