We were governed just fine between 1789 and 1962 (when JFK was killed), with a few exceptions here and there (most notably Wilson and FDR).
In the South, we have been governed terribly since 1865, and the Golden Age before that was due only to the fact that Southerners dominated the Union until Lincoln.
This is a total myth with zero basis in reality. There are no market dominated oligarchies, for starters.
Except the Jews in the news media, the entertainment media, investment banking, the elite law schools, and humanities departments in the universities, not to mention the smaller examples like the Asians that are taking over gas stations and hotels.
And guess what: Most Fortune 500 companies aren’t owned by ethnic aliens. They are owned by white Europeans. I’m sure you look at Wal Mart with disgust, don’t you? I mean, you threw every magnificent American business under the bus with that “Yankee civilization” pic.
Lots of great American businesses led by 100 percent American patriots like Wal-Mart which is in the business of creating manufacturing jobs in China and textile jobs in Latin America or Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who create as many jobs in China and India as possible.
That says everything I need to know right there. You love totalitarianism and hate real freedom. You have allowed the Marxists to convince you to give up on freedom just because they try to package their Utopia under the guise of freedom.
“Totalitarian” is a great description of the Yankee-Jewish Mainstream Media – not a whiff of dissent is allowed in virtually every newspaper, magazine, and television station in the good ol’ USA promoting negro equality 24/7 and enforcing BRA’s racial etiquette 24/7.
You are incapable of exposing the Marxist utopia for the North Korean-style nightmare that it is and instead throw freedom itself under the bus.Your real agenda is painfully transparent, and all these fools who follow you will be led to the grave.
If this is what you call “freedom,” then North Korea and Iran are looking better every day, as there is more honesty about race in communist China and Jews in Iran than there is here under Uncle Sam.
Organized Jewry is an invasive force that is becoming ever more controlling, but it isn’t in full control. If it was, whites would be extinct by now. Or at the very least our societies would resemble The Soviet Union.
Funny. Why is Organized Jewry enjoying so much success under Americanism? Could it have anything to do with Americanism itself? Is that why the neocons are trying so hard to impose Americanism on Russia and Iran?
NOPE. Dixie is part of the United States, and whether liberalism is defeated or not, Dixie will always be part of the United States. The only question is whether people like me will be in control or not. If so, great. If not, then odds are liberalism will crush Dixie. In any case, the far majority of us whites will NEVER stand behind the Confederacy!
The only reason your liberalism is crushing us is because of the existence of the Union. I think we have a bright future awaiting us OUTSIDE of the United States and a very dim one WITHIN the Union.
As for the rest of you, if you want to live under “natural lords” like Sheldon Adelson and George Soros and the other Jew billionaires who are bidding on Obama and Mitt Romney, that is your choice.
You would sink the ship given all the horrible things you support.
Yeah, I know: we had Wade Hampton III and Robert E. Lee, and you have natural lords like George Soros and Sheldon Adelson, and that means we would have sunk relative to you people.
Bla bla bla! A British-loyalist screed falls on deaf ears to all real Americans. But you’re not a real American now are you? Nope!
Real Amurricans like Selena Gomez and Dora the Explorer and Anderson Cooper 360 and Sean Hannity and Fareed Zakaria GPS.
Actually, I don’t care whether the American Revolution was supported among Southerners or not! My attitude towards anti-American scum like you is the same as the Pilgrims had for the Amerindian savages (in other words, you’re the shit on our boots!)
That means you should love us, right? The Pilgrims tried to convert the Indians and turn them into brown little Yankees in their godly multiracial utopia.
‘Murika, fuck yeah!
You don’t fear consolidation of power! You just want “the right tyrants” calling the shots! There’s nothing about you that supports limited government! The Framers stood for limited government. You stand for totalitarianism, hence your support of the Ayatollah’s in Iran!
The consolidated despotism you have in Washington is a tyranny. We’re the only people who have ever tried to limit the size of the government. The states have the sovereign right to outlaw incendiary Jewish and Yankee anti-racist propaganda and we have ample historical precedent for doing so.
Call that “tyranny” if you like, Yankee! True Southrons shall not hesitate to preserve the Southern way of life. 🙂
I’ll take the Northern economy and the Northern way of life between 1789 and 1945 (when the South finally embraced capitalism) over the Southern economy and the Southern way of life any day of the week.
The Yankee way of life has always been chasing after the dollar and living as a hen pecked husband in an unhappy marriage while the wife wears blue jeans and chess bubble gum while haranguing the public about equality and women’s rights.
It’s bad enough up there to make you wish you were born a Mexican.
1. It’s natural rights, not human rights. Look up the difference.
Natural rights, “the rights of man,” human rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, animal rights … it is the gift that keeps on giving.
2. Equality was only ever meant by Jefferson in terms of natural rights, not in terms of ability or even opportunity. And even then he didn’t mean to include all the races of the earth. Jefferson is saying to himself in the grave right now, “why oh way did I not clarify what I meant by ‘all men are created equal?’”
Both the Declaration of Independence and the even more grandiose French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and have unleashed all kinds of racial and cultural evils.
The liberal ideal of equality doesn’t exist, and it isn’t an Enlightenment principle. It’s a Marxist principle born out of a philosophy that’s been around since the beginning of man. That philosophy was articulated by Plato’s Republic, long before Enlightenment was even a word.
Equality was an Enlightenment principle. It was in the name of equality that the Jacobins abolished slavery, made free negroes into French citizens, beheaded King Louis XVI and embroiled Europe in war for a generation.
3. Liberty in and of itself isn’t bad just because non-whites cloak tyranny under the guise of liberty.
The classical concept of libertas is not bad because it was never derived from a universal principle.
Edmund Burke condemned the French Revolution but supported the American Revolution. Nothing more needs to be said.
Except that Burke was a Whig and liberal in his day.
No, not really. Not until nearly the 20th century. And even then everyone in white nations knew the dangers of organized Jewry. Organized Jewry didn’t get its agenda going full throttle until the 1960s. Now-a-days no one can criticize Jews without being smeared as a naziwhowantstokill6million
Jews have never been in the ghetto in America and Western Jewry was out of the ghetto long before the twentieth century.
BTW, the idea that Organized Jewry wasn’t going full throttle before the 1960s is false. As far back as the Russo-Japanese War, wealthy Jews like Jacob Schiff were major world players. See also the Balfour Declaration.
Didn’t happen until the 60s. Fixable problem. Next!
Jews have always been American citizens.
Other then liberal democracy, you’re wrong on all counts. Jews hate capitalism. Case in point: Karl Marx and everything he’s wrought. They also hate meritocracy, hence why they systematically discriminate against whites even though whites are the most qualified. They also hate America, hence the non-stop anti-American propaganda fed in Hollywood, the media, and the education system.
Some Jews hate capitalism. Marx didn’t hate capitalism. He saw it as progressive and supported the Union in the War Between the States. Other Jews like Ayn Rand were for capitalism.
Most Jews today are for capitalism. They are the wealthiest and most powerful ethnic group in America thanks to free market capitalism and meritocracy.
And had terrible results to show for it. Principles without results are meaningless.
If memory serves, the Confederacy was destroyed by the Union which armed 180,000 blacks to kill White Southerners, so I would say our record contrasts favorably with yours.
Then you’re in direct of violation of the Christian God you claim to worship, and nobody should take you seriously when you talk about the Confederacy being a Christian society when in fact it degrades itself with third world peoples. This isn’t a matter of slavery. This is a matter of you choosing to associate yourselves with mass quantities of people that the Bible says you MUSTN’T associate with. Not surprisingly,. your precious Dixie payed the consequences!
(1) Jesus never condemned slavery.
(2) The Bible is a pro-slavery document.
(3) Notorious heretics like the Quakers and Unitarians started the anti-slavery movement.
(4) There is nothing in the Bible about creating homogeneous White societies.
You don’t even know what communism is. Because if you did, you wouldn’t be sitting here and smearing the greatest economic system in the history of mankind: The Free Market!
So, if we took free market capitalism and tried it without, say, cheap and abundant hydrocarbon energy, what would we find? What would triumph? Your silly ideology or the physical reality that powers labor saving machines?
” No. I’m saying that France keeping itself homogeneously white was in accordance with Biblical law. Robespierre was the opposite of Biblical. He was a monster.”
I don’t know of any such biblical law. Why was Robespierre a monster? He believed in liberty and equality just like you. He took out those evil aristocrats, right?
Irrelevant to the point I was making, which went completely over your head: Somebody pointed out that the North was 100% white (or at the very least had a dominant white majority). Your retort was that it doesn’t matter whether a nation is 100% white, because France is white and they had the French Revolution.
Yes, the whitest state in America is Vermont, and look at how much fucking trouble they have caused us.
My retort to that was the French Revolution has nothing to do with France being a homogeneous white country. You think that because France had a horrible revolution, it doesn’t matter whether a nation is homogeneously white or not. That’s one of the most non-sensical things I’ve ever heard. But then again, a guy who supports the Ayatollah’s lives and breaths non-sense.
(1) Like Russia, France was a nearly 100 percent White country that burst into flames as a result of its own egalitarian madness.
(2) In a country that is 100 percent White, racial consciousness ebbs and Whites become polarized along class lines and ideological lines.
(3) In Revoltionary France, the result was the destruction of slavery and the colonies in the French Caribbean, and every negro in the colonies becoming a French citizen.
(4) Here in America, we have the same problem with Yankees who support the Democrat Party and who are allied with blacks and Hispanics and who inflict incredible damage upon the South as a consequence.
So, I don’t give a damn if Vermont is 100 percent White if 60 or 70 percent of the Whites there want to be represented by an Obama or a Pat Leahy, Howard Dean, or Bernie Sanders.
Because if you don’t have us on your side, odds are liberalism will destroy you. And you won’t like it when that happens! You think 1865-1965 is bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet! Contrast America between 1865 and 1965 with North Korea today. That’s the difference between white/American nationalism and liberalism. But I’m sure your retort would be, “does it really matter what I pick?” Such is the discredited mindset of people like you!
Aren’t you the ones behind the liberalism though? Wouldn’t the liberalism we have now naturally unwind if we could only get out of your Union?
Translated: The dissolution of the best nation ever known to man.
The best nation ever known to man … BRA under Obama. Oh man, you are barking up the wrong tree!
”The freedom to by a murderous tyrant isn’t freedom, it’s despotism.”
We’re living under your despotism right now … your “representatives,” men like Harry Reid, Obama Africanus I, and Eric “My People” Holder.
As if the United States between 1789 and 1965 supported ANY of those things – even abolitionism! (Lincoln was no abolitionist if you know anything about the man. Lincoln was willing to say anything and do anything to keep the Union together).
I was referring to the tout ensemble of Great Yankee Ideas – starting with abolition and civil rights and quickly progressing from there to strongminded womanism, feminism, and free loveism – that have been imposed upon Dixie since 1965.
As Rose said to Cal in Titanic: I’d rather be America’s whore then Dixie’s wife!
Good analogy. Like the Titanic, Amurrica has hit an iceberg due to its own arrogant faith in American exceptionalism, and Dixie is the escape boat.
We’re bailing out and you and Uncle Sam are going down like Leonardo Diacaprio!
“we had … Robert E. Lee”
While Lee was a gentleman and statesman of the first rank his invasion of Pennsylvania was an inept blunder that may very well have cost the South what little chance it had to win the War. (I would also add to that, the snobbish failure of Jefferson Davis and the rest of the government leadership to promote N.B. Forrest to full command of Confederate forces in Tennessee a close second as it resulted in the ability of Sherman to take Atlanta in 1864 when the re-election of Lincoln was still very much in doubt. This ambivalence of many Northerners to the War is something the foolish Southern romantics on this site refuse to acknowledge.)
Seminary Ridge was a very poor choice of ground upon which to launch an attack on Meade’s forces. Indeed choosing to confront the Union Army at Gettysburg at all was not forced on him in the least. His orders on all three days of the battle were half-hearted (he was literally suffering from angina) and dubious when not outright disastrous.
White Nat. is a fine abstract intellectual persuasion, but HW does condense a pretty good real word case against it. I still read Harold’s books and occasionally download his podcasts, he is a good story teller. If HW wrote fiction I would buy them as well.
Somewhat ironically the NYTs made our case for us when they reviewed a black author’s anti-white screed. As their review acknowledged this black’s violent hatred of whites was a net negative for the DWLs, that the DWLs writing finally had to stick up for us White Nats by saying, “they are people becoming.”
That about sums it up for me.
I posted all this shit from the mobile.
Book review is postponed until tomorrow.
Hey, RobRoy, do you have a link to that? I’d love to check it out.
White Dream Seeker has his head so far up his own ass that he hears nothing anyone says. He hasn’t just drunk the Kool-Aid. He’s chugged it.
Another great rebuttal. I’ve argued with people like this until I was blue in the face. There are many like him. He believes America is still “our” country while it’s values, culture, heritage, and soon to be language and people now reflect a very foreign and hostile and alien species.
More whites need to begin to understand this. That USA has become a new country not centered around us. Our children will surely be strangers and foreigners in the very lands their fathers built if we do not retake it. I say “retake” because it has been lost, make no mistake.
Hunter you left out Sanjay Gupta “America’s doctor”.
We were governed just fine between 1789 and 1962 (when JFK was killed),….
This by itself tells you where this person is coming from, especially the words in parentheses. I’ve seen it from plenty of self-described WNs. Even from self-described NSs who think the world wars were disastrous, nevertheless see everything as returning to heaven until St. JFK was killed by YKW. While I doubt that this person was of the latter persuasion it’s a fairly widely held belief. Thankfully it’s an easy one to refute. Obviously they don’t like to listen.
The confederacy would have survived if Britain or France checked the Federal’s naval blockade.
Certainly avoiding the blackeye of a battlefield defeat would have been smart politics. Thing is virtually all the battles were stalemates (approx equal casualties) with the worst supplied army always retreating after the clash. Something like Gettysburg was going to happen at some point.
I’m surprised the confederacy didn’t apprentice slaves 4 years then free with free ticket home announce it to the world and then declare independence. France and Britain would have guaranteed shipping lanes to Southern merchants.
It’s a bit of mystery. I know Longstreet is reported to have said something like that.
There was a marked change to this country in the sixties when the niggers started rioting and LBJ bought them off with Great Society welfare programs. You could still hire good Negro help prior to that.
Eric it was in an AmRen issue maybe a year or two ago back in their dead tree days. From the review of the review it seems even the DWLs blanched at full on negritude and actually said some of the best words ever, “whites are a people becoming” (I believe those are the exact words).
We all love these squabbles, good old internet fun, but I find them mostly a waste of good people’s time if one is too persistant on fighting old battles over and over.
We at the Swarm went on the offensive metaphysically speaking and what we found out is that the anti-whites are a sham, complete sham. The old taboos are collapsing, and it is far more entertaining to skewer the anti-whites than rehash the old battles, and hopefully people will screw up the courage and do this instead of being cloistered by their own choice.
Yankee soldiers often expressed that Southerners were guilty of attempting to destroy the “best gum’t that ever was”, referring to Yankee America – they did so as they brutalized defenseless civilians and destroyed property wantonly. As pointed out in “Confederate Catechism” Dixie secession would have left the Northern Union intact and free to stew in their own Marxist juice, and Abe’s “government by and for the people” would not have been affected one bit, no destruction of the North was sought, so WDC is nothing more than a shallow jingoist, indeed, the type to be a “whore” for “Murica”.
Thanks Rob!
Sorry, but what is this dialog about and between what parties?
OK, I read re: re: re:White Dream Chaser before I noticed and started to read re: re:White Dream Chaser.
Hahaha. This is fantastic stuff.
Dream Chaser sounds like a neocon kool-aid drinker or a YKW.
Hunter, one quick suggestion for winning hearts and minds of guys like this.
“(4) Here in America, we have the same problem with Yankees who support the Democrat Party and who are allied with blacks and Hispanics and who inflict incredible damage upon the South as a consequence.”
Change that to “inflict incredible damage upon the South and themselves as a consequence. If we can’t convince you to not drown yourselves, we’d at least not like to be bound to you as you get pulled under by your own cooncrete shoes” or something similar.
I make this suggestion because I was like this person once. I viewed liberal progressives as the common enemy and wished we could just all band together to destroy it. However, this blog among others made me realize that theres just no helping some utopian idealists.
And before you respond about why you should care, didn’t you post a clip from “ride with the devil” where the south vs. yankee are condensed into a few minutes?
Went something like “while we don’t care what they choose to do, they’re busy indoctrinating their children about how they need to show us the error of our ways”
Or something to that effect. WDC has a point about “needing them” even if he arrived at it erroneously. Liberalism itself may not overwelm the south, but guys like him convinced that murrica needs the south to be murrica again will ally with the yankee northeast to oppress the south……..again.
That’s a wise amendment.
I forgot to mention in there that Yankees once had nigras all but banned in Oregon, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana. Stephen Douglas attacked and defeated Lincoln for being soft on the race question.
Then they waged a war against us “based on the proposition that all men are created equal.” After arming the nigras who fought and died alongside them for the Glorious Union, they felt compelled to make.them into citizens and invite them to move on up to the North to marry their daughters.*
Hard to believe that the Fugitive Slave Law and Dred Scott – which would have preserved the North as the romanticized White paradise – generated so much controversy in Yankeeland. Sometimes people just fuck themselves.
*No one forced them to repeal their anti-miscegenation laws from 1865 to 1890.
“We were governed just fine between 1789 and 1962 (when JFK was killed), with a few exceptions here and there (most notably Wilson and FDR).”
How anyone who describes themselves as a white nationalist can agree with the above is beyond me.
1863 Lincoln frees over 3 million slaves to wander about as they please with no plan in place to do anything to control them
1863 Lincoln Orders the recruitment of black regiments
1865 The remainder of the slaves not freed in 1863 are unloosed on the country
1868 14th Amendment gives you black citizenship
1870 15th Amendment gives you black voting
1877 Federal Government’s nearly decade long use of Federal troops in the South to attempt to enforce black equality ends
1943 Chinese Exclusion Act repealed Chinese can become naturalized citizens
1948 President Truman orders the military to be desegregated
1952 Walter-McCarran Act lifts all Asian exclusion legislation. All Asians can now become naturalized citizens
1954 Supreme Court declares school segregation to be unconstitutional
1957 President Eisenhower sends 101 Airborne to Arkansas to force desegregation of Public Schools
1962 President Kennedy sends in Federal Marshalls, Army, and the Border Patrol (lol, Oh so that is what the Border Patrol is used for? Ok now it all makes sense.) to force desegregation of the University of Mississippi.
This isn’t to say there weren’t people who opposed these ideas because there were, even in New England but the idea that we were ruled “just fine” until Kennedy’s death is an untenable position coming from a white nationalist point of view. These radical ideas seemed to be in retrograde in the late 19th and early 20th century but by the 1930’s and 40’s they had come back with a vengeance and they have nearly finished us.
I think everyone should look at the scene depicted on the regimental colors of the 22nd U.S. Colored Infantry Regiment and then still think that everything was “just fine” from a white nationalist perspective until 1962.
It gives a little role reversal on “Sic Semper Tyrannis”
Note the Confederate soldier being bayonetted has a white flag therefore he was surrendering.
http://goo.gl/1SNtm
“No one forced them to repeal their anti-miscegenation laws from 1865 to 1890.”
Most Western states didn’t repeal their anti-micegenation laws until after WWII.
http://biraciality.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/anti-miscegenation-laws-map1.jpg
Hunter, ignore him. It’s probably Joe breaching your security fence.
That’s quite a flag.
Depicting that on your colours? Jeeeesus. Imagine what the white officers and NCOs said about it to the Monkey Men:
“There’s Ol’ Siggie Simpson Tyronis. Lookee see he keil YT Whit white flag man whit de Big knife!”
what a strange banner.
I find it amusing when people assert the existence of “natural rights” and then proceed to outline (as examples of said “natural rights”) a series of sociopolitical privileges. Name me any “natural right” that can’t be denied or negated by superior physical force. Just one. You can’t, because there aren’t any. The only “right” granted and acknowledged by nature is the right of a superior will, strength and intelligence to dominate lesser wills, strengths and intellects. That is the true meaning of both meritocracy AND aristocracy; they both ultimately come down to the same thing. Aristocracy comes from the same root as the word “Aryan”, meaning the noble ones, the true lords of the earth. It means the rule of the elite. And the elite rule because they deserve it, and because they can.
I must say, I largely agree with Hunter Wallace in these little exchanges. The one area in which I have a strong disagreement with his position is the role of Christianity in any kind of successful white ethnonationalism. It seems obvious to me that Christianity itself contains the inherently dangerous ideas that ultimately lead to liberalism, Marxism and Enlightenment values, even though these outgrowths all tend to reject Christianity in their most radical manifestations. Christianity within white nations has been the fatal flaw that made them vulnerable to infection by these sicknesses.
The spread of Christianity throughout Europe at the bloody hands of first the Roman Empire and then the Holy Roman Empire was the first successful blending of distinct European ethnostates into a common European Christian identity — often accomplished through wholesale slaughter, torture, trade embargoes and other economic pressures. This physical and spiritual defeat and weakening of ethnic pride, combined with the Church’s ideological values of tolerance, humility, and color-blind brotherhood in Christ, naturally created an environment hospitable to all those maladies that have overtaken us today.
At all times when ethnic nationalism has reared its head in Europe, it is no coincidence that it has been accompanied by an increasing interest and upsurge in the practice of pre-Christian folk religion. The two are irrevocably intertwined on the metaphysical and psychological planes, and most racially and/or ethnically awakened people sense this in some way, even if it’s only at the dimmest level of awareness. For these and many other reasons, I strongly believe that any white ethnic nationalism explicitly or implicitly based on Christianity is doomed and already contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Christianity is already a shell in which pagan rituals are observed. Yule, Easter, Fasting, cannibalism, vampirism, sun worship, tree worship, the hero. It’s all there already.
It’s just a matter of how you view the rituals.
Paganism is irrelevant other than to the minuscule number of people for whom it’s relevant.
Don’t confuse the post-Enlightenment emasculated Christianity of “gentle Jesus” with the real thing. Christendom did not erase distinct European ethno-states. There were a myriad of independent and autonomous realms throughout medieval Europe.
Also, don’t crow about “superior physical force” and then whine about “slaughter and torture.” That’s more than a little effeminate and you can’t have it both ways. Medieval Europe was ruled by an aristocratic nobility. The chivalrous Christian knight was the paragon to be emulated and the epitome of nobility. He still is.
Your pre-Christian folk religion is just another imaginary projection like the Enlightenment, Marxism, and National Socialism. They all contain the seeds of their own destruction and leave nothing but chaos, death, destruction, and misery in their wake. They are all untenable utopian schemes of one sort or another.
At least Christendom created and maintained a reasonably just social order for the white people of Europe. Look at the chaos the anti-Christian Enlightenment “emancipation” project has created. Negroes and Jews run amok and hell bent on destroying whites. Something unthinkable in medieval times.
These cheap imitations are simply the wishful fabrications of those who resent the more masculine Christianity found in the middle ages.
Deo Vindice
Neopaganism is just a self indulgent masturbatory fantasy for closet case homosexuals and highly inhibited people who can’t work up the nerve to just go out and get laid. It is puerile, sterile, and degenerate. You can’t build a family on that shit, because that’s all that it is–pure shit.
Deo Vindice
Holy shit, let us know when you start doing real writing again. I come here for thoughtful political and historical analysis from a race-real prospective, not headlining posts comprised of reddit worthy net bickering.
I mean, it’s your blog and everything so whatever, just saying this sort of stuff turns the whole blog into Joe.
Hunter misses Joe. I was thinking something similar. It’s like Metajoe.
Joe was never this lucid. Hunter is responding to a typical patriotard pseudo-WN.
You all should take notes instead of whining because he isn’t paying enough attention to your pet rock. You might learn something about real WN, Southern style, complete with cheesy grits. Mmmm…tasty.
Deo Vindice
I love these posts. Many Southerners think the same way this Yankee/Judean does. Many of our brethren are afflicted with this disease of Americanism. Most of these people have a historical ignorance of things before the 1960’s. Rebutting their ignorance and showing their idea of what America is as laughable is very important.
Hunter does this extremely well.
“complete with cheesy grits. Mmmm…tasty.”
Grits should only be eaten with butter and sugar.
I think I may have stumbled into how our fearless Stuka pilot learned to fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb7F8cNF5lQ
Can you confirm this, Rudel?
After you’ve finished your grits, of course.
The best thing about Neverland is the absence of negroes. “Pirates,” “injuns,” Captain Hook, and the Crocodile, certainly…but no moon crickets.
The negro version of Neverland is where little boys play the “rubba, rubba” game with a pedophile morphodite and his pet chimpanzee. Ugh.
Deo Vindice
Apuleius at August 17, 2012, 1:12 a.m. has the correct view.
“The chivalrous Christian knight was the paragon to be emulated and the epitome of nobility.”
Pffft!
Joseph McCabe demolished this myth of Chivalry and the virtuous knight. McCabe uses first hand, primary sources and accounts of the period in question. The best and longest analysis is found in his “History’s Greatest Liars.” I wish it was online but it is not. I did find the following, however, and it lists most of the sources.
“Chivalry, The Age of.
J. McCabe, Rationalists Encyclopaedia
There is no more baseless historical myth than that of a mediaeval Age of Chivalry, yet literary men and editorial writers always refer to it as if it were as solidly established as the French Revolution. Not a single modern authority on the period (about 1100-1400), in either England, France, Germany, Italy, or Spain, recognizes such a development, and the leading works of reference which yield to religious sentiment by including a notice of it (the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, and in this case even the Cambridge Mediaeval History) had to entrust the writing to romantic authors with no historical status whatever. Even Hilaire Belloc, who covers the period in the second volume of his larger History of England (4 vols., 1925), does not deign to mention the myth, and certainly describes no chivalry. All the standard authorities characterize the period as, precisely in the noble and knightly class of both sexes, sodden with vice, violence, theft, and corruption. Many, indeed, describe it as, particularly in regard to sex, the worst period in the history of civilization. In the case of England the Catholic historian Lingard (History of England, 14 vols., 1823-31) is as severe as Freeman, Green, Traill’s Social England, or (apart from the totally unrepresentative short chapter on chivalry) the Cambridge Mediaeval History (7 vols., 1911-32). The highest authority on France at this time, Professor Luchaire, is even more scathing in his Social France at the Time of Philip Augustus (Engl. trans. 1912) and in Lavisse’s large Histoire de France (1901, vol.111). For Germany Giesebrecht (6 vols., 1874), Hauck (5 vols., 1912), Quanter (1925), Prof. J. W. Thompson (Feudal Germany, 1928), and H. A. L. Fisher (Mediaeval Empire, 2 vols., 1898) tell the same story; and the classic works of Symonds, Burckhardt, and Gregorovius give an even worse account of morals in mediaeval Italy. Special authorities (Anglade, Gautier, Méray, Nyrop, Krabbes, Rowbotham, etc.) on the troubadours, writers, and women of the so-called Age of Chivalry are agreed that the period was never surpassed, if ever equalled, in history for its licence of life and literature and the hard aggressiveness of its women (young or matrons). The recent work of D. de Rougemont (Passion and Society, 1940), claiming that the troubadours were pious mystics, is fantastic and negligible. No such thing as a knight-errant is described in the contemporary chronicles, and the religious Orders of Knights (Templars, etc.) speedily became as corrupt as the others. Bayard and the few real representatives of a code of chivalry – Richard the Lion-Heart, the Cid, etc., were brutal and treacherous – lived long after the period was over. Romantic writers are apt to quote a mutilated passage from the French historian Guizot, but he in fact agrees that it was the worst period on record (History of Civilization, III, 114). The myth was started in the seventeenth century by two French genealogists and sycophants of the nobility, Vulson and Menstrier, and it owes its extraordinary success to its complete falsification of the character of the Catholic period. Undisputed as the facts are, there is not a single work, in any language, to recommend on the true character of the mediaeval knights and their wives and daughters, whose conduct in the overwhelming majority of their class was the exact opposite of what we call chivalry. The symposium Chivalry (1928), edited by Prof. Prestage, is a scrap-book of sketches, but acknowledges the general brutality and licence.”
In his “History’s Greatest Liars”–the liar part is in reference to many historians of the 20th century–some of the works cited above are quoted. For example, in Traile’s “Social Scotland,” we read “The gallantry which we are accustomed to associate with the feudal age was only skin deep, and the brutality of husbands to wives and of men to women quite disabuses us of our notions of medieval chivalry.” It then says that if a knight did happen to meet a lady out on the road, he would more than likely rape her. Then we go on to see that the “lady” usually did not need to be raped, anyway, she would be more than willing.
In Levisse’s History of France it says “In the majority of cases the lady of the manor in the time of Philip Augustus was still what she had been in the centuries preceding feudalism: a virago of violent temperament, of strong passions, trained from infancy in all physical exercises, sharing the dangers and pleasures of the knights of their circle. ”
Leon Gautier says of the women of the time: “It is in their blood…At first sight of a young man they throw themselves at his feet without hesitation, modesty, or struggle, and beg him to satisfy the brutality of their desires…If one resists their pursuing attentions, they take advantage of the night and place themselves in the bed of the man they desire…Married women do almost the same, though there are…exceptions.”
On German women of the time, K. Weingold writes “Women no longer distinguish between men of quality and shameless scoundrels; indeed they give their love by preference to the cunning, the coarse, and the more brutal, and many offer their love[sex] for money. Conjugal fidelity becomes a joke; lusty adultery and frivolous vice were praised or smiled on in countless short poems. Both sexes wore the same dress, and shameless figures were used to decorate the tables.
McCabe sums up the record by stating: “Not one in 100,000 of the knights had a priestly consecration or listened to the church. Habitually in their looting operations they plundered monasteries and nunneries and savagely tortured–in some cases it was lady leaders of gangs of knights–monks or nuns who hid the church treasures. The knight errant is as mythical as the maid who trembled for her virtue; for it is one of the outstanding features of the period that both men and women (young or married) above the level of common people were more aggressively sexual than in any other civilized period. Noble daughters fought their mothers for the pleasure of sleeping with the knight they entertained. And the second chief characteristic of the knights, ladies, and princes was that they had a profound contempt of and were cruel and unjust to all below their own rank. “
Brutus,
Tell us what you really think about Tancred D’Hautville then!
Chivalry was a code of conduct, sort of, among fighting men and never covered half the stuff people think it did. It was never binding in any sort of way, but an ideal for men to strive for, if those choose to.
The other stuff, like Brutus posted was made up about afterwards, by actors and the like.
I have no opinion on either him or his great grandson, John. The 1st one had a lot of kids.
“Neopaganism is just a self indulgent masturbatory fantasy for closet case homosexuals and highly inhibited people who can’t work up the nerve to just go out and get laid. It is puerile, sterile, and degenerate. You can’t build a family on that shit, because that’s all that it is–pure shit.”
Apuleius- Exactly correct. Neo-pseudo-pagans advocating a return to this sterile, dead ‘faith’ as an equal parter with post-modernist civilization, are the intellectual’s equivalent of the less-brainy SCA- the “Society for Creative Anachronisms.”
Utterly useless play-actors, still stuck in denial of their pre-ordained personhood at the hands of YHWH God.
I haven’t consulted the Rationalist Encyclopedia, but the truth probably weighs more on the side of brutality and baseness than the other – look at what the Ami’s and Brits did to defenseless German civilians at the very end of WWII, firebombing, strafing survivors, raping, murdering – with gusto in the last few months. Of all the ‘isms coming out of the 20th Century, only National Socialism and Fascism proved to be exemplary social/political systems – American gangsterism, Russian Bolshevism among the worst and most unworkable – the US got lucky and managed to steal a treasure trove of inventions,patents and scientist from Germany to fuel its dominance. However, it’s just about burned its candle – it’s a 3rd world culture with a 1st world military, for the time being. The Great Secession will probably come about similar to the Soviet demise – the Hispanics just taking over the Southwest and California by default and other blocs of States just walking away when the economic conditions and tyranny becomes so untenable that people just lay down like beat mules and refuse to be part of the farce any longer.
“Grits should only be eaten with butter and sugar.”
I like maple syrup on mine-when I eat them, which isn’t often. Like most Southern Cooking- even Jan Karon’s ‘Mitford’ Cookbook- it has way to much empty carbohydrates, like flour, corn, and breading.
“The chivalrous Christian knight was the paragon to be emulated and the epitome of nobility.”
Pffft! etc.
If you see men and women as animals, then yes, I suppose you can deprecate an entire era, its literature, the rise of Marian devotion, and the flowering of the noble ideas of Christendom, before the modern ‘corporation sole’ state model corrupted the older patristic model.
But then you’d be nothing but a mere brute, and no Christian man, like the author of this post. q.e.d.
“Grits should only be eaten with butter and sugar.”
“I like maple syrup on mine”
There is a word for this sort of thinking, and that word is COMMUNISM.
These are shallow, cardboard cutout views of European pre-Christian religion. You are steeped in Judeo-Christianity, so that is to be expected. I find it interesting that you so easily and completely dismiss the ancient beliefs of your ancestors prior to the last 1000 or 1500 years. The conquerers did a good job.
By the way, I was not “whining” about slaughter and torture. I was simply pointing out that it occurred.
As for heathenry being dead and sterile, there will be no convincing you its not, because you have already made up your mind. But I have been a Christian of several different denominations, and I never found it to be anything but empty and lifeless. It is not ours, it is alien to our spirit and our nature, and again I repeat: damn, they did a good job!
As for pre-ordained personhood — depending on your personal ontological views, there is a far more emphasis on one’s “pre-ordained personhood” in heathen beliefs than in Christian. Yahweh is a tribal Jewish god, Jesus was a good and wise spiritual teacher, but Saul of Tarsus was a master manipulator whose shrewd infiltration and dissemination of Christianity among the gentiles was successful beyond his wildest dreams and has ended up enslaving the whole Western world so thoroughly that the only accurate label to apply to Christianity today is “Stockholm Syndrome.”
There are fewer and fewer Christians every year, and most of the new ones are black Africans and Chinese, who are already psychologically primed to accept it by their cultural communism. Christianity is now a dead or dying faith in most Western countries. It has been superseded by its secular offspring, Marxism and liberalism, which fit in better with the materialistic bent of the age in which we live. You are the ones engaging in futile masturbatory fantasies, not I. I’m too busy raising a happy, wholesome, heathen family.
If there was only one perfect Knight, Robert E. Lee was him.
It’s an ideal to strive for. A beautiful, balanced view of the perfect warrior. Every society needs ideals, and chivalry fits quite well in the South. Knights were white. Linking chivalry and racial consciousness isn’t hard at all. Childs play.
Or we could try pushing racial unity and neopaganism as a package deal.
Which one has the best chance of success?
The South is all I know. Maybe the neopaganism will work elsewhere, but I know my people. It would fall flat on it’s face.
Robert E Lee was a great man, but he was to decent to win. It breaks my heart to say such a thing. However, Jackson’s plan to raze the north before they got organized and tooled up; when we had the advantage was our best chance.
If you look at the reconquista, it’s obvious that Christianity was not a Stockholm Syndrome.