“Fuck the South” (I’m Quoting). My friend Lisa (who started as my (expert) trainer in the odious word-processing program Microsoft Word) sent me a link to a site called fuckthesouth.com. I don’t know how they got a domain name like that, inasmuch as I thought there were controls on the kinds of things domain names can contain, but they did.
+
It consists of a brief polemic/diatribe with links to various informational sites that support major points. One such link, at the underlined word "revolutionaries", leads to a website about the Founding Fathers’ attitudes toward religion. The first screen there is a little off-point, but the second screen begins the discussion in earnest. It contains this most-intriguing quotation, which I offer without having checked its accuracy:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Moslems], — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Mohammedan=Moslem] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries [U.S. and Tripoli/Libya]. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).

I recommend the f***thesouth site, but caution that its language is a tad intemperate and vulgar.
+
I wrote Lisa and the author of the site, by email, as follows. To Lisa:

LOVE the commentary, hate the antisexual language. I once met a guy (on a Canadian morning TV show I was also on) who studied strong language in various countries. He found, for instance, that the worst insults in English-speaking countries revolve around sex and excrement, while in some other countries (e.g., Arab) they revolve around family members. Of course, we cover that too, in the "yo Mama!" genre, but not as imaginatively. Remember [Johnny] Carson's Karnak ["the Magnificent"] insults: "May [something, e.g., a camel] [do something, e.g., make love to] your [sister/mother/brother]"?
+
In any case, I plan to address the whole red state/blue state thing in my blog, and will use this link as a fill-in until I get a more comprehensive analysis written. * * *

The “red state/blue state thing” refers to a piece I have in mind, tentatively titled, “Red States/Blue States: Civil War  IV". The premise is that we are presently in our fourth civil war between North and South. The first is the original (and still the worst), THE “Civil War” — wrongly and willfully falsely called “The War Between the States” by some Southerners. That war was NEVER between states but between two confederations, the Union (the authentic United States) and the Confederacy (the “Confederate States of America”, a sin-based, slavery-defending alliance of traitors). No Southern state acted on its own, but only in conjunction with other members of the treasonous Confederacy. No Northern state acted on its own, either, but only as an integral part of the Union. So much for the stupid lie, “The War Between the States”. In any case, we (the United States) won the first Civil War.
+
The second Civil War was Reconstruction, an attempt by the Union to alter the mindset of Johnny Reb and make him into a genuine American, devoted to “liberty and justice for all”, as the (later) Pledge of Allegiance would devote us. The South won that one.
+
BECAUSE the South won Reconstruction, we had the third Civil War, the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, in which Northerners on Freedom Rides and summer vacations working to register black voters played a major part, tho most of the work was done by Southern (true) Americans (and especially black Americans) themselves. (I originally intended to use 'Arabic' numerals for "Civil War  4" and "3", but somehow Roman numerals — capitalized, of course — seemed more appropriate. Isn’t it great that we have that option? Roman numerals have more "gravitas", an appropriately Latin term.) The North sort of won that one, tho we’re not really quite thru with it, there still being barriers to black voting. Today’s barriers are not flagrant and forthright, such as an outrite ban or poll tax. But they are still too effective, as in discarding black applications to register or black ballots for trivial cause.
+
To borrow from the first Republican President — and it’s hard, sometimes, to believe that there once were honorable Republican Presidents —, Abraham Lincoln,

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.

The South has NEVER signed on to that most basic premise of American civilization: that all men are created equal, rich and poor, white and black, straight and gay. The South is, in fact, still fiting tooth and nail against acceptance of that basic premise. It is, for the moment, ahead, having won a huge battle November 2nd. But surveys show that many Americans, including many who voted for Bush, have grave reservations about the Radical Right/anti-American agenda the neo-cons are pursuing. Genuine conservatives, AMERICANS devoted to American values, are almost at war with the neo-cons, spiritual aliens devoted to alien values, most pervasively Zionist values, in which Jews are the most important people in the universe and all others, Christians as much as Arabs, are NOTHING. To neo-cons, the Christian ethos of fairness ("equal treatment under law" in our Constitution) is not remotely paramount, but what the Jews want in Palestine is more important than equality or fairness or anything else in the universe. Once you make a fundamental break from the principle of universal fairness, it is as impossible to reconstitute devotion to equality under law as it is to restore virginity.
+
Of course, the neo-cons DO NOT TELL Christians that they are Jews devoted solely to Zionism. They pose as Americans, as Christians, and twist Christianity to their purpose. Southerners, being much less educated and thus more credulous than most Americans, don't know to ask hard questions, so find themselves taking anti-Christian stances all the time, without even knowing it. They are told to obey the Jewish Ten Commandments, even as they ignore Jesus's Three Commandments. Indeed, if asked what Jesus's Three Commandments are, they would have no answer. These are the Three Commandments. 1: Love the Lord thy god with all thy heart and soul. 2: Love thy neighbor as thyself. 3: As you would have others do unto you, so too do unto them. (The "Golden Rule"))
+
Neo-cons in "fundamentalist" — neo-Jewish — sects have told Christians that they must heed the prohibitions on homosexuality in Leviticus. Never mind that Leviticus is a DEAD LETTER EVEN AMONG JEWS, in that much of it is devoted to ANIMAL SACRIFICE. Don't take my word for it. Read it. Paragraph after paragraph tells Jews which animals to slaughter for which purpose, and how the sacrifice should be done: sprinkle the blood over the altar, burn the body, etc.! THIS compilation of vicious, idiotic, ancient crap is supposed to be a moral guide? for ANYONE? in this day and age?
+
Not even Jews today practice animal sacrifice. But they don't forswear it as ugly, antique, and insane. Rather, they say only that until the Temple in Jerusalem is restored by the Messiah, they cannot perform the sacrifices only the Messiah can restore! What nonsense! They control Jerusalem now. If they wanted to rebuild The Temple, who's to stop them? If they wanted to reinstitute animal sacrifice at a new Temple, they have the power. So the fact that they have neither rebuilt the Temple nor restored animal sacrifice PROVES that not even the Jews believe in Leviticus. YET they want Christians to heed its prohibitions on homosexuality! I think, not.
+
Leviticus also sets out Jewish dietary laws. Do Christians adhere to THAT part of Leviticus? No, they do not. They do not believe that eating pork consigns you to hell, nor that eating beef with a glass of milk will send you directly to hell, nor, especially, that eating a bacon cheeseburger and washing it down with a glass of milk will consign the unholy offender to eternal damnation. So why on EARTH would any Christian who IGNORES Leviticus on diet HEED Leviticus on sexuality? It's all bull. (Just make sure you don't eat bull with dairy!)
+
If the neo-cons (new to conservatism, often coming from radical-left backgrounds, embracing government coercion to achieve their ends) become too powerful, a new alliance of (genuine) conservatives and liberals (or "progressives", as ever you prefer) may, startlingly, emerge to stop them.
+
Civil War I lasted 4 years. Civil War IV is in at least its fifth year, and counting. The South cannot prevail, in the longest term, because it is on the wrong side of history, and more and more Northerners are moving south to get away from the cold of winter. Without more, even these older and thus more conservative Northerners will in time change the South for the better, especially in that many Northern blacks are returning to the South, and not just for the weather. Still, we may have unnecessary unpleasantness for a decade or more unless we can short-circuit the process and rush the Nation into a real, mind-altering 21st Century.
+
It is in this context that I wrote to the author of the f***thesouth site:

THANKS for the info, especially for the observation that 9 of the 13 stripes in the U.S. flag are for Blue States, a point I hadn't adequately appreciated.
+
Tho I agree with the anger, I disagree (a) with the antisexual language, which just feeds into the South's whole antisexual and especially antihomosexual bigotry — and hypocrisy, since we all know how sexual Southerners are, even with close relatives; and (b) with the idea of expelling the South to restore the Union to its original goals.
+
The solution to our current national dilemma is the exact opposite: bring more areas into the Union, as for instance Canada, which the Founding Fathers wanted in from the start. They even wrote a proviso into the Articles of Confederation (and Perpetual Union — never forget that part) to allow Canada into the Union automatically. But it wouldn't have to be Canada. It would be hard to find anyplace in the Western world more conservative/imitation-conservative than the South, so bringing in Puerto Rico, Mexico, the Philippines, Britain, Ireland, Australia — almost anywhere — would permanently destroy the South's stranglehold on national politics. With such new states' admission, the introductory language of the Second Amendment would be given its full force and effect, we would get universal health coverage, etc., etc., and progressives, now just barely a minority, would become a huge majority, permanently in charge of the Nation's direction. As you point out, that would NOT mean the destruction of marriage or a national descent into hell, especially given that admission of Mexico or other Catholic areas (Canada is half Catholic) would reinforce the sane parts of traditional morality.
+
In any case, I am placing a link to your site, with a warning as to language, on my blog today. Thanks for your work.

And so I am: http://www.fuckthesouth.com. Enjoy.
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 10:39 AM