Dixie
Friday night drinking … It occurs to me that the Holy Trinity of Western decline can be briefly summed up as 1.) Christian heresy, 2.) secular fantasy ideology, and 3.) Jewish influence.
Discuss.
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes
Indeed Jim. After all, Christ didn’t die so that we could love Truth. He died so that we would all feel better.
Rome didn’t decline. It divided into Greek and Latin. Greeks survived til the 1400s.
The Latin section fell, but it fell to people who were rampant slavers. The Saxon and Viking were selling people left right and center.
Sure the US was a fluke, the temptation to screw their wimminz and take some chore-doers is normally too strong to resist for the average soldier-grunt. The Anglo settlers were mostly men with wives and families. They had no need for squaw wives, it was heavily frowned upon when it did happen.
It is possible to Exterminate entire populations, but usually the Cost is Greater Than the Reward in Land and Resources. How many Whites died to Destroy the Indians in the Indian Wars? How many Whites would die to Exterminate the Entire Population of Mestizos in North America?
The Question: Is it worth the Cost?
It’s far easier today than it was 300 years ago. All one needs is the will. A triumph of the will, so to speak. Hehehe.
The actual decline of Roman life in the Med really didn’t happen until the Umayyed conquests in the late 600 as well. The slaving Muslims burst into the grain fields of Egypt and Carthage and destroyed the settled populations there– the place has never recovered. Roman civilization in North Africa once gone exposed the Italian coast to Muslim slavers, the French coast and the Spanish coast to the same.
Rome decline because it gave out citizenship like lollipops.
Would it be possible to use Nuclear, Chemical or Biological Weapons as long as NATO or the Jew.N. existed?
What about Russia and China? Would they sit idly by while Whites in America went on a Rampant Genocide for Living Space?
Could an American Fuhrer treat with these scenarios, while the Vile Jew lives? Any Anti-White Jews left on the Planet would declare Total War against a Pro-White Leader of America!
No, John! Rome declined because it gave Citizenship to Non-Whites or Uncivilized people!
The Romans of the late 6th Century A.D. in Rome were not even Romans! Most of the Legions were mercenaries from the Barbarian Tribes of Germania and elsewhere. They were NOT LATIN AT ALL!
Jim,
if I were Pilate I wouldn’t have said: “What is truth?”
Tony Soprano had the right idea: “Jesus you are a born slave. So are your people. Get used to it or your city on a hill gets it. Is that right Tony Martius? (nods head) See! Tony agrees, so shut your smart mouth.”
He probably didn’t get all Socratic or philosophical.
I just said that you eejit. Caracala gave citizenship to all to extend tax base. They gave up on slaving. So the Germans did it for them. Then the Muslims scoured the Med clean of worker bees a century later.
However Rome lasted until 1400s in the East under Greek administration.
The Romans were not Roman patricians quite quickly into the Empire. They Conquered Gaul and found good leaders there. Spaniards wee quickly assimilated. The Greeks were brought in. The Roman aristocratic elite was so small that they couldn’t have governed without assimilating Gallic, Greek and Spanish populations. They were also quick to use Germans as bodyguards. They wouldn’t be remembered today had they never assimilated these ethnic groups. They would be a hill tribe footnote like the Volcians or Etruscans had they not aggressively enslaved everyone they came into contact with.
Constantinople lasted because it was Still Majority White. Rome fell because it was what is Today called “Multi-Cultural”.
Its ALL ABOUT RACE! Always Has Been, Always Will Be!
The Real Question: Is It Good For Whites?
Bottom Line…
Could an American Fuhrer treat with these scenarios, while the Vile Jew lives?
Vile Jew indeed. David Duke says Jews opened the gates of Constantinople for the Muslim armies camped outside. I have no trouble believing that.
Morals have been confused with emotions. A critical error.
It’s impossible to separate morality from emotion. Immoral acts cause us to feel bad, and that’s why we call those acts immoral. What would be the point of calling an act immoral if that act didn’t cause us to feel bad? You could do it, you could call such an act immoral, but people would just shrug their shoulders. No one would get excited about it the way people do when an act that causes us to feel bad is performed.
The ten commandments are something you should study in depth if you claim they are divinely inspired. People pick and choose whatever suits their fancy. Noted Bible Scholar Adam Clark comments on “Thou shalt not steal.”
Exodus 20:15
“Thou shalt not steal – All rapine and theft are forbidden by this precept; as well national and commercial wrongs as petty larceny, highway robberies, and private stealing: even the taking advantage of a seller’s or buyer’s ignorance, to give the one less and make the other pay more for a commodity than its worth, is a breach of this sacred law. All withholding of rights and doing of wrongs are against the spirit of it. But the word is principally applicable to clandestine stealing, though it may undoubtedly include all political injustice and private wrongs.
And consequently all kidnapping, crimping, and slave-dealing are prohibited here, whether practiced by individuals or by the state.
Crimes are not lessened in their demerit by the number, or political importance of those who commit them. A state that enacts bad laws is as criminal before God as the individual who breaks good ones.”
Some would object to his inclusions of kidnapping and slave dealing.
Oh, it certainly would be unjust to steal a man’s property such as a watch or car or a hundred dollar bill. Such actions are blatant transgressions of the Word of Gawd. But if you kidnap/steal his chidren from him or buy his wife from a trader who capturered/stole her and make them your slaves -no problem.
Jesus didn’t condemn slavery, dontcha know.
The Romans were a southern European offshoot of Indo-European languages. They claimed some sort of cousin kinship with the Celts. Are you saying that the Germans were racially different from the Romans? There wasn’t really an importation of darkies into Europe. Blackness would show up in medieval populations if it happened. Subsaharan populations and genetic markers don’t show up till much much later.
The Romans became noteworthy because they enslaved everyone else. Not inspite of it.
Landshark…
I’m sure we agree more than not. I certainly agree that Christianity transcends the white race as Christianity simply transcends all things. Christianity is the assertion of objective Supremacy evidenced in a perfect man revealed. ALL deviant variants of radical liberal deny this truth whether he be orthodox/leftist Jew, homosexual, atheist, jihadist, black nationalist, etc. Of course, this in no way means that the white man can not collectively embrace Christianity and thus transcend other earthly non-Chrisitians as the white race. In fact, that is the very perception underlying the relentless and foundational attack on “white Supremacy.” ALL radical liberationists fear, loathe and absolutely hate “white Supremacy.” It is real and historically dominant. If you are a true white Christian then you are a white Supremacist whether you acknowledge it or not.
Jews were used as garrison troops in the Umayyad conquest of Spain.
Muslim and Christian chronicles document it. The Jewish Encyclopedias brag about it. It makes me wonder about what is really happening with Rahmbo and Bloomberg, Sarkozy and other Jews who welcome in the Muslims into our motherlands. They did it in Andalusia and they appear to be doing it today in France, America, Australia and the UK.
Are these vile creatures gate openers in the modern era?
Finite playing field so we cannot transcend.
Insatiable desire for total autonomy so we are bound to be confined and unfulfilled.
Never able to transcend the savage we settle for “equality” and our collective descent as anti-Supremacists. Especially, anti-white Supremacists.
Jews are just simply Anti-White.
They don’t need to be Pro-Islam, just Anti-White to be Gate-Openers.
Number One Commandment of Jews: Is it Good for Jews?
Number Two Commandment of Jews: Is it Bad for Whites or Christians?
Not sure they have any other Commandments. The Talmud, not the Torah is what the Jew really follows…
thordaddy, there are Black Supremacists and the Jews have no problem with them.
There are Jewish Supremacists and the Jews have no problem with that either.
There are Islamic Supremacists and the Jews only care if it threatens Isn’treal.
Why is White Supremacy so ANATHEMA to Jews?
Because we are superior to them. And they know it.
Anglo-America Protestant,
It’s also the same reason we find abortion immoral. Yet you won’t accept that, you just describe it as crazy. Abortion is murder because it ends a unique human life. The baby in the womb can’t speak, walk or talk? Neither can he in his crib. Yet we don’t allow their killing at that point, though there are college professors that have argued that we should be able to do so.
I can accept that it’s a contentious issue. But there are some important differences between this issue and slavery that you’re overlooking. Firstly, the populace is evenly divided on abortion, and this in an overwhelmingly Christian country and after decades worth of anti-abortion propaganda (it’s one of the few causes that conservatives have not abandoned). In contrast, the vast majority of people are vehemently opposed to slavery, and this opposition has grown as we have come to understand more and more about human life over the last couple of hundred years, which suggests that opposition to slavery is a product of human moral evolution. Secondly, supporters of slavery most argued that it was an acceptable practice, not that it was a positive good. Supporters of abortion, on the other hand, routinely argue that it is a positive good. We do this because we don’t believe a fetus is a human life, so we have no compunction about terminating unwanted pregnancies. This increases the welfare of both women and children: women are happier because they’re not burdened by a child they didn’t want; and children are happier because they are raised by mothers who wanted them, rather than mothers forced to raise them. From the perspective of these two arguments, slavery appears the far graver wrong.
Most societies in history would not have accepted your “just is” on slavery being wrong. In fact pretty much every society in history condemned murder while at the same time approving of involuntary servitude in some form. The idea that slavery is wrong flows from enlightenment philosophy that all humans are equal.
It wasn’t a “just is” argument so much as it was an attempt to point out that all moral arguments ultimately rest on a man’s heart telling him that an act is just plain wrong; the moral argument against slavery is not a special case of this.
Humans do not have to be equal in order to be treated fairly. Slavery is heinously unfair.
Since slavery definitely runs afoul of enlightenment principles I prefer to defend it after it after the point it became well established in the old South in the context of unfortunate necessity required for societal self-preservation rather than positive good.
You have much in common with your southern forbears then, who, unlike Hunter Wallace, were similarly unable to muster up much enthusiasm for promoting slavery as a positive good.
It most certainly is a life. The idea that it’s not a being is a convenient fiction. However I don’t mind if blacks get abortions. The more the better. I do mind seeing white women getting abortions. These kids ought to be up for adoption if unwanted. Silver is disgustingly and alarming glib/ comfortable with white women getting abortions. Interesting…I smell rat.
Those of you attending church services tomorrow would do well to ask your Minister, Pastor, Evangelist or Priest his interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:5 – 1:10. The word menstealers is of particular interest.
1 Timothy 1:5 – 1:10
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for MENSTEALERS, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:
“For menstealers – The word here used – ???????????????? andrapodiste?s – occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means one who steals another for the purpose of making him a slave – a kidnapper. This is the common way in which people are made slaves. Some, indeed, are taken in war and sold as slaves, but the mass of those who have been reduced to servitude have become slaves by being kidnapped. Children are stolen from their parents, or wives from their husbands, or husbands from their wives, or parents from their children, or whole families are stolen together. None become slaves voluntarily, and consequently the whole process of making slaves partakes of the nature of theft of the worst kind. What theft is like that of stealing a man’s children, or his wife, or his father or mother? The guilt of manstealing is incurred essentially by those who purchase those who are thus stolen – as the purchaser of a stolen horse, knowing it to be so, participates in the crime. A measure of that criminality also adheres to all who own slaves, and who thus maintain the system – for it is a system known to have been originated by theft. This crime was expressly forbidden by the law of God, and was made punishable with death; Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7.”
Strong’s Concordance:
?????????????
Lexical form (using TekniaGreek): ajndrapodisthvV
Greek transliteration: andrapodist?s
Transliteration (simplified): andrapodistes
Strong’s number: 405
GK number: 435
Frequency in New Testament: 1
Morphology of Biblical Greek tag: n-1f
Gloss: slave trader, kidnapper
a man-stealer, kidnapper,, 1?Tim. 1:10*
I look forward to the time when we are able to abort the mother. After all, the child did nothing wrong.
@Landshark
You just can’t stand the idea of a woman having any control over her decisions, can you? Or perhaps, control over something you don’t? Either way, you’re an insecure misogynist. And abortion is legal, and it’s going to stay that way, so deal with it.
It would be interesting to have a white politician explicitly say:
“white women should not have abortions. We won’t stop you but you are literally colluding in your own genocide.”
he better have a damn good pension if he dares say it. Balls of steel too.
Slavery might have been downgraded morally speaking, but only because cheap petroleum has allowed the process to take place. Call me a Marxist but it’s economic. Should energy become as expensive as biomechanical labour again the irons will be clapped back on.
Drawing your attention to Africa for a moment. There were only 400 million Africans in 1980. There are about 1 billion today. In no time at all there may be 2 billion. There’s absolutely no way that African will be sustaining them. They will rely on Euro largesse to feed and clothe. So even sans slavery, we have a collosal Negro problem looming on the horizon. Even if slavery had been avoided the black would have found his way to the great cities of Europe and America. I think the stats suggest that 1 in 10 nigs today came from post war emigration to America. Certainly every black in Europe is a post ww2 phenomenon. So even without slavery NyC, Chicago and other cities would be infested. It’s just that there would be no rural black population in the south. They would be a purely urban population.
Even if Johnny Reb had picked his own damned cotton, sooner or later the fixation would have gripped city after city.
LandShark, name calling means victory. not sure how caring about the life growing inside a woman and wanting that life to survive, a life and unique White DNA strand that might very well be a female is anti woman…. but they are never rational on these things.
Bible and slavery, it says be a good slave and be a good master. Plus draws up different kinds of slaves
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible
http://bible.cc/ephesians/6-5.htm
So using the Bible to condemn slavery… isn’t an argument on solid Biblical ground
Silver,
We have had decades worth of both pro and anti-abortion “propaganda” with the pro-abortion propaganda coming from the people who command the cultural heights. I’ve seen abortion painted in a noble or at least sympathetic light in movies, television and even in popular music. Abortion has been normalized through the same media that normalized homosexuality and miscegenation. Sometimes I think it is remarkable there is anybody left at all that opposes any of these things giving the extent of indoctrination.
In my experience to run across any material that is actually critical of abortion you usually have to be seeking it out or receive it through some religious group.
In the present day abortion is a contentious issue but just over 40 years ago most people would have said it was immoral. It was illegal in most cases in the vast majority of the states with the North on average having even more restrictive laws on it than the South did before the Supreme Court imposed abortion on the entire United States.
150 plus years ago slavery was a contentious issue in the United States even in the North. Not everyone in the North thought it was “evil” and definitely everyone in the South didn’t think so.
I actually think slavery as positive good probably was the majority position in the South, especially the Lower South, by the time the War Between the States broke out although it may not have been during the Revolutionary era and the early 19th century. For example John C Calhoun quite vociferously and explicitly argued that slavery was a positive good. The constant attacks by the abolition movement killed off a lot of the gradual emancipation sentiment and produced a really defensive spirit in the South.
“Humans do not have to be equal in order to be treated fairly. Slavery is heinously unfair.”
True but many in the past argued that slavery was not only fair but in the best interest of the slaves. They were taken out of backward Africa, taught civilization and acquainted with the Christian gospel. It would have been said they were much better off here than in the barbarous land of their birth and on average at least in terms of a material existence I think it was probably true. If the blacks live among us I do believe it is better for them to be in a subordinated position. I also believe they will be returned to a subordinated position eventually though it may very well not be by whites.
“From the perspective of these two arguments, slavery appears the far graver wrong.”
Only if one accepts your proposition that a child in the womb ceases to be human, if one does not accept that then in every case abortion is basically murder which would make it much worse than slavery.
I also don’t think it is correct to say that pro-abortion propaganda is always that abortion is positive good. Back when I still actually watched politicians giving campaign speeches I remember people like Clinton say abortion should be “safe, rare and legal.” Why should it be rare if there is nothing wrong with it? They also say things like “the decision to abort is a personal decision between a woman and her God.” That sounds like a pretty morally heavy decision for something that is a “positive good.”
re-reading this thread….. a lot of people sound like liberals, very soft on the race question. We will never move forward when supposedly pro White, Whites worry about the condition of negros and other non humans
@…..I can accept that abortion is a contentious issue. But there are some important differences between this issue and slavery that you’re overlooking. Firstly, the populace is evenly divided on abortion, and this in an overwhelmingly Christian country and after decades worth of anti-abortion propaganda (it’s one of the few causes that conservatives have not abandoned)….”
The only reason this and many other things are “contended” is because a hostile elite used an “immigrant” populations (europeans) to transform the u.s. into a sick piss-hole. It’s like “libertarianism.” In another kind of society, whites would not support it, but it’s the only way to try to hold onto whatever is left of their lives.
The “positions” people take on these “issues” is always CONTEXTUAL.
These are just ways of trying to fight the current situation. A lot of the “pro-abortion” people think that if other populations were kept lower (in a Welfare-Warfare Statist situation, which this is) then their own money (that they created) would not have to go to Welfare-Warfare families, and they could have children of their own sort (with their own money) again.
If the previous-to-1900 Americans (forget even the South issue) could have access to the wealth that they, themselves, CREATED, and raise families, instead of paying for MILITARY and WELFARE families, then they would not be saying they were for doing in children in the womb.
White Historically American families want to recreate THEIR OWN right to have families (they are the population that is paying for the military and welfare babies.)
A vote for Romney-Ryan, for instance, is just for paying for Military (instead of welfare) to pump out mouths to feed.
Ok. Some of them might be White, but they are of the White sort born-and-bred to shut up, follow orders, never THINK for themselves, not create things, lifelong government dependents, more mouths to feed, voting only to reproduce their dependency class. They are not “middle class” in the old sense of the word, although they have “middle class” THINGS. So do the Welfare checks.
It’s the creative people who are bled dry and not able to afford to reproduce.
People say they are “pro-death” because they want money for their smarter families and see the decline of the country as due to the mega-money put into welfare-warfare families
And Rome NEVER declined. The South is thick with Latins, white and otherwise.
The Traditional South has to live in their “nanny state,” (which means SLAVES) and pay for everywhere they go, and everything they eat.
This idea that “elites” should rule and hierarchy is great— well, it assumes that the best people wind up on top. So, the real question is: what is an aristocrat, really. Are the current “elite” really an “elite?”
As is, you ARE ruled by an elite (we have no freedoms and don’t get to keep the fruits of our labour)— BRA is the current “elite,” and the people behind them clearly decided they’d rather use them than you.
The Old West had it the best.
No slavery, and NO BLACKS!
The best of both worlds.
“An 1844 territorial statute outlawed slavery but also mandated free slaves to leave the territory.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Oregon#Racial_discrimination
Oh… And Rome was the heresy (it should go without saying). Without it, Protestantism would not have become so incredibly necessary (to the point of the loss of heavy casualties and martyrs).
The strongest thing I heard a real Christian Orthodox say about protestants (an Orthodox really born-and-bred for generations in the religion and not just another recent convert transferring their religious prejudices onto it) was that, while in error in some regards, the catholic horrors made it inevitable.
So, we’re left with “it feels wrong” and “the vast majority believes it is wrong,” which confirms my belief that the anti-slavery movement was built on nothing more than emotionalism and enthusiasm.
So, we’re left with “it feels wrong” and “the vast majority believes it is wrong,” which confirms my belief that the anti-slavery movement was built on nothing more than emotionalism and enthusiasm.
Hunter
the woman’s way of feeling and group conciseness
313 Chris- “And abortion is legal, and it’s going to stay that way, so deal with it.”
Come the restoration, the first thing I would do is make abortion a capital offense, by public hanging, stoning, or whatever else seems approprite.
The murder of the unborn is the most satanic, heinous, race-genociding tool that Satan and his minions ever developed. It’s no coincidence that Jews were in the forefront of both practicing it, and arguing for it’s “legalization.”
ANYONE who believes that ‘a woman’s right to choose’ is a valid law, should be shot, drawn and quartered. A woman is to serve her lord and master- whether husband or father, and women’s rights stop at the boundaries of her patriarchal step.
Why the hell would a man defend Roe v. Wade? It makes men less and makes women less.
Dixie, what is Rome doing that Protestants object to? You are free to divorce, abort, contracept, practice any sort of perversion you see fit. And you get to blame it on Rome. In a way it’s the perfect Protestant “out.” In this respect you’re like Jews. “Don’t blame me, we didn’t do it.”
We know what a Catholic world looks like. This ain’t it. Take some responsibility for God’s sake. Love it or hate it, Catholics made a world and made it stick. So where is the Protestant world and why isn’t it sticking?
Southerners were guided by Christianity, classical philosophy, custom and tradition, republican political theory, and the sanction of the Constitution.
Northerners were swept up in the infantile emotionalism of antebellum Jimmy Swaggert and Joel Olsteen rallies.
“The Old West had it the best.
No slavery, and NO BLACKS!”
Yeppers.
My tough-as-nails rancher grandpappy did it all, himself, with the help of horses, kids and my even-tougher rancherette grandmammy who worked right alongside him repairing fence and hoeing corn — and then went in the house to give birth without anesthesia to six White kids.
So, we’re left with “it feels wrong” and “the vast majority believes it is wrong,”
No, nothing of the sort; you’re simply left with people who have made flimsy arguments.
Slavery is immoral because it is theft: theft of another man’s labor, theft of his dignity, and theft of his personal autonomy. The Bible condemns and forbids theft. End of transmission.
The defense that “Jesus never condemned slavery” is preposterous on its face: for example, Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery (more accurately, he declined to condemn her) but this by no means indicates that Jesus passively endorsed adultery.
Jesus came to proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven, which was a deeper, holier, and more profound proposition than merely expounding upon Mosaic law.
Nor does it matter that the ancient Hebrews themselves owned slaves. The Bible is full of growth: when, in Genesis, Abraham the Patriarch is visited by two angels in the guise of men, he welcomes them as guests, and feeds them a meal of meat and milk. This is obviously in violation of kashrut, Jewish dietary law — but kashrut did not yet exist of course: it is given to Moses many generations later. This shows us that God’s commandments to men exist for the education of men, and that they exist in time; they need not be some absolute thing existing for eternity in heaven if God wills otherwise.
In the wake of the Gospel news, slavery as theft is morally unacceptable, even if it was practiced in days of yore. The Bible tells the story of the moral growth and spiritual maturation of man. “When I was a child, I thought like a child, etc etc”
Is Olsteen Jewish? He looks like one.
The Bible does not condemn slavery. Jesus did not condemn slavery as a sin either in a Mediterranean world that was full of slavery. God incarnate showed up and had nothing to say about slavery beause he wasn’t disturbed by it.
Slavery was familiar to the Apostle Paul and the church fathers as well as the early Christians who could have condemned slavery as a form of theft – if there was any basis to this argument – but they did not make that association. Quite the opposite. Slaves were told to obey their masters.
As for slavery being on par with murder and adultery, the comparison is preposterous because murder and adultery really were explicitly condemned as sinful at the time, whereas that not the case with slavery.
if the Bible condemns slavery was does the New Testament tell slaves to obey their masters etc etc
The argument is not as simple as folks would make it out to be.