Derb on Ethnomasochism


Derb is trying to understand the roots of White ethnomasochism at VDARE and Takimag.

Seeing as how this is a historical inquiry and intersects our particular fixation on the American South, we can unequivocally say that evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment ideology are the roots of this phenomena, and that the anti-slavery movement was its first major flowering.

It doesn’t take much time wandering through what Europeans were doing in the Caribbean in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to figure out that they were operating in another moral universe.

By the late eighteenth century/early nineteenth century, you have your Abbé Raynals and John Browns who are fine specimens of this deranged type.

Note: If I had artistic skills, I would draw a cartoon of a tree labeled “anti-slavery” with fruit hanging from its branches labeled “anti-racism” and “civil rights” and “feminism” and “free love” and “white guilt” and “communism” and decolonization” and “white genocide.”

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. One thing I rarely see at any art museum is a black.

    Rarely at an opera. It tells you a lot about them as a collective. It’s especially strange because the art world worships the black artists who do make an appearance.

  2. “If I had artistic skills, I would draw a cartoon of a tree labeled anti-slavery’ with fruit hanging from its branches labeled ‘anti-racism’ and ‘civil rights’ and ‘feminism’ and ‘free love’ and ‘white guilt’ and ‘communism’ and ‘decolonization’ and ‘white genocide.'”

    If you were to draw such a cartoon, Mr. Wallace, you would be continuing a long line of Southron error, which has pushed the white race toward extinction. The morality of slavery was a serious question, which the slaveholders of the South refused to recognize as such for one reason: money. Money is good, but no white man has the right to say “Fuck you” to the rest of the white race over it.

    By continuing to denounce the anti-slavery movement, you’re not being bold; you’re continuing to be weak–weak of mind and character–as were the leaders of the South. You know very well what you are refusing to recognize, namely, that there were whites who objected to slavery but who also thought that blacks should not be living among whites. The South, in its venality, made recognition and discussion of that all but impossible and thus forced a white-on-white war that left blacks scattered among white populations.

    No white man ever had the right to bring any black to live among whites. To do so was morally objectionable–as morally objectionable as slavery. The South made it impossible to recognize those as two separate questions–just as you do. You’re a true son of Dixie.

    (If you think I’m misreading things, let’s see how long it takes one of this blog’s gallant Southron followers to direct crass abuse at me in response to this post–if he has time to get his aristocratic derriere away from ESPN.)

  3. Hunter, you’re really on to something. Hatch didn’t address it, nor did any of the other Evangelical authors in the 1980’s who studied the history of American Evangelicalism, because they were too close to the problem. It was the defection from patristic theology, due to the filioque.

    You’ve probably heard of the Great Awakening. You know that the vast majority of the Methodist ‘planting’ in America, outside of Georgia, was done by Geo. Whitefield, (who was a Calvinist Anglican) as opposed to the Wesleys (who were Arminians). At the time of the American Revolution, the British pointed out this, when they said, ‘this is a Presbyterian rebellion’ – and the image of a Congregationalist (calvinist) minister tearing out pages from their hymnals for wadding in their guns, with the words, ‘Give ’em Watts, boys!’ (Isaac Watts, a calvinist psalm setter) were implicit in meaning that, for the Anglican/Agnostic British Aristocracy, the the Scots-Irish Calvinists were in the majority of the ideology makers in America.

    Yet, the ‘halfway covenant’ of the Puritans in New England a few generations earlier, had already shown that the Calvinists had become too dry and fusty for their own children, and, by the time of the Revolution, the work that Whitefield had done, was all but absent in the seminaries and colleges that educated the generations after Washington, Jefferson, and Adams. The Enlightenment you mention was the second ‘layer’ of America’s dream of a world restored to Eden, without the sacrifice of the Cross, as the Puritans and Cavalier Anglican clergy had known it to be.

    The “New Learning” in places that once were strongholds of Calvinist though (Yale, Princeton, Harvard) began stressing instead the ’emotional experience,’ rather than the dogmatic learning of the WCF or the Larger or smaller Catechisms. By 1800, there was a growing desire for the type of ‘religion’ that Finney later popularized among the mildly heterodox, while the outright heretical – the cults- such as Jos. Smith, Ellen G. White, the Shakers, Quakers, etc. went off the rails entirely, and either created a Grecian Pantheon (Smith) with the Mormons, or returned to a sort of ‘Taste not, touch not’ Legalism with White’s Adventism, and a renascent ‘crypto-Judaism’ with their ‘Sabbath as Sunday’ claptrap.

    And this sort of defection from Orthodoxy, continued and reached full flower of apostasy at the end of the 19th century, having become so far removed from the Incarnational Anglicanism that Whitefield preached, or even the dry Calvinism of Mather et al., and the experiential Finneyite claptrap, that upstate NY was known as the ‘burned-over district;’ the Appalachian illiterates began to deal with ‘speaking in tongues’ and ‘snake handling;’ and the city dwellers lapsed into a works righteousness that stressed morality over heartfelt obedience to the Commandments, and formality instead of living liturgy; while the ‘disincarnationalism’ of American ‘Ee-van-jelly-goo Xtianity’ led inevitably to the purely gnostic Mary Baker Eddy, the Theosophists, and other ‘out there’ groups, that were the antecedants of the Beatles, TM, and the whole “Eastern Mystics” ‘tune in, turn on, and drop out’ mantra of the 1960’s. (One thinks of Occult study, tarot, oija boards, Blavatsky, etc.)

    The incursions of creedal Missouri Synod Germans throughout the Midwest, as well as the introduction of Irish RC’s, stemmed the tide of a national apostasy, as these groups were VERY Orthodox (within the confines of their respective groups, you understand) but these did not influence New York, England, or PA as much as their presence in, say, Boston (southies) might indicate. The company Louisa May Alcott’s husband and father kept, (for example) along with Thoreau, Hawthorne, and other unitarian wannabes, made sure that catholic belief was NOT going to be re-introduced to New England.

    With that departure from teh Faith, yet knowing that they were “Elect” somehow, the substitution of the Yankee Supremacist desire for money, position, status, and the ‘Protestant work ethic’ supplanted the former desire merely to ‘work out one’s salvation with fear and trembling.’ It was the Duponts, Carnegies, the NY 500, who made the fallacy that ‘if I am rich, I am of the American Elect’ the ‘new’ Gospel. When the Jews finally came over after the Czar made them full citizens, they found both a crytpo-Jewish thought process, as well as a ‘golden calf’ already made, to usurp, mold, and capture to their heart’s content.

    And that is why America is now, BOTH: Not an “Anglo-Saxon Nation” any more, as well as Not a “White Nation” anymore. Substituting politics for piety, and riches for righteousness, the Yankee Supremacists perversion of the Christian Gospel – for ONE people, to enable them to lead lives of Righteousness and peace, was transformed into world conquest (this filioque parallel with the Papal claim to universal jurisdiction of the world) as the Yankees saw fit, with the worship of the Golden Calf (Wall St. Jewish Banking, and greed a la Gordon Gecko) instead of the Prince of Peace.

    The filioque lies behind it all, because ALL of the congregations, churches, and cults derived their theology from either the Augustinianism of Luther, or the Augustinianism of Calvin, who got their Scriptural viewpoints from Rome, in the first place…. including the filioque, that stressed first the Papal desire for universal rule. as well as universal reign. Both of which have become Empire Building paradigms for an apostate America, bent on world conquest, and world assimilation.

    Sailer’s ‘invite the world, ‘invade the world’ is merely filioquism, applied to the secular sphere.

  4. The north could have explicitly demanded manumission and given a reasonable timetable for it. Plus compensation.

    That it did not do so indicates the north was ultra hostile to whites. And the South wasn’t heavily slave in comparison to other states in the Caribbean or South America which had larger slave populations and concentrations.

    Bubbacuersi, your hatred of YT is showing.

  5. John,

    That’s hilarious: Mississippi has led the way toward the destruction of the White race.

    Yes, we’re refusing to recognize here that the Confederacy and Mississippi in particular armed 200,000 slaves, invaded the North, killed hundreds of thousands of people there, destroyed your economy, and then made blacks into American citizens and passed federal civil rights laws and used the military to allow blacks to rule your states for almost a decade before you violently overthrew their state governments.

  6. John,

    Why didn’t you just load the niggers up on your ships and send them back to Africa? Could it be because Yankees realized that niggers were more valuable to them as voters and that making them into citizens would transform them into their most stalwart political allies?

  7. This us another element that is rarely addressed today. Blacks were used as enforcers and as an occupation force for decades after that war. Whites were literally disenfranchised by the Republican party. Treated as dirty second class citizens while nogs ruled over them. The union maintained explicitely antiwhite policy for decades.
    The GOP were cynical or fanatically problack. One or the other or both. There’s no other explanation for the Federal authorities during reconstruction except hatred for whites.

  8. Haiti and the glorious Union are forever linked by the amount of blood each has spilled for the sake of the negro against the white man. Both blighted by the perverse order that would place the savage above the civilized.

    No amount of self righteous rhetoric can erase the eternal shame of the United States for this crime against nature. No amount empty rationalization or absurd fabrication can hide the truth.

    The entire edifice of BRA was erected willingly by crazed Northern white men. Not at the urging of Jews or negroes, but by their own impulse, apparently a suicidal impulse at that.

    Deo Vindice

  9. Yup.

    But you see, they were really committed to “white solidarity” and sending niggers back to Africa. Forcing black occupation troops and black governments on the South was part of their plan.

  10. Every single thing you’ve posted in response to my post, Mr. Wallace, is evidence of exactly what I charged you with. I didn’t say there weren’t opponents of slavery who were also opposed to racism–and you know very well I didn’t. You are marked by the same defect that has always marked Dixie’s champions–the hallmark of unmanliness: incapacity to manage pride.

    (By the way: time elapsed between my post and your follower John’s hilarious, intentional misspelling of my name: twenty-one minutes.)

  11. Leaving the Yankees aside, the French Republic abolished slavery in 1794 and made blacks into French citizens with voting rights in Saint-Domingue, and when Napoleon tried to restore the old order in 1802 the result was a race war and the extermination of the White population.

    Fast forward to 1848: within a month of establishing the Second Republic, the French abolished slavery again and made the blacks in their colonies into French citizens, who gained voting rights in 1870 when the Third Republic was established.

    From 1870 forward blacks in the French colonies were electing and sending representatives to the French parliament.

  12. “Why, it’s the fault of the British themselves for letting it happen. You get what you vote for. No native Briton should ever have cast a vote for any party whose platform did not include a clear ban on mass Third World immigration. Why did the British yield on this? Because they’re pussies.”

    ~ Derb, but emphasis mine.

    Votes cast to negate rather than to win guarantee increasingly lower quality of representation. Derb refers to Britain but we all know that America has been the engine of this system.

    Sorry for veering onto topic. I can’t believe a drawing like HW described wasn’t produced sometime like, say, 1965-1970. In fact let me check by Dabney file. Maybe 1865-1870.

  13. Fr. John,

    That is one of the best comments ever posted here.

    A lot of it seems to make sense but some of the theology is out of my league. I’d like an opinion from an authority at SWB. A breakdown anyway, for us idiots.

  14. “Sailer’s ‘invite the world, ‘invade the world’ is merely filioquism, applied to the secular sphere.”

    I disagree. Rather than the cause it was an excuse for empire building.

  15. Itching ears.

    2 Timothy 4:3-4: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

    Deo Vindice

  16. “No amount of self righteous rhetoric can erase the eternal shame of the United States for this crime against nature. No amount empty rationalization or absurd fabrication can hide the truth.”

    The Civil War was a crime against humanity. An American Shoah.

  17. A lot of it seems to make sense but some of the theology is out of my league. I’d like an opinion from an authority at SWB. A breakdown anyway, for us idiots.
    Bill Yancey


  18. Mr. B,

    “If you were to draw such a cartoon, Mr. Wallace, you would be continuing a long line of Southron error, which has pushed the white race toward extinction.”

    If we accept the hypothesis presented, for the sake of argument, how did Southern intransigence, vis-a-vis the immorality of slavery, push the white race toward extinction?

    Stoddard lays the origins of the decline at the feet of nationalism/pan-nationalism because it is clear that national consciousness is the destroyer of race consciousness.

    The supreme value of Nordic blood was clearly analyzed by the French thinker Count Arthur de Gobineau as early as 1854 1 (albeit Gobineau employed the misleading “Aryan” terminology), and his thesis was subsequently elaborated by many other writers, notably by Englishmen, Germans, and Scandinavians.

    The results of all this were plainly apparent by the closing years of the nineteenth century. Quickened Nordic race-consciousness played an important part in stimulating Anglo-American fraternization, and induced acts like the Oxford Scholarship legacy of Cecil Rhodes. The trend of this movement, though crosscut by nationalistic considerations, was clearly in the direction of a Nordic entente—a Pan-Nordic syndication of power for the safeguarding of the race-heritage and the harmonious evolution of the whole white world.

    The Rising Tide of Color against White World-Supremacy p. 200

    Thus imo you Mr. B are the reason for the decline of the white race because the consciousness of the founding American was reshaped .

    But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,”

  19. ““Sailer’s ‘invite the world, ‘invade the world’ is merely filioquism, applied to the secular sphere.”

    I disagree. Rather than the cause it was an excuse for empire building.”

    Rudel, you would… being RC, and all.

  20. “Rudel, you would… being RC, and all.”

    Wrong again you fraud, I was raised Lutheran (man is saved by faith alone) but had enough sense to stop believing all that crap at around age 8. Go back to Byzantium where you belong.

Comments are closed.