Michigan
Matt Parrott writes:
“The Catholic Church that Chechar envisions destroying Latin America and the Protestant Yankees Hunter Wallace envisions destroying Dixie are merely the zombie carcasses of Christianity, spearheads of the capitalist impulse to expand into their respective societies and steamroll over all the institutional and ideological obstacles to the profit which feeds the power structure.”
A few thoughts:
1.) I think it is a mistake for anyone to search for a “root cause” of our plight.
If you look at it from a Southern Nationalist perspective, the dominant theme is going to be a neverending series of disasters that have been inflicted on the South as a consequence of the existence of the Union.
Suppose you were talking about Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, or Alaska. Like the South, the Far West states have also been peripheral to America’s national decline. Brokeback Mountain, for example, was a short story created by a Connecticut Yankee who graduated from the University of Vermont.
It is places like New York City and Los Angeles that create the dominant culture and it is the masses of White people who live in the Northeastern corridor, that area in the Deep North settled by Yankees that stretches along the Canadian border from Maine to Minnesota, and down the Pacific Coast who are in the driver’s seat of America’s decline and who are taking us over the cliff.
The rest of the country – places like King County, TX – are the passengers strapped and locked in the backseat by the existence of the Union. If they had control of the vehicle, their cultural DNA would move them in another direction.
2.) If you look at it like Chechar from the perspective of Mexico, it is extremely hard to blame Jewish influence (which was minimal after the Inquisition) for the way the racial caste system evolved in Latin America as opposed to North America.
Catholicism played a more important role there. The same is true of New Orleans which because of its Latin and Catholic origins was always the great outlier to the South’s “one drop rule” racial caste system.
The precise mix of causes of our racial and cultural decline will vary depending upon location. In the South, Christianity sustained the Confederate war effort, sanctified the “Lost Cause” during the Jim Crow era, and fueled opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and the Counterculture, whereas in the North it led to William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and the Freedom Riders.
Christianity had little to do with the South’s racial and cultural decline: the Southern Baptist Convention didn’t embrace anti-racism until the 1990s. It was the last major cultural institution in the entire country to do so.
In Cuba, which like the American South was part of the “Golden Circle” civilization, the Catholic Church was an adjunct of the establishment:
“The Church was part of the system of slavery. It supported, reinforced, and reflected the status quo. It preached obedience to the white master among the slaves, and propagandized the then present inequality and suffering as preparation for an equitable afterlife.”
3.) The history of the South and the Caribbean shows that capitalism can fuel the growth of a racial caste system.
Seymour Drescher’s The Mighty Experiment: Free Labor versus Slavery in British Emancipation, Fogel and Engerman’s Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery, and Christopher Brown’s Moral Capital: Foundations of British Aboltionism show how the “Golden Circle” was cut down in its prime.
The driving force behind the demise of New World slavery was the emergence of evangelical Christianity in Britain in the late eighteenth century. Methodism fueled anti-slavery in Britain while bolstering slavery in the South.
Like the Catholic Church in Cuba vs. Mexico, Methodism in Britain vs. the South illustrates how a causal factor like Christianity can interact with another causal factor like the plantation complex to produce one result in one area and exactly the opposite result in another area.
The presence of slavery in the South and the Caribbean moderated the Jewish Question. The lack of slavery in the North meant that whiteness was of less importance there and led to more explosive conflicts over religion, ethnicity, and class.
The Second World War completely transformed White racial attitudes in the North – the war against Hitler was seen as an ideological crusade for Americanism – whereas it had no impact at all on the South.
Three of the biggest causal factors in the North’s racial decline – Jewish influence, evangelical Christianity, and the Second World War as an ideological catalyst – crashed like waves on a beach at the Mason-Dixon line.
I ran across this remark by Charles Lindbergh earlier tonight.
Has anyone ever simply looked at Jews as a percentage of the population or the society’s leadership caste to see if there is a pattern in terms of a % that will “catalyze” a reaction and move a society in directions friendly to Jews?
Maybe the reason Jews didn’t come to dominate in the South is their numbers never got high enough as a percentage of key positions versus the North from the 1880s forward.
I doubt it.
Jews were well represented in the commercial elite in cities like Birmingham, Montgomery, and Selma. South Carolina had the largest Jewish population of the 13 original colonies.
In the West Indies, Jews were an even larger share of the White population in Jamaica, but there wasn’t much Jew vs. White antagonism there either. Jews were even in the Senate when Florida and Louisiana seceded.
There really wasn’t much of a Jewish Question in America in the 17th, 18th, and through most of the 19th century. It really wasn’t until the late 19th century when tons of Jews came over after 1880 from Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe that it started to become a serious problem.
IMO, this is strongly related to Jewish emancipation in the 19th century, particularly in Eastern Europe, and the spread of leftwing revolutionary politics after the French Revolution.
The Jews who had been in the Caribbean and South America for centuries before the French Revolution weren’t caught up in that sub-culture.
Mai temere Roma, il serpente se ne sta attorcigliato a Napoli.
It’s cultural, it’s local, which is the point of self-determination. Even history only gets you so far: many historical events are tainted by their association with today’s culture and politics. It is said that whenever a new dynasty was founded in China, the history was changed so that the villains of the past dynasty became heroes, and the heroes villains.
I think it is a mistake for anyone to search for a “root cause” of our plight.
That’s because there is no universal white “our”.
And No-Man, does that situation not change as “our” (Whites) numbers continue to decline globally? Is there not a point at which demographics begin to force a more “united front” approach ?
The situation doesn’t change, there will be no code red or statistical watershed moment.
Global trends that show a decreasing white percentage are due to population growth in non-white countries far removed from our perception, not a white die off. There have never been more white people on the North American continent than today.
It feels ‘wrong’ to me that there is no ‘code red’ coming based on what I see in various places. For example, I was in Toronto recently and it felt like being in the twilight zone due to amazing amount of non-Whites in the city. Jeppo posted the most recent Canadian stats a little while back, and Toronto is already down to 52% White in “official” numbers, but it felt much less, to be honest. (I realize that isn’t hard evidence).
Anyways, thanks for answering.
@Hunter
Please, the local Jewish rag merchant, or wandering peddler as a commercial elite. LOL.
There was a time not that long ago when many White Americans would not shop in a Jew owned store. If you ever encountered one of the old time Jew merchants you would understand why.
From my recollection a displaced jew from WWII Yugoslavia owned a nice shoe store in my little town, they were a fine family, ironically displaced from their business by a WASP family by the name of Walton.
It only seems minimal if you overlook crypto-jews. Most everyone else has forgotten, but jews everywhere still seethe over the Christian/Goth “holocaust” 500 years ago, which ended their “golden age” in muslim-ruled Spain. How has this colored the minds and actions of jews and “new Christians”? What impact did this have on racial policy in Latin America?
At any rate, the consequences of this long-term jewish influence are still visible in Latin American politics today.
Mary,
The white mayor of Toronto smokes crack with Negroes. There is a quality problem, not a quantity problem.
Next time, go to Montreal.
At any rate, the consequences of this long-term jewish influence are still visible in Latin American politics today.
Maduro is a typical modern socialist careerist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/world/americas/nicolas-maduro-chavezs-chosen-successor-draws-mixed-opinions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
But he also has a mystical side. He has been a follower of the late Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba. Mr. Maduro and Ms. Flores visited the guru in India in 2005. A photograph on a Sai Baba Web site records the visit, showing Mr. Maduro crouched at the feet of the orange-clad guru
He is Catholic-Hindu-Jew, everything and hence nothing.
*just a post to get my link in cookies on this computer*
Why so anti-White?
There is no universal human “our”.
There is no universal American “our”.
There is no universal Yankee “our”.
There is no universal Southern Nationalist “our”.
There is no universal Latin American “our”.
There is no universal Christian “our”.
There is no universal jew “our”.
Yet somehow, miraculously, people still discuss these identities as if they actually exist.
Hunter Wallace writes:
I think it is a mistake for anyone to search for a “root cause” of our plight.
I respond:
Very good. One of the worst problems of the right wing, both the racial right and the aracial right, is our silver bullet thinking and mentality. The idea that if we just do one thing, enact or repeal one piece of legislation, or read and embrace this one screed, everything else will fall into place in a chain reaction and all our problems will be solved. That HW is not searching like Diogenes for a “root cause” probably means he doesn’t buy into this silly silver bullet mentality. All searching for a “root cause” accomplishes is advocating some sort of silver bullet solution once one finds that “root cause,” (and often, that “root cause” isn’t much of a root cause at all.)
Case in point, Alabama’s anti-miscegenation law was nullified in 1967 by the Loving decision, whereas Massachusetts had repealed its own anti-miscegenation law way back in 1843.
In the case of Alabama, the existence of the Union, not any change in public sentiment was responsible for nullifying the law. In the case of Massachusetts, the demise of the anti-miscegenation law was one of the earliest casualties of abolitionism.
Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780. Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act was struck down by the Loving decision in 1967.
There is no universal human “our”.
False.
There is no universal Christian “our”.
False.
Humans exist to love God and serve him, this naturally extends to those created in his image: mankind. This is our plight.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” – Jesus Christ
That’s because there is no universal white “our”. – No-Man
It’s also because causation is so complex nothing in human affairs can be reduced to “fixed causes.” It doesn’t moot to questions (not sure you’re going that far):
>Proportion of Jewish versus White contribution to decline
>How much is “our” fault versus Jews’ fault
There is an arbitrary element to all historical analysis. One has to choose a period or “slice” of history to examine. On this view, even though they made different choices, there is still some truth to all three models (HW, MP, Chechar).
I think that once you “frame” a given historical question, you can’t answer it if you don’t select the right portion of history to examine to throw light on the question. It doesn’t mean any given question is meaningless or unanswerable because there is arbitrariness involved.
No-man says:
June 1, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Mary, The white mayor of Toronto smokes crack with Negroes. There is a quality problem, not a quantity problem.
What a disappointing reply from you. And ‘quantity’ is most certainly a problem when a formerly White city, Canada’s largest, turns into a (just about) majority non-White city in a very short space of time.
Rob Ford has been hounded mercilessly by those who desperately want him out (majority jews/libturds/homos) since he became Mayor of Toronto. He has been cutting a lot of the considerable waste and , you will notice, is a White man in an increasingly ‘Browning’ city; hence the hostile mobs after him.
A lot of the Whites I spoke with in TO love the guy, and love how he thumbs his nose at many of the traditionally ‘sacred cows’ of TO politics , much like he did here with the homos and their disgusting ‘Pride Parade’ ; twice!:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/06/29/so-rob-ford-doesnt-like-the-gay-pride-parade-so-what/
By the way, he denies the ‘crack smoking’ allegations and says the tape being floated about is just a doctored phony and more harassment by the usual suspects.
Two weeks ago, the U.S. website Gawker and the Star said they had seen cellphone video made by a drug dealer that apparently showed Ford smoking crack cocaine.
The reports have not been independently verified and the Star itself has said it could not vouch for its authenticity. Gawker has raised $200,000 to try to buy the video.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/allegations+surface+drug+scandal+swirling+around+Torontos/8454908/story.html#ixzz2Uz0t3ZGP
One has to choose a period or “slice” of history to examine.
Which is why comparing Chechar’s Mexico with Hunter’s USA is a non-starter.
Some people are desperate for a “skeleton key” to history, that’s why the Jews, being so dispersed in the world get much attention from the type of people profiled in Anti-semite & Jew.
I didn’t argue that there’s one simple quick fix, but I do believe there was one simple cause: The Colonial Age inundated European peasant merchants and Jews with an historically unprecedented tsunami of wealth from around the globe which they’ve leveraged against the traditional and tribal elites and continue to leverage against them to this day.
I am indeed a monocausalist. All of these “words” being thrown around, about egalitarianism, about theological this or legislative that, is all derivative in nature. Elite money chooses which horses get to race and which horses remain in the pen.
The North vs. South stuff obviously matters for people in the South. But in the grand historical sweep of things, it couldn’t possibly matter less. The Southern oligarchs were greedy degenerate scumbags who bet on chattel slavery instead of factory machinery, losing out as their economic model imploded on them and the nearest powerful oligarchy swept into control.
There’s this romantic ideal built around these Southern “aristocrats” which is only sustained by their not having been around to prove just how degenerate they were destined to become. Had the Northern industrialists been defeated in 1865, it would be rather straightforward to construct an idyllic narrative around these old timey oligarchs.
Their profit stream was threatened, so they sent hundreds of thousands of honest White men to die in one massive wave after another in defense of their right to own and breed even more negroes. It’s a sick irony that so many in racialist circles have anything but contempt for a wealthy caste of scumbags who drove their own folk to eating clay and fleeing West and to the Southern Midwest as refugees in a maniacal quest to seize profit by replacing their kinfolk with an enslaved alien race
I’m glad the South lost. I just wish that somehow the North could have lost, too.
Mary,
You’re defending a crack-smoking mangia-cake.
Talk about disappointing replies.
Chechar launched the debate by claiming there is something seriously wrong with us, something seriously wrong with white people, and that Jewish influence is a secondary factor in decline.
To examine this particular issue, you have to look at the portions of history where Jewish influence was relevant. This would be periods when:
– Jews were in a position to rise to power
– Jews rose to power
– What happened?
There is no example in history where: 1) Jews entered white society, 2) rose to power and 3) did not eventually help to damage the society or help to send it into decline.
The American South is an outlier. It’s an exception to the generaltrend of Jews helping send white societies into decline once they get power above a certain threshold. The intervention of the Civil War makes it impossible to know how the relationship between Southern Jews to Southern elites would have developed over time.
Where are the white societies that soared to new heights after empowering Jews?
Whites I spoke with in TO love the guy
This ad populum pablum. Maybe they voted for him because they’d rather have a beer with him than the competitor? He sure seems like a party animal in the below photo with his negro pals.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/42641/rob-ford-crack-video-you-have-to-see-it-to-believe-it
To bypass Hunter’s spamzer I have directed the link from my name – for this post – to a photo of Rob Ford wearing the same sweatshirt as he is in the still image with his negro crackhead friends.
Lew et al,
Yes, and see my reply to Matt’s piece (here).
That was a fine response Chechar. Since the debate started here, I’m going to leave my comments here. I wanted to mention that though.
1.) First, the agro-industrial plantation complex in the South and the Caribbean, particularly the sugar mill, was the precursor of the factory system, and that economic model never “imploded.”
Saint-Domingue was thriving when it was destroyed. The British West Indies and the French West Indies were thriving when abolition was imposed there. Cuba and Brazil were thriving when abolition was imposed there. The South was thriving when the Confederacy was created.
In all of these areas, a more advanced form of agriculture was replaced by a more primitive form of agriculture (it wasn’t until the 1930s in the South that the fragmentation of the plantations was reversed), and there was a dizzying collapse from the prosperity created by slavery to the wretched poverty created by “freedom” and “equality.”
2.) Second, the demise of New World slavery was the result of the rise of the fanatical abolitionist movement in Britain, France, and the Northern United States, which stemmed from Enlightenment liberalism and evangelical Christianity.
3.) Third, Caribbean sugar and Southern cotton was a massive stimulus to the British and French economy, and especially the Northern economy. The parts of the North that had the closest ties to the Southern economy – which is to say, New York City – tended to be pro-Southern Democratic strongholds.
4.) Fourth, the South didn’t industrialize along the Northern pattern because the South was never as geologically endowed as the North or Britain in that respect, and still isn’t today in the 21st century, and never will be.
5.) Fifth, it is a myth that the elite planters were behind secession. The richest planters were men like Alexander Stephens who opposed secession. The richest planters in the entire South lived in the Mississippi Delta which only reluctantly embraced secession.
6.) Finally, only someone who is grossly ignorant of Southern history would blame Appalachia’s poverty and backwardness on the plantation system. The plantation system never existed in the mountains. The people who lived there were poor because they were subsistence farmers who weren’t integrated into the Southern economy.
Appalachia’s poverty in places like sparkling White eastern Kentucky and West Virginia persisted long after the abolition of slavery. That place is still one of the poorest parts of America and it never had anything to do with slavery which created prosperity in the river valleys.
BTW, those idiots fought for the Union, not the Confederacy, and were instrumental in the Confederate defeat and inflicting abolition and black citizenship on the entire country.
How in the world did cotton plantations hundreds of miles away in Alabama and Georgia force White people in Kentucky and West Virginia to eat dirt and move to Illinois and Indiana? Insofar as there was slavery in Kentucky, it was small tobacco farms, not cotton plantations, and more Kentuckians fought for the Union than the Confederacy.
In our case, there is a simple cause: virtually every racial and cultural disaster from abolition to Obama that comes to mind was imposed on the South as a result of the existence of the Union.
Kevin MacDonald linked to the previous article and agreed that there is something seriously wrong with Yankees.
I didn’t blame Appalachia’s poverty and backwardness on the plantation system.
Do you know how long it takes to drive in the 21st century from the plantation belt in Central Alabama to West Virginia or eastern Kentucky or southern Indiana?
Feel free to explain to us how small scale tobacco farms in Kentucky which were on the extreme periphery of the world of slavery could force White people in the Upper South – in the overwhelmingly White highlands and upcountry – to eat clay and move to Southern Illinois.
Matt Parrott writes: ‘The Southern oligarchs were greedy degenerate scumbags who bet on chattel slavery instead of factory machinery, losing out as their economic model imploded on them and the nearest powerful oligarchy swept into control.’
Matt, my opinion of you just dropped considerably. You re going to win no friends in the South like that. I truly don’t get this anti-Southern mentality of yours.
“Some people are desperate for a “skeleton key” to history, that’s why the Jews, being so dispersed in the world get much attention from the type of people profiled in Anti-semite & Jew.
And some people are using history to deflect from now. Now the single biggest cause of White genocide is the media lying and as the media is completely dominated by Jews ergo Jews actively seek global White genocide.
It couldn’t get any more plain.
The Southern oligarchs created a social system where 1.) the Jewish Question was defused and 2.) Americanism was restrained and ultimately rejected 3.) and where “whiteness” actually had social value.
As far back as the 1840s, the North was boiling over with insane, utopian ideas and was steadily advancing like a glacier toward its present incarnation. The Southern antebellum critics of the North’s social system were absolutely right in pointing to the absence of slavery as the cause of its downfall.
Without slavery, there was no need for White racial consciousness. There was no anchor to impose limits on “freedom” and “equality” and “democracy.”
Well obviously I don’t speak for MP, but I don’t see where MP has shown any hostility to Southerners collectively as opposed to the oligarchs who ran the system for their own benefit as all elites do, not just Southern ones. From an economic standpoint, is it not true the oligarchs captured most of the economic benefits of the plantation model? I’ve read that 75% of Southerners (more in some estimates) had no economic interest in slavery. The Southern system created by the oligarchs is tainted by its reliance on slavery. There is no getting around this. They’re inseparable. As Southerner, I wish it wasn’t true. It’s true.
In the Lower Chattahoochee Valley where I am from, around 50 percent of White families were slave owners, with half the slaves being owned by “planters,” and the other half being owned by people who owned less than 20 slaves. The majority of the slaves lived on a plantation, but the overwhelming majority of slaveowners were not planters.
Compare Southern slavery to the North’s industries..
Half the White families in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley owned slaves. The other half of non-slaveowners played support roles in the slave-based economy. The typical non-slaveholder had a reasonable chance of becoming a slaveowner.
Now, what percentage of Northerners owned stock in the North’s factories and railroad corporations? In their “free labor” system, how was wealth distributed? Was it concentrated at the top? Did the average Northerner have a better chance of becoming a Cornelius Vanderbilt than the average Southerner had of becoming a John C. Calhoun?
Well, that would be still another classification of another type of monocausalism: those who believe that the “economics over race” policies that have plagued white societies since the beginning of history (what I metaphorically refer to as the “One Ring”) are, like in the Wagner & Tolkien dramas, behind the decline & fall of the West.
I’ll paraphrase here what I told Desmond Jones in the bicausal thread. Take a good look at the histories on the white race that have been written by ethno-patriots. Although they are very conscious of the Jewish problem, it shocked me to learn that the same suicidal tendencies among Whites that we see today have happened since the very first civilizations in Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, and always because of White greed: easy work through the slavery or second-class status of Semites, Nubians and Arabs in the lands conquered by peoples of Indo-European origin.
The same thing happened in Greece (the Macedonian Alexander the Great, a notorious race traitor), Rome, and, later, in the American subcontinent conquered by the Iberians in times that both Jews and crypto-Jews were disempowered thanks to the Inquisition—cf. MacDonald’s book S.A.I.D.
P.S. For those who want to see a representation in series of paintings by an American artist of what Parrott might be trying to say, see this.
Has anyone here read Chalmers Johnson’s Sorrows of Empire? Ignoring his handwringing its pretty good.
the Macedonian Alexander the Great, a notorious race traitor
Lelz. Made his ARYAN wife study Greek language for twelve years before he would touch her. Go pay Arthur Kemp’s overdue child support.
We saw last year that the average life expectancy for a nigger on a Southern cotton plantation was ten years longer than the average White “free laborer” in Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia.
I use “planter” in quotation marks because “planters” in the South were really nothing more than jumped up farmers – Parrott makes a fair point here – compared to their counterparts in the Caribbean.
You’re defending a crack-smoking mangia-cake.
LOL! Not really, I am just relaying to you what I saw and heard in a formerly White city that is now heading towards majority Brownish at breakneck speed 😉
Ford, be he innocent or guilty, isn’t really the point.
My reading is that MP sees the northern system as economically exploitative as well and therefore morally abhorrent just in different ways. I don’t speak for him. But this is my position, incidentally, on the North/South economic systems and unrestrained capitalism in general. I don’t see a need to defend every choice made by the Southern oligarchs. Reasonable people can disagree.
Matt Parrott is a snagletoothed hack living up to his name by, ‘echoing’ Greg Johnson and Tom Metzger’s militant anti-Planterism. No surprise there, Palmetto.
D.R. Hundley blew these northern class warriors out of the pond, then they claimed that southern society reduced non wealthy white men to the level of niggers. Hundley’s book begins with a fitting epigraph from King Solomon.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html
From Social Relations in Our Southern States (1860)
” Now, the mechanics in the Slave States constitute a very worthy portion of the Southern middle classes, and, when moral and upright, are fully as much respected as they are any where else in the world; though they are not at the same time any more admitted to a social equality with the Southern élite, or the family of the high-bred Southern Gentleman, than they are to the fashionable and exclusive society of the solid men of Boston, or to the gilded and luxurious drawing-rooms of a New-York millionaire. As we view it, respectability is one thing and gentility or fashion is quite another. It is respectable to labor– to acquire an honest livelihood by one’s own industry –all the world over; but where, we should like to know, is it considered genteel or fashionable?”
I’m about to blow it out of the water myself in the next post on Georgia.
Re: “…the Macedonian Alexander the Great, a notorious race traitor”
In the bicausal thread I told you that since you were not discussing in good faith but merely trolling, I would not answer to your further comments in that thread.
I’ll do the same in this one, but I must just say that it is a fact that in 324 BC Alexander forced many Macedonian officers to marry non-white women. The Greek author Arrian of Nicomedia describes this event in section 7.4.4-5.6 of his Anabasis.
Chechar
I see you’ve settled into anti-white monocausalism.
It was ceremonial, most were not consumated.
And projecting the neologism “white” onto ancient times is a crime against historiography. Those women were caucasian apeakers of an aryan language.
You consider non-WNism to be trolling. You probably had the same blinders on when you were a “counter jihadist”. Let me know when you outgrow your current phase And are capable of serious discussion.
@Hunter
Prior to the Civil War, do you think the people who lived in what became West Virginia didn’t know they were sitting on top of a fortune in coal, oil & gas? They sure as hell did know, and they wanted to keep the Yankees hands off of it.
West Virginia was a State created by Northern railroad lawyers, and the Union Army.
The Yankees ruthlessly exploited them too after the war. That whole area from Birmingham to Pittsburgh effectively became a Northern mining colony.
In the antebellum era, the clannish Scots-Irish who lived in that area had been left alone. They had little interaction with the plantation belt until the Confederate draft intruded on them.
You calling me “anti-white”? Maybe it’s time for Hunter to start banning the trolls.
@Palmetto
If Southern friendship is predicated upon endorsing importing and enslaving negroes, then I reckon I’ll have to do without friendship.
I certainly wasn’t indicting the Southern folk and cultural wholesale, and my direct paternal ancestor both owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy from Virginia. I certainly don’t consider myself anti-Southern; I just identify more with the White working poor of the era than the landed gentry.
You also wouldn’t know that the Persians were seen by ancient Greeks to usually possess paler skin.
You’re not done, Chechar. Crawl back into your mother.