Dixie
I’ve been mulling over launching a new website for months that better reflects my own ideological evolution.
“Confederate Renaissance” would be based on the following platform:
(1) The permanent dissolution of the Union, the secession of the South, and the creation of the Republic of Dixie.
(2) The supremacy of the White race. In other words, a homogeneous White electorate, a nation-state run by Whites and for Whites, which aspires to become completely White in the long term.
(3) Defense of the natural order. In other words, a state that is ideologically based on opposition to liberalism, or the principle of inequality and the justified subordination of inferiors to superiors.
(4) Adoption of a confederate form of government. In other words, radical decentralization of power to the state and local level, or turning over power from the central state to smaller polities of White men insofar as national security allows.
Confederate Renaissance would appeal to racialists, conservatives, populists, and libertarians. It would draw strength from all these groups in an attempt to promote the common ideal of the dissolution of the Union.
Note: The only reason that I haven’t already done this is because it would be too much trouble to switch domains which would injure our performance on search engines.
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=34579 I think they are getting smarter, finally, Israel Starts Rounding up Blacks on the Street …
Dear Hunter,
Do not screw around with a winning formula. Change the name of your site after victory, not before.
“Confederate Renaissance” would be based on the following platform:
There are a lot of people outside the Southern US that think the same way, even in Poland, Ukraine, UK, Russia, Canada, etc..
“Confederate” would be a more accurate label than “Occidental” now, I think, reflecting the transition from white racialism to a racial regionalism.
Regionalism is a good emphasis, I think, as long as regional pride does not become overweening and lead to a fall. The Regionalism of race, as in “blood AND SOIL” is a natural, inescapable racial reality that NEEDS recognition, I think.
The platform statement that “Women have a duty to obey their husbands” sounds like a welcome stand against the man-hating legal system of “WRA,” but that “Slaves have a duty to obey their masters” seems to sanction a renewal of slavery, and “a duty to serve the Lord of their County who is answerable to the Monarch” sounds like a call for the return of the inherently corrupt and corrupting Norman monarchial system that Robin Hood, Hereward the Saxon and our colonial forefathers fought against.
Outlier, I doubt that there really are “a lot of people outside the Southern US that think the same way, even in Poland, Ukraine, UK, Russia, Canada, etc.” How many even in the southern states think they need a king and his sheriff set over them, as free peasants, and even among slaves, etc.?
I noted in the proposal (like one George Washington refused) that the monarchy is entrusted to perserve the constitution, suspending other authorities when necessary. But isn’t it the nature of hereditary monarchies “entrusted” with such powers to over-reach, especially as generations pass and degeneration and further corruption set in? Besides, monarchs and lords soon become extremely expensive to maintain, and this is supposed to be a republic of FREE men.
Do the references to the DIVINE as in “the divine natural order” herald greater recognition of the Christian and Biblical basis of true Western civilisation? If the one true God is not with us (Gott mit uns) and we with Him, everything will continue to defeat us.
Life in this world is only a brief moment in eternity, and ultimately we look ABOVE for “a better country”!
The statement that the “nation-state…aspires to become completely White in the long term” does seem to rule out at least a LONG TERM return to the system of slavery, despite the other statement that the “Slaves have a duty to obey their masters.”
Since we are on the topic of Southern seperatism, I found a wonderful article dealing with the subject in a past issue of Instauration.
http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1979-04-April.pdf
Do it, Hunter. You’ll get my money.
Our church is starting a classically based private school, and yours truly will be running it. Every point you made in this article will be the basis of my educational platform.
People in Texas are done. My father (the pastor) even brought up the mesoamerican hellhole the public school here has been for 25+ years. It was a breath of fresh air to the elders.
It’s time to act.
““Slaves have a duty to obey their masters” seems to sanction a renewal of slavery, and “a duty to serve the Lord of their County who is answerable to the Monarch” sounds like a call for the return of the inherently corrupt and corrupting Norman monarchial system that Robin Hood, Hereward the Saxon and our colonial forefathers fought against.”
Mosin- two things.
Slavery is both an inescapable phenomenon, and biblically warranted.
Monarchy, as practised by the Normans over the indigenous Saxons, was also the first time the filioquist Papacy was seen in action, as the usurping authority over all Europe. We eliminate Filioquism’s faulty philosophy, and Rome’s spurious claims (even if it appears ‘anti-Catholic’- whcih it isn’t- Rome hasn’t been “Catholic” since 1100AD!) and we can have a vision come to life as Hunter writes of.
Can we please secede, now?
I’m not advocating a return to slavery. I am just throwing that in there as a rhetorical flourish like other defunct aspects of the Constitution. It is being put in there to highlight the fact that abolition was a catastrophe.
“Slavery is both an inescapable phenomenon, and biblically warranted.” It was warranted especially for defeated Gentiles (“hewers of wood and drawers of water” if they weren’t to be killed), limited for Hebrews, and frowned on among Christians.
Hunter, I was adding my own rhetorical flourishes “for balance” while I KNOW that YOU are not advocating it. I recognise you are helping others appreciate the history, and the better reasons why it was used, why the abolitionist solution was wrong, and how wrong and destructive the liberal program of integration, endless assistance and reparations for the descendants of the imported slaves is.
Fr John
I don’t think you’re going to get very many white Americans to jump on your band wagon if you keep harping about slavery. It’s a very divisive issue, it has always been a very divisive issue. Most whites are very glad to be rid of it, whether you approve or not.
They are just not going to jump on your band wagon if you keep harping about it.
Forget religion and philosophy for awhile, and think strategy. You are not going to get very far if you keep pushing for slavery.
I know Hunter Wallace is not pushing it, I don’t have a problem with him.
Your constant support of slavery does more harm to the cause of secession and independence for white Americans than good. It only undermines and causes division and arguments. It doesn’t bring any kind of unity. The great overwhelming numbers of white Americans will refuse to listen to you if you keep harping about the glory of slavery and how god wants slavery and all that.
It gets us nowhere.
Readers may come to website for the first time, get repulsed by those here who love to harp about how wonderful slavery was , get repulsed ; Then every time in the future they hear of a call to secession, wherever they may hear it, they will associate the call to secession with slavery ; They will turn their backs on secession, and we lose followers and supporters just because of this constant harping on slavery.
Many of them, I’m sure, intelligent and accomplished, and we lose their possible contributions.
White Americans already face a million divisive and confusing issues as it is, adding a divisive and confusing issue from the past into the mix is not going to get you very many supporters.
Much blood was spilled in this country, both southern and northern, and no one wants to go back that bullshit, to chattel slavery. It’s a dead cause.
Harping on slavery doesn’t help those who want to separate from Washington, it only repulses Americans who truly want to separate from Washington.
And, the issue is no longer a north/south issue. There are Americans out west, also. Remember the west? No one wants chattel slavery ( or maybe one out of 20 million). Drop the issue.
I agree with you, Joe, about the strategic effect of discussing the history and benefits of negro enslavement. But then, deportation and apartheid aren’t PC topics either.
@ Mosin Nagant
White Americans interested in secession would not be the least put out by talk of deportation or apartheid ( jim crow). The will be very put off by talk of chattel slavery, however.
My argument had a narrow focus : It was about those of us white Americans who support secession and the breaking up of the US into more manageable countries.
I was not talking about those who are already opposed to us, but only those white Americans who support secession, or are leaning towards it.
“White Americans interested in secession would not be the least put out by talk of deportation or apartheid ( jim crow). They will be very put off by talk of chattel slavery, however.” Yes, only the latter could be destructive of the movement internally, but indiscriminate use of the former could be harmful otherwise.
“I don’t think you’re going to get very many white Americans to jump on your band wagon if you keep harping about slavery. It’s a very divisive issue, it has always been a very divisive issue. Most whites are very glad to be rid of it, whether you approve or not.” – Joe
What makes you think I WANT slavery? I don’t. I want an all-white ethnostate, as Europe and America were in their early days. But the discussion here on this site (unlike EVERYWHERE else, and I mean EVERYWHERE- even ‘expat’ sites in foreign countries) is that the ‘rainbow-colored cafeteria of multi-racialism is the ‘norm’. We are so far gone from the traditions of our elders, that we aren’t HORRIFIED when we read Thomas Dixon’s ‘The Clansman’ – and we SHOULD be horrified.
I’m merely going as far from that modern heresy in my applications/analyses, as possible. DO YOU want darkies to live in our land (wherever that land happens to be) as our EQUALS? If not, then what do you propose? Separate but Equal? That BS has been tried, and was shot down, over 150 years ago; or sixty years ago, take your pick.
I’m merely trying to get back to a BIBLICAL view of slavery, as contained in the Bible, and then asking Christians to TAKE THEIR BIBLES SERIOUSLY. Christians all know (or purport to know) the Epistle of Philemon- it’s part of canonical Scripture, which we are told is ‘for training in righteousness.’ Well, in this epistle, St. Paul tells a slave who has become a Christian (and clearly, the names indicate like ethnic background of both slave and slave owner) to still ‘obey your master,’ even though they are ‘one in Chirst.’
Knowing (as I hope you do, by now) that I don’t consider Rome to BE a ‘Christian Church’ (she’s as much a cult as the Mormons, with only prettier sanctuaries, and a theology of art and architecture), all ‘accomodations’ re: slaves that Rome has put forth (including, thereby, her protestant daughters) are UTTERLY LACKING IN BIBLICAL MERIT, for the reason I listed above- no true Church.
To use a Pauline pleonasm, ‘How much MORE should a NON-Caucasoid, obey HIS Master?’ if the like races were to be ‘slave and master.’ Even Christ calls his followers, slaves (the more ubiquitous ‘servant’ for the Greek word ‘doulos’ softens the blow, but there you are……)
I’m simply saying that, on this issue, (as with the issues of secession) you folks (who are in the forefront of thought on all these issues) STILL have not gone far enough. Unless we clearly demand either the death or the re-patriating of non-Whites to their ‘lands of origin’ once we win teh Second American Revolution, WHAT do you expect to do, when the Secession comes? Pretend like James Wesley, Rawles that the ‘Negro is my brother’ as long as he’s against fractional reserve banking… or something inane like that?
Think, gentlemen. Think. I am looking at the black race from an Ontological point of view- There is very little that is of worth, in the race as a whole- whether you speak from the standpoint of our ancestors’s religion; (the records of the Southern Episcopal Church about the utter uselessness of Black congregations over at Spirit Water Blood, which I read last year) or the political, which Hunter gives us here on an almost daily basis. We have to THROW OFF THE PHILOSOPHICAL BS of ten CENTURIES, not just the last 150 years, if we are EVER GOING TO BE FREE.
I bring up the slavery issue, precisely because it HORRIFIES the Nigger, just as the HOLLOW CAUSE does the Deicide. Both are DESERVING OF OUR SCORN and need to learn again THE FEAR OF THE WHITE CHRISTIAN MAN, and that, ‘by any means necessary.’ Only by doing so, will we gain the upper hand. We might as well start in our minds, if we can’t accomplish it yet in our cities. This is a WAR, gentlemen. Strap on your ideological swords, for crying out loud!
BTW, here are my articles for your elucidation.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/the-biblical-basis-for-servitude/
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/lev-2544-46-–-the-word-of-god/
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/lev-2544-46-part-two/
@Mosin Nagant
Yes, of course, when we talk of deportation and/or apartheid ( jim crow) our talk should be discriminate, in other words, intelligent and with the aim of finding solid answers.
Not just talk for the sake of talk , and certainly not as a means to muddle or deflect from the truth, or to confuse and mix up various issues as to cause further division.
Yes, of course, you are correct to say that indiscriminate talk of deportation and/or apartheid would be harmful.
Talk of chattel slavery is also destructive to us as externally also – not only internally divisive– as talk of chattel slavery just goads our enemies to gather all their weapons against us.
A secession movement based on chattel slavery, or including chattel slavery, will just
antagonize our enemies in Washington to come at us with full force and power. It would also be a perfect excuse for the enemies of the US all over the world to join in with uncle sam and come after us as well.
We will not win if chattel slavery is the basis of a secession movement, nor even if it’s included as a side note.
It will only lead to disaster for white Americans, all of us, irregardless as to how any individual white American thinks about this issue.
It would be a disaster for white America.
@ Mosin and @Fr John
Put your bibles down for awhile and learn what strategy is all about :
http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html
http://www.suntzusaid.com
http://www.artofwarsuntzu.com/Art%20of%20PDF.pdf
( and yes I know that the chinese might be our upcoming enemy, but that doesn’t in any way change or discredit the knowledge,wisdom, and intelligence of their ancient war strategy ).
…on the rare occasion i go to church, i always fall asleep when the priest or minister (if i’m infiltrating a protestant church lol), starts reading a letter from paul or in any way starts going off about how wonderful Paul is. it’s a bore.
on the rare times i do go to church, ( it’s usually for a special occasion) i only wake up for the music, otherwise i don’t pay too much attention to what the priest or minister says, especially if it involves Paul.
Right now I’m studying war strategy. I’ll post again when I finish learning chinese. lol
A bit off topic, Joe, but most of the NT is Pauline, which although wordy, hard to follow, even convoluted, often changing topic in mid-paragraph or sentence, is yet I think the clearest and most complete expression of the maturing new faith.
I don’t think we’re going to put our Bibles down. Have you considered studying Greek?
Hunter:
“I’m not advocating a return to slavery. I am just throwing that in there as a rhetorical flourish like other defunct aspects of the Constitution. It is being put in there to highlight the fact that abolition was a catastrophe.”
Abolition of slavery was not a catastrophe. Imposition of slavery in America in the first place was the catastrophe. Keep in mind that all the slave ships bringing Negro slaves to the New World were Jewish-owned. All the owners of the slave markets were Jewish. It was not a White but a Negro freedman from Angola who sued in court for the right to keep his Negro bond servant, John Casor, for life. The Whites administering that court screwed up big time by allowing it.
Imposition of Negro slavery inevitably led to Negro emancipation which inevitably led to Negro enfranchisement which inevitably led to White dispossession and will ultimately lead to White enslavement if we don’t wake up and learn from our mistakes.
Had England and her colonies treated White indentured servants humanely to encourage the peasants to emigrate there over using sullen, alienated Negros to build their infrastructure, the entire country would have evolved into a solid, homogenous race of people with one single alliance to the original Americans.
Had the South instituted sharecropping using European peasants then the South would have grown a large southern White yeoman class, middle class, and merchant class to defend her interests at the ballot box against the North.
Well said, from my point of view, Clytemnestra — although “abolition of slavery was not a catastrophe” could be taken wrong, out of context, in another sense. You’ve stated exactly what I also think could have been, but we’re down to seeking constructive solutions for what is.
Slavery has always existed and always will exist. It’s a human condition. Fr. John is right, our past and our ancestors must be vindicated, we must take the moral highground. I likewise do not support the reinstitution of slavery because the negative aspects (having a foreign race amonst us) far outweight the economic benefits. I do acknowledge in this world that slavery exists, but it’s not the WORST of all things, as the left would have us believe.
John: Seccession is not about breaking America into smaller, more manageable units. It’s about freeing ourselves from the management.
@Wayne
Good luck when uncle sam and all our foreign enemies come barrelling down on white America because the secession movement talks of slavery so much.
All white Americans will be greatly affected in a very negative way. The Southerners will,unfotunately, have to bear the greatest destruction and lose of life and property and whatever little rights we, they, have left.
The Southerners will experience the greatest wrath of uncle sam and our foreign enemies if the secession movement continues to be so enamored with slavery. It’s the perfect excuse, and gives uncle sam even another reason, an intensely passionate issue and perfect reason, from which to inflame all our enemies against us.
Please rethink this issue. Not for my sake,but for the sake of all white Americans, especially the Southerners. They will bear the brunt of destruction and death more than anyone other group of whites ( though, all white Americans will be taking-it-on-the-chin, that’s for sure).
Joe: Thanks for you advice, I believe you truly mean well for the South. That said, what can we talk about? The truth is on our side, we’ve just been unwilling to wield it, continually ceding the moral highground to the enemy. Do you think the establishment will be any easier on the South and whites if we merely call for segregation? Repatriation? Or should we not talk about these either? We would soon begin to sound like your garden variety respectable conservative, looking to elect a West or Cain to rule over us and commenting on American Thinker. The simple fact of the matter is that any rejection of liberal democracy, multiculturalsim, tolerance or diversity is going to bring the establishment down on us.
Look sparky, reading Machiavelli and Sun Tuz doesn’t mean you know a damn thing about strategy. I know I’m dealing with a rookie when he refers to either and we’d laugh you out of the ready room if you mentioned either. You don’t study war by reading books; books give you the barest glimpse of what it’s about. And for the record, the Bible has the topic covered as well.
There is no longer an economic benefit to slavery in the Western world and no need to call for it. Without slavery there would have been no economic engine for America as a new nation. joe and the rest would do well to study the topic and how the South’s slave economy financed everything, including the yankees and their industry by propping up the govt and protection tariffs.
Clytemnestra: The importation of slaves was like filling a tank with gasoline. Emancipation was like striking a match and throwing it in the tank. Yes, it was a catastrophe in how it was done. There were several Western nations who gave up slavery without killing 600,000 white men in the process.
@ Stonelifterb
My name is not “sparky”. That was very rude, and I don’t deserve to be addressed that way, just because you disagree with me. Or for any reason.
There’s a grain of truth in my posts on this thread. It’s for the readers to decide for themselves what they think about it.
@ Wayne
If you think you have the truth on your side, then go for it. Then yes, there is nothing else to talk about.
sparky is the politest thing I can think to call you. your small amount of knowledge couple with your lack of understanding leaves me without words to describe how wrong you are in every post.
It’s all in the readers hands now as to what any individual reader thinks about the debate.
Take care, Stonelifter.
Clytemnestra,
(1) How was the imposition of slavery the catastrophe? The destructive and utterly insane ideas about liberty and equality that have plagued America for over a hundred years came from the free states.
(2) The vast majority of slaves that were brought to British America were brought on British and Yankee slave ships. It is highly unlikely the slave trade was “controlled by the Jews.”
To my knowledge, Sephardic Jews were involved in the slave trade, but mostly in the Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and South America.
(3) Actually, the imposition of slavery did not inevitably lead to abolition. Where were the strongholds of abolition? Was there any slave society that felt so burdened by slavery that it succumbed to some kind of inexorable force that brought down the system?
How did slavery come to an end in the French West Indies? In Saint-Domingue, it was the Jacobins who abolished slavery. Slavery was later abolished in the remainder of the French West Indies by the metropolitan French, not by the creoles.
How did slavery come to an end in the Spanish West Indies and Brazil? Mostly through British pressure on Spain and Brazil.
How did slavery come to an end in America? At the hands of the Union Army. The great strongholds of anti-slavery in America were almost a thousand miles removed from the Deep South.
(4) Before Yankees took up the cause of abolition, they had already banned Christmas in New England. Did the existence of Christmas lead inevitably to the abolition of Christmas?
(5) White settlement in the Caribbean failed because of the climate and disease. Even the black population couldn’t replenish itself in South Louisiana or the South Carolina Low Country.
(6) Didn’t Whites turn to sharecropping in the postwar period because abolition had destroyed the Southern economy to the point where the formerly self sufficient yeomanry lost their land?
Good point Stonelifter. Slavery we have with us always as an economic engine. Today the slaves are White and they are owned by the Jews.
Correction, Lynda. Blacks AND whites are slaves- it’s just that the blacks (being a full Std.Dev. in IQ lower than whites) don’t realize it…yet. They still think it’s we Whites they have to fear…..and only some of the Blacks know it is the Jews. But they’re learning…
“Fr John- Put your bibles down for awhile and learn what strategy is all about…” – Joe
Sorry, no can do. We either learn from the best war manual around (the Bible) or we learn nothing. Cheers.
Joe- Right now I’m studying war strategy. I’ll post again when I finish learning chinese. lol
Ni Hao?
Mosin- I don’t think we’re going to put our Bibles down. Have you considered studying Greek?
Oppa!
“You’ve stated exactly what I also think could have been, but we’re down to seeking constructive solutions for what is.”
Clyt- as my wife says in her early elementary school grade, ‘We don’t DO ‘what ifs’ in this class.’ I hope you understand what I’m saying here. Sweeping assertions of ‘what we coulda/shoulda/ought to have done, can’t change what WAS done. Utopias are always dangerous ideas.. for people who advocate them, actually start believing that they are possible. And, if history is any indication, most of the promoters of said utopias happen to be women…. Just sayin.’
fortune cookie say bible lousy for war startegy. haha bible cause division with the white faces. white faces destroy europe because of their bible.haha.big divisions because white faces don’t have unity because of book. their leaders mess them up telling them conflicting things about book. haha. book big joke in bejing.haha
we have your industry now.haha. christian leaders with bible give us your industry.haha. fortune cookie say white faces have great stragegy. haha.
someone once again proves how little it knows about the topics it discuses
Hunter asked: “Did the existence of Christmas lead inevitably to the abolition of Christmas?” — comparing early Protestant and Anabaptist opposition to solstice holiday revelry with their opposition to negro enslavement.
The practice of Christ Mass and Christmastide, which is NOT essentially Christian or Biblically-sanctioned, was unusual in ALL of the colonies, in the beginning, except Maryland where the first known celebration occurred among the Roman Catholic settlers. Protestants resisted at first but did not really attempt to abolish it, and then they gave in to it themselves. Most Anabaptists still stand firm.
The answer to Hunter’s question seems to be: Because they didn’t think it was as dangerous or serious a matter as negro enslavement.
“White settlement…failed because of the climate and disease. Even the black population couldn’t replenish itself in South Louisiana or the South Carolina Low Country.” Yankees accustomed to snow and mild summers better think twice before migrating to Paradise in the deep south, just before air conditioning, refrigeration and malaria control might become unsustainable.
I’ve just read another confirmation of the above. Posting the excerpt.
Slaves as an “economic engine” is a disgusting concept to me.
We are not “engines”, we are human beings. ( yes. even blacks, however different from us/ we should just be separate from them, that’s all).
Not all groups within the white race got involved in slavery, and they had/have a strong economy: the germans, the scandinavians, the swiss,the austrians, the northern italians never got involved in it ( yes i know the romans did. not the same people, much different story/ also, the story of northern italy is much different than that of southern italy, so please no posts mixing up the two regions).
Whites have been thrown into slavery also – “white slavery”- go online and study that history.
Also, whites have been known in history to put other whites into slavery, as well. Go to michael hoffman’s website for info about that. ( “revisionist history” ).
If the bible truly justifys it, then i reject what the book has to say about the matter.
All groups of people who were thrown into slavery were eventually freed, one way or another — it’s a force of nature.
After being set free one way or another, the erstwhile slave population always turned out to be a bane on the country or region. This transcends race, ethnicity, etc. : All former slave groups, whatever their race and/or etnicity, became a problem for the society that practiced slavery.
The bible doesn’t mention that aspect of slavery at all. Gee, how wise and all-knowing is this book.
What does the bible have to say about ex slave populations and what/how to deal with that problem? nothing.
Why doesn’t the bible mention that slavery is only profitable up to a certain point, and after that, the system falls on it’s own weight? ( a fact of history that can’t be disputed without ignoring all the facts) no mention of that in this supposedly so-wise book.
You’re all wasting your time being so enamored about slavery instead of concentrating on modern day problems.
And as far as “whites being slaves to the jews”, as Lynda puts it — that shouldn’t be a problem to anyone here who is so enamored with slavery– your own holy book justifys slavery so be happy about being slaves to the jews.
So stop complaining about the jews ruling over you and being their slaves— Be happy about it and rejoice about being slaves to the jews, your holy book tells us that slavery is God’s will.
I guess it’s God will that we are to be slaves to the jews. What a glorious religion this christianity is– how
Disgusting
“The practice of Christ Mass and Christmastide, which is NOT essentially Christian or Biblically-sanctioned, was unusual in ALL of the colonies, in the beginning, except Maryland where the first known celebration occurred among the Roman Catholic settlers. Protestants resisted at first but did not really attempt to abolish it, and then they gave in to it themselves. Most Anabaptists still stand firm.”
Mosin- you need to stop reading pulp fiction from the Evangelical side of things, like Hislop’s ‘Two Babylons.’
Again (sigh) Rome is not Christian. Hasn’t been for a thousand years. Then, again, neither are the Anabaptists- graceless, rootless, denying their own children covenant status, etc. Have we forgotten that the Baptists are the most prevalent in the Dispensationalist heresy, and were responsible for the entire Televangelist movement, that has disgraced Christendom so much, that Joe can say the things he does, because of their stupid and infantile actions?
“Yes, of course, you are correct to say that indiscriminate talk of deportation and/or apartheid would be harmful.
Talk of chattel slavery is also destructive to us as externally also – not only internally divisive– as talk of chattel slavery just goads our enemies to gather all their weapons against us.
A secession movement based on chattel slavery, or including chattel slavery, will just
antagonize our enemies in Washington to come at us with full force and power. It would also be a perfect excuse for the enemies of the US all over the world to join in with uncle sam and come after us as well.
We will not win if chattel slavery is the basis of a secession movement, nor even if it’s included as a side note.
It will only lead to disaster for white Americans, all of us, irregardless as to how any individual white American thinks about this issue.
It would be a disaster for white America.”
That’s it. Peace, peace when there is no peace.
Why does one of Robertson’s Five Categories of White Traitors come to mind, when I read these lines??????
“Slaves as an “economic engine” is a disgusting concept to me. We are not “engines”, we are human beings. ( yes. even blacks, however different from us/ we should just be separate from them, that’s all).”
Funny. OUR ancestors ( for those of us who are White and Christian) debated the ontological status of Blacks, as DIFFERENT from whites.
It was only the theologically apostate, and those who had already imbibed the Romanist error of ‘egalitarianism’ as ‘one flock and one [Papal] shepherd’ -and ONLY under Rome, of course…. that gave the negro a ‘soul,’ like unto his [White] brethren.
“Go to michael hoffman’s website for info about that. ( “revisionist history” ).
If the bible truly justifys it, then i reject what the book has to say about the matter.”
First off, Joe- you’re wanting your cake and eat it, too. You state that blacks are ‘just like us, except different in skin color.’ But that’s the paradigm we have lived with, since 1964- I know, I remember, I’ve read, and watched the riots on TV, when I was a little child. How is this ‘halfway house’ strategy ANY better than what we have come to, at this point in our sorry history, with a Nigger in the White House? It isn’t.
Secondly, you mention Michael Hoffmann. While something approaching a genius (as a writer), Hoff lives in “White-a-ho” and, like Rawles, doesn’t really have a dog in this race, precisely becase he CAN speak all ‘sweetness and light’ about darkies, since he NEVER INTERACTS WITH THEM, on a level like those in the South do!
Meh. I’ve addressed this issue, three years ago.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/what-more-can-be-said/
As for your approval or disapproval of the Holy Bible, the Almighty does not need your vote of confidence on His actions. Talk about a prideful attitude? Nathan’s accusation to King David certainly applies here. “You are the man!”
(For the record, Joe, that’s NOT a compliment…)
Gee. I guess I’m headed for fire and brimstone cause I love my Christmas trees .I always have really beautiful Christmas trees. Got alot hand-blown glass Christmas tree ornaments from Germany. Love ’em.Exquisitely beautiful.
Lots of lights also– “let there be light” and all that holiday razzamatazz.
Got a very beautiful outdoor creche from Italy for my front yard ( neopolitan, antique). I put a spotight on it. Everybody stops and thanks me for putting it up. Heathens!
Plus, I got a beautiful creche I carved myself for my living room :Kinda sorta reminiscent of the creche at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Manhattan, but on a much smaller scale of course (not quite as well-made as in the museum, but overall it came out pretty good. Everybody admires it. Sometimes my dog knocks into the table where the creche sits on and I gotta yell at him.
I like to buy my dog, Teddy, Christmas gifts too, even though sometimes he causes trouble for me and sometimes he can be quite stubborn.
Alot of the neighbors and my friends give Teddy presents, as well. That doesn’t bother me because dogs don’t have souls anyway, so Teddy is safe from damnation and all kinds of wrath from the Heavenly Hosts.
He does pretty good for himself at Christmas. Last year, he got 18 gifts ( alot more than I got, but I still love the hairy mutt).
My outdoor light display is always very low-key but remarkable for it’s beauty. Get alot of compliments on it from all of my “fellow” sinners in the neighborhood.
Maybe this Christmas I’ll buy myself a slave and I’ll be able to put up twice as many Christmas lights- the more hands the better, well you know what I mean.
Maybe God will go easy on me and not send me to hell for putting up a Christmas tree and Christmas lights as I will be fulfilling His Holy Law by buying a slave.
I’ll take it up with my local “Daughters of the Confederacy” group here in town. I wouldn’t want to get on their wrong side, you know. I do very much want to be a good American, and all that razzamatazz.
Fr John, I agree “that the Baptists are the most prevalent in the Dispensationalist heresy, and were responsible for the entire Televangelist movement, that has disgraced Christendom so much”– and I don’t read Evangelical pulp fiction either!
My original comment was in response to Hunter’s question (rhetorical) about why Christmas was never abolished like slavery, where I noted that Anabaptists (NOT Baptists or Evangelicals) UNLIKE other Protestants who originally opposed it, have never adopted the practice.