Texas vs. White, Revisited

5 Comments

1. There are many and varied reasons as to why a state could consider secession. The fact of the matter is, some of them DID try, and only failed, because a despot king thought it a bad idea. (“Linkong”- as the King of Siam says in R&H’s ‘King and I’)

   With your recent post about Linkong knowing that slavery (as an issue) had an ‘expiration date,’ due to the advances White Men were making in mechanized forms of crop-gathering (He was one of the lawyers overseeing the patent applications for McCormick in the 1840’s, I believe), I consider his character to be even LOWER than it was made, after reading some of the accounts of contemporaries of “Linkong” – this, after forty-plus years of near-sainthood status given this ‘Traitor Extraordinaire to the American Experiment.’ Never let it be said that propaganda did not exist here in the USA-

   While Washington may have ‘done the dirty deed’ with the Cherry tree, he was still a far more noble man than “Linkong.” (And claims for Masonic subterfuge, layouts of D.C. etc. at the hands of Geo W., all forget one thing- the Masons post- Weishaupt/ Illuminati (after the coincidental date of 1776), and the masons-pre 1776, cannot be looked on as organic elements of each other. I would go so far as to advocate that the Illuminatist takeover of Masonry still had not fully occurred in Vienna, even as late as 1791- the year of Mozart’s Magic Flute, and his death…)

   There is only other thing I’d like to point out. The comments in the article, which begin with “…the idea that a governed people could not sever their ties with the government would have been anathema to the Founders. This nation’s founding premise was that the right to self-determination is inherent and God-given in all people. It does not derive from, and cannot be regulated or taken away by, any man or any creation of man. Even the Constitution itself neither created, nor can it ever diminish, this “self-evident” truth. Because of this, the authority of a government only comes from the consent of the governed, and as such it can only continue as long as that consent continues. Indeed, this was the fundamental assumption underlying the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ”

   have to be predicated to mean ONLY WHITE MEN. The statement, ‘the right to self-determination is inherent and God-given in all people,’ can only apply if that people are FREE MEN. Black slaves were not, and remained not free men for over seventy-five years after this statement- and, even then, it was only “Linkong’s” word against the witness of the Bible, and all of human history. Moreover, Jefferson had and kept slaves, even after penning this document. So, the philosophical statement that what is iterated in one place, if NOT iterated in another, still holds to that statement, can ALSO be applied to slaves. If slaves were not ‘free men’ at the time of the writing of these statements by our Third President, then it follows, that they were NEVER MEANT to apply to them, even if the Darkies were given a spurious ‘writ of emancipation’ sometime later (as happened with Linkong).

   With that insight, one could say that the autocratic slave state now under the Obamanation is the very DEFINITION for the ETERNAL RIGHT OF STATES WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ‘mass equality’ to rightfully secede from the LEVIathan the Judaizers have made her out to be. (my two cents…..)

2. To the liberal mind, every legal union has an escape clause expect political unions. Want a divorce? They’ll devolve the union for you. Create life, they’ll kill the union of sperm and egg in the womb for you. Think a political union is no longer in your best interests? The liberals will send in the federal forces and make damn sure you stay.

   yay yankees

3. Legally? Yes.

   But practically, a state cannot do anything once sufficient force is brought to bear.

   As we all witness, the current elite don’t allow laws to restrict them.

4. Stonelifter’s right, liberalism is imperialistic to the core – no first world country is allowed to secede from liberalism.

   It’s also racist, of course. It’s even racist in its application of imperialism – the closer one gets racially and culturally to Anglo-Saxon, the less right one has to secede from liberalism.

5. Some interesting insights by one Petr over at SWB.

   “A Southern thinker George Fitzhugh, writing in the 1850s, considered the Yankee radicalism (that Kevin MacDonald sees as an example of a gentile-created “culture of critique”) to contain seeds of even much greater social subversion than mere Negro emancipation:

   “We warn the North, that every one of the leading Abolitionists is agitating the negro slavery-question merely as a means to attain ulterior ends, and those ends nearer home. They would not spend so much time and money for the mere sake of the negro or his master, about whom they care little. But they know that men once fairly committed to negro slavery agitation — once committed to the sweeping principle, “that man being a moral agent, accountable to God for his actions, should not have those actions controlled and directed by the will of another,” are, in effect, committed to Socialism and Communism, to the most ultra doctrines of Garrison, Goodell, Smith and Andrews — to no private property, no church, no law, no government, — to free love, free lands, free women and free churches.

   There is no middle ground — not an inch of ground of any sort, between the doctrines which we hold and those which Mr. Garrison holds. If slavery, either white or black, be wrong in principle or practice, then is Mr. Garrison right — then is all human government wrong.

   Socialism, not Abolition, is the real object of Black Republicanism. The North, not the South, the true battle-ground. … The Abolition school of Socialists like it because it is intolerable — because they consider it a transition state to a form of society without law or government. Miss Wright has the honesty to admit, that a transition has never taken place. No; and never will take place: because the expulsion of human nature is a pre-requisite to its occurrence.

   But we solemnly warn the North, that what she calls a transition is what every leading Abolitionist is moving heaven and earth to attain. This is their real object — negro emancipation a mere gull-trap.

   In the attempt to attain “transition” seas of gore may be shed, until military despotism comes in to restore peace and security.