Illinois
Here’s an excerpt from David Goldfield’s America Aflame: How The Civil War Created a Nation on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates:
“Douglas hammered on the Lincoln-as-radical theme. Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech provided fodder for Douglas’s charge that Republicans and Lincoln would sacrifice the Union to destroy slavery. Once emancipation occurred, Douglas asserted, freed slaves would flood Illinois to “cover your prairies with black settlements” and “turn this beautiful state into a free negro colony.” He was not above more primitive race baiting. Warming up the crowd at the debate in Freeport, Douglas related that he had spotted Frederick Douglass a while earlier on the edge of the gathering in a “carriage – and a magnificent one it was … a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as a driver.” While laughter rippled through the crowd, a Lincoln that the backer yelled out, “What of it!” Douglas replied, “All I have to say is if you, Black Republicans, think that the negro ought to ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have a perfect right to do so.” …
Prophetic words.
Just a few years later, President Lincoln unleashed the slaves and Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the first federal civil rights law in American history, which made blacks into citizens and which repealed the Illinois Black Codes that had banned free negroes from settling in Illinois.
Fastforward to the “Land of Lincoln” in 2012:
“OAK PARK — A woman assaulted on the CTA Blue Line in Oak Park last week told police another passenger struck her in the face with a sock filled with human excrement.
“He had a sock full of his poop on me,” said the 21-year-old college student. “It was everywhere; on my face, my hair, my clothes.”
She said she screamed and tried to follow him, along with another witness, but the attacker escaped up the Austin Boulevard exit and ran northbound on Austin.”
Free negroes are attacking 21-year-old female college students with socks full of feces on public transportation. Such is the civilization we live in because Abraham Lincoln, not Stephen Douglas, won the presidency in 1860.
Informative discussion, many powerful quotes. Keep it up.
The american white liberal has a long sordid past, and that shit trail leads strait to Walden Pond. Something went seriously awry in 1830s-1850s New England. Someone should check graves for evidence of an ergot outbreak.
John B.: Wrong! The literature I cited spans a good 4000 years in time and two continents in space, some are the foundations of entire civilizations and others the brick and mortar of Western law.
If the Quakers had really studied the Bible instead of twisting it to fanatic ends, they would have comprehended the full meaning of that phrase and practiced it in regard to their Southern countrymen. Tell me, John B., do you really believe the Bible is the Word of God? If you do, then why would He have left out direct commandments about something as evil as slavery or racism? Please!
The fact is that the slaves in the American South were better off by far than their kin in Africa. They enjoyed Western housing, provisions, and medical care in exchange for work that wad probably the envy of many a poor white soul in the sweatshops of Britain. Seeing as that was the best fate a black person could have at that time, how was slavery not the humane thing to do?
Answer: It was the humane thing to do, but FANATICS with a freedom FETISH who couldn’ t give a fig about how whites (even children) were treated in their own factories and had no clue as to black civilization were driven by blind faith. And this same spirit will see sodomy and God knows what next rammed down our throats.
John B.: If the greed of the Southern planters prevented them from giving up their property, could it not be said the greed of the Yankee prevented them from coughing up the money to buy them and setting them free in the North? Would this not have been more sensible than slaughtering 300,000 Union soldiers and stealing another persons property? Talk about greed!
John B: There was never any possibility of sending them back, or restoring and maintaining a European based society because the fanatic lunatics in charge then, as now, worship equality, as you do. If you admit all men are equal, then logically you must deduce that all societies they create are equal, and if that is the case, then how can you even begin to think Western civilization should be protected?
This is how the Marxists think, we can never ever suffer them to get the moral highground, EVER!
I’ve been too sick for the past few days to follow this discussion but all the points raised by John B have been addressed many times here before.
I think that Lincoln’s negrophillia ran very deep. Any race-y statements that he made back then were just bunk, designed to bring along racially conscious whites. Lincoln laid down the lives of hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen and his own so as to allow blacks to do as they please.
Just learning that an activist army of Wendell Phillips types existed should be enough to terrify white men for aeons to come. These were well-read fully gentile white men that dedicated their lives to struggling for a society based on negrophilia, pro-Indianism, prohibition, pacifism, socialism and feminism.
The literature I cited spans a good 4000 years in time and two continents in space ….
A meaningless statement, Brutus, and you know it. The literature you mentioned is basically from the old Aryan strip, which extended from India to Greece. It doesn’t matter whether that technically straddles “two continents” (though I’m pretty sure even Herodotus remarked that the geographic distinction between Europe and Asia was nonexistent). Most, if not all, of that literature is from the first millennium B.C. The Koran, which comes later than that, is just a rehash of the Bible; the date of creation of the Hindu writings seems to me to be unclear. Even if the creation of all the works you mentioned did extend over 4,000 years of ancient history, that, to me, is a short period–and will certainly be regarded as a short period 100,000 years from now, should the white race last to that time.
[D]o you really believe the Bible is the Word of God? If you do, then why would He have left out direct commandments about something as evil as slavery or racism?
No, I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God; I don’t believe in God. I haven’t spoken of racism as an evil. As is clear in a number of the comments I’ve posted at this particular blog entry, not to mention elsewhere at Occidental Dissent, I myself am a racist and don’t think racism evil. The only thing I’ve spoken against is slavery, to which I object regardless of the color of the slaves or the masters.
If the greed of the Southern planters prevented them from giving up their property, could it not be said the greed of the Yankee prevented them from coughing up the money to buy them and setting them free in the North? Would this not have been more sensible than slaughtering 300,000 Union soldiers and stealing another persons property?
I haven’t said anything about greed. I don’t think it had to do with greed. I think it had to do with habit. The South was used to slave labor and, as far as I can tell, never really listened to arguments that such labor should be given up. Whether there was discussion of plans by which slaveholders might be compensated for their slaves, I don’t know; I’m not defending the North.
The fact is that the slaves in the American South were better off by far than their kin in Africa. They enjoyed Western housing, provisions, and medical care in exchange for work that wad probably the envy of many a poor white soul in the sweatshops of Britain. Seeing as that was the best fate a black person could have at that time, how was slavery not the humane thing to do?
I’m not going to get into a meaningless discussion whether the lives blacks enjoyed as slaves were better than the lives of their African kin. They were taken involuntarily from their land, where they had their own way of life, no matter how meager we might think it was.
There was never any possibility of sending them back, or restoring and maintaining a European based society because the fanatic lunatics in charge then, as now, worship equality, as you do. If you admit all men are equal, then logically you must deduce that all societies they create are equal, and if that is the case, then how can you even begin to think Western civilization should be protected?
I haven’t said a word about equality–and yes, the blacks could have been removed from white territory, just as they still could be, if whites had the will. The only thing whites have the will to do is watch football.
>>>Something went seriously awry in 1830s-1850s New England.<<<
Intellectuals went to Germany and got a truckload of (shitty) ideas- German Metaphysical Idealism (Platonism, which severs thought from observed reality).
They went back later in the century and got more idealisms, like transcendentalism of Hagel (Chuck Hagel's uncle) and Immanuel Kant. Epistemologically, the twentieth century was a German shithaus.
The German Idealism was rebranded and is now called Pragmatism. It is hard-headed mysticism at its wurst.
PS I forgot about Confucius, which you also mentioned, Brutus. Okay–he’s from China, not the old Aryan strip; but I’m not even sure his world wasn’t a product of old Aryan activity.
PPS Let me put it this way, Brutus: I think of all of that literature as basically a product of a brief period, in which, as I’ve said, the early civilizations arose and had many common elements, probably because they had common, if obscure, origins and were in contact with each other to, at least, some limited extent. I don’t think that that literature is without value, but I certainly don’t scour it for an answer to a question such as, “Is it right for one man to put chains on another man and force him to work for him?” If you feel you have to consult “the word of God” for an answer to that question, your view of human affairs is much different from mine.
The only reason I can see to oppose negro slavery is the same reason I oppose mexican cut-rate immigrant “slavery”. I ends up with an alien in our midst. I wholly agree that slavery was the best thing to ever happen to the negro, unfortunately it didn’t turn out so well for the rest of us. I think the British model of keeping the slaves at arms length in another continent is preferable, but even that isn’t immune to equality fanaticism. The only real way to make it work is to enforce a policy that requires every young male to go help run the plantations, and get a good up close and personal look at “other cultures”. No exceptions, no idealism.
John B could not meet my simple request above and supply any evidence to back up his assertion. Moreover, I think I was clear that I was not even talking about the abolitionists. I asked for a persuasive case that Northerners, acting under the influence, and in the name of, the force we call Liberalism, have ever had anything in mind but the complete empowerment of blacks and all non-whites in general at the expense of and in favor of whites.
John B could not meet my simple request above and supply any evidence to back up his assertion.
Brutus, my point was that there were Northerners who were opposed to slavery but who were also opposed to the presence of blacks among whites. Suppose, as I was saying, that the South had agreed to give up slavery on the condition that the blacks would be removed from U.S. territory. The political question of the continuation of slavery itself would have been eliminated. The question would have been whether the blacks should be set free within the U.S. or removed from the U.S. Do you think the South would have been unable to gain the support of enough Northerners to assemble a political majority in support of a presidential candidate advocating the latter (i.e., the removal of the blacks)? I doubt it. In fact, I was intimating that the majority of Northerners would have supported such a candidate. Can I prove that? No, I don’t suppose I can prove it. You ask me for a “persuasive case that Northerners, acting under the influence, and in the name of, the force we call Liberalism, have ever had anything in mind but the complete empowerment of blacks and all non-whites in general at the expense of and in favor of whites.” Northern cities were effectively segregated for decades after blacks began migrating to the North. In effect, they still are, in the sense that whites, in the wake of the 1960s successes of the so-called civil rights movements, built new cities–the suburbs–to which they moved when they were no longer able to keep themselves apart from blacks in the original cities. I don’t know whether that’s “persuasive,” but it’s certainly evidence that a great many Northern whites are no more comfortable around blacks than are Southerners.
The Union was all for equality. As much as Seilberg cartoonized it, Lincoln was a radical egalitarian.
I like what Jim said at 7:13 GMT.
After reading these comments one might recall a certain passage from Mein Kampf about squeezing jelly. The key points raised by the fanatic here are that 19th century Yankees were not to a man comfortable with the idea of feral Negroes and 21st century Whites seem content watching football and vacuuming their lawns. It’s true John B. didn’t say “a word about equality”. He dare not. If he thought Negroes were inferior to Whites, why object to their enslavement? If he thought Negroes were or had the potential to ever be equal to Whites in any meaningful sense, why desire separatism?
“The German Idealism was rebranded and is now called Pragmatism. It is hard-headed mysticism at its wurst.”
Yep, secular philosophy is such a malfunctioning shit-sandwich, the whole discipline should be relegated to same realm as astrology and ufology.
It’s true John B. didn’t say “a word about equality”. He dare not. If he thought Negroes were inferior to Whites, why object to their enslavement? If he thought Negroes were or had the potential to ever be equal to Whites in any meaningful sense, why desire separatism?
Oh, right, Tamer, I “dare not,” because I’m not a manly man like you Southerners. How many times do I have to say it: I object to all slavery, regardless of the color of the masters or the slaves. That’s not because I think all men are created equal, whatever that’s supposed to mean; it’s because, as I’ve said, the capacity of all humans–or even parahumans–to experience frustration and humiliation leads me to the view that they should not be forced to serve others. To me, that right, not to be enslaved, is fundamental, like, say, the right not to be silenced (“freedom of speech”). By a fundamental right, I mean one that should be extended to every person, regardless of his or her place on a scale of talents, traits, or virtues. I don’t say, “Freedom of speech should be extended only to those with an IQ of 130 or more.” There are probably persons who think that would be a reasonable approach to freedom of speech; I don’t. I think every person, no matter how poor in spirit, should be free from being silenced. That, to me, is just decency. (D-e-c-e-n-c-y. Look it up.)
If he thought Negroes were or had the potential to ever be equal to Whites in any meaningful sense, why desire separatism?
Obviously, you’ve put that as a rhetorical question, which is to say you’re not interested in an answer; I’ll give you one anyway. I don’t have to reach that question, as a lawyer would say. It is enough for me to say that, in my view, the presence of whites among blacks is not good for whites or blacks. I don’t have to get into questions of superiority or inferiority or equality etc. If you want to spend the rest of your life debating IQ statistics or notions of “athletic intelligence” or whatever, feel free to do so, along with the rest of the white nationalists who’ve accomplished absolutely nothing in the past half century. That’s not my practice. If someone were to say to me, “Well, don’t you enjoy the musical recordings of Little Richard?” I would say yes. If that same person were then to say to me, “Well, if whites and blacks be separated, as you think they should be, you might be depriving yourself and whites yet-to-be-born of simliar music,” I would say, “That’s true and, in a sense, unfortunate, but I think the presence of whites among blacks is not good for whites or blacks.”
It’s pretty simple, Tamer. I’m speaking English. Do they teach that in Dixie?
PS “Poor in spirit,” the phrase I used above, is, as you may know, from the Bible that Brutus was going on about. There are some of us who consult that book for guidance on the treating of our fellow humans respectfully, not for justification of the base desire to push them around. Among my friends, acquaintances, and neighbors, I fear, are many persons who wish I’d consulted it more frequently than I have.
I’m a pro-South New Netherlander like the man that wrote this book: http://archive.org/stream/whitesupremacyne00vane#page/n5/mode/2up
but I think the presence of whites among blacks is not good for whites or blacks.”
I think a presence of subservient blacks is a bulwark against intrawhite class warfare.
To me, that right, not to be enslaved, is fundamental, like, say, the right not to be silenced (“freedom of speech”).
Your convictions are derived more from the teachings of Robespierre than Jesus Christ.
John B. : what little real freedom exists in this world exists because white men fought for it. It was not magically given to us from a piece of paper or nature or nature’ s God. Thousands of years living, quarreling, working, and cooperating together trained whites as a society to wield more freedom than exists in any other civilization. This is not to say that Western civilization is the only great one, it is not by far, but it is the most free and wealthiest. My point being as Hunter has already covered in detail, and as Paul Kersey has pointed out as well: freedom given to the wrong societies will end in poverty and corruption at best, and a return to slavery with bloodbath at worst.
Amurrica, as you, are drunk on freedom. Its populace believes that every inch of the globe should have Western style freedom NOW, and once the freedom injection is received, the previously barbaric country will instantly love equality, democracy, and Walmart shopping. The number of white men dying to administer the injection is immaterial. The blockheads don’ t stop to consider that Western style liberty is particular to Europeans, that others don’ t want it and probably can’ t handle it. Passing freedom out, like dime store candy, to the turd world what our ancestors paid a very dear price for is disrespect to their memory and sacrifice.
If I understood you correctly, you don’ t believe in God but you believe in a universal and natural right to be free. You are a hair’ s width from the freedom fetish.
John B.: I noticed that you used the same tactic the left commonly uses, namely, using Christian doctrine not because you believe it is right, but because its doctrine is easily subverted for the Marxist cause and then used as a hammer to beat believers about the head and shoulders.
I have found it always more effective to approach the leftists using atheism and evolution even though I don’ t believe in either. The left has always claimed to be the side of science and reason. It’ s fun to push them from this side and watch them quickly reveal the shallowness of their “reason” and the pure blind seething and godless religion that props it up.
I like your clever play on those German words.
And because this is a history site, we also have to set the record straight that the British idea of John Stuart Mill wasn’t a good future investment either.
There are two basic issues with slavery, what it does to the slaves, and what it does to the slaveowners.
I do not believe that Negroes are equal to Whites in any measurable physical, mental, or emotional way. This is an extension of the idea that there are no groups of humans that are equal to any other group of humans in those ways, else there would be no sense in team sports, or for that matter wars. There are also no individual humans that are equal to any other human in these ways to a perfect match, not even identical twins. One twin is always half a point of IQ smarter or can run the 440 yard dash in a tenth of a second less.
I am profoundly unequal to everyone else I know, depending on the metric being used, either better or worse. I am not very good at certain types of fine motor activity and pretty good at others. I was a fair medium distance runner as a kid but today could easily be outrun by many others even of my own primary characteristics and age.
Blacks are, as a group, profoundly less able to do many types of cognitive reasoning and do not possess much long term discipline. A great many American blacks and the overwhelming majority of sub-Saharan Africans are, to put it bluntly, plain stupid by White standards. Does this give us the moral authority to exterminate, enslave or otherwise inflict damage on them? I would argue that it does not unless their continued existence were reasonably certain to result in our own demise, and I do not believe it does.
By the same token, Ashkenazi Jews are somewhat smarter in many aspects than we are, especially in verbal fluency and they possess many racial characteristics that have been very largely responsible for the situation in which they and we find ourselves. Does this give them the right to extirpate us through racial intermixture and the other tactics they have deployed against us? I think not.
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. Toward that end, slavery that results in the presence of non-Whites among us is bad for us for racial reasons. The average Negro slave in the antebellum South did better in many ways than the vast majority of African blacks do today, and better than many American blacks today as well. But that’s not all that important to us.
The effect on us of having slaves of any type, even without the racial issues, is highly corrosive morally. Slaveowning societies stagnate. Having to deal with other humans, even (or especially) those profoundly unequal to oneself in all measurable ways, as humans with free agency or not at all is necessary to the development of our own people. The antebellum South had some major virtues, but it lost in very large part because of characteristics it had which had nothing to do with the perfidy of Yankees or Jews.
That does not mean the South is permanently tainted with evil, or that it might not be a lot better place for White people to live now or in the future than the Northeast, but it does mean that the nonindustrial agrarian plantation model is not a very good one for any entire sovereign state. You need manufacturing and you need competition. Slave agriculture is too big a competitor for capital and too conducive toward the development of an aristocracy doomed sooner or later to utter worthlessness.
“I have found it always more effective to approach the leftists using atheism and evolution even though I don’ t believe in either. ”
This is a favorite tactic of mine as well. I use evolutionary talking points and lots of Darwin quotes. Within about two minutes their argument for human “equality” is reduced to a matter that must be taken on blind faith, and then I hit that stance with the atheism uppercut using Dawkin’s anti-God arguments. Leaves them incredibly enraged and sputtering nonsense. Good fun!
If one begins from the premise that every breed on this Earth serves a discernible and divinely ordained function, for what other reason does the Negro exist but to serve and entertain the great White race? Before Yankee agitation Negroes took pride in dedicating themselves to a white family in service. The abolitionists and their ideological inheritors are the meddling type that try to help the help. They’ll think nothing of fetching themselves drinks or sweeping a floor in front of servants. They see the work of servants/slaves as beneath themselves and solipsistically beneath all people which is far from an accurate appraisal and very condescending towards a dignified servant/slave.
Your convictions are derived more from the teachings of Robespierre than Jesus Christ.
You don’t know anything about Robespierre or Jesus Christ, Tamer, so just shut the fuck up. (Sorry, Mr. Wallace, but there comes a point … ) You’re just typing for the sake of typing. It’s reflexive hostility, an incapacity to consider anything that’s been said to you. That, as I’ve come to learn, here at OD, is not unheard of among Southerners; in fact, it’s the South’s whole history.
Amurrica, as you, are drunk on freedom. Its populace believes that every inch of the globe should have Western style freedom NOW, and once the freedom injection is received, the previously barbaric country will instantly love equality, democracy, and Walmart shopping. The number of white men dying to administer the injection is immaterial. The blockheads don’ t stop to consider that Western style liberty is particular to Europeans, that others don’ t want it and probably can’ t handle it.
As is so often the case here at OD, Wayne, I receive a supposed response that has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. I haven’t said one thing that suggests I think “every inch of the globe should have Western style freedom NOW”–or ever. Evidently, you think refraining from traveling to a foreign land, putting its inhabitants in chains, and transporting them to your own land to work involuntarily for you is “granting them Western style freedom.” I guess you really are a Southerner.
I noticed that you used the same tactic the left commonly uses, namely, using Christian doctrine not because you believe it is right, but because its doctrine is easily subverted for the Marxist cause and then used as a hammer to beat believers about the head and shoulders.
Obviously, I can’t fool you, Wayne. “Christian doctrine”–you’re a Southerner, you don’t know anything about Christian doctrine. Christianity–which means, in your mind, the Old Testament–is just your preferred form of epic poetry. “And, lo, Zebadiah said unto Rehoboth, ‘Come ye unto the Lord, for he smiteth’ etc. etc.” (That’s right, I made up those names; I have no idea whether they’re in that agglomeration of Jewish nonsense.) If you can’t respond to the points I’ve made, quit trying an end-run via analysis of my alleged tactics.
I have found it always more effective to approach the leftists using atheism and evolution even though I don’ t believe in either. The left has always claimed to be the side of science and reason. It’ s fun to push them from this side and watch them quickly reveal the shallowness of their “reason” and the pure blind seething and godless religion that props it up.
Knock yourself out, Wayne. Personally, I find conversing with leftists a complete waste of time.
Tamer, Wayne: Do you see the comment that was posted by Vendikar at 1:31 am, December 24? Whether or not I agree with every clause of it, I recognize it as the product of a capable mind, concerned for the white race. I suggest you study it–as a model to emulate.
PS Tamer–I’ve just noticed your comment of 9:34 pm, December 23:
I think a presence of subservient blacks is a bulwark against intrawhite class warfare.
I don’t agree with that; but at least, it qualifies as a response to something I’ve said. Is somebody else using your ID?
John B is obtuse.
There’s no reason why slaves couldn’t have been apprenticed out in the 1870s.
That a war was fought over them is a mystery for the ages. Except when you read about
Abolitionists showing off the pets like this.
Has anyone ever wondered why we say “go get dressed” instead of “go dress”?
Abolition led to the steady decline in American and ultimately European fashion because very few families could afford a proper staff, those that could imported from Europe after the first generation freed men passed away. Formal wardrobe changes throughout the day were phased out and fashion was dumbed-down to make it easy for a man to dress himself and then clumsily help his wife. As the wife took on more household duties, dresses were abandoned altogether. Thank the abolitionists next time you see a white woman shuffling around in crusty sweatpants.
sorry “yoga pants”
gimme a break.
PPS Wayne — I see now why you thought I was suggesting “every inch of the globe should have Western style freedom NOW.” When I said the right not to be enslaved should be “extended” to every person, I meant whites should refrain from enslaving, not that they should go out into the world liberating.
PPPS On the chance that my use of the word “extended” gave you the same impression that, evidently, it gave Wayne, Tamer, I withdraw my harsh reaction to your Robespierre comment.
Vendikar: I agree with everything you wrote. My only argument is that slavery is unwise and, at least nowadays, a waste of resources, but it is not some great moral evil. I see it a lot like bigamy, not wise but not evil in and of itself. Of course, like anything else, it may be executed in an evil way, but I certainly don’ t believe that was how it was done in the South.
“Something went seriously awry in 1830s-1850s New England.”
No, they were seriously crazy even before then. Outlawing Christmas and holding crazy witch trials are early evidence of yankee mental instability. English Dissenters were the prototype for the crazed modern liberal drunk with utopian ideology.
Puritanism wasn’t exactly the sanest heresy to come down the pike. Its offspring were even crazier.
The Shakers are my all time favorite dysfunctional yankee suicidal cult divorced from reality. People who don’t believe in sex probably have no problem believing in magic negroes. Before they become extinct, that is.
Shining city or whited sepulchre? I vote the latter.
“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”
You won’t be doing much of that until you deal with the anti-white whites (aka yankees).
Secession is the only way to nullify their effect on at least the Southern segment of the white population. Of course the very idea of Southern secession provokes murderous rage in all true yankees and their proselytes.
The South should not remain shackled to the putrid corpse of the yankee nation.
The unbinding of the South must be reattempted in our time to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.
Deo Vindice
Ever notice that many of the modern philosophies and modern heresies come from men who were too sickly to serve in the Army or Navy? They sat around with the women dreaming up nonsense.
“Wilberforce was a small, sickly and delicate child, with poor eyesight.[3] In 1767 he began attending Hull Grammar School,[4] at the time headed by a young, dynamic headmaster, Joseph Milner, who was to become a lifelong friend.”
I think their cycles even became synchronized. Sickly weirdos should be forced to hang out with real men.
Jim, in due time I am going to work my way through the “modern” philosophers whose ideas hold so much sway over modern opinion (thanks to modern media and academia). I already know that John Stuart Mill suffered a mental breakdown and married a pioneer of femenism, he also hung out with Auguste de Compte, a socialist freak who was one of the first to coin the word “progress” in relation to utopian radicalism (the motto of Brazil, Order and Progress, is taken directly from him). Compte trief to commit suicide various timed.
The highly esteemed (by Academia) George Eliot, was another sick slut who maintained an open marriage with her beta cuckold.
You may have a point in that all the best men of Britain went to war while the betas, schizos, and dykes bred.
” I already know that John Stuart Mill….”
I’m convinced that his promotion of Utilitarianism provided those with a haste to do away with God-centered morality a way to justify man-made morals. Until Utilitarianism, New England radicalism was relegated to a few small circles of whack jobs. Utilitarianism allowed it to go mainstream, by appealing to man’s need for a moral foundation, and his desire for one that suited his capriciousness.
“You may have a point in that all the best men of Britain went to war while the betas, schizos, and dykes bred.”
A good argument for forced sterilization can be made…
There was a negrophillic rot-gut piece of PC crap movie a while back entitled “Children of Men”.
I have a better idea for a movie, and this one is a documentary.
“Children of Women: The History of the Progressive Movement”.
With slavery in the British system there were plenty of reasons to abandon it. We only practiced it in a few colonies. We were also attempting to gut rivals like France and Spain. Plenty of selfish hard nosed realism in removing Haiti from the French portfolio, for example.
John B. finally begins to reveal himself.
The foulmouthed classical liberal calls a mountain of guillotined heads moral highground. He thinks conversing with leftists is “a waste of time” because as an anti-Aristocratic rabblerouser in a world without Aristocracy there’s no more use for them. But wait; They’re still around and the bones of better men have long been picked clean. That’s a tough spot, he must at once oppose the mob while espousing their ideology, one he long since tried to put the brakes on.
Now John B. rips at his garments because of a seminal missed opportunity in US history. What was it? Apparently the failure to hold a referendum where hopefully the white mob would have voted 51% YEA to remain separate from free Negroes. Sorry John B., demagogic societies like the Lincoln-era and onward North and occupied South aren’t renowned for foresight past the next election cycle.
Abolition of Negro slavery. Universal suffrage. Gay rights. Public healthcare. Dingleberries on parade. Where does this freakshow of extra-Constitutional so-called “fundamental rights” spring from? I would say the anti-Christian French revolution that represented and implemented all those tenets. When does it end? It ends when we reject the principles of the French revolution and scalawags like Thomas Paine and distinguish them from the American revolution of which the Confederacy is the rightful ideological heir.
Except when you read about abolitionists showing off the pets like this.
You haven’t said anything there, John. You’re just being unkindly glib: “showing off the pets.” That sort of rhetoric seems to come naturally to American whites (a group of which I’ll regard you as an honorary member). Never does it further anything; never does it solve a problem. Evidently, you’re not satisfied simply to be indifferent to the plight of beings who were dragged out of a world they knew and placed up on auction blocks for sale; no–your proud self-image as callous white man compels you to denigrate them further–as “pets”–when you encounter an episode like the one in the passage Mr. Wallace has quoted here. Your hatred wells up viscerally at the thought that a white man might have wanted to treat one of them respectfully enough to allow him to sit in a carriage with the man’s kin. Of course, you play the Jewish game, too, of psychoanalysis, as you “hazard a guess that there was kink involved.” Spare us. You’re not even worthy of the appellation Englishman; your departure from England was a gain for the British Isles–and pretty much a wash for America.
Sickly weirdos should be forced to hang out with real men.
Great idea, Jim. That way, maybe the weirdos will learn how to operate, say, leaf blowers, while their countries go to hell.
“Great idea, Jim. That way, maybe the weirdos will learn how to operate, say, leaf blowers, while their countries go to hell.”
It’d be a start. Crawl before you walk.
Do you know how to operate a leaf blower?
“Of course, you play the Jewish game, too”
Anti-semites, take note. This clown is one of your own.
Do you know how to operate a leaf blower?
I think I could manage. The only leaves with which I have to deal are the ones that blow over from the properties of my white neighbors, who were too stupid to realize that the lawns in this neighborhood are too small for shade trees. I rake them.
PS I’m particularly pleased, Jim, with my white neighbor who runs a roofing business and who presumes to use our block’s common rear driveway as a place to load and unload his truck. His house is just two doors over, where my car picked up a roofing nail that destroyed one of the tires and thus cost me about One Hundred Ten Dollars (US$110). Why don’t you ask him whether he knows how to operate a leaf blower? He seems like a real man.
The black is paraded around like a pet dog by DWL and their intellectual ancestors the abolitionists.
Your slip is showing John B. It must get drafty coming up short all the time when you hitch your skirts up.
A-ha. This is starting to get good. Stretch out on the couch and tell us about the white girl that dumped you in grade school or the time a white pitcher struck you out in the little league play-offs. Did a Jew ever treat you in a discourteously?