If Jews had never immigrated to the United States, we would undoubtedly be much better off than we are now, but we would still have a racial problem. Although Jews are clearly a menace, I don’t lay all of America’s problems at their door.
1.) Racialism never put down firm roots in much of the North. States like Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota never had anti-miscegenation laws. Before Dred Scott, negroes were already citizens of many of these states. They had voting rights. There was little formal segregation. When Dred Scott was handed down, there were howls of protest across the North about the rights of black citizens.
2.) In the North, racialism was already in decline. Pennsylvania repudiated its anti-miscegenation law before the Constitution was even signed. Massachusetts followed in the 1830s. In every Northern state, Jim Crow laws were systematically torn down after the Civil War. Segregation in education and public accomodations was outlawed.
3.) The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution effectively destroyed the White Republic that was created by the Founders. Negroes were given full citizenship, voting rights, and a federal guarantee of equal protection under the law. See also the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, and 1875.
4.) The U.S. federal government has been in the business of repressing White Nationalists since the Grant Administration. Witness the fate of the Ku Klux Klan or the White League in the 1870s. See also the crackdown on the filibusters.
5.) In the North of the 1850s, the terrorist John Brown was embraced as a martyr and a hero. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a best seller. Frederick Douglass was a respected and admired intellectual.
6.) In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives was already graced by anti-racist luminaries such as Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens.
7.) Abolitionism grew into a mass movement. Whites are entirely capable of producing and leading destructive egalitarian social crusades on their own intiative. Why wouldn’t they have continued to do so?
8.) The Civil War was fought to destroy the Confederacy.
9.) Thomas Jefferson’s racial theories were controversial even in his day. Samuel Stanhope Smith (the president of Princeton University) was one his famous opponents. Smith was arguing for environmentalism and cultural relativism over a hundred years before Franz Boas started teaching at Columbia.
10.) Religious groups like the Quakers and Unitarians would still have been around to promote universalism and egalitarianism.
11.) The colonization of what later became the United States was botched from the start. The Southern colonies were founded with a commercial purpose in mind. Hundreds of thousands of slaves were imported from Africa which grew through natural increase into millions.
12.) In the South, the planter class was addicted to servile non-white cheap labor before and after the Civil War, and often at odds with white interests.
13.) The United States was already flirting with third world immigration in the nineteenth century. Chinese immigrants settled in the Western states. The Japanese were allowed to colonize Hawaii. Mexicans worked as cheap labor in the Southwest when Arizona was still a territory.
14.) The ideological commitment of Americans to liberal democracy would still have invariably clashed with their racial nationalism. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt all wrestled with the issue.
If Jews had never immigrated to the United States, we would undoubtedly be much better off than we are now, but we would still have a racial problem.
You would have been a slow-cooked frog. People would have been aware of the problems of race but it would have been very difficult to move them to do anything. It’s the tremendous pace of demographic change that has opened so many eyes and made political racialism viable.
The Confederate defeat was final in many ways. I don’t think we ever recovered. It set in motion a whole chain of events that brought us to where we are today.
Alot of this Racial nuttiness was put down by the emergence of Jim Crow.
Besides one needs to point out that *Sephardic* Jews have been here since the beginning causing problems.
It is almost impossible to think of America without Jewish influence once one has studied the topic enough!!
(Sephardic Jews were big-time involved into the slave trade, brining Racial Undesirables here. Even Blacks themselves complain about his in the Nation of Islam Work ‘The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews’… and they ought to know since they were the ones brought here by the Jews!!!)
Here is Hitler on the subject. This excerpt is from Rauschning’s book. I’m not sure how reliable it is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=htfLPlvxVzIC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=hitler+since+the+civil+war,+in+which+the+southern+states+were+conquered&source=bl&ots=9nOxvEoD9U&sig=7FU4t7KnJOZL8sfh7gVdqGQfgwE&hl=en&ei=Jo1ZStEo26m2B9rD0N0K&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
“This is the last disgusting death rattle of a corrupt and outworn system which is a blot on the history of this people. Since the Civil War, in which the Southern States were conquered, against all historical logic and common sense, the Americans have been in a condition of political and popular decay. In that war, it was not the Southern States, but the American people who were conquered. In the spurious blossoming of economic progress and power politics, America has ever since been drawn deeper into the mire of progressive self-destruction.
A moneyed clique, which presumes to be good society and represents the old families, rules the country under the fiction of a democracy which has never before been so nakedly exposed as a mass of corruption and legal venality. The beginnings of a great new social order based on the principle of slavery and inequality was destroyed by that war, and with them also the embryo of a future truly great America that would not have been ruled by a corrupt caste of tradesmen, but by a real Herren class that would have swept away all the falsities of liberty and equality.”
Without Jewish influence, there would have been small numbers of minorities in the United States, sure. The 1965 immigration act, however? Obviously not. America would probably be around 90% white today, and Europe much whiter.
Really, like I’ve pointed out, it’s impossible to imagine what America would be like without Jewish influence because they’ve dominated so many key institutions for so long. A white gentile controlled movie industry, for instance, is absolutely impossible to fathom. We have absolutely no idea of what such a thing would be like.
Prozium, one thing I haven’t see in your analysis so far is a discussion of the collapse of the White immune system in the 20th century (maybe this has been discussed in earlier posts). Yes, these egalitarian movements have always popped up (e.g. Wilberforce). Maybe activist egalitarians were able to get some laws passed. But their madness was always contained. The White immune system collapsed when anti-Darwinism (more specifically anti-hereditarianism- btw, Monitor and Q, I’m not talking about macro-evolution) triumphed in the social sciences and anthropology early-middle of the last century, and White ethnocentrism was pathologized after WWII.
”Whites are entirely capable of producing and leading destructive egalitarian social crusades on their own intiative. Why wouldn’t they have continued to do so?” ( — from the log entry, §7)
Some of them would have continued to do so. But they wouldn’t have prevailed to this extent. There were non-Jewish bolshevik looney toons in Russia, Lenin and Stalin being two such. With reinforcements in the form of massive Jewish activism and immense infusions of Jewish money they prevailed. Without it they wouldn’t have. The success of destructive egalitarianism in the U.S. now reflects the Jewish arrival on the scene reinforcing the native crazies a smattering of whom always existed. Ben Tillman is right: whole nations of people don’t willingly, knowingly force race-replacement on themselves because in the last analysis the sane outweigh the insane. Someone else is doing it to them.
What Prozium is doing in this entry is, in effect, totally negating Kevin MacDonald. Is he prepared to totally negate MacDonald? (FB obviously is.) The extent to which MacDonald has a point is precisely the extent to which the Jewish influence has made the difference between whites coming to their senses and whites jumping off a cliff. Jewless white society wasn’t about to actually jump on Thaddeus Stevens’ and Harriet Beecher Stow’s say-so; Jew-ridden white society gets pushed off. By guess who?
”The ideological commitment of Americans to liberal democracy would still have invariably clashed with their racial nationalism. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt all wrestled with the issue.”
Do you understand the difference between a very strong ally of the most radical, insane Thaddeus Stevens view arriving on the scene and decisively bolstering it, and no such very strong ally arriving on the scene and decisively bolstering it? Regardless of what they “wrestled with,” did Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theordore Roosevelt end up endorsing the race-replacement of the American people?
Proze persists in thinking whites in the North lived in integrated societies. They didn’t: I don’t care what “the laws” were, they lived in societies that were segregated enough for the levels of Negro population they had to contend with, a tenth the levels Dixie had to contend with.
Silver actually also makes a point worth pondering: it’s conceivable the Jews, by forcing all this on whites at such a rapid pace, are giving whites a better chance to see it for what it is and definitively reject it.
Silver’s point hearkens back to one Proze has often made: whites living apart from Negroes are the most egalitarian. If there had been only the slowest trickle, whites might indeed have been vulnerable to Silver’s slow-cooked frog outcome.
“The Confederate defeat was final in many ways. I don’t think we ever recovered. It set in motion a whole chain of events that brought us to where we are today.” ( — Prozium)
That finality you’re talking about has also defeated the North, therefore is not coming from the North. It’s coming from somewhere else and first began taking shape in the 1880s. Today’s Quiz: guess where it’s coming from.
That is an impressive list,Prozium.As a Northerner,and first generation Italian-American,I find your mentioning of point #11 to be very astute.As an outsider its truth is glaringly obvious.Southerners and “conservatives” from other regions seem to have a devil of a time coming to terms with this uncomfortable fact.So much time and energy has been wasted tip-toeing around it.
Euro, they admit the fact, the question is what do they do about it now? Everyone today agrees Negro slavery 1) was of course profoundly evil in itself, apart from the consequences for nation-wrecking which it portended; 2) was fraught with potential for nation-destroying consequences down the road, and 3) we today are living those consequences. Negro slavery wasn’t the only profoundly wrong turn this country took: two others were its involvement in World War I and its involvement in World War II. This country’s involvement in World War II and the defeat of the German National Socialists will prove to be as disastrous for its future as its embrace of Negro slavery.
(I add that I reject the claim the German National Socialists planned to exterminate Jews or methodically exterminated them. Because they rounded Jews up and imprisoned them in concentration camps, however, some 350,000 innocent Jews perished. Looking back, that certainly could have been avoided any number of ways, all of them involving the U.S. sticking its nose out of that war.)
I haven’t said anything that negates Kevin MacDonald. To my knowledge, he doesn’t attribute every social ill to Jewish influence. MacDonald also claims that Whites are genetically predisposed to individualism and low ethnocentrism.
” Here is Hitler on the subject. This excerpt is from Rauschning’s book. I’m not sure how reliable it is.”
An impressive argument for ‘the Civil War did it’ position! If memory serves Hitler made similar statements outside the Raushnining book (I don’t consider it to be credible/ reliable, along with the Table Talk)
“Silver actually also makes a point worth pondering: it’s conceivable the Jews, by forcing all this on whites at such a rapid pace, are giving whites a better chance to see it for what it is and definitively reject it.”
An excellent point! Jews always seem to push to far, it is sort of a fatal flaw they have.
They almost had it all sown up with Bolshevism, but they were so tyrannical that when they set up a Bavarian Soviet, there was an immediate reaction from the Freikorps who, sensibly, didn’t want to be liquidated by Jew commies!
Raushnining is a fraud. Although the sentiments expressed in that passage are historically accurate. The Table Talk, however, is genuine.
Dasein,
There was a partial breakdown after the Civil War. It took decades of bitter resistance by White Southerners to restore home rule and nullify the Reconstruction amendments. Northern Republicans in Congress were pushing for civil rights legislation into the 1890s.
Of course the final collapse of racialism owed much to Jewish influence. The system was still fundamentally unsound. There were many other factors at work. I haven’t spent much time on the Protestant clergy and elite.
I thought many Southern clergymen joined the Klan.
”the final collapse of racialism owed much to Jewish influence” ( — Prozium #18)
Prozium has long been in the practice of adopting some of the other side’s propaganda terms to describe our side’s behavior: specifically, “racialism,” “white supremacism,” “anti-Semitism.” He’ll refer, for example, to the system in place in the South from Reconstruction to the 1950s as “white supremacism.” It wasn’t white supremacism. It was white people making living arrangements for themselves in the only way possible given the inborn characteristics of the Negro race, the inborn characteristics of the white race, and the high percentages of Negroes dwelling among Dixie’s whites. There was nothing intentionally “supremacist” about it: those men making those rules were doing what was necessary, that’s all, and if it came out seeming to place them in the dominant position, that was Nature’s doing, not theirs. “Racism” and “racialism” are marxist terms having no more meaning than calling the absence of disease “healthism” or the habit of proper behavior in society “normalism.” Taking race into account is like breathing, eating, drinking, and existing. It needs no special name, any more than existing does. “See that guy over there? He’s an existencist – he exists.” As for anti-Semitism, it’s a meaningless term, as meaningless as the term “fascism” when used by Jews and degens (my word for “leftists”: degenerates). I deny that the Jim Crow South was white-supremacist, that questioning forced race-replacement is something called “racist” or “racialist” any more than breathing is something called “oxygenist,” or that telling the truth about the destructive behavior of Jews is something called “anti-Semitic.” Nothing I think, advocate, or do is “racist,” “racialist,” “white supremacist,” or “anti-Semitic.”
” ‘Racism’ and ‘racialism’ are marxist terms” ( — my comment)
As everyone will have noticed, that’s wrong: of the two, only “racist” is the marxist term. “Racialist” was coined by whites worried about being tarred with the Jewish/communist “racist” epithet when expressing concerns about the Jewish-orchestrated race war on whites — they wanted a euphemism.
Our side needs neither word: the original Jewish-marxist coinage doesn’t apply, and there’s no need of a euphemism to take its place.
Prozium: yeah, I’m not sure how reliable that book HITLER SPEAKS by Hermann Rauschning is either.
However, the book HITLER’S TABLE TALK has been proven to be almost totally reliable; the full PDF of that book can be d-loaded for free @ http://www.nazi.org.uk/political%20pdfs/HitlersTableTalk.pdf – its a good book and has been proven to be accurate; it’s also proves that Hitler was a brilliant thinker with a huge range of opinions on nearly all topics imaginable.
The website that contains that book has many dozens of books available to d-load at no charge…it’s a good resource for those looking to read or d-load books of particular interest to the pro-White community; see: http://www.nazi.org.uk/
The original concept of “racist” which the Jews forced elementary schools to brainwash us with meant someone who was mean or unjust to another solely on account of his race. Everyone agrees it’s wrong to be mean or unjust to someone solely on account of his race, no problem with that whatsoever. But then when we were older the Jews took the mask off and informed us that the actual meaning of the word “racist” was any white person who didn’t think the genocide of the white race was the greatest thing since unleavened bread. It was the bait-and-switch: once we had internalized the idea that “racism” was bad, based on the meaning given to us in kindergarten, the real meaning was divulged to us in college, but our Pavlovian conditioning made us think that was bad too: “You’re a white person who thinks the genocide of the white race isn’t the best thing since unleavened bread? You’re nothing but a filthy racist then — we’ve all known since kindergarten how bad you are, so don’t try to persuade us otherwise. The white race is evil and must be extinguished.”
Yeah, the Jews have Pavlovian conditioning down pat. (Not to mention the old “bait-and-switch” …..)
1.) Racialism never put down firm roots in much of the North. States like Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota never had anti-miscegenation laws. Before Dred Scott, negroes were already citizens of many of these states. They had voting rights. There was little formal segregation. When Dred Scott was handed down, there were howls of protest across the North about the rights of black citizens.
Tempest in a teacup. Diversity annihilates this problem, proportionally.
2.) In the North, racialism was already in decline. Pennsylvania repudiated its anti-miscegenation law before the Constitution was even signed. Massachusetts followed in the 1830s. In every Northern state, Jim Crow laws were systematically torn down after the Civil War. Segregation in education and public accomodations was outlawed.
Tempest in a teacup. Diversity annihilates this problem, proportionally.
3.) The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution effectively destroyed the White Republic that was created by the Founders. Negroes were given full citizenship, voting rights, and a federal guarantee of equal protection under the law. See also the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, and 1875.
Equal protection under the law allows men to create their communities as they see fit. Insofar as this law prevents freedom, it must obviously be reinterpreted or rewritten. Did the 14th or 15th prevent segregation?
4.) The U.S. federal government has been in the business of repressing White Nationalists since the Grant Administration. Witness the fate of the Ku Klux Klan or the White League in the 1870s. See also the crackdown on the filibusters.
So they prevented segregation? Please, not the briar patch.
5.) In the North of the 1850s, the terrorist John Brown was embraced as a martyr and a hero. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a best seller. Frederick Douglass was a respected and admired intellectual.
Tempest in a teacup. Diversity annihilates this problem, proportionally.
6.) In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives was already graced by anti-racist luminaries such as Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens.
Wow, all two of them. This is getting a bit tendentious, I think.
7.) Abolitionism grew into a mass movement. Whites are entirely capable of producing and leading destructive egalitarian social crusades on their own intiative. Why wouldn’t they have continued to do so?
Again, the question is one of balance. Who would’ve won, sans Jews tipping the balance?
8.) The Civil War was fought to destroy the Confederacy.
LOL. The Union won, then watched segregation emerge. Anyone holding his breath for a second Yankee invasion over segregation died blue in the face.
9.) Thomas Jefferson’s racial theories were controversial even in his day. Samuel Stanhope Smith (the president of Princeton University) was one his famous opponents. Smith was arguing for environmentalism and cultural relativism over a hundred years before Franz Boas started teaching at Columbia.
Storm in a teacup, again. Jefferson knew what he was talking about, and Smith did not, and the truth would out, except, the wrong folks bought up all the papers.
10.) Religious groups like the Quakers and Unitarians would still have been around to promote universalism and egalitarianism.
Probably true. So how much power do Quakers and Unitarians have, compared to Jews?
11.) The colonization of what later became the United States was botched from the start. The Southern colonies were founded with a commercial purpose in mind. Hundreds of thousands of slaves were imported from Africa which grew through natural increase into millions.
Importing blacks is probably the single best way to create white racial consciousness. Ergo, southern racialism far outpaces northern.
12.) In the South, the planter class was addicted to servile non-white cheap labor before and after the Civil War, and often at odds with white interests.
13.) The United States was already flirting with third world immigration in the nineteenth century. Chinese immigrants settled in the Western states. The Japanese were allowed to colonize Hawaii. Mexicans worked as cheap labor in the Southwest when Arizona was still a territory.
Look, these economic arguments don’t hold water. Saudis, hello? Love of cheap labor is not the problem – the lack of a hierarchy in which survival trumps capitalism is the problem. Where would the conversation have gone without men like David Gelbaum?
14.) The ideological commitment of Americans to liberal democracy would still have invariably clashed with their racial nationalism. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt all wrestled with the issue.
And then Jews came along and rigged the match.
I just don’t think there’s a solid argument to be made here, Proz.
You’ll have to at least address this:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1509/
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1510/
But ultimately we’re splitting hairs. What should be substantially different about our arguments given one side or another in this debate? Even if I accept your points, my answer is “yeah well let’s find out what happens when Jews are politically neutered,” since we all agree that Jews fall somewhere between “the problem”, and “a big part of the problem.” Very few disagree that, for a variety of reasons (many of which you don’t even touch upon here), Europeans are Jews’ ideal victims.
That is an impressive list,Prozium.As a Northerner,and first generation Italian-American,I find your mentioning of point #11 to be very astute.As an outsider its truth is glaringly obvious.Southerners and “conservatives” from other regions seem to have a devil of a time coming to terms with this uncomfortable fact.So much time and energy has been wasted tip-toeing around it.
Similarly, northerners have a real problem owning up to the fact that the boats that brought blacks here, and their captains and owners, were Yankees.
If you’re going to pin the problem on southerners in general (their ancestors anyway), you might consider that the big money drove the slave trade, not southerners in general. Further, you might consider the fact that Yankees, not Rebels, unleashed blacks upon the population. Further, you might wonder why blacks weren’t simply returned to their ancestral homes prior to manumission/emancipation; northerners took that option out of southern hands, so they own responsibility for it.
1.) Tempest in a teacup. Diversity annihilates this problem, proportionally.
You’re being way too dismissive here. The United States literally disintegrated over race and slavery. The bloodiest war in American history was fought over these issues. The changing racial attitudes of White Northerners had everything to do with the matter.
2.) Tempest in a teacup. Diversity annihilates this problem, proportionally.
See above. You wouldn’t describe the overthrow of the Jim Crow South in the 1960’s as a “tempest in a teacup.” It was a major historical event. The fact that half the country had already repudiated and outlawed racial discrimination by 1900 is highly significant. It clearly shows that racialism was already in decline before Jewish influence became palpable.
3.) Equal protection under the law allows men to create their communities as they see fit. Insofar as this law prevents freedom, it must obviously be reinterpreted or rewritten. Did the 14th or 15th prevent segregation?
How so? The 14th Amendment was expressly designed to prevent the Southern states from enforcing the Black Codes. In any case, the 14th Amendment is the bedrock upon which the entire ediface of civil rights law is built. It was designed by White men and imposed on the country by White men.
4.) So they prevented segregation? Please, not the briar patch.
Yes. From the late 1860s to the early 1890s, the South was integrated. The North only gave up on integration after a generation of bitter resistance by White Southerners convinced them it was a futile cause. And that was only a temporary victory. The Reconstruction Amendments were later resurrected by the federal courts and they ultimately proved fatal to segregation.
5.) Tempest in a teacup. Diversity annihilates this problem, proportionally.
Hardly. The examples cited above clearly show that the North was already in the process of heaping up its own racial funeral pyre.
6.) Wow, all two of them. This is getting a bit tendentious, I think.
No, those are simply the most prominent two that come to mind. There were many other Black Republicans in Congress who held similar views.
7.) Again, the question is one of balance. Who would’ve won, sans Jews tipping the balance?
The North won the Civil War without any assistance from the Jews and imposed its vision of racial equality on the entire nation.
8.) LOL. The Union won, then watched segregation emerge. Anyone holding his breath for a second Yankee invasion over segregation died blue in the face.
– Segregation emerged only in the South and West.
– The North embraced de jure integration.
– In the 1960s, the Yankees finally did outlaw segregation.
9.) Storm in a teacup, again. Jefferson knew what he was talking about, and Smith did not, and the truth would out, except, the wrong folks bought up all the papers.
The truth won out for about 30 years until abolitionism rose from the dead and incinerated the Union. Similarly, racialism enjoyed another 50 year resurgence before succumbing again to to the same environmentalist nonsense that has been around since colonial times.
10.) Probably true. So how much power do Quakers and Unitarians have, compared to Jews?
In the nineteenth century, Quakers and Unitarians elected presidents, senators, and congressmen. Their influence was comparable to that of the Jews in our times.
11.) Importing blacks is probably the single best way to create white racial consciousness. Ergo, southern racialism far outpaces northern.
It was also probably the second biggest mistake in American history.
12.) Look, these economic arguments don’t hold water. Saudis, hello? Love of cheap labor is not the problem – the lack of a hierarchy in which survival trumps capitalism is the problem. Where would the conversation have gone without men like David Gelbaum?
History shows otherwise. In times of war, racial minorities become a huge potential fifth column. During the Cold War, negroes were given equal rights partly to neutralize them as a threat.
13.) And then Jews came along and rigged the match.
Who never would have gotten anywhere if the entire North, which was already sympathetic to integration and anti-racism, hadn’t voted as a block for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Whenever I hear the Single Jewish Cause invoked as an explanation of our racial misfortunes, I can’t help but think what the Whites of Mississippi and South Carolina around 1871 would have had to say about that. They were living under negro rule at the time.
“Further, you might wonder why blacks weren’t simply returned to their ancestral homes prior to manumission/emancipation; northerners took that option out of southern hands, so they own responsibility for it.”
–Svigor
The ones in favor of it were the Radical Republicans. They wanted a Black constituency, for national votes and political power. This is akin to present-day Democrats supporting Affirmative Action for Blacks and massive immigration & Amnesty for Hispanics.
How about what white guys like myself, who minutes ago read the following links, would have to say about it? We’re living under Jewish rule at the time:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Weingarten.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=E-C1QPTEJTAC&dq=stuart+svonkin+jews&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=CTtRwkuW-Z&sig=3rKzmb7sIqBWrBPrJ0TynJVSHV0&hl=en&ei=YZtYSreiEY6QNo7drKsD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Moreover, as has already been established, the notion of “Single Jewish Cause,” if meant literally, is virtually always a straw man. The claim is predominant Jewish influence, not “A Single Jewish Cause.”
” Similarly, northerners have a real problem owning up to the fact that the boats that brought blacks here, and their captains and owners, were Yankees.”
And also, a large part of the boats, owners, captains and slave-handling sailors must have been European, although slavery was not allowed in Europe any more than in New England.
I can’t imagine why MN didn’t have anti-miscegenation laws. maybe because there were essentially no blacks there until the 1960’s?
Prozium, you do realize that those laws in the South were not always enforced, don’t you? That’s why the average black American is about 15-20% white.
Reconstruction was over in most of the South by 1875.
”Similarly, northerners have a real problem owning up to the fact that the boats that brought blacks here, and their captains and owners, were Yankees.”
Damn straight. The Yankee Jew Aaron Lopez was a huge slave trader during his day – he was from Newport, Rhode Island, the site of America’s oldest synagogue and also one of the biggest importation sites of African slaves during its heyday. To quote: “Lopez expanded his trade beyond the North American coastline and by 1757 had major interests in the West Indian trade. He also sent ships to Europe and the Canary Islands. Between 1761 and 1774, Lopez was involved in the slave trade. By the beginning of the American Revolution, Lopez owned or controlled 30 vessels. By the early 1770s, Lopez had become the wealthiest person in Newport; his tax assessment was twice that of any other resident.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Lopez
Jews were not only the primary importers of African slaves in Newport (RI), but also in Charleston (SC), Savannah (GA), and New Orleans (LA) as well.
Thus even very early on in American history we find Jews promoting radical forms of multiracialism and international slave-labor capitalism, as well as trying to poison the White gene pool by bringing non-Whites in to White territories where the groups would inevitably breed with each other in due time because they were in the same geographic space.
“The book The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews describes Lopez as “Newport’s leading participant in the Black Holocaust”. According to Faber, Lopez underwrote 21 slave ships during a period in which Newport sent a total of 347 slave ships to Africa. Another 421 slave ships were sent from Newport after Lopez’s death.” (pp. 136–137) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Lopez#cite_note-9
Comments #31-32 by White Preservationist:
Of course, you won’t see the media Jews or even Far-Left depict a Jewish slave trader! That would be politically incorrect.
So, they always present it as a White Gentile controlling slaves; never non-White and/or Jewish.
Regarding comment #27,
never forget the importance of political power! Politicians want Power and Connections.
(Power and connections are capitalized for emphasis.)
In trying to understand what has happened in the US you really should consider the import of a trend that had already become clear in Europe prior to 1860.
Benjamin Disraeli quotations:
None other than Benjamin Disraeli gives us this authoritative statement, written in 1852 when the revolutionary upheavals of 1848 had been convulsing Europe, on the perpetual war of the Jews against Christian civilization:
“The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. {NOTE: See MARXISM AND JUDAISM, by Salluste.} An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property . . . the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of the Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God cooperate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.” {NOTE: Life of Lord George Bentinck, Colburn & Co., London, 1852, page 496.}
“It was also probably the second biggest mistake in American history.”
…and the first?
It just dawned on me earlier that to answer the question ‘sans Jews?’ one could look back and compare The Western Roman Empire to the Eastern Roman Empire!!!!! I then remembered this wonderful short essay!
Please indulge me as I post this smallish article:
———————————————————————————
Mullins’ NEW HISTORY of the JEWS
By Eustace Mullins
In all of recorded history, there was only one civilization which the Jews could not destroy. Because of this, they have given it the silent treatment. Few American college graduates with a Ph.D. degree could tell you what the Byzantine Empire was.
It was the Empire of East Rome, set up by Roman leaders after the Jews had destroyed Rome. This empire functioned in Constantinople for twelve hundred years, the longest duration of any empire in the history of the world.
Throughout the history of Byzantium, as it was known, by imperial edict, no Jew was allowed to hold any post in the Empire, nor was he allowed to educate the young. The Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Turks after twelve centuries of prosperity, and the Jews have attempted to wipe out all traces of its history.
Yet its edicts against the Jews were not cruel; in fact, the Jews lived unmolested and prosperously in the empire throughout its history, but here alone the vicious cycle of host and parasite did not take place.
It was a Christian civilization, and the Jews were not able to exercise any influence. Nor did the Orthodox priests bewilder their congregations with any vicious lies about Christ being a Jew.
No wonder the Jews want to eradicate the memory of such a culture.
It was Ezra Pound who launched upon a study of Byzantine civilization, and who reminded the world of this happily non-Jewish land.
From the Byzantines, Pound derived his no-violent formula for controlling the Jews.
“The answer to the Jewish problem is simple,” he said.
“Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government.”
And this is how simple it is.
There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.
Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.
Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their subversive doctrines.
Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation.
http://denik-bise.blogspot.com/
“Similarly, northerners have a real problem owning up to the fact that the boats that brought blacks here, and their captains and owners, were Yankees.
If you’re going to pin the problem on southerners in general (their ancestors anyway), you might consider that the big money drove the slave trade, not southerners in general. Further, you might consider the fact that Yankees, not Rebels, unleashed blacks upon the population. Further, you might wonder why blacks weren’t simply returned to their ancestral homes prior to manumission/emancipation; northerners took that option out of southern hands, so they own responsibility for it.”
Svigor,lets try and think clearly and lucidly.Without a market for slaves there would be no “big money” in their trade.That market was mainly in the South.Also,as unfortunate (for Whites) as that trade was,selling negroes in another land-there was no united nation during the slave trade’s heyday-is a mite less destructive than inundating your own locality with these unfortunate creatures.Pushing drugs is bad,taking them is worse.Finally,Virginia-the biggest slave market-was the seat of American civilization until about the mid-19th century.Her decisions carried far more weight in the colonies as a whole than vice versa.As Prozium pointed out,the South was run as a commercial enterprise,not a cultural/political endeavor as it properly should have been.The results are manifest to the world.
“…some 350,000 innocent Jews perished. -on 12 Jul 2009 at 2:21 pm 13 Fred Scrooby, OccidentalDissent.com, “Sans Jews,” 12 Jul 09
* * * * *
Jews: Pure Anti-Human Scum
(Apollonian, 13 Jul 09)
What a stupid lie, above-quoted, by a most likely liar who admits he’s Jew himself. Jews are Talmudists, hence psychopaths, and there are no good Jews anymore than there are good psychopaths, ipso facto, Q.E.D.
CONCLUSION: And observe how this psychopathology extends by race through the necessary sympathetic associations. JEWS, qua Jews, CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED, and the only proper humane thing for a Jew to do is to become Christian, move away to another location, and never, ever let anyone know he/she was Jew in first place–anymore than one ought to be proud he/she was psychopath or related therewith. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
mmm,
The biggest mistake was obviously letting the Jews settle here.
“Jews were not only the primary importers of African slaves in Newport (RI), but also in Charleston (SC), Savannah (GA), and New Orleans (LA) as well.”
This single example from the USA is quite illustrative. Everyone should note the very long association of Jewry with key port-cities, international ‘free trade,’ and plutocratic capitalism in general. See the book – Jews And Port Cities 1590-1990: Commerce, Community And Cosmopolitanism – http://www.amazon.com/Jews-Port-Cities-1590-1990-Cosmopolitanism/dp/0853036810/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247519390&sr=1-12
Also see Port Jews: Jewish Communities in Cosmopolitan Maritime Trading Centres, 1550-1950 – http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0714682861/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=304485901&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0853036829&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=01YP7FH5BMG1GRR18J4N
As much as I like your blog, Prozium, I must condemn you for attempting to water-down our message concerning the Jewish question.
Blaming the Jews for everything that is wrong with America only makes us look silly. It’s not true. Do you have a response to any of the points I raised above?
“Jew Problem” Is Sublime–Yet Simple–With Many Ways To Go Wrong And Be Distracted
(Apollonian, 14 Jul 09)
I’m not sure about “Prozium’s” pt.s above, but just beginning w. purest logic, Jews must be seen as simply a parasite disease-of-opportunity acting in CYCLIC fashion, in accord w. “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, against hubristic, over-populated goyim who accept Jew subjectivist premises, like the “good-evil” fallacy/delusion/heresy (Pelagianism).
Thus it’s important to understand all the conditions for this Jew parasite disease-of-opportunity which operates/functions in a cyclic fashion. Thus we best begin w. basic nature of reality, how and why–subjective or objective?–this is where one MUST start analysis.
Unquestionably Jews are masterminds of the large criminal conspiracy which dominates USA and world, specifically that of COUNTERFEIT fraud, known as US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed)–see ReallityZone.com, TheMoneyMasters.com, and JudenFrei.org for expo/ref. But Jews also make up much the lower-ranks of the criminal network too, along w. the goyim accomplices who out-number Jews for sheer numbers, Jews then using these goyim dupes as screens and decoys. But Jews absolutely dominate the master-mind section, without doubt.
What’s most important is that criminal psychology which is most refined and distilled in Talmud (see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo)–in one word, it is SUBJECTIVISM, wherein these most sublime psychopaths make themselves God, creating reality, wherein “good” trumps reality, hence objectivity.
Further, Jews are most sublime COLLECTIVISTS for their subjectivism–which collectivism goyim can never over-come. And that’s why Jews are so notable. Still Jews are capable of falling-out w. one another as we see CFR-Bilderberg (see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref.) agents, Walt-Mearsheimer pt-ing “finger” at “The Israel Lobby.”
So Jews–esp. Talmudism itself, the mentality–are unquestionably the essence of the large cultural/criminal problem. But never doubt in order to remove them for necessary Jew-Expulsion their goyim accomplices and “Praetorian Guard” must be removed FIRST, these being the “Judeo-Christian” (JC–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) cohort to Judeo-conspiracy which holds Christ was Jew (hence Talmudist), JCs out-numbering the queers and bolsheviki of all other races put together.
CONCLUSION: “Jew problem”/”question” is truly sublime requiring serious effort of intellect and analysis with many ways to go wrong and be distracted within numerous rabbit-holes, worst of all being moralism, a subject all its own, but integral to the large Jew-problem regardless. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Implying that, sans Jews, we’d be in the same boat, just not as far upstream YET, is quite the tangent if your goal is to show the silliness of blaming the Jews for everything.
You’re demoting Jewry from “primary cause” to “neither necessary nor sufficient.”
It seems obvious to me that we’re living in a Soviet type state when it comes to race, with the NORM being Jew-worship, white self-abnegation, etc. This was not the case before the Zhid’s rise to power.
I composed a response to your response a couple days ago Proz but it’s a mess and I’m not going to clean it up just now. Maybe tomorrow.
On a scale of 0 to 10 showing how you rate Jewish culpability for this mess, Proze puts Jewish culpability at about 3 (and Yankee culpability at about 7). I put Jewish culpability at 7 or 8. Someone like Jobling of course puts it at 0.
A better analogy would be to HIV/AIDS; the HIV being the liberal democratic capitalist system, which disables our cultural immune system, the AIDS being Jewish cultural distortion, which arises as a consequence and ultimately proves fatal.
Interesting that one is utilizing analogies as I was just thinking along the same lines!
Perhaps using drug/ alcohol addiction as a template may be useful: White liberals are ‘enablers’ of the type of destructive behavior that Jews, literally drunken on Power and Bloodlust (against the hated ‘goyim’) are clearly ‘addicted’ too.
I am actually starting to feel a little sorry for these Jew beings in fact. They are perhaps like a monster that just can’t help themselves, tethered to a demon war mountain ‘god’ of hatred and malice from which there is no escape and who must be obeyed. Damn I would hate to be a Jew. Still a re-Ghettoization is called for, lets not go softie-style and let them off the hook.
A variation of the HIV/AIDS analogy is Jewish influence as HIV. Jewish influence has destroyed the White immune system. Pathogens (ideologies) that would formerly have been fought off (e.g. Quaker egalitarianism) are now deadly. HIV infection began with the triumph of Boasian anthropology and the demonizing of White ethnocentrism in the middle of the last century (with television as mass transmission route). An interesting aspect of HIV infection is that the virus directs parts of the host’s immune system to destroy other parts (e.g. Buckley’s attack on right-wing ‘anti-Semites’).