American North
Skipping ahead in Sweet Land of Liberty, I see the Jews and their allies are covered at some length:
“A small, dissenting denomination, the Quakers were out of the American mainstream. More so than any religious group in the mid-twentieth century, they pushed aggressively for racial equality – and for a small group, they were ubiquitous. Their zeal made them the most visible white dominated group in the civil rights movement besides Communists. The AFSC directed most of its energies southward. There were a few Quaker beachheads in the South, most notably, Greensboro, North Carolina, where the Quakers ran Guilford College. There Quakers challenged employment discrimination and segregated education. AFSC activists fanned out throughout the region south of the Mason-Dixon Line, desegregating playgrounds and pools in Washington, DC, pushing for integrated housing in the packinghouse towns of Louisiana, and working with fledgling civil rights groups in places as far-flung as Dallas, Texas and Prince Edward County, Virginia.
By the late 1940s, they began to turn their attention to the unfinished problem of racial equality in the North. Members of AFSC built an integrated cooperative housing project in North Philadelphia, collaborated with the United Automobile Workers to construct racially mixed housing in Milipitas, California, and worked closely with Chicagoans trying to integrate the city’s Trumbull Park public housing project. In Syracuse, New York and Columbus, Ohio, among many other northern places, Quaker activists coordinated efforts to eradicate slum housing and open new suburban developments to blacks. But of all these northern efforts, the most important and influential were in their own backyard – Philadelphia’s suburbs …”
E. Michael Williams covered some of the Quaker angle on civil rights in The Slaughter of Cities. Fascinating, with lots of good primary sources, but the book really needed an editor to pare it down to the essentials.
http://www.culturewars.com/Slaughter%20of%20Cities%20flyer.pdf
The Quakers have always been liberal, before and after the Enlightenment. They did not go from conservative before the Enlightenment to liberal after the Enlightenment like the New Englanders did.
Of course, when I am talking about liberalism and conservatism here, I mean them in the social sense, not in the economic sense.
On economic issues, the Catholics and especially the Jews have always been well to the left of any of the aforementioned Protestant groups. Modern-day economic liberalism has its roots in the urban machines (the original mini-welfare states in America) and labor unions established by Catholic and Jewish immigrants.
For the record: I think the Quakers may be said to have spawned the South. It was Quakers who brought Robert Harper from Philadelphia County to the Shenandoah Valley’s foot, on the Potomac’s south shore, to build a mill. As soon as he got there, he fell in love with the place and bought land and a ferry from the Quaker (I think) who was living there. Thus began Harper’s Ferry, by which the Celts, I guess, crossed the Potomac and continued up the Shenandoah Valley and beyond, to become a major strain of the South’s population.
Harper was a Quaker, too, I guess. His Philadelphia home had been in Oxford Township, I think, which is now my own neighborhood of lower Northeast Philadelphia. He himself must have written up the events by which he ended up in the Shenandoah Valley. The record was passed down through his descendants, evidently. You may read it at http://justjefferson.com/07Harper.htm There, in a sense, is your beloved Dixie, in embryo.
Quaker plantation owners in the British Caribbean islands used African slaves, but treated their slaves much better than others.
But George Fox, Barclay, and other ‘primitive Friends’ would NEVER have exploited chattel or wage slaves, nor engaged in anything like ‘Civil Rights’ activism on behalf of slaves or slave descendants.
Conservative Friends, who still dress plain like German Anabaptists and are mostly agrarian and scattered from western Pennsylvania to eastern Indiana, are also not guilty of this behaviour.
The Journal of George Fox http://www.ccel.org/ccel/fox_g/autobio.toc.html is a very good read.
“George Fox, Barclay, and other ‘primitive Friends’ would NEVER…engaged in anything like ‘Civil Rights’ activism on behalf of slaves or slave descendants.”
You would be hard-pressed to find ANY white person in the 17th century who would advocate for anything remotely resembling civil rights for blacks. The fact that so many early Quakers opposed slavery was extraordinary for their time.
First cracks in BRA’s edifice?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/detroit-elects-citys-first-white-mayor-in-four-decades/article15290486/
Many Quakers were also concerned with humane treatment of animals, such as using horses to death.
I meant to write:
such as NOT abusing or over-using horses to death.
EC, seems to me that both catholics and jews, when they arrived as latecomers mostly to u.s., just worked on honing strategies that might have been right for the welfare-warfare statism’s they came from— like just how to wrest away white-ER people’s money from them.
Whatever the case on quakers, the Diversity Moralism Industry affected all the organized “churches” and became how you get “saved” and how you make money.
Slavery is a cash cow for all of them.
They have EARNED MORE ON SLAVERY now, since it ended, than they ever did when the people were in actual chains, lol.
Yes….
They have ALL EARNED MORE ON SLAVERY now, since it ended, than they ever did when the people were in actual chains, lol…
People must move on!
The Quakers were the merchant elite of Philadelphia, when Philadelphia was the largest city in the British Empire. The “Philadelphia Wagon Road” was “the” commercial highway into western Virginia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, and until the railroads, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Btw, Ben Franklin was NOT a Quaker, he was a Presbyterian.
Quaker Oatmeal uses the slogan, “Nothing is better for thee than me”. Judging by the way their crazy ideas on race have helped screw up this country, we can’t say the same thing about their religion.
In that autobiographical piece I linked above, Robert Harper expresses an interest in news of Oxfordshire. That must have been the place of origin of the Englishmen who first settled what is now my Philadelphia neighborhood–the former Oxford Township. When I go to the supermarket later today, I’ll ride briefly on Oxford Avenue, which, as Google Maps will confirm for you, comes up through this neighborhood from Philadelphia’s older, lower parts. That street was probably originally called Oxford Road or Oxford Pike, just as other modern-day Philadelphia avenues bear the names of the destinations to which they once led (Germantown Avenue, Frankford Avenue). Some of those roads cut through the modern-day street grid diagonally and thus reflect their history as routes that went straight to their destinations long before the street grid was imposed over the whole city.
In short, I now expect to be particularly respected, at this website, as the man from The Place Where Dixie Began.
PS Strange how the Potomac worked a transformation, by which all of those whites who crossed it became Southrons. Strange how the tension that arose between those whites and their ethnic kin, whom they left behind, in the North, came to such a terrible war–and persists, as we sometimes see at this website. Strange, too, that Harper left his name to the place where Old Dixie was born and where its end began–Harper’s Ferry. An editor’s note at the end of Harper’s autobiographical piece, which I linked above, indicates that the mill that Harper built there was torn down to allow construction of the Federal armory that John Brown eventually raided.
“Conservative Friends, who still dress plain like German Anabaptists and are mostly agrarian and scattered from western Pennsylvania to eastern Indiana, are also not guilty of this behaviour.”
There were still a few “Thee and thou” Freinds as we used to call them in suburban Philadelphia and Chester and Bucks counties back when I was growing up there in the 50’and 60’s. Their kids for the most part weren’t.
“The Quakers were the merchant elite of Philadelphia, when Philadelphia was the largest city in the British Empire.”
And quite capable of joining the most fashionable Anglican congregations after they had made their piles of money. Many an old money Philadelphia Episcopalian is descended from Quaker stock. For all the details read E. Digby Baltzell. Born in Chestnut Hill he taught at Penn for years. His Philadelphia Gentlemen: The Making of a National Upper Class (1958) is a classic in the field.
I would also recommend John Lukac’s “A Thread of Years” for telling the tale of Philadelphia and its surroundings by way of a few dozen semi-fictional vignettes of the evolution of that society from the turn of the 20th century through the 1960’s.
“PS Strange how the Potomac worked a transformation, by which all of those whites who crossed it became Southrons.”
The entire North-South divide comes down to one single historical factor: slavery. Not only does it explain the race-based caste system in the South, it also explains why the South received so little immigration in the 19th century and why it remained overwhelmingly rural, thereby making it the most socially conservative and homogeneous region in the country. It also explains much of the South’s uniquely strong martial culture.
By the way, the original divide was in Northern Maryland. The rest of Maryland was decisively Southern. The influx of immigrants into Baltimore in the mid 19th century turned it from a border city to a completely Northern city. The growth of the Washington, D.C. (which was always a national city, not a Southern city) metropolitan area then finished the job of turning Maryland into a Northern state.
“The influx of immigrants into Baltimore in the mid 19th century turned it from a border city to a completely Northern city.”
Gradually and nowhere near as fast as cities in the North changed.
“Washington, D.C. (which was always a national city, not a Southern city)”
Nonsense. Washington was always a Southern city replete with Jim Crow laws right up until the 1960’s “Civil Rights” movement. And the blacks that live there now and also in Prince Georges County Maryland are Southern blacks in speech, culinary tastes, and even some vestiges of behavior (ie. not “gangsta.”)
As for Northern Maryland in general, as soon as you crossed the Pennsylvania border aka the Mason-Dixon Line, accents changed and you could still find remnants of slave quarters moldering away on rural farms both there and in Delaware. At least that’s the way it was until the 1970’s.
Southern York and Lancaster counties and extreme southeastern Chester County also looked south, Rudel. Oxford and Nottingham practically belonged to Cecil County, Maryland, as I remember. No sharp language and cultural contrasts as you crossed the Line there.
Don’t overlook the Delmarva difference from Washington-corrupted, liberal, central Maryland.
The Delmarva accent, where it still exists, is very Anglo-Celtic and very little changed from colonial times, and so good to hear.
‘Midlands’ transitional accent, interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWQ3v9btec8
But I’m looking for a good Delmarva accent video, can’t find one so far.
The entire North-South divide comes down to one single historical factor: slavery.
Yes–in making that quasi-mystical remark about the Potomac, I was just being polite, as I realize now, to my Southron friends, here at Occidental Dissent. The Celts tramped up the Shenandoah Valley and into the South on a collision course with the slave world that was spreading westward from Carolina. When it was all over, they were lying dead in the slaveholding South of which they’d become a part–and by which they’d become estranged from their ethnic kin “north of the line,” as our friend Mosin would say.
Even the unique Southern accent can be attributed to the plantation economy of the South. The Southern accent in all likelihood traces back to the English aristocratic accent in the 17th century. Because of the opportunities for agricultural wealth in the Southern colonies, members of English noble families disproportionately settled there in the early years, and established the Southern accent and much of Southern high culture.
And (lest it be forgot) that Quakers are NOT Christians, in the commonly accepted, “Trinitarian, historical ‘catholic’ (small ‘c’) sense. They are a cult, as odd and as useless for salvatory functions, as the Mormons.
Just sayin’…. lest any of the christophobic folk out there, desire to lump (as EC seems to have done) the RC’s with the Quack-ers.
The RC’s liberalism is directly as a result of their adoption of Marxist schemes of ‘salvation’ apart from the historic Tridentine norms, as Lynda could probably tell us better.
Again, Just sayin’….
“The RC’s liberalism is directly as a result of their adoption of Marxist schemes of ‘salvation’ apart from the historic Tridentine norms, ”
(Directly from the Vatican II reforms)
Forgot that additional clarification. Sorry.
‘The RC’s liberalism is directly as a result of their adoption of Marxist schemes’
Liberalism is a recent development, but then there are the very long standing matters of heresy, universalist hegemony, corruption of all kinds on all levels, especially the top….
“The Celts”
You keep referring to Celtic settlers but the early “Scotch-Irish” settlers are a mongrel mix of Gaels, lowland Scots, and English Borderers (many with substantial “Dane” blood.) Of course all the inhabitants of Great Britain and Northern Island have a lot of native Briton blood underlying the more recent Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, and Norman (Vikings again) as recent DNA tests show. The amount shows an east to west cline with folks from Northumbria having 40% Celtic genes to some folks in places like the Scottish Highlands, remote Wales, and the far west Aran Islands having over 80% Celtic blood as indicated by their R1B Y-chromosome haplotypes.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4tmWE8JAKMI/T4iwYdFPvdI/AAAAAAAAAdg/GXSCkODG2ss/s1600/300px-Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA_version_2.gif
Thanks for the clarification, Rudel. In saying “Celts, I was simply using what I thought was a sort of standard term for that group that went into the South. I do realize that the term “Celts” is problematic in general and maybe particularly problematic with respect to the Scotch-Irish group.
‘the term “Celts” is problematic in general’
Who WERE the Celts? Pre-Roman Celtic civilisation and ‘Celts’ spanned Europe from Britain to northern Spain and the Danube basin, and even to central Anatolia.
Current theory holds that the Italo-Celts were bronze age Indo-European speakers and farmers and pastoralists (known archeologically as the Bell-Beaker culture) who may have originated around the Aegean (Anatolia being the Western shore) and migrated through Europe possibly up the Danube but also by seat via Italy, Spain, and France although the oldest R1B haplotypes of modern Western Europeans near the source of the Rhine. They populated Western Europe somewhere around 3000 B.C.
This contrasts with the Germanic culture of the Corded-Ware culture of R1A Y-chomosome haplotype Germanic Indo-Europeans who also appear out of Western Eurasia during the Bronze Age.
Both merged with indigenous hunter-gatherer tribes. There is much debate whether or not these migrations replaced native populations or infused a layer of culture over existing groups or some combination of both as the individual case may have been.
It seems the Germanic Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who invaded Britain at the end of Roman rule numbered only about 200,000 compared to Britain’s indigenous population of the time of over two million, displaced the ruling aristocrats and imposed their culture but also heavily inter-married with the locals; hence the average Britisher still having 50% Briton genes.
Thankfully the discovery of DNA and its decoding has occurred soon enough that genetic analysis can still be done on existing “pure” bred populations and disinterred bones from archaeological sites in order to glean a clearer picture of European ancestry.
Pre-historic population flows are an extremely difficult subject to research and involves analyzing pots, bones, and genes.
Colin Renfrew’s 1997 Archaeology & Language, a book I’m not qualified to evaluate, has an interesting passage about the development of the term ‘Celtic.’ I don’t have a copy of the book and can’t remember whether Renfrew begins his remarks by speaking of ancient stone inscriptions in what have come to be called Celtic languages; but available online, at Google Book, is the passage’s following, concluding section:
“The finds from La Tène included iron swords, some of them with splendidly decorated scabbards, whose art style could be compared with finds from chieftains’ graves in France and Germany. It was the British scholar Sir Augustus Franks who was the first to realize the geographical extent of the La Tène culture, and to identify it with the Celts, described by classical writers such as Caesar and the geographer Strabo. Then in 1871, the French scholar Gabriel de Mortillet indicated the resemblance between swords, spear-heads and brooches found in north Italy and those from the Marne area of France. He suggested that the north Italian finds were the equipment of the Celtic invaders of Italy, about whom a number of classical writers including Livy had written. The Celts as they appear in the classical writers had thus been identified archaeologically, and a distinctive art style, generally designated after the site of La Tène, had been recognized as special to the Celts. The languages spoken by the Celts and Gauls described by the classical writers also came to be classified as ‘Celtic’. This was perfectly reasonable, but we should note that the term ‘Celtic’ was by now being used in four different ways: to refer to the people so called by the Greeks and Romans, to designate a group of languages, to name an archaeological culture, and to indicate an art style. (The substantial problems caused by the equation of these overlapping, but in reality rather different, concepts are discussed in Chapter 9.)”
That’s at http://books.google.com/books?id=R645AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=%22This+was+perfectly+reasonable,+but+we+should+note%22&source=bl&ots=ec0VUw597e&sig=6UkYPqGWCIkTeZMTNRxZEcqM4jI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o9V7UsnxGqvdsATg3oKgCA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22This%20was%20perfectly%20reasonable%2C%20but%20we%20should%20note%22&f=false
The very thorough research and scholarship at the pottery and language level is now starting to be supplemented and informed by modern DNA analysis. In some cases this reinforces those older archaeological and linguistic hypothesis and in others it casts new light on existing data. The Romans are now pretty much recognized as a Celtic people from the Aegean (with many blonde and blue eyed ancient Romans and Greeks) and that branch of the Indo-European language is now termed by many linguists as Italo-Celtic.
Conversely, Oetzi the Iceman has genes that are almost a dead match for present day Sardinians and was lactose intolerant.
It is somehow comforting to know that no one still has any idea of where the hell the Basques came from.
I myself have Y-haplotype R1b1b2a1 which is an extremely old Western European variant and so I can truly claim to be the only true
Scotsmanerr… make that Celt (if you ignore the German and Swedish autosomal portion in the other 22 chromosomes.) 🙂So, Rudel, waht are you saying, when all is said and done?
From what you wrote, you both deny and affirm the inherent mixture of large elements of Celtic DNA all across the European continent, which corresponds in large measure to the dispersion models of the CI folk, that opine the Hebraic 10 tribes that did not return to Palestine, had to go somewhere, and that somewhere occurs almost synonymously with the Celtic migration scenarios.
Of course you deny that, but as Cambria has said, “There has only ever been two non-materialist civilizations in the history of the world, the ancient Hebrew civilization and the ancient European civilization. If you tell me that they are one and the same, I won’t dispute you, but whether the Europeans are the ancient Hebrews or whether their adherence to dictates of the living God made them seem like unto the ancient Hebrews does not have to be decided definitely before we can act on the sure and certain faith that the European people are the Christ-bearers, born to champion Christ against the satanic liberals and the colored barbarians. ” – http://www.cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2012/01/into-hand-of-god.html
[Not that this would convince anyone, but the facts are out there]:
“Dr. Kristensen was skeptical at first but the more she researched into Assyrian sources she found the Cimmerians making their first appearance in recorded history around 714 B.C. in the very area of modern Iran where the Assyrians had settled the deported tribes of Israel a few years earlier. She reaches conclusions that the Gimira or Cimmerians are lost Israelites. In “WHO WERE THE CIMMERIANS AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM” – translated by Jorgen Laessoe of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Dr. Kristensen wrote:
“There is scarcely reason any longer to doubt the exciting and verily astonishing assertion propounded by students of the Ten Tribes, that the Israelites deported from Bit Humria of the House of Omri are identical with the Gimirraja of the Assyrian sources. Everything indicates that the Israelite deportees did not vanish from the picture but that, abroad, under new conditions they continued to leave their mark on History.”
This book from which this admission comes, was published originally in Danish:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Who_Were_the_Cimmerians_and_where_Did_Th.html?id=ab0BkKSx4TgC
It is in the works cited for “The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome, by Susan Wise Bauer, a prominent homeschooling author published by a major publishing house; and is just one source equating the thesis I’ve noted. The DNA correspondences Rudel mentions SHOULD be given greater analysis toward substantiating this thesis, or at least go in this direction, rather than assuming the migratory races now inhabiting the Levant are the FOUNDING STOCK of Abrahamic genetics; but that would not serve the Jews well, so we won’t go there…. which is why I called you out the first time on this issue, sir..
Here’s a linguistico/genealogical analysis of much of the same stuff, that also is interesting.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/irish-scots-gaelic-egyptian-connection/
“From what you wrote, you both deny and affirm the inherent mixture of large elements of Celtic DNA all across the European continent, which corresponds in large measure to the dispersion models of the CI folk, that opine the Hebraic 10 tribes that did not return to Palestine, had to go somewhere, and that somewhere occurs almost synonymously with the Celtic migration scenarios.”
The Celts populated Europe at least a couple of thousand years before the Jews even existed, let alone before Jesus was purportedly around.
“There has only ever been two non-materialist civilizations in the history of the world, the ancient Hebrew civilization and the ancient European civilization.”
From wiki:
The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or city-state.
There is no such thing as a “non-materialist civilization.” Cities are by their very nature material. As far as the “Hebrews” are concerned all of the ancient Canaanite tribes lived in (or in close proximity to) walled cities and fortified towns. As far as ancient Europe is concerned, the Minoan harbors and buildings on Crete were quite concrete.
It’s pure nonsense that the Celts were the descendants of lost Israelites. No ancient Jewish, Greek, or Roman historian has ever made such a ridiculous claim, and no wonder. These folks knew perfectly well the Celts and Jews were totally different people with distinct characteristics. One only has to look at drawings, statues, and paintings preserved from ancient times to see the differences between the two ethnic groups. This idea that Europeans are lost Israelites is strictly a religious fantasy that have no basis in sound historical or genetic research.
Stephen E Dalton has the correct view.
Thanks for the shout out Rudel. I used to believe in the British-Israel fantasy myself years ago, but studying and reading the actual ancient histories, such as the Norse sagas, convinced me that there was no genetic or cultural connections between the Israelites and the ancient European people. The only connection the Jews ever admitted was they claimed the Spartans were descendants of Abraham too.
The Celts populated Europe at least a couple of thousand years before the Jews even existed, let alone before Jesus was purportedly around.
That’s only if you believe the evolutionary timetables. I fully can believe the world took billions of years to develop, and yet, be consistent with the six-days of Creation week, as Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s “Science of God” has noted.
But, once MAN comes on the scene, the numbers don’t match up. The ‘evolutionary trees’ of hominid ‘advancement’ are just so much baloney, and only a fool (like Rude-L) would continue to believe them, when they have been debunked decades ago.
And why should the evolutionists be honest, ‘scientific’ or even truthful, when trying to figure out “Man’s” place on the Planet? If the evolutionists deny God, OF COURSE they will posit a scenario that DENIES the special creation of God’s Adam; the roughly 6-10,000 years of civilized Man’s existence, and the ‘archeological record’ of Man’s travels? They have a COMPETING RELIGION to uphold- for that is what Evolutionary Egalitarianism is- a competing faith, that is also ANTICHRIST, in that it denies the reality of ONE race of Hominid being the summum bonum of God’s creative endeavors, ‘on the sixth day.’ For God created ADAM- not homo erectus, homo Africanus, Peking Man, Java Man, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
Trouble is, people like Dalton and Rude-L prefer to believe the Evolutionists, rather than the Word of God. Dalton, you say you are an R.C.? Well, the R.C.’s prior to Vatican II actually believed as I continue to believe, to this day. The Capitulation to the Darwinian ‘macro-evolution’ scenario is just ONE MORE PROOF of the satanic nature of the RCC cult. The Orthodox still hold to the view of the Hexameron, the Fathers, and the Biblical record. How can you say you believe RUDE-L, or the Darwininan maggot-infested Weltanschauung, and yet claim to be a Christian?
RUDE- I don’t even know if you have a Faith- but it sure isn’t that which was ‘… once delivered unto the saints.”
As far as I am concerned, I can mesh the 6-10,000 year migration episodes of Celtic tribes, with the 700 B.C. “Ten Tribes” migration theory, and see them as co-terminous- Why not? Science’s means of ‘dating’ are no more ‘infallible’ than the Curia of Galileo’s day- perhaps even less, for the Scientism of today, is suffused with the poison of Jewish hatred for anything even remotely calling itself Christian, and is therefore, ALL THE MORE SUSPECT. Both Dalton and Rudel are merely the ‘shabbas goy’ of the seed of Satan, [ John 8:44] and nothing more. Whether one is CI, or not, at least that moniker came from the lips of Our Lord Himself, and can be counted on as a clear indication of what HE thinks, as He is alive forevermore. Unless Rude and Dalton want to deny THAT, also!
Rudel, I believe, is ‘Reformed’ — perhaps a member of the ‘United Church of Christ, Antichrist’ ? UCC people I have known a marked by a very strong aversion to ‘talk about religion’ and many are agnostic, but they ‘love their church’.
Correction: ‘UCC people I have known a marked’ should be:
UCC people I have known are marked
Fr John, have you ever visited Galilee (northern Palestine)? Well-watered, fertile, originally forested country. Captives of the Ten Tribes were taken from the northern kingdom, which extended at least this far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton,_Israel
Rabbi Yosi HaGlili, one of the Tannaim of the Mishnah, and his son Yishmael are buried in Dalton, near the foot of Mount Dalton (‘Dalata’ in Arabic).
Fr. John, your rantings speak for themselves as to your excruciating ignorance and delusions. You are certifiably insane
I believe in creation, and also appreciate and understand geologic and astrophysical science and the record of fossils, isotopes, etc.
Natural science and genuine Faith in Biblical sound doctrine are not necessarily mutually exclusive, Rudel.
More off topic: Good article link I noticed on Fr John’s website today: http://www.badeagle.com/2013/11/07/serbia-a-lesson-for-the-modern-world/
From the final paragraphs of the above-linked ‘American Indian Patriot’ article: ‘Mass migration of foreigners, enemies of the culture they invade; international government cooperation with the invaders, business cooperation, criminal pay-offs; and utter misrepresentation of liberal media; these things create cosmic crime (…) No nation is safe today. No, not one. International forces have gained the ascendancy. Whatever your nation has that is valuable to the internationals, it will be taken from you, by coercion, by government force, by arms if necessary. Whatever it takes. We can only pray for divine intervention. When the patriots are outnumbered by the world, how can they defend what’s theirs? When the patriots are out-manned, out-monied, out-gunned, the most they can hope for is “reservations,” like the American Indians. Is that where all true honor ends, on reservations?’
Fr.John, I believe in a 24 hour day, 6 day creation.
The Celts and the Hebrew are different people. The Celts, known Biblically as Gomerites, where born right after the flood. The Hebrews ancestor, Heber, was born about 167 years later and Abram, the ancestor of the Israelites, was born about 255 years