This all started around the time of The Great Revolt, almost 50 years after Christ took up his cross, just before Thomas was martyred, when Vesuvius hadn't yet claimed Pompeii, a few decades before the good news of John is said to have been penned.
The place was the northern part of an island. To the invaders it was known as Caledonia, but we know it as Scotland. It was inhabited by several (Ptolemy suggests 18 in his Geography) tribes of Celtic origin, and while not much is definitively known about them, it is not a stretch to say that they disliked the notion of being ruled by foreigners.
The invaders were Romans. They had conquered almost the entirety of the Celtic world, including modern day England. Their attempts at subduing Scotland though proved problematic. They were met with resistance steady and fierce. Due to factors both martial and political, the Romans never managed to subjugate those early inhabitants of Scotland. Whereas the people in England had accepted and eventually embraced Roman ways, the people of Scotland thoroughly rejected them. Their defiance of Roman rule was so savage that eventually the Romans abandoned their conquest of those early Scots and built a wall to protect themselves (and later, another wall).
That was the beginning of the culture war we face today.
The western Roman Empire fell by 480 A.D. and thus ended its direct threat to the people of Scotland. But while the military might of Rome ceased to exist, the cultural traits of the Roman Empire lived on (see this Romano-British culture article for one example), and the conflict with the culture of those early Scots and their descendants continues as of this writing a quarter of the world away from where it began.
The Roman Empire, like most Empires, had a top down structure. It was also focused heavily on the collective. These two traits, while not unique to the Romans, were the basis for the culture that existed within the empire. It contrasted harshly with the bottom up, individualistic culture of those primitive Celts in Scotland.
The Roman empire fell, but I'll argue that its culture lived on, not in small part due to its religion, but also due to the influence of its conquest across central and western Europe. At its height it stretched from the Middle East to North Africa and as far north as England. It encompassed an area that includes 40 different nations today, and had an estimated 60 to 100 million people within its borders (which would have been between 1/6th to 1/4 of the world's population at the time).
You look out over the field; bodies of the traitors your archers have laid scattered and torn. On your right flank and center the knights and infantry respectively had moved the enemy back. On the left the resistance was more troublesome and it took bowmen to quell the rebels. Your losses were not light, but acceptable, if this situation could be in any part acceptable. These primitive clans were resisting suzerainty! As the mangled limbs and broken spears fill your gaze you can't help but think, "even these lowly peasants must want to be justly ruled, mustn't they? Yet they resist; savagely, brutally, stubbornly. So we are forced to kill them in large numbers to gain their compliance. Yet with bodies of their finest warriors in pieces on the field that we now own, they still defy our rule, our enlightenment, our civilization! It's as if they prefer the darkness they live in to the brightness we offer them, if only they submit to our teachings, our superior way of life." You turn from the field, having the taste of the day's victory soured by the incredulity of it all, and the fact that tomorrow, or next week, you'll be forced to repeat this exercise until these damned Scots accept your enlightenment or are destroyed to the last man, woman and child.
A little over a millennium later the same principle exercise was repeated, but this time an English army, rather than Roman, sought to conquer Scotland. The English had been influenced (at least in part) by the Roman occupation, and also the religion of Rome, which was the religion at that time.
I'm not referring to the theology involved with Rome's religion, but its organization. The Roman Catholic Church has a hierarchical structure where the Pope acts as a supreme leader, with the various ranks of church officials subordinate to whomever occupies a position above them. To slightly simplify things, Deacons are subject to the Priests who are subject to the Bishops who are subject to the Pope, although the Pope has direct authority over all subordinate ranks, including the laity. It's difficult to get more top-down than that.
When Edward I claimed Scotland for himself, he sought and obtained the Pope's approval. Scotland appealed to the Pope to have their independence recognized, most notably through the Declaration of Arbroath. It took almost a decade, but the Pope finally sided with the Scots and approved of Scottish independence.
What's interesting is that in the Declaration of Arboroath the argument was made that Scots were independent as a nation because it was the choice of the Scottish people to be so, and their king would be replaced if he failed to protect their independence. At the time this was a very controversial argument, since feudalism (or some variant thereof) along with manorialism (which derived from the Roman villa system) was the most common form of societal structure in Europe, and the style of feudalism developed in England held that the King was the absolute owner of all land, and transfer of rule was just how things were done. So to say that the people themselves could unseat a king if he failed to live up to their standards was not exactly a popular notion, especially amongst kings.
It was some time later that the justification for absolute monarchs was labeled the Divine Right of Kings, but the concepts that James VI of Scotland laid out had their roots in ideas that stretched back millennia. Tying obedience to the King with obedience to the deity (or deities) of choice is often an effective means of preventing those pesky little rebellions that sometimes lead to tyrannicide.
Back to Edward I of England, and more importantly the brigands he sought to subdue.
Scotland was a complex little chessboard to be a pawn upon. The ruling class of Scotland tended to look after themselves first and foremost, so whatever seemed most advantageous to their position was of course best for Scotland, the peasantry be damned. The Guardians of Scotland invited Edward to arbitrate the succession of the next king of Scotland, and things just went all to hell from there. Edward leveraged them, partly through coercion and partly because most of the Guardians had large estates in England they didn't wish to lose, into proclaiming him Lord Paramount of Scotland. Edward oversaw the arbitration which resulted in John Balliol being crowned King of Scotland, then swearing fealty to Edward. No one was happy with the arrangement, except Edward who regarded Scotland as a vassal state.
Two years after his coronation King John was summoned by Edward and ordered to supply funds and troops for Edwards' planned invasion of France. King John met with his council and they decided to defy Edward. They struck deals with France (the Auld Alliance) and Norway and prepared for war.
The story of what happened from the death of King Alexander III of Scotland in 1286 until the victory at Bannockburn in 1314 would make any script writer for a modern soap opera proclaim the plot is too complex to be believed, so I won't go into all the details. Suffice it to say Edward sacked Berwick in a most hideous fashion and drove the Scots to capitulation by the summer of 1296.
William Wallace and Andrew De Moray weren't having it. They along with other nobles and local leaders began a series of uprisings which culminated in a decisive victory at Stirling Bridge. Wallace and De Moray were not commoners; they were in the lower echelons of the Scottish nobility. But the bulk of the nobility (at least at top) were paying homage to Edward and it's easy to see that the war was because the folks toward the bottom of society wanted to fight even if the folks at top didn't. These people wanted things done from the ground up.
Fast forwarding a bit, by 1304 things had swung Edward's way and Scotland was all but defeated. But, in 1306 Robert the Bruce had a tiff with a rival claimant to the Scottish throne. Said tiff resulted in said rival being killed in a church (which was, to use the ecclesiastical phrase, a big no-no). So Bruce proclaimed himself king and launched what would be the final phase of the first war for independence. It's arguable that instead of love for country or a desire to live free from oppression he fought for Scottish independence to avoid a murder rap. But it worked, and the Scots had their freedom from English rule (for a while at least).
Skipping ahead a few centuries, the Scottish and English borders weren't well tended, so between the fighting of the two countries for the better part of 3 centuries and the lack of law enforcement, the people there became very scrappy. They had to be. When 200 reivers ride into your town, you become scrappy or become dead.
In another futile attempt to abbreviate this post, a lot of the borderers were transported to the Plantation of Ulster, and from there they eventually made their way to Appalachia, where their culture spread out and became known as the Scots-Irish (pronounced red-necks, among other things).
What of this culture of Rome which started off this post? Well as I mentioned, after the fall of the Roman Empire the culture itself survived, perhaps not in all its minutia, but its central tenants carried on. This was especially so in lands that the Roman Empire had conquered and later on in countries that adopted Roman Catholicism as the state religion. This hold especially true for the countries that remained Roman Catholic after the Reformation.
The Thirty Years War was said to be the last major religious war in Europe. Not so; while religion was a major factor it was not a war centered around differing deities, but rather a war about how to worship certain deities, and perhaps as importantly what structure they were to be worshiped under. Yes, for the most part it can be described as a religious war, but I see it as more a contest between methods and forms rather than theology.
In any event, the culture that started or developed in ancient Rome was spread out, first along with the Empire and later with the structure of Rome's religion. This did not hypnotize everyone that came in contact with it into believing fervently on this culture's central tenants, but it tended to nudge folks that way. After all, Rome did some amazing things, and the Roman Catholic Church did do some good works. Those alone would cause some people to think they were on to something (and the coercion of the state didn't hurt its popularity).
This culture came to America even before the Scots-Irish did. It arrived with the Spanish and settled in with some of the English colonists. It grew here, in the north and even in parts of the South, until it became one of two cultures vying for dominance. It became most recognizable to us in the late 19th/early 20th century. Today we see its ideological offshoot but many don't realizes that a culture is underneath the politic views.
This culture is the progressive culture, which is different although related to the progressive political ideology. Many people are the former but not necessarily the latter. The main difference is that the progressive ideology tends to lean left (as in when they look to the right they see Lenin) whereas plenty of folks that are of the progressive culture lean right (or right-ish at least).
For example the Bush family and the Obama family are both of the progressive culture. The former leans right (and "lean" may be generous) while the latter leans left. McCain, Romney, Hewitt, Hannity and many other republicans are often accused of being RINO's because of their positions. It should be realized that their positions are a product of their culture, and while they may lean right and even come to the correct conclusion on some questions, they're influenced heavily, perhaps without realizing, by the progressive culture they grew up in or lived in for so long.
Trump is a progressive. But culturally, not ideologically. Clinton is of both the progressive culture and ideology.
This culture has two central tenants; society must be structured from the top down, and the collective (or collectives) must be the focus of society. There are other mores that the culture and/or ideology follow: victimhood is revered, identity politics are paramount, appearance matters more than substance, the individual is wicked and therefore must be controlled for his own good. This is not a complete list but it's enough to roughly shape an image.
This culture is dominant from Eastern Pennsylvania up through Massachusetts. Also in the Western third of California, the Western sixth of Washington state and Oregon, the lower half of Florida (say from Orlando to The Keys), and in most very large cities (Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, Minneapolis, Atlanta, etc.). That is not to say 100% of the inhabitants are progressives culturally. An individual can accept or reject the culture around him in whole or part. But in those places the progressive culture is the one with the most adherents.
To go through some of what I outlined and expand upon it:
Society must be structured from the top down; this can be seen in the import they place on "leaders" and/or "experts". As of December 2018 a casual glance around at the PTDS (Post Trump Derangement Syndrome) should affirm this. A president, while powerful, only presides over the executive branch of the federal government. Given the laments from the progressives, you'd think the election was for a Supreme Being. Likewise the reverence they have for "experts" (especially ones that back up their belief system) borders on religious commitment. For example, when one scientist mentions a problem with the anthropogenic global warming theory, his credentials, professionalism and in some cases even his parentage is questioned. But, tow the progressive line that climate change is bad, and progressives will go along with plans that will leave them freezing in the dark, because experts. During the George Zimmerman trial a big deal was made that Zimmerman didn't "obey the dispatcher" (in actuality he did). A dispatcher has no authority by law to order anyone around, but to the progressives a dispatcher is part of the organized power structure, therefore any commoner must obey any edicts the dispatcher posits forth.
The collective (or collectives) must be the focus of society; this should be evident by the repeated emphasis placed on collectives. How they parse the collectives is immaterial to this point (though usually it's by race). What is important is that they will seek to do what they think is good for the group even if it's demonstrably bad for the individual within that group. An example of this is a union of coal minors endorsed Barack Obama even after he declared he'd wage a war on coal. While this would cause job loss for individuals within that collective, the "leaders" of said collective thought it would somehow benefit coal minors as a whole.
Victimhood is revered; in the Progressive pantheon, being a victim is akin to being a high priest or priestess. According to the Henry J.Kaiser Family Foundation women comprise 51% of the u.S. population. By state only Alaska and North Dakota have male majorities. In 13 states it's 50/50. So in 35 states women have a majority, but progressives' rhetoric can only be explained if women are minorities. Indeed they talk of women as a minority solely because it increase the perception and/or sense of victimhood. Majorities can be oppressed, but not easily and not without going contrary to the narrative that progressives believe so fervently in. There are cases where people clearly within a majority grouping claim minority status contrary to both appearance and logic (coughElizabethWarrencough). This is because of the perceived benefits of minority status in the progressive culture. Being a minority makes it much easier to be a victim. Victims hold some supposed moral authority when they speak on damn near any subject to some or most of the progressives, therefore being a victim is a pathway to success.
Identity politics are paramount; what group you belong to determines your future. This is so ingrained that I doubt most progressives are even consciously aware of it. If you're black, then you must support affirmative action. If you're a woman, you must support legalized abortion. If you're of Spanish descent, then you must support open borders. Woe be unto any member of a group that does not believe in whatever positions progressives think that group should hold. Wrongthink is the quickest way to lose your victim status no matter what minority you belong to. The most prominent minority in the u.S. are black people. Look at how progressives view black republicans, or black libertarians and I think you'll see the validity of this point.
Appearance matters more than substance; this not only applies to people, but things both abstract and concrete. It's often joked that if the protagonist of 50 Shades of Grey weren't handsome (and wealthy) the book would have been titled 50 Years To Life. Bill Clinton? He was attractive and had a certain charm, so all those accusations about him being a womanizer weren't important. Donald J Trump wasn't attractive or smooth, so his talking crudely about women was enough to have folks passing out the pitchforks. No one believed for a second that the Affordable Care Act was going to make health insurance more affordable, but it was called the Affordable Care Act so progressives just had to support it. Despite the increase in insurance premiums caused by the ACA, progressives still incredulously chastise anyone who wants its repeal, often proclaiming that that'd make health insurance less affordable.
Indeed progressives behave as if they can speak reality into existence; by calling yourself dietary challenged or dietary embellished you're no longer subject to the ill effects of malnutrition or obesity respectively. Didn't you notice some time back people stopped having "problems" and started having "challenges"? Same mindset - by speaking the reality you wish you make it materialize. (And as an aside a pet peeve of mine for decades have been progressives and some locals calling the center of Charlotte, NC "uptown". That place is downtown - I know this because when I'd bike there on my ten speed I'd coast most of the way there and sweat most of the way back. Gravity don't lie.)
The individual is wicked and therefore must be controlled for his own good; this should be evident to anyone who has listened to a progressive explain why any gunowner control is desirable. You cannot control yourself because you are evil at heart therefore you need the state to step in to protect you from yourself, and to protect everyone else from you. This philosophy transcends weapons laws and shouldn't be difficult for you to recognize examples of. One of my favs is having prescriptions for ocular aids. I had the same prescription for about 8 years straight, but government had to make sure I got yearly exams before I bought anything lest I OD on contact lenses.
Rousseau makes more sense to them than Locke (rights are a grant from the state [i.e. collective]) and Marxist economic theories are more appealing since they not only deny individuality (by negating property Rights) but also because of what they offer. To quote myself:
"Marxian beliefs when realized afford the greatest tool of the tyrant that modern day man has known. In order to exercise enough power to control an economy to that degree you necessarily have the power to control the individuals within that economy & most people do not have the will power to resist using that control. Sure, they rationalize it; it's just to hasten the ideal state, etc... but they use it just the same. & to the same ends. Those ends are invariably the limitation & in some cases the extinction of personal freedom. Whether it's the main goal or just an unintended consequence is irrelevant."Of course weapons must be tightly controlled, or rather who owns and carries them. Firearms are especially bad because no single object affords an individual the ability to preserve his agency. That a commoner may be equal with even a common soldier or policeman, let alone is capable of disobeying orders from someone higher up the ladder, not only offends their sensibilities but upends the order they imagine their world to have.
This is by no means an exhaustive list or explanation of the progressive culture's mores, tenets and beliefs. But I really am trying to keep this shorter than you'd think.
In contrast we return to the Scots-Irish culture. The two central tenants are a belief that society should be structured from the bottom up, and that the individual is the most important aspect of society (I'd include "nuclear family" on the side of the individual rather than as a collective in case anyone wants to quibble about it). Considering the history in which the culture evolved and matured, you can probably understand that they hold fighters in higher esteem than victims. Identity politics isn't as big a thing, unless it's made to be by others. Generally it's an accepting culture if an outsider can follow a few of its ways (being honest in trade, a solid work ethic, etc). Substance matters much more than appearance (though you do put on your good shoes when going to church, I think we all have Esse quam videri tattooed on us someplace). An individual is responsible for his actions, good or bad, and should be judged individually, not as a group and certainly not pre-judged.
In most ways the Progressive culture and the Scots-Irish culture are opposites. Even so they could live side by side except for one thing; the progressives feel compelled to tell the Scots-Irish what to do. Well, they feel compelled to tell everyone what to do, to be fair, but the Scots-Irish are more adamant than most that they won't be lorded over. That ancient motto, "don't' start none, won't be none" is more than just a warning - it's a way of life.
In Mars Bringer of War I discussed a conflict between those that wanted a collectivist society versus those that wanted an individualistic society. That still applies broadly but looking closer I'm thinking that's just part of the culture war we're in. A very important part.
Thomas Sowell thinks that certain communities of black people adopted redneck culture to their detriment. His theory is that this redneck culture is the cause of the problems black communities, especially in big cities. I disagree. I think it's the opposite - the black folks especially in large urban areas are products of the progressive culture moreso than Scots-Irish (which is pretty much synonymous with redneck).
The progressive culture, because of some of its central philosophy, makes the sort of crime and violence associated with large cities more likely. By negating individual identity and responsibility and replacing them with collectivism and a top down societal structure you plant the seeds for not merely the next Al Capone, but for Morlocks. In that environment where meritocracy is replaced by superficial factors often beyond your control it's not hard to rationalize that you can either get ahead by being real good at playing victim (thus using deception) or by grabbing power (often through brute force and/or deception).
Sowell points out that the redneck culture is prone to violence, eschews work, and neglects formal education. I'll cede the first point - we do tend to be violent. But given our history it's not inexplicable. That violence though, tends to be less predatory than protective, which is normal for any pastoral culture. That we avoid work is inaccurate. I'l grant that it may seem so, but in the heat of the South the way you approach work is much different than the way you'd approach it in Maine. Also there's the agrarian nature of the South as opposed to the industrial nature of the north (i.e. it's easier to work 12 hours running a machine inside a building in a temperate climate than it is working 8 hours outside in a sub tropical climate).
But the education part I wanted to get to. Yes, as a general rule the Scots-Irish have not traditionally placed as much value on formal education as the progressive culture. Considering the state of the education system within the u.S. I'd say we made the right choice.
Visit The Smallest Minority and scroll down the left hand sidebar. You'll see a series labeled "education". Read it, and of course peruse the rest of the site as it's a topic he writes about from time to time, then lecture me on how important a formal education is. Hell, a serach for "education" on Instapundit reveals two oft repeated categories; "Higher Education Bubble Update" and "Dispatches From The Education Apocalypse" respectively. A degree is helpful in finding work to be certain, but the progressives took over the education system ages back for the purpose of indoctrinating people into their worldview. With few exceptions I'd say it's better for a person overall to avoid formal education while the progressives control the curriculum. Without an advanced degree you may not be able to procure the job you want, or the salary you'd like, but is it not better to exist on a modest living than have a warped view of what reality actually is? Your answer may be different than mine, but I wouldn't hold a lack of education against anyone. And I would add that a lack of formal education does not equate to a lack of intelligence, just as a degree isn't synonymous with someone knowing a damn thing .
But the wall of which the title refers to - it's something built up between our cultures. It lacks physical presence but it's there all the same. This wall - a separating force in the workplace, in entertainment and increasingly in social media - is not there to protect the progressive culture from the barbaric onslaught of us rednecks. Its purpose is to allow a safe space to regroup whilst they plan their next incursion into our territory. The wall is not meant to foster peace, but to be a place from whence their next attack can be launched. Their goal is not peace, but subjugation. Always has been, which is why we'll always value fighters and the tools that enable our own defense.
Now, I'm not a sociologist. I'm not even a fan of sociology in general. I'll also acknowledge that it's extremely difficult to look at the present with the same clarity that we can look at the past. So I very well could be wrong. I don't have the time or resources to delve deeply into this theory of mine but at a glance I think it's mostly correct. Here it is simply:
What would become the progressive culture and the Scots-Irish culture first came into conflict in ancient Scotland, around the 1rst century A.D. While rebuffed the progressive culture has been continual trying to subjugate and assimilate the Scots-Irish culture for just about 2,000 years now. The current culture war in America is nothing more than a continuation of that 1rst century conflict. The Roman empire is as far as I can trace it back, but the progressive culture may be even older, perhaps going as far ancient Egypt or possibly even the Sumerians. The Celtic culture from which the Scots-Irish evolved may be equally as old, and they may have clashed in other parts of the world in other times. They are clashing now in the united States, and likely will continue to do so in varying degrees until one wins a decisive long lasting victory.
If I'm right then the purpose of this overly wordy post is not just to take you through a scattered connection of historical events, but to impress upon you that this culture war didn't spring up over night, and won't be settled over night. They're in it for the long haul, and we should be too.
You can see the casual disdain they hold us in even in a review of a movie. Visit The View From North Central Idaho and peruse some of the categories, such as "No one wants to take your guns", "This is what they think of you" and the ever cheery (albeit sadly accurate) "They want you dead". While Mr. Huffman focuses on gun owners, the overlap with the Scots-Irish culture (i.e. rednecks) isn't something that can be casually ignored. When the progressives rally to tear down statues or flags, remember that the flag or statue isn't the object of their hatred; the flag or statue merely a symbol of the Scots-Irish culture, and it's the Scots-Irish culture they hate. Hell, they've even gone after our TV shows!* Looking at the totality of it I'm beginning to think that Kurt Schlicter doesn't say "they hate you; buy guns and ammo" nearly fervently or often enough.
Giving in to the progressives, even in things that seem inconsequential, is a mistake. Be it gun confiscation orders (euphemised as "red flag" or "extreme risk protection"), "wife beater" laws, or bump stock bans, the more ground we give them the more they'll try to take. Not a hill worth dying on, you say, concerning some seemingly tangential issue? That hill will be used to further their next advance. The Munich Agreement should be looked at as a warning, not a "how-to".
Yes; sometimes we'll lose. Sometimes politicians that champion our cause will be defeated and legislation that further imposes on our Rights will be enacted. But we must fight every single battle we are able to, because caving in even on presumably inconsequential things helps our enemies.
They've built their walls, and as evidenced by the fall of Colorado in November of '18 they plan on building more. These walls aren't there to keep us safe; they exist to provide havens for progressives as they prepare to assail those on the outside of the gates. If you have any doubt, wait until July 1rst of '19 and see what new edicts are inflicted upon the rural denizens of Colorado, sometimes for the benefit of the progressives in the cities, but surely some just to keep those rednecks in their place. Or perhaps just to punish them for resisting "enlightenment" for so long. ("Bake that cake" wasn't a tough love community outreach ya know; it's about making an example, and they're not giving up.)
I'm not much of a cheerleader.; others are better at that sort of thing. I want you to understand that there's a culture that views you as an enemy. Not because of your race or religion, but because you don't believe in having a top down society focused on the collective. Compromising with them won't stop them from hating you and trying to subjugate you,or eliminate you if they fail at subjugation. They hate you and want you dead or enslaved. They're behind their figurative walls right now, as they have been, planning the next step in their war against you.
Sounds dramatic? It does. But that does not negate the assessment. I freely admit I could be mistaken on any given point or perhaps even in totality. Katheryn Winnick could also call me tomorrow asking if I'd take her to prom. As much as I wish I was wrong (especially on the latter, cause just damn.) I'm inclined to think that I am paranoid because the progressive culture is out to get me. And you. And anyone that won't accept their "enlightenment".
Vote like the progressive culture is out to get ya, cause they are. If a yankee or californian or some other foreigner from a progressive enclave moves in your area, try to talk to persuade them to leave their progressive ways in the state they just escaped from. If a business adopts progressive culture policies, try to find an alternate and let them both know why you're spending your money the way you are. If your entertainment becomes inundated with progressive values, then look for other entertainment - and certainly don't commit child abuse by letting your kids watch progressive shows unsupervised.
No, none of that is easy. Taking a taxi instead of Uber can be a little costlier up front and more inconvenient. It does require more effort to pick up a frozen pizza and bake it than to call Domino's or Pizza Hut. Those companies I mentioned have strict disarmament policies for their employees though, so I try my best not to give them my money. Levi's? Pfft. Wranglers fit fine. Bank of America? I won't do business with them. While I'm sympathetic to the hassles that will occur if you live like the progressive culture is out to get you, I'll point out two things - 1; I moved from a location I really liked because the progressives took over. I won't berate anyone for not going to such extremes (moving is difficult even when you're single) but I do get very frustrated at apathy, and 2; the progressive culture really is out to get you.
By all means, point out where I'm mistaken, but until I'm persuaded otherwise I'll maintain that the progressive culture has always hated us, and we definitely should not acquiesce to them. Oh, and buy guns and ammo.
Remember, appeasement is for chumps.
*(As an aside, I've always thought that The Rural Purge wasn't all about advertising demographics for sponsors as it was also about stemming the influence of that Scots-Irish culture that was being broadcast weekly and received favorably by folks even in progressive strongholds. Anyone want to argue that Fred Silverman was a right winger? If so read this piece on how the left runs Hollywood and pay attention to Silverman's quote.)