America Becoming a Third World Country, UN Report Says

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
Good point but Virginia was the economic and political center of gravity of the colonies so you can argue they set the trend. It would make sense that it would take many decades for that trend to take hold in the rest of the colonies.

On a podcast recently, E Michael Jones suggested that a lot of white slaves were worked to death in order to turn Connecticut into farmland. Connecticut was a rain forest covered not just in trees, but also rocks and boulders deposited there after the glaciers receded. The only way that kind of land could have been made useful was through massive amounts of human labor.



Basically, that's what the Jews and northern factory owners were doing, by creating debt and wage slaves. So when you look at it in that light, Fitzhugh's attitude seems quite reasonable. One has to ask, which is worse? Chattel slavery, or debt/wage slavery? At least the owners of chattel slaves get put into a position to actually care for the humans in their charge, as they literally have to live with them all the time. As Anglin has pointed out, back in the 1920s when historians decided to interview as many former slaves as they could before they died in order to get their thoughts down for the historical record, most of them thought being a plantation slave was far better than what came afterwards.
The argument given to refute Fitzhugh at the time, was that as America was growing, no man need stay in one job, he can find work anywhere and go west if he can. The other belief was free labor creates pride in work, creates families and upward mobility. This was one reason during the Civil War Lincoln passed the Homestead Act, the Act having two purposes. ONE It alleivated the stress caused by working poor and immigrants by promising them 500 acres for free if they merely lived there and improved it for five years. TWO Homesteaders would solve the food supply issue for railroad construction, army expansion, and the construction of forts and towns. You needed farmers growing stuff to provide food for people and animals alike. I would think if you could look at it from a person's level in say 1870, you could say that yes there was unlimited growth because so much country was wide open, even Florida was largely frontier. The whole thing that Lincoln and the Republicans, then as well as now, built their concept on the idea of unlimited growth and invention which would lead to the betterment of man. Today in 2022 we see that was wrong. Because we live on a finite planet in a finite nation with a finite amount of water and arable land and there are limits to growth. About 1900, with the frontier closed you began to see the wage class become of importance. The extreme Jewish exploitation of the working class in the United States, didn't begin until the 1880's and then the workers exploited were largely immigrants. Thing was it expanded and poisoned the entire system. What we know as the soul crushing wage slavery of 2022, came about in its present form with the Postmodern Deindustrialization switching us to a Service Economy in the late 1960s early 1970s. At the same time, we obviously did by that point reach the limit of growth
 

Donk

Net-gun Nationalist
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master
ASK ANY SOUTHERNER. The Southern United States was always a Third World Country within a First World Country. Even before the American Civil War, Frederick Law Olmsted did multiple tours from end to end of Dixie and he described the paradox. The Plantations had ample grain, ample food, the Yeomen farmers did well, so long as they had woods with lots of chestnut trees, American Chestnuts is what Southern Hogs fed on, along with anything they scrounged, until they were corralled, fattened up on corn and slaughtered. This was most common in Appalachia and the Ozarks, and other extremely rural areas. The poor white trash, those people who lived in the majority-black plantation belt where the resources were largely stripped, barely had enough food for themselves and their milk cow and single mule ate corn shocks and leaves, along with grass they foraged. Corn shocks were this way. You went through the corn patch in summer, cut off the tops of the corn a couple inches above the ears, I think they did the leaves as well, which meant a standing stalk with ears on it. They'd go back later and cut down the stalks, put the corn in the crib for other uses and use the shopped up corn shocks for fodder for the milk cow and mule. Grain was purchased very seldom if at all, thus all the animals were emaciated. Life continued this way for alot of White people till the 1960's. Particularly in heavily black areas where they were in economic competition with Negroes. The South for whites only began to get less difficult in the Sixties for various reasons. With all the Sun Belt corporation moves and other things, it made employment more easy to get. I am no expert, I will let an expert speak to this
The South wasn't always a Third World Country within a First World Country. The North was also packed with people living in poverty, working to death for a pittance in factories, virtually slaves, no better off (or even worse off) than a poor Southerner with his hog and mule. There were all kinds of people poor and rich, both North and South.

Anyone can look at historical photos of cities in the South from way before the '60s: they look fine, just as "first-world" as anywhere in the North at that time, just less like a concrete jungle. The South was more agrarian, the North more industrial, part of the huge cultural divide between them. In both places there dwelt both those in misery and those in luxury.

The southern belt wasn't majority black, and still isn't, quite. Recently, it's gotten a lot closer though.

Anyway, I blame the heebs. πŸ˜†
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
The South wasn't always a Third World Country within a First World Country. The North was also packed with people living in poverty, working to death for a pittance in factories, virtually slaves, no better off (or even worse off) than a poor Southerner with his hog and mule. There were all kinds of people poor and rich, both North and South.

Anyone can look at historical photos of cities in the South from way before the '60s: they look fine, just as "first-world" as anywhere in the North at that time, just less like a concrete jungle. The South was more agrarian, the North more industrial, part of the huge cultural divide between them. In both places there dwelt both those in misery and those in luxury.

The southern belt wasn't majority black, and still isn't, quite. Recently, it's gotten a lot closer though.

Anyway, I blame the heebs. πŸ˜†
Even the Third World isn't all Third World, Southern Brazil in spots is just as modern as US or Europe, but its the country overall. There were some basic differences in why I said the Southern US was ORIGINALLY a Third World Region in a First World Nation. The South had a societal and racial caste system that was very difficult to move up through. You were born and died to your caste, similar to how it had been in Europe and was in India. The North had no real caste system among White Protestants, if you could as a White Protestant build a better mousetrap you could progress. Because the North never had the large number of White slaves and Indentures in Colonial Days it had originally a stronger family environment, therefore Poverty was almost nonexistent. Now as to Catholic Immigrants they were a poor class and had limited upward mobility, but they were united by their Catholic Parishes and eventually built communities. There were four main classes of Whites in the South, Aristocrats, townspeople, Yeomen farmers, and White Trash. It was possible through dissolute living an Aristocrat or normal person could fall to the level of White Trash, but White Trash were pretty well locked in. Slaves were divided into house slaves, field hands and skilled trades ie blacksmithing. During the slavery era the white trash often lived WORSE than the Slaves, Margaret Mitchell went into this very well in her 1936 book Gone With The Wind, Thomas F Dixon who wrote The Clansman,ie Birth of a Nation goes into it as well. After the War, there was alot of fluctuation, but basically the four classes remained the same, although as urbanization came, the town class grew which allowed Poor Whites and even some more enterprising White Trash to move off the plantations and out of the hollows and swamps and into town and get their kids jobs and education. The heavily Negro areas, well those areas remained little different than some areas in the Third World. This whole situation largely began to end with WWII and things like the Tennessee Valley Authority in Tennessee bringing universal availability of electricity to everyone.

The basic difference in the two regions was this. In the North, white trash were near nonexistent among the established Protestant Class, there were poor Immigrants, but most of them being Catholic and living in urban areas after a couple generations did advance. Then the next group of immigrants would come in. Even so, their children at least had 2 pairs of clothes and 1 pair of shoes. The North was mostly prosperous for White Protestants, the immigrants struggled but still they had the basics of life, it was nowhere as extreme as in Appalachia or in the plantation belt. Ironically, the South's advancement during WWII and afterward, for many reasons, was also helped by the shipping out of thousands of Poor Blacks and Poor White and White Trash to the North and West. Still though, Appalachia and certain places have remained third world and whats worse, with the collapse of Christianity and this Opiod crap, its expanding the degeneracy. The collapse of White society in the North, which has been a slow process, starting in New England which began deindustrializing and abandoning Christianity by the 1920's, driven by years of below-replacement reproduction for White Protestant Legacy People which also combined to break apart and allow family disintigration. It finally reached the Midwest by the 1970's with the beginning of deindustrialization there. That is why today things are so bad, even subtracting the JQ and NQ for this talk
 

Donk

Net-gun Nationalist
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master
Even the Third World isn't all Third World, Southern Brazil in spots is just as modern as US or Europe, but its the country overall. There were some basic differences in why I said the Southern US was ORIGINALLY a Third World Region in a First World Nation.
Southern Brazil is where the Germans live, so of course they build machines there. 😜 I fished on a commercial fishing boat outfitted with a transmission made in Southern Brazil. It was of high quality.

I'm sure a lot of what you say is true in the grand scheme, but the South is a huge region, and I disagree that it was overall originally a relative third world region vis-a-vis the North, or that poor people were almost non-existent above the Mason-Dixon, etc. It's just a historically-smeared notion like the current day idea held by many Northerners that people from the south are simply "ignorant" people through and through. It's like people think the entire South was dueling banjoes until the Yanks came in and brought civilization, lol.

The bone-crushing industrial labor that kept workers (including child laborers) in a state of abject poverty and near slave-status in the North is very well documented. I'm sure it was just as widespread as a Southern man short of chestnut trees to feed his hog, lol. It was just a different kind of poverty, and just as widespread at least. By the way, growing corn is a Northern thing, predominantly and by far, historically and now.

Speaking of which, the South is a land of the most verdant and lush grasslands and grazing fields I've ever seen, year-round. There's good reason that from Florida to Texas has been the greatest ranchland in the country since it was founded. The idea that a family's single dairy cow wouldn't grow fat down there is just nonsense.

Within the overall public narrative, sometimes the persistence of scorn for the South from Northern urbanites reaches "Nazis nailing babies to trees" status. I wonder why that would be maintained so diligently. Not saying that's you, but it is tiresome.jpg how that notional fire keeps getting fed. It's like the Holocaust or something.

Again, look up "historical photo 1920* ________" with any large town or city name, North or South, of comparable size. They look the same. They look like European-inspired American cities.
 

Vilis_Hāzners

For Race. For Nation. For Christ.
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
America deserves what it tolerates.
 

Cathy

Fiddle with it to realize
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
Even the Third World isn't all Third World, Southern Brazil in spots is just as modern as US or Europe, but its the country overall. There were some basic differences in why I said the Southern US was ORIGINALLY a Third World Region in a First World Nation. The South had a societal and racial caste system that was very difficult to move up through. You were born and died to your caste, similar to how it had been in Europe and was in India. The North had no real caste system among White Protestants, if you could as a White Protestant build a better mousetrap you could progress. Because the North never had the large number of White slaves and Indentures in Colonial Days it had originally a stronger family environment, therefore Poverty was almost nonexistent. Now as to Catholic Immigrants they were a poor class and had limited upward mobility, but they were united by their Catholic Parishes and eventually built communities. There were four main classes of Whites in the South, Aristocrats, townspeople, Yeomen farmers, and White Trash. It was possible through dissolute living an Aristocrat or normal person could fall to the level of White Trash, but White Trash were pretty well locked in. Slaves were divided into house slaves, field hands and skilled trades ie blacksmithing. During the slavery era the white trash often lived WORSE than the Slaves, Margaret Mitchell went into this very well in her 1936 book Gone With The Wind, Thomas F Dixon who wrote The Clansman,ie Birth of a Nation goes into it as well. After the War, there was alot of fluctuation, but basically the four classes remained the same, although as urbanization came, the town class grew which allowed Poor Whites and even some more enterprising White Trash to move off the plantations and out of the hollows and swamps and into town and get their kids jobs and education. The heavily Negro areas, well those areas remained little different than some areas in the Third World. This whole situation largely began to end with WWII and things like the Tennessee Valley Authority in Tennessee bringing universal availability of electricity to everyone.

The basic difference in the two regions was this. In the North, white trash were near nonexistent among the established Protestant Class, there were poor Immigrants, but most of them being Catholic and living in urban areas after a couple generations did advance. Then the next group of immigrants would come in. Even so, their children at least had 2 pairs of clothes and 1 pair of shoes. The North was mostly prosperous for White Protestants, the immigrants struggled but still they had the basics of life, it was nowhere as extreme as in Appalachia or in the plantation belt. Ironically, the South's advancement during WWII and afterward, for many reasons, was also helped by the shipping out of thousands of Poor Blacks and Poor White and White Trash to the North and West. Still though, Appalachia and certain places have remained third world and whats worse, with the collapse of Christianity and this Opiod crap, its expanding the degeneracy. The collapse of White society in the North, which has been a slow process, starting in New England which began deindustrializing and abandoning Christianity by the 1920's, driven by years of below-replacement reproduction for White Protestant Legacy People which also combined to break apart and allow family disintigration. It finally reached the Midwest by the 1970's with the beginning of deindustrialization there. That is why today things are so bad, even subtracting the JQ and NQ for this talk
What's the difference between poor Whites and "White trash"?
 

Storminnorman

Well-known member
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
Because we live on a finite planet in a finite nation with a finite amount of water and arable land and there are limits to growth.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I don't believe in this. This planet has a tremendous amount to offer, we are just scratching the surface. God would not have created an earth that was incapable of sustaining a very large number of human beings, because we are created in the image of God, and He loves us. It is our sinful nature that causes us to believe that the earth cannot sustain us. Malthusians have been crying wolf for hundreds of years, but we always seem to find a way. It's not a coincidence that the Malthusians/Club of Rome types are generally atheists, if not outright satanists. They just want an excuse to choke off human potential, if not outright murder people.
 

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
Anyone can look at historical photos of cities in the South from way before the '60s: they look fine, just as "first-world" as anywhere in the North at that time, just less like a concrete jungle
There was a lot of poverty in the rural south up until the invention of air conditioning. A LOT of poverty.
 

Christopher

BLACK RIFLES MATTER
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
America probably ranks well on ESG scales. It’s just that it’s a total shithole country
Okay hold it - why are you citing a UN report if the title topic doesn't show that??? A has nothing to do with B.
Why even cite it at all? Just make an opinion and leave it open for comment.
Sorry folks, but this not a serious report but the writer's opinion, which is fine, but it's not reporting or journalism.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
Southern Brazil is where the Germans live, so of course they build machines there. 😜 I fished on a commercial fishing boat outfitted with a transmission made in Southern Brazil. It was of high quality.

I'm sure a lot of what you say is true in the grand scheme, but the South is a huge region, and I disagree that it was overall originally a relative third world region vis-a-vis the North, or that poor people were almost non-existent above the Mason-Dixon, etc. It's just a historically-smeared notion like the current day idea held by many Northerners that people from the south are simply "ignorant" people through and through. It's like people think the entire South was dueling banjoes until the Yanks came in and brought civilization, lol.

The bone-crushing industrial labor that kept workers (including child laborers) in a state of abject poverty and near slave-status in the North is very well documented. I'm sure it was just as widespread as a Southern man short of chestnut trees to feed his hog, lol. It was just a different kind of poverty, and just as widespread at least. By the way, growing corn is a Northern thing, predominantly and by far, historically and now.

Speaking of which, the South is a land of the most verdant and lush grasslands and grazing fields I've ever seen, year-round. There's good reason that from Florida to Texas has been the greatest ranchland in the country since it was founded. The idea that a family's single dairy cow wouldn't grow fat down there is just nonsense.

Within the overall public narrative, sometimes the persistence of scorn for the South from Northern urbanites reaches "Nazis nailing babies to trees" status. I wonder why that would be maintained so diligently. Not saying that's you, but it is tiresome.jpg how that notional fire keeps getting fed. It's like the Holocaust or something.

Again, look up "historical photo 1920* ________" with any large town or city name, North or South, of comparable size. They look the same. They look like European-inspired American cities.
Like I said it all depended on where you lived at. If you were in Appalachia or some marginal lands, you likely didn't have much grass, now if you were in Texas or other places, you did. Where year-round grazing wasn't enough, typically corn was the grain of choice, a lot of areas didn't have much hay and their fodder consisted of corn shocks. Frederick Law Olmsted's travels through the South in the 1850's, he described this quite well. This was why during the War, Jeb Stuart's calvary went from being one of the best units ever assembled to ineffective, because their horses had to subsist on less and less, till the point they were malnourished. Corn was typically the grain of choice for feeding all animals and making cornmeal, not to mention sweet corn, and they also used corn shocks, but like I said it depended on where you were. Large scale grain farming, like wheat, oats, etc didn't really become a thing till in places like Texas and Oklahoma with the introduction of Turkey Red wheat by the Mennonites from Russia who came in the 1870s. The Shennandoah Valley of Virginia was one area which grew everything the North did, hence why it was called the Breadbasket of the Confederacy during the war, Thing was up into the late 19th Century there were stil quite a few areas that were forest broken up here and there by farms so there is today alot of good farmland and grassland that wasn't always there. I never said there wasn't poverty in the North, it was just more widespread and extreme in the South historically. The basic difference was that the North what is considered the American social structure. There you had a tiny wealthy class, a large middle class, a working class and the poor, being the smallest of the four. The South had the Third World style of social structure. You had extreme culture and refinement among the Aristocrats, you had a tiny class of townspeople, you had the Yeomen Farmers, then you had the Poor White Trash. The largest class was the Yeomen farmers who ranged from dirt poor to well off. There was functionally no middle class. Now on into the 20th Century, the middle class began to grow, mostly as the cities grew and industry became more dominant. By the way, the cities weren't functionally much different North or South, I never said that they were.

This idea that poverty=ignorance is a Hollywood Jewish one, I never equated the two. My grandparents and my father grew up in poverty in Appalachia but they were never ignorant, nor were they trash. As for civilization, no group of people in the United States were as universally highly educated or refined as the Aristocracy of the Antebellum South. Even after the war, reduced in wealth, they managed to rebuilt some of what they had before and their refinement began to slowly be transferred to the new noveau riche, so it never died completely.

As to child labor and gripping abuse in the North, that was mostly after the Civil War with the Jews beginning to come into the large cities and set up sweatshops and those were were exploited were immigrants. Still the basic difference was in the North you had a chance, not always a good one, but a chance of rising above that station. In the South you were largely locked into your place in the caste system. Now of course this was different in places like Texas, where it was a frontier society with upward mobility, but in the older states in the East, the rule pretty much was if you wanted to rise above your caste, you had to leave for some other place.

The point I was getting at was very simple. Particularly because of the Sun Belt phenomenon, the South raised its standard of living exponentially and the North stagnated and began to become impoverished, so today its largely the reverse. The South's main problem now is the growth in Negroes and Mexicans is erasing much of the good progress since WWII. The North hasn't made one inch of progress since WWII, it has only declined. For what its worth
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I don't believe in this. This planet has a tremendous amount to offer, we are just scratching the surface. God would not have created an earth that was incapable of sustaining a very large number of human beings, because we are created in the image of God, and He loves us. It is our sinful nature that causes us to believe that the earth cannot sustain us. Malthusians have been crying wolf for hundreds of years, but we always seem to find a way. It's not a coincidence that the Malthusians/Club of Rome types are generally atheists, if not outright satanists. They just want an excuse to choke off human potential, if not outright murder people.
Personally I think the Malthusians are Correct, but only in the sense of the Nonwhite Population explosion. I have always believed if this planet was only populated by Whites and Asians, no Black Africans, we would surmount all of these problems easily and could grow into infinity. However as our racial quality diminishes, I am afraid we are reaching a quasi limit of growth.
 

Benvenuto Cellini

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Escaped True Master
The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 which made possible RIGHT TO WORK LAWS, the end of Segregation, The Military Industrial Complex and Air Conditioning all combined at the same time. For instance, Texas is a major cog in the Military-Big Tech-Big Medical wheel and has been since WWII. This made it so that Texas businessmen began pushing for Open Immigration, as they saw places like India, the Arab World and Africa sending their college educated to Texas. Once Segregation ended in 1964, Hart Celler was passed, officially coming online in 1968 and Texas began recruiting thousands of these people to come there to their colleges. Houston is one of the largest concentrations of Nigerians outside of Nigeria on earth. A similar thing happened in the North Carolina Research Triangle, in Northern Virginia and of course Atlanta. At the same time, the Infrastructure in the Northern Cities was decayed, having not been really ever upgraded since the late 1800's-early 1900's and the Labor Unions were powerful. So it allowed them to effectively kill a good part of Unionized Labor, the Southern towns all had new Infrastructure as most of them just began building in the Sixties, so everything had a much more modern transportation-friendly structure than in places like Cleveland or Detroit. Plus with horrible winter weather being less of a worry and air conditioning keeping the summer handled, its just all around easier for operations to run smoothly. No work stoppages for extreme winter storms etc.

This sounds like Yankee COPE to me. Here's a few pictures I took of my dad's hometown of Greenville, MS. These places of worship were built right after the Civil War in the late 1800's and are directly across from each other. Mississippi was one of the richest states in the Union before the invention of Air Conditioning. Both of my Grandparents from my mother and fathers came from land owning farmers.

The 1960's was the END of the wealth for the south due to integration. Everyone here will tell you that's the actual truth. That's why once integration happened manufacturing started to leave Mississippi and many of my relatives went North to New Jersey and other places.

Catholic Church.jpg

Baptist Church.jpg

Synagogue.jpg
 

Benvenuto Cellini

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Escaped True Master
Southern Brazil is where the Germans live, so of course they build machines there. 😜 I fished on a commercial fishing boat outfitted with a transmission made in Southern Brazil. It was of high quality.

I'm sure a lot of what you say is true in the grand scheme, but the South is a huge region, and I disagree that it was overall originally a relative third world region vis-a-vis the North, or that poor people were almost non-existent above the Mason-Dixon, etc. It's just a historically-smeared notion like the current day idea held by many Northerners that people from the south are simply "ignorant" people through and through. It's like people think the entire South was dueling banjoes until the Yanks came in and brought civilization, lol.

The bone-crushing industrial labor that kept workers (including child laborers) in a state of abject poverty and near slave-status in the North is very well documented. I'm sure it was just as widespread as a Southern man short of chestnut trees to feed his hog, lol. It was just a different kind of poverty, and just as widespread at least. By the way, growing corn is a Northern thing, predominantly and by far, historically and now.

Speaking of which, the South is a land of the most verdant and lush grasslands and grazing fields I've ever seen, year-round. There's good reason that from Florida to Texas has been the greatest ranchland in the country since it was founded. The idea that a family's single dairy cow wouldn't grow fat down there is just nonsense.

Within the overall public narrative, sometimes the persistence of scorn for the South from Northern urbanites reaches "Nazis nailing babies to trees" status. I wonder why that would be maintained so diligently. Not saying that's you, but it is tiresome.jpg how that notional fire keeps getting fed. It's like the Holocaust or something.

Again, look up "historical photo 1920* ________" with any large town or city name, North or South, of comparable size. They look the same. They look like European-inspired American cities.
Truth.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
This sounds like Yankee COPE to me. Here's a few pictures I took of my dad's hometown of Greenville, MS. These places of worship were built right after the Civil War in the late 1800's and are directly across from each other. Mississippi was one of the richest states in the Union before the invention of Air Conditioning. Both of my Grandparents from my mother and fathers came from land owning farmers.

The 1960's was the END of the wealth for the south due to integration. Everyone here will tell you that's the actual truth. That's why once integration happened manufacturing started to leave Mississippi and many of my relatives went North to New Jersey and other places.

View attachment 118548

View attachment 118549

View attachment 118550
I imagine it depends on what type of industries we are talking about. I know that for the High Tech Industry, Texas and North Carolina began only to boom as a result of WWII. I know that was one of the big selling points that the City of Atlanta GA came up with to lure busy there The City Too Busy To Hate and all that crap. Yes Mississippi was one of the wealthiest states right before the War, more millionaires lived per capita in Mississippi than in any state in the union. Still it is factual that after Taft-Hartley and because the South promised better weather and cheaper labor, many corporations moved operations into the South. There was heavy industry in Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis by the late 19th early 20th Century, many of the automotive plants had assembly plants in Atlanta. I know the Northern deindustrialization of the 1970s hit with the Clean Air Act and Integration of the Cities, forcing everyone out into the suburbs and the plants often rather than retrofit or rebuild, either moved South or moved outside the US. Cheap electricity alone has made Tennessee, because of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the fastest growing states and Nashville one of the fastest growing cities. in the USA. E

xactly what do your comments have to do with the fact that the Texas Establishment flooded their state with Muds after the changes in the laws in the Sixties? Thats established fact
 
Last edited:

Benvenuto Cellini

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Escaped True Master
I imagine it depends on what type of industries we are talking about. I know that for the High Tech Industry, Texas and North Carolina began only to boom as a result of WWII. I know that was one of the big selling points that the City of Atlanta GA came up with to lure busy there The City Too Busy To Hate and all that crap. Yes Mississippi was one of the wealthiest states right before the War, more millionaires lived per capita in Mississippi than in any state in the union. Still it is factual that after Taft-Hartley and because the South promised better weather and cheaper labor, many corporations moved operations into the South. There was heavy industry in Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis by the late 19th early 20th Century, many of the automotive plants had assembly plants in Atlanta. I know the Northern deindustrialization of the 1970s hit with the Clean Air Act and Integration of the Cities, forcing everyone out into the suburbs and the plants often rather than retrofit or rebuild, either moved South or moved outside the US. Cheap electricity alone has made Tennessee, because of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the fastest growing cities in the USA.
Right, but you were trying to spread the retarded Yankee lie that all Southerners were retards who let their pigs free range and owned no land. That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. No doubt it happened, but not on the scale that some Yankee Doodle turd stated.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
Right, but you were trying to spread the retarded Yankee lie that all Southerners were retards who let their pigs free range and owned no land. That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. No doubt it happened, but not on the scale that some Yankee Doodle turd stated.
By the way I never said that. I was talking before the 20th century, hogs were typically in extremely rural areas, like Appalachia or extremely wooded areas were left to forage, then they would bring them into corrals in the fall, feed them out on corn and then slaughter them. Obviously that didn't happen in the Plantation belt, because no one would have allowed pigs to roam everywhere. Who the heck would call that retarded? I call it smart because it was labor saving. Foraging was free food, plus the meat tasted better because chestnuts were sweet. I didn't say nobody owned land, I said the Poor White Trash were often landless, the Yeomen Farmers, a much larger class owned land. Again it all depended where you lived. In the newer states, Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, land was purchased directly from the US government, they called that survey townships. In the older states, like the Carolinas Georgia, Kentucky Tennessee or Virginia those were done on the old English system, lots of the land particularly tied up in old Royal land grants and it was very easy to be swindled out of your land, because all you had to do was file a competing claim and have a better lawyer. Those states being landless was more of a problem, because of the land swindling, it wasnt all over.

By the way I think you missed this part.

As for civilization, no group of people in the United States were as universally highly educated or refined as the Aristocracy of the Antebellum South. Even after the war, reduced in wealth, they managed to rebuilt some of what they had before and their refinement began to slowly be transferred to the new noveau riche, so it never died completely.
 
Last edited:

Benvenuto Cellini

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Escaped True Master
By the way I never said that. I was talking before the 20th century, hogs were typically in extremely rural areas, like Appalachia or extremely wooded areas were left to forage, then they would bring them into corrals in the fall, feed them out on corn and then slaughter them. Obviously that didn't happen in the Plantation belt, because no one would have allowed pigs to roam everywhere. Who the heck would call that retarded? I call it smart because it was labor saving. Foraging was free food, plus the meat tasted better because chestnuts were sweet. I didn't say nobody owned land, I said the Poor White Trash were often landless, the Yeomen Farmers, a much larger class owned land. Again it all depended where you lived. In the newer states, Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, land was purchased directly from the US government, they called that survey townships. In the older states, like the Carolinas Georgia, Kentucky Tennessee or Virginia those were done on the old English system, lots of the land particularly tied up in old Royal land grants and it was very easy to be swindled out of your land, because all you had to do was file a competing claim and have a better lawyer. Those states being landless was more of a problem, because of the land swindling, it wasnt all over.
I see what you mean now. There was just no way I could see planters in the South allowing pigs to roam on their land. Maybe in the 18th century and early 19th century could I see Free Roaming as being more of a thing simply because there was far more unowned land at the time plus more wildlife.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
I see what you mean now. There was just no way I could see planters in the South allowing pigs to roam on their land. Maybe in the 18th century and early 19th century could I see Free Roaming as being more of a thing simply because there was far more unowned land at the time plus more wildlife.
Yeah thats exactly what I meant. I was speaking more of the people in mountainous-frontier areas and marginal land areas ie heavy forests who would allow their hogs to roam free. One of the huge problems the South had during the War was that it didn't produce a large amount of grain ie wheat rye, oats, and it didn't cut the large amount of hay on the scale of the North. It did produce corn and corn shocks and corn itself was fed to livestock but again that was limited in some places, not all. Virginia did in the Shennandoah Valley, but the problem was first come first serve. Virginia had to feed the armies there, so there was less to go around to other places and the army in VA being so large, it ran through the food as fast as it was procured Your planters in other areas would purchase hay grain from Cincinnati, and also big barrels of salt pork, lard and beef tallow for making candles not to mention salt and spices. Thats where Proctor and Gamble got rich, selling to the South. Southern hogs were typically the more rangy type, they didn't produce the extreme amount of fat for rendering lard. Lard was needed not only for cooking, but lard and lye were needed for soap. What ended up happening was by 1864 or so, large parts of Dixie had nearly run out of salt, spices, salt pork, lard, beef tallow, not to mention all the ready mades like matches, candles, oil lamps, cloth etc. The lack of grain and hay shipments, that is why Lee invaded Maryland in '62 and Pennsylvania in '63 to secure grain and other supplies, ended up starving the calvary horses to the point that their horse calvary became of little effect by mid-late '64 because malnourished horses can't run like well fed ones can.
 

Danespear

Kike Woke AF
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
At least we still have the Constitution
It's so much better than that though. We not only have the Constitution, we have Jewish experts to explain it to us!

Is this heaven? No, it's the grandest multi-ethnic, LBTGQPB-friendly economic zone in the history of the world.

Rejoice!!!!!
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬
It's so much better than that though. We not only have the Constitution, we have Jewish experts to explain it to us!

Is this heaven? No, it's the grandest multi-ethnic, LBTGQPB-friendly economic zone in the history of the world.

Rejoice!!!!!
The longer I live, the more I believe this Judeo-Masonic United States experiment was just Jewish 4D Chess destined to destroy us. Unpopular take I know, but thats what its beginning to feel like.
 

Donk

Net-gun Nationalist
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I don't believe in this. This planet has a tremendous amount to offer, we are just scratching the surface. God would not have created an earth that was incapable of sustaining a very large number of human beings, because we are created in the image of God, and He loves us. It is our sinful nature that causes us to believe that the earth cannot sustain us. Malthusians have been crying wolf for hundreds of years, but we always seem to find a way. It's not a coincidence that the Malthusians/Club of Rome types are generally atheists, if not outright satanists. They just want an excuse to choke off human potential, if not outright murder people.
Sometimes I've mused about how the entire Earth could be turned into a lush terraced garden if human beings wanted to do so.



Like I said it all depended on where you lived at. If you were in Appalachia or some marginal lands, you likely didn't have much grass, now if you were in Texas or other places, you did. Where year-round grazing wasn't enough, typically corn was the grain of choice, a lot of areas didn't have much hay and their fodder consisted of corn shocks. Frederick Law Olmsted's travels through the South in the 1850's, he described this quite well. This was why during the War, Jeb Stuart's calvary went from being one of the best units ever assembled to ineffective, because their horses had to subsist on less and less, till the point they were malnourished. Corn was typically the grain of choice for feeding all animals and making cornmeal, not to mention sweet corn, and they also used corn shocks, but like I said it depended on where you were. Large scale grain farming, like wheat, oats, etc didn't really become a thing till in places like Texas and Oklahoma with the introduction of Turkey Red wheat by the Mennonites from Russia who came in the 1870s. The Shennandoah Valley of Virginia was one area which grew everything the North did, hence why it was called the Breadbasket of the Confederacy during the war, Thing was up into the late 19th Century there were stil quite a few areas that were forest broken up here and there by farms so there is today alot of good farmland and grassland that wasn't always there. I never said there wasn't poverty in the North, it was just more widespread and extreme in the South historically. The basic difference was that the North what is considered the American social structure. There you had a tiny wealthy class, a large middle class, a working class and the poor, being the smallest of the four. The South had the Third World style of social structure. You had extreme culture and refinement among the Aristocrats, you had a tiny class of townspeople, you had the Yeomen Farmers, then you had the Poor White Trash. The largest class was the Yeomen farmers who ranged from dirt poor to well off. There was functionally no middle class. Now on into the 20th Century, the middle class began to grow, mostly as the cities grew and industry became more dominant. By the way, the cities weren't functionally much different North or South, I never said that they were.

This idea that poverty=ignorance is a Hollywood Jewish one, I never equated the two. My grandparents and my father grew up in poverty in Appalachia but they were never ignorant, nor were they trash. As for civilization, no group of people in the United States were as universally highly educated or refined as the Aristocracy of the Antebellum South. Even after the war, reduced in wealth, they managed to rebuilt some of what they had before and their refinement began to slowly be transferred to the new noveau riche, so it never died completely.

As to child labor and gripping abuse in the North, that was mostly after the Civil War with the Jews beginning to come into the large cities and set up sweatshops and those were were exploited were immigrants. Still the basic difference was in the North you had a chance, not always a good one, but a chance of rising above that station. In the South you were largely locked into your place in the caste system. Now of course this was different in places like Texas, where it was a frontier society with upward mobility, but in the older states in the East, the rule pretty much was if you wanted to rise above your caste, you had to leave for some other place.

The point I was getting at was very simple. Particularly because of the Sun Belt phenomenon, the South raised its standard of living exponentially and the North stagnated and began to become impoverished, so today its largely the reverse. The South's main problem now is the growth in Negroes and Mexicans is erasing much of the good progress since WWII. The North hasn't made one inch of progress since WWII, it has only declined. For what its worth
You have a lot of good info, peppered here and there with some errors and skews. It's whatever though, I don't want to argue about details. I will say, people living in conditions that can be called "poverty" does tend to increase the warmer a climate is, historically-speaking. :LOL:

I've lived approximately half of my life in the North, the other half in the South. In that time, on this subject, IRL I've seen and heard the most ignorant, prejudiced takes come from Northerners by a huge margin. That's why I get a little bit #tr1gg3r3d by this subject matter.

Broad historical narratives tend to be some of the most ass-backwards and twisted tales in the world. Literal mythology and legends are often more accurate. The South, the North, and the Civil War are no exception to this.

Since this subject interests you, if you haven't done so yet, look into the impact of Oregon Territory on the Civil War. It was a breath away from declaring secession during the war, and Lincoln himself said that if it did so, the war for the Union would be effectively lost and the war would cease, with the Confederacy released to its independence. It's pretty fascinating.
 
Top