Yes.
If the South had been allowed to secede in peace, there wouldn’t have been a war.
“In the late morning of March 6, 1857, two days after the inauguration of James Buchanan as the 15th president of the United States, the Supreme Court’s chief justice, Roger B. Taney, stood among a crowd of reporters and spectators on the ground floor of the United States Capitol and formally read the 55-page majority opinion in Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford. Born during the American Revolution and now just shy of 80, Taney could still take over a room with his sense of conviction, and as he began to address the crowd, the old Supreme Court chamber brimmed with anticipation.
Dred Scott’s name was by that point well known to many Americans. The four days of debate on the case, conducted in December of the previous year, had been covered extensively by newspapers. Scott, an enslaved man, and his wife, Harriet, had sued for their freedom based on Dred’s claim that their late owner had taken them for several years into Illinois, a free state, and to Fort Snelling, in a Northern territory where slavery was banned by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. That federal legislation effectively outlawed slavery in the territories above the 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude. It was considered a “sacred pledge” by many antislavery Northerners determined to protect the West as “free soil” for “free labor,” but pro-slavery Southerners became equally determined to incorporate new territories as slaveholding states. In deciding whether enslaved people could gain their freedom by residing on free soil, the Supreme Court might answer a question critical to the growing nation: What would the status of slavery be in the Western territories?
Now Taney was ready to deliver the decision. A Marylander and former slaveholder, he was six feet tall and had a drooping, worn facial expression and tobacco-stained teeth. His voice was a bit weak and his body enfeebled, but he remained possessed of what a critic called an “infernal apostolic manner.” Black people, he said, could never be “citizens,” nor considered “as a part of the people.” The room stirred as listeners recognized that Taney was reaching for a much bigger impact than simply the fate of Dred and Harriet Scott and their daughters, or even the question of whether slavery would be permitted in the territories. “Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property,” the chief justice declared. “The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property and pledges the Federal Government to protect it.”
The great crisis over the existence and expansion of slavery had just made a decisive turn …”
Black citizenship was a divisive question at the time. New England was for it.
Would New England want black citizenship if blacks were a significant minority in their states? If yes then they are insane if no then they are hypocrites.
@Cristina…
I lived in New England with my wife for many years.
A beautiful landscape and a peaceful people, who have no idea of the diversity for which they seem to feel such sympathy.
Nope, we drove all over the storied New England landscape, and hardly ever saw a Non-White in college towns, much less in normal ones.
In the area we lived in, I think I saw two Negroes in 12 years and a Chinese family that ran the takeout.
Eventually they did get a Mexican restaurant, too.
That was the extent of their Latin invasion.
This is why New England are allied with England and the Jews, because they all are filled fulled of hypotheticals about how life should be, for you, but, not for them.
Ivan,
Sounds like New Englanders are ripe for the picking. I never really talked to a black or moslem until I was in the United States and yet I would not want masses of them anywhere in Mexico.
Modern whites are indeed a strange people.
>New Englanders are ripe for the picking
thus Mormonism
I went to High School in Connecticut and lived in Massachusetts also in the 70’s and part of the 80’s. . Blacks were so few they were basically non-existent. We had one in my HS class and he was in the mentally disabled classes. You rarely even saw the guy. Life in New England just does not include blacks…or it didn’t. But the residents would be the first to wish “diversity” on you. Of that you can be sure.
@Taxmule…
Thank you for your affirming comment.
New England is as you say : basically a White Nationalist paradise, but, with it’s peculiarly ascetic personality, it dreams of ceding that, too, to someone else.
This is New England’s dilemma – they live in a theory of self-sacrificing, self-denying becoming.
If they ever studied Buddhism, they would have learned that the principle enemies that Buddhism identifies in the Universal Mind are that of being unmindful, being somewhere else, and falling into the trap of becoming.
Merry Xmas!
Lincoln agreed with the Dred Scott adjudication based on the 1790 Nationality Act and was going to resettle them out from from the several sovereign Republic’s of America: to wit:
The ‘Great Emancipator’ and the Issue of Race
Abraham Lincoln’s Program of Black Resettlement
By Robert Morgan
Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the “Great Emancipator,” he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves.
While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution, it is also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.“ ~ https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/
It could haven been avoided if no black Africans had ever been allowed to set foot here as residents. Slave or free.
The so-called “heritage” groups like the scv, udc and the virginia flaggers delude themselves and others by refusing to admit the war was first and foremost about slavery. It was THE underlying cause of the war. There were other minor causes (tariffs, economics, political and cultural differences) that by themselves or combined with each other would not have cause such a destructive war where Whites killed each other for four years to the tune of 700,000+ dead. Slavery was the sole reason the Southern States seceded and they said so in their articles of secession. Oh, revisionists say the war did not start over slavery-it was only when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation out of desperation to keep England and France out of the war that slavery became an issue. Strictly speaking that is somewhat true, the war started when Fort Sumter was fired upon and northerners saw this as simply an assault upon the “union.” The big picture tells a different story however-decades of tensions between free states and slave states made this war quite inevitable. Nearly 100% of the aggression came from abolitionists, culminating in John Brown’s insurrection at Harpers Ferry. No Southerners went north to the big cities there fighting for the rights of White factory workers, killing factory owners like Brown and his followers fought against slavery killing slave owners. Southerners simply did not give a damn about how the north ran their own affairs, but the north cared a great deal about how the South ran theirs. When you have this situation-that is, one group meddling in the affairs of another-war is indeed inevitable. That situation exists today, with a tiny minority of loudmouth marxists meddling in the affairs of the supermajority. Will war happen again? Stay tuned.
The war and secession(s) should be viewed as separate things. In the 1st wave of secession, slavery was a concern but not the only one. The secession docs list multiple reasons. The 2nd wave of secession was over the norths intended invasion plans of the deep South, using Southerners to fight Southerners. This caused the upper South to leave. The was was waged by the north to bring the seceded states back into the Union and was illegal and unnecessary, and the motive was wealth and power. Gradually slavery got pulled into the issue as a cover to justify such huge loss of life. As Shelby Foote said, no soldier in the South or Union gave a damn about slavery..
“Was The Civil War Inevitable?”
Other than biological necessities, and taxes, very little of life in this realm is inevitable.
Some people, however, do like to believe in inevitability, because it soothes their anxieties about living in a world with so much personal responsibility, and, as well, the long-lived ramifications of choice
Off topic, Ivan, but your mention of “the long-lived ramifications of choice,” put me in mind of the excerpts I’ll present below. They have to do, as you’ll see—across a quarter of a century—with the present violence in Ukraine. Behold how President Clinton et al. launched the world toward that unfortunate state of affairs …
“[E]xpanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.
“Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.
“ … Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?”
— George F. Kennan, New York Times, February 5, 1997
“Last week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee put on a shameful performance. Senators Jesse Helms, Joe Biden & Co. rolled over like puppies having their bellies rubbed when Clinton officials explained their plans for NATO expansion by dodging all the hard questions.”
— Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, March 3, 1998
“[E]xtending NATO into countries recently vacated by Moscow … is an ominous step. Whatever is said, however ingenious and vigorous the attempts to obscure the facts or change the subject, NATO is a military alliance, the most powerful in the history of the world, and the United States is the dominant force in that alliance. And whatever is claimed about spreading democracy, making Europe ‘whole’, promoting stability, peacekeeping, and righting past injustices–all formulations that serve, either consciously or inadvertently, to divert attention from the political and strategic reality of what is now occurring–cannot succeed in obscuring the truth that the eastward extension of NATO will represent an unprecedented projection of American power into a sensitive region hitherto beyond its reach. It will constitute a veritable geopolitical revolution.”
— Owen Harries, The National Interest, Winter 1997/98
”I think [the Senate’s ratification of NATO expansion] is the beginning of a new cold war,” said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”
— Thomas L. Friedman, reporting his telephone interview with George F. Kennan, New York Times, May 2, 1998
These came up in an e-mail exchange I recently had with an old friend. I’ve thought you and other followers of Occidental Dissent might appreciate them.
Lavrov recently stated that the Kremlin is comfortable with Sweden and Finland joining NATO; they’re totally cool with NATO expansion. Who knew? The invasion of Ukraine has only opportunistic motivations — the Russians, who live and breathe dishonesty, lied themselves into believing Ukraine was a sitting duck. The explanations from foreign policy “realists” like Mearsheimer make no sense as Putin is flushing the Russian race, which is already in steep demographic decline, down the toilet by erasing a generation of men and squandering what’s left of Russia’s wealth.
So why is Russia doing this? Let’s look at the facts.
Russia is a multiethnic empire ran by PMC criminals from the old Soviet bureaucracy. Russia is failing in Ukraine because their military is decrepit. Their military is decrepit because the mistresses, palaces, and super-yachts don’t pay for themselves. The money needs to come from someplace, and so the Russian elite has been busy cannibalizing their own, including their own military, in a vortex of cynicism and death — the provinces get looted for the benefit of those in Petersburg and Moscow who want to enjoy the decline.
Russia, which equates any form of nationalism with fascism, is a fake nation. Again, it is a multicultural empire. It has the largest Muslim population in Europe — twenty million — with 1.5 million living in Moscow alone. Only 7% of Russians attend Church. The Kremlin can only hold things together by running information operations on their subject peoples (and very recently, unwitting Americans) and this has been true for the entirety of Russian history. It is the only skillset they have that is any good. Everyone lies to each other and telling lies is mandatory. And sometimes they get high on their own supply of lies. As a result, Russia is good at getting into and losing wars and they’re used it, so don’t fall for the nuclear bluster from these weasels. They lost to Finland in 1939, Poland in 1920, Japan in 1905, the list goes on and on. It is going to be ok when they lose again, they’ll just keeping scowling and drinking alcohol and whining how unfair it all is. Cyka blyat!
Lastly, since ethnic Russians are getting demographically swamped, they have an incentive to send Muslims to the frontier to fight and murder Europeans. And so-called “White Christian Nationalists” claim they support this. Watching videos of Russian soldiers shouting Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! in Mariupol (a city founded by Greeks fleeing the Ottoman Empire) after they reduced it to flames and rubble made me want to vomit. Is the future we want for the world’s remaining white ethnostates, such as Poland and Estonia?
@SOME DUDE…
“Russia is a multiethnic empire ran by PMC criminals from the old Soviet bureaucracy. Russia is failing in Ukraine because their military is decrepit. ”
Certainly those who control The West would like you to think this.
Yet, with Russia in possession of the Donetsk, Ukraine’s army bled white, and out of armoured vehicles, or the fuel to properly run them, and Russia having done this with essentially a 3-4 troop vs. opponent ration, it’s difficult to see where the failure is.
As to the Soviet Union being run by an old Soviet bureacracy, there is a lot of truth to this, though, I would add, there is even more truth to this statement in application to those who run the Western governments, particularly here in the U.S.
In case this eluded you, let me reiterate it : there is no political system in the world that, at national level, has a corruption that surpasses ours. Most do not posses a corruption equal to it.
No, having failed to crash the Russian economy, and having failed to spark any widespread domestic resistance to Vladimir Putin, all The West currently has is to continue to spin the truth, whilst praying for a comet to bounce off Putin’s samovar and strike him dead.
It’s possible, but, very unlikely.
As someone who is good with the German language, I am only too aware of how Nazi propaganda (Die Deutsche Wochenschau) was still showing glowing reports of German military victories even in early April of 1945.
And so it is here.
The much ballyhooed Ukrainian counterattack at Kherson was a bloody disaster, and now that it has become that, we hear nothing of it.
Next, Russia will secure some solid victories all Winter long, and all Winter long the Western Media will portray these as desperate defeats, this as the mighty Ukrainian army prepares for a Spring offensive to retake Moscow.
Of course, for a country, such as this, the majority of whose residents are not sure what a Ukraine is, much less find it on an unlabeled map, the endless stream of prevarication will be convincing.
The battlefield, however, will tell a different tale.
That said, I wish you and yours a Merry Xmas.
@Ivan
Russia supposedly has the second-best military in the world. It should have taken them 72 hours to mop the floor with Ukrainian watermelon farmers. What happened?
Russian state tv has been coping by claiming they’re at war against the entirety of NATO. (This is different from Putin’s retarded simps in the West, who all said he wouldn’t even invade Ukraine.) All we’ve given Ukraine are old weapons from the 1970s and some HIMARS units, a little bit of training, a little bit of intelligence, and a lot of economic support. We gave the Iraqis and the Afghans far more than this with only meager results. It isn’t that the Ukrainians are super soldiers or have some secret patriotism that makes them invincible, it is just that Russia is a really, really, really corrupt and incompetent place.
If we’re looking the world realistically and not as Red Alert 3 fanbois, Russia is an empire in deep decline. The male life expectancy is in the mid-60s, about a million Russians have AIDS, drug use is rampant in Russia, self-deletion is rampant in Russia, and two thirds of rural Russians don’t even have indoor plumbing. Provincial Russia gets looted for the benefit of Putin and other PMCs in the cities. The “Russian World” is a world that is cannibalizing itself. They can’t even make their own weapons and have to ask North Korea and Iran. It’s sad.
People like “Just another guy” cheer for Russia out of spite. If NATO lets the Kremlin have Ukraine, they’d also be giving it Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, and Romania — some of the whitest countries in the world — to Putin’s anti-white anti-nationalist multiethnic empire, where anything remotely nationalist is designated as Hitlerism and gets brutally snuffed out. Inside Putin’s brain, the GAE and NATO are racist-nationalist-fascist-neo-nazi, not him. The guy is a jaded KGB communist and the trad stuff is an op for dumb people inside and outside Russia.
@Some Dude…
“Russia supposedly has the second-best military in the world. It should have taken them 72 hours to mop the floor with Ukrainian watermelon farmers. What happened?”
Thank you for your reply.
What happened?
The Russians went in as light as possible, to attempt to try and get a political solution without a real war.
Though they succeeded in liberating the Donetsk, and in killing and maiming most of the Volhynians and Galicians from West Ukraine, who are the bulk of ‘The Ukrainian Nazis’, and though they succeeded in shifting their entire economy to new coalitions, they did not succeed in getting a political solution in The Ukraine..
Vladimir Putin addressed this in his speech, earlier this week – he roundly apologizing to his countrymen for repeatedly having underestimated the emnity held for Russia and Russians, by the Western Ruling Elites.
As we speak, however, the Ukraine has been bled white, is running out of fuel, power, ammo, and, most importantly, men.
The Special Police Operation of 2022 is now expiring, in it’s stead the real war of 2023.
Reliable sources assert that the puppet regime in the Ukraine is now forcing Ukrainian teenagers into uniform, now that they have exhausted those able-bodied supply of older men.
It won’t matter, because you cannot make good soldiers in less than 5-6 months, and you cannot integrate them into their units well, in less than several months, AFTER their initial training.
The same for Western Equipment. you cannot send over highly specialized highly modern equipment to The Ukraine, and expect anyone to make hide or hare out of it, in less than 6 months.
The thousands of NATO soldiers, usually referred to as ‘contractors’ cannot make up this shortfall.
Russia could choose to end this war over the next month, by driving down from Byelorussia and up from Odessa, but, I am not sure that they desire to end this war quickly, because I think that they think, and, in my view, rightly so, that the war is having much the opposite effect of what George Soros announced in his February YouTube speech, – regime change in China and Russia.
I think they, The Russian Leaders, now realize that there is no other way to survive and thrive until they help produce the circumstances that will undo many Western Leaders.
For that reasons they are largely magnifying their army, for a long term fight, and, as I said, perhaps pulling their punches this Winter.
That said, I give you even odds that the Russians will drop a line down from North to South, that will leave Western Ukraine to be cut up by Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania, and that will be that.
Looking at the behavior of Western Leaders, over the last week, plus Zelensky’s desperate visit to Washington, I think they understand that the hammer is about to drop, and they cannot do diddly squat about it, except to use the CIA and MIA to create more distractions in Moldova/Transnistria, the Baltic States, and Serbia/Kosova.
It won’t work, however.
No one can beat Russia in Eastern Europe, anymore than someone could beat The United States in the Caribbean.
Thanks again for your remarks and I wish you a happy new year!
@Some Dude…
“Russian state tv has been coping by claiming they’re at war against the entirety of NATO. ”
The Russian TV is right – all of NATO’s enormous financial, economic, cultural, and media powered has been leveraged against it.
But, yes, you are right, the entirety of all NAOT’s military power has not been leveraged against it, because if they did that, both sides would conventionally blow each other away in a couple of months.
Russia could make good on those losses, we could not.
I do not agree with you that ‘If NATO lets the Kremlin have Ukraine, they’d also be giving it Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, and Romania — some of the whitest countries in the world.’
Russia has shown no sign, in many years, of desiring to retake these lands, though, I will say this : if the Baltic States and Moldova do not disallow NATO from using their terrains to be a new edition of what Ukraine has been, since 2014, they may well become new Russian territories.
One thing I will say : the original Ukrainian Army, during the first 4 months of last year, was NATO’s best army – the best trained, bravest, most experienced, and most psychologically motivated.
They fought extremely well, but, now they, the vast majority of them, are dead or permanently disabled.
These kind of soldiers can never be replaced by the Ukrainian puppet Regime.
These brave men were recklessly expended by a Western leadership that mistakenly that that they could have crushed Russia by now.
The West has NOT crushed Russia – quite the reverse.
Russia has not only just withstood the greatest regime change operation ever seen by man, they now are poised to vivisect the Ukraine.
I predict they will eventually repossess all of the Ukraine, except for the Transcarpathian, Galician, Volhynian west, this because Russia does not want the nightmare of dealing with those disagreeable, yet fiercely independent and brave people.
What is now considered The Ukraine will, sooner or later, go back to it’s pre-1914 geographic position.
@Some Dude…
“Russia is a really, really, really corrupt and incompetent place.”
This is what Western Intelligence Services maintained about Russia in the 1940s – that they were hopelessly incompetent.
It is their line now.
I put my money on Russians – the same blood that destroyed a huge army of Westerners under Napoleon, and then an even much larger army of the same under Hitler.
Nobody will ever beat The Russians in a war of survival, and that is exactly what the majority of Russians believe this is, and rightly so.
If the Russians can blunder their way into Paris, in 1814, and the Berlin in 1945, they can blunder their way towards Lviv..
I hope this does not escape you : the Russians beat the greatest army ever seen in The West, probably Mankind, as a whole, – the Wehrmacht, SS, and all their allies.
And still we think they are bozos.
You are really stupid. Don’t let your frustration show.
The Jews running the intelligence agencies and America’s military have led this country to the brink of ruin. You should look at the kind of dachas ordinary Russians can buy. Remarkably cheap! It’s almost like the old days in America when normal people had cabins, took vacations, were secure. Russia is a real country. Filthy kike America / fake nationalist Europe and their moronic stooges in the “dissident Right” are headed for destruction.
“ Who knew? The invasion of Ukraine has only opportunistic motivations — the Russians, who live and breathe dishonesty, lied themselves into believing Ukraine was a sitting duck.”
Only a Jewish “American” would say this. Amongst paragraphs of drivel you never mentioned the opportunistic motives which they knew would result in a massive backlash from the west, potentially crippling the county.
You speak of defending “white Christian Europeans,” ostensibly “Ukrainians,” this is a common refrain amongst far too
Many on the far right. Missing the Forrest for the trees, entirely. Set aside that Ukraine is run by an American puppet Jewish strongman, and anything negative you say about Russian degeneracy could be equally applied to Ukraine; the geopolitical implications of a Ukrainian victory would be devastating for nationalists. This isn’t about nitpicking which country is more “based,” it’s about stopping the the big gay empire from solidifying power in the east — that’s it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend; and Russian is the enemy of the USGay.
Some Dude, Keep drinking the kool Aid……..
@John Bonaccorsi…
Be assured that I know that The West, (the World Economic Forums/Bilderberg Group that controls this country and the rest) are responsible for the war in the Ukraine.
It, the war, has nothing to do with the Ukraine, and Russia has no responsibility for it – unless you regard defending yourself against a mangy dog an ‘offence’
It is a matter of public record that former Russian president Boris Yeltsin proposed to Bill Clinton that Vladimir Putin be his successor, because Mr. Putin was not only so capable, but, very pro-Western.
Even to this day, President Putin remembers President Clinton with fondness, even though he surely must realize what a two-face President Clinton was.
Perhaps ironic that, just this week, Mr. Putin apologized to his countrymen for having so long refused to comprehend that the true nature of Western Intent is to annihilate anything not subject to it – and, above all that means a newly resurgent Russia
With the exception of a few CIA/MI6 social media ridden youthful Russian city slickers all Russia now comprehends that this is a war for their very survival.
Of course, just for the sake of all the anti-American groups that come here, I will point out that these policies have been almost entirely crafted by people with my blood – Jews and Jewry.
Of course, people shudder when one says a thing like this, yet, if we can say that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor (when more than 99% of the Japanese people had no idea about it) then we can, and, indeed, must say that it is the Jewish usurpation of every major European Gentile institution that is at work here.
The Jews, particularly those secular, are playing out an age old grudge against Russia, or, if you really want to cut down to the marrow – the Russian Orthodox Church, this because it is the last major vestige of Christ that has not buckled to them – or, at least, not yet.
The Jews (not just those of blood but those of spirit, as well) almost killed the Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet times, and they are furious to see it rise again.
That is why my family always keeps Vladimir Putin in our prayers and, indeed, all the Russian soldiers.
In fighting for themselves, they are fighting for all Christendom and, ironically, every weakened vestige of The West.
Very sad that our fellow Americans, who happen to be in uniform, will soon be killed in many thousands, in pursuit of a goal more heinous than anything I can think of.
I am very sad about this.
On the eve of WWIII, another unnecessary Jew England Yankee war, I wish you and yours a very Merry Xmas.
And Kennan also had his mind right on race. He was a truly great American.
@John Bonaccorsi…
Though these quotes did not come to mind, in this issue, be assured that I know that The West, (the World Economic Forums/Bilderberg Group that controls this country and the rest) are responsible for the current war in the Ukraine.
It, the war, has nothing to do with the Ukraine, and Russia has no responsibility for it – unless you regard defending yourself against a mangy dog an ‘offence’
It is a matter of public record that former Russian president Boris Yeltsin proposed to Bill Clinton that Vladimir Putin be his successor, because Mr. Putin was not only so capable, but, very pro-Western.
Even to this day, President Putin remembers President Clinton with fondness, even though he surely must realize what a two-face President Clinton was.
Perhaps ironic that, just this week, Mr. Putin apologized to his countrymen for having so long refused to comprehend that the true nature of Western Intent is to annihilate anything not subject to it – and, above all that means a newly resurgent Russia
With the exception of a few CIA/MI6 social media ridden youthful Russian city slickers all Russia now comprehends that this is a war for their very survival.
Of course, just for the sake of all the anti-American groups that come here, I will point out that these policies have been almost entirely crafted by people with my blood – Jews and Jewry.
Of course, people shudder when one says a thing like this, yet, if we can say that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor (when more than 99% of the Japanese people had no idea about it) then we can, and, indeed, must say that it is the Jewish usurpation of every major European Gentile institution that is at work here.
The Jews, particularly those secular, are playing out an age old grudge against Russia, or, if you really want to cut down to the marrow – the Russian Orthodox Church, this because it is the last major vestige of Christ that has not buckled to them – or, at least, not yet.
The Jews (not just those of blood but those of spirit, as well) almost killed the Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet times, and they are furious to see it rise again.
That is why my family always keeps Vladimir Putin in our prayers and, indeed, all the Russian soldiers.
In fighting for themselves, they are fighting for all Christendom and, ironically, every weakened vestige of The West.
Very sad that our fellow Americans, who happen to be in uniform, will soon be killed in many thousands, in pursuit of a goal more heinous than anything I can think of.
I am very sad about this.
On the eve of WWIII, another unnecessary Jew England Yankee war, I wish you and yours a very Merry Xmas.
“The Devil — I mean the Supreme Court — made us do it!”
I disagree with the NYT here. Even with abolitionists foaming at the mouth after the Dred Scott decision, Southerners would not have seceded if John Brown didn’t spook millions of fence-sitters with his raid at Harper’s Ferry — his goal was to arm blacks and slaughter whites. John Brown is a hero to the highly educated today due to stupid books like “Lies My Teacher Told Me” so leaving him out of the narrative means they don’t have to address the lethal polarizing consequences of their very real violent extremism. Antifa is nothing new. Even then, the vote for secession was razor-thin in Georgia, logey North Carolina dragged its feet as long as it could, and Missouri and Kentucky never formally left.
Brazil — which isn’t 10% black, but 30% black — phased out slavery in 1888 by compensating slave holders. It is Anglo Whiggery (and an inverted Whiggery on the Southern side, as if one is destined to fight lost causes) to think war was inevitable, as if the forces of Light are providentially ordained to combat forces of darkness.
If — and that’s a big if — American Anglos were destined to violence, it is their universalistic moralism that paradoxically destined them so. That’s why Anglos are losing their countries today. Anyone who disagrees with an Anglo on some universal abstract idea, e.g. the top marginal tax rate, black and latino foeticide, etc., isn’t just someone with a different preference, but an enemy of humanity that needs to be crushed. They never act as a unit and a family unless they share an abstract dogma, a Platonic idea, a political ideology, a universal moral principle to impose on others, even in the supposed avant-garde of white identity. It is what it is.
“Brazil — which isn’t 10% black, but 30% black — phased out slavery in 1888 by compensating slave holders.”
Three things:
1 — I think you’re incorrect that slaveholders were compensated. In December 1888, the Princess Isabel, during whose regency the abolition had been adopted, was express about her decision not to compensate them:
“How did the abolitionist viewpoint gain ground so quickly in me? The concept, already innate within me, was intrinsically humanitarian, moral, generous, great, and supported by the Church. Slavery was essentially an imposition. The owners had profited too long from this imposition. What if they had paid wages from the start?! It is true that if they had, they would have had resources they could have disposed of, and thus done some would not have collapsed so helplessly. However, the evil was done, and it could not help but be eradicated. Besides, they ought to have made preparations or rather they never did prepare. Their slaves fled, and there was no means of preventing that. (What surprises me is that they did not flee much sooner.) The country was in agitation. Should I not have taken all this into account, and should I not have confronted with a clear conscience the alienated, whether small in number or rather the many that in fact there were? And the question of compensation? Despite never having stated my opinion on this idea prior to the proposal for it being made, I could not grant it as being either advisable or just. A number of scruples stood in my way, despite my pushing them away. First, the country could have compensated only in an illusory fashion, since it would have to be provided by taxes that would have fallen on those who had no connection with the question. The emancipation fund, financed by taxes, the only one applicable for this purpose, would have been less than sufficient. And whom would it aid? Those who had not voluntarily freed their slaves. It would be only to pay off overdue debts with no benefit to agriculture, and it would be better spent on projects that would serve the general good of farming, which would be most just. Besides this, as I have already noted, the idea of the injustice of slavery and the excessive time that the owners had exploited their slaves could not fail to influence my spirit.”
See https://library.brown.edu/create/fivecenturiesofchange/chapters/chapter-4/abolition/
2 — If the abolition that took place more-or-less peacefully in Brazil had occurred BEFORE the American Civil War, well, then, yes, it might stand as a counter-example, of non-violent abolition. That it occurred a quarter of a century AFTER that war, which had been observed by the entire West, including the colonial West, forecloses its being viewed as such. The world trend would seem to have been well against slavery by the time Brazil became the last (former) colonial polity to abolish it.
3 — Even at that, the abolition was disruptive enough that, a year after its adoption, the monarchy of Brazil was overthrown.
Every time we have to deal with people who are not reasonable (like the woke liberals today) war is inevitable.
Just like today.
Christina Roman’s Alva, Yes they we’re insane and hypocritical and the se Demonic spirits that possessed those people, we battle against them , this day……..
Mr.. Smith,
I just now saw your comment. Thank you for your response. My grandmother spent several years in the South in the 50’s and loved the place. She thought the negroes were very wonderful back then.
Happy New year too you and your family, miss Alva and always, thank you for your response, a question for your very bright intellect.ma’m, who in your opinion in ” the late great united states’ will have a harder time detoxing from each other, White from black or black from White, also Southern Republic from Mystery Babylon or vice versa?……….
Friday December twenty third, southeast michigan, this wind, will kill people today, ya know, as bad as it is, outside , right now, their are people, if I can call them that, still have their dogs , outside in this weather, I hate that, I hate that……stay warm and safe, Southern soldiers, if you can help anybody, do it……..
It should have never happened.
Worst ruling in American history. Contrary to biblical law. That started the civil war.
The proper position was to let all niggers run away to the north and let them stay there. And begin working seriously on back to Africa.
The South was wrong. Both sides were wrong.
>> Black citizenship was a divisive question at the time. New England was for it.
There was a sea change in attitude in New England from the 1820s to the 1850s I’ve never quite been able to follow. As late as 1835 William Lloyd Garrison had to be locked in jail for his own safety when he tried to speak in Boston, else he’d have literally been tarred and feathered. Or worse, it was apparently a very angry mob. I don’t think there was ever much sympathy for slavery or the South in New England, but abolitionists in 1825 were viewed as troublemakers, and (by the poor) freed blacks as potential competition for work. Somehow this all changed in 20-25 years. How? Interesting question. Wish I knew.
The Second Great Awakening in New England was the seedbed of progressivism.
@Denethor…
“I don’t think there was ever much sympathy for slavery or the South in New England, but abolitionists in 1825 were viewed as troublemakers, and (by the poor) freed blacks as potential competition for work. ”
SLAVERY WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF the War Between The States, but, merely a symptom of something far deeper.
Cutting to the pit of the matter, those of Anglo blood, who settled the South, did so with every intent on maintaining what they felt was Old England – White, Protestant Christian, and a division of power broken into micro-fiefdoms we might refer to as plantations.
Those of Anglo blood, who settled New England, did so with the desire of attempting to right the foundational wrongs of original sin, and, thus, they saw their Anglican traditions as merely a launching point for something that, though they felt it in the offing, they could not quite describe.
From the start of this nation breaking away from the Rothschild Anglo Empire, there was an intense competition between New England and The South for the soul of this nation.
Though The South was dominant in nearly the first century of this union, the War of the 1860s, followed by the War of Reconstruction left this country in an uneasy stalemated union which New England had every intention of overcoming.
CIVIZATIONAL COMPETITION – is what we are, and, indeed, are seeing play out here, and, indeed, what we are seeing currently in The Ukraine.
In the end The Jew England Yankee empire will kill itself, if only because it is not possible to dominate the world, even with partners as crafty and determined as The Jews.
As to the attitude of your typical New Englander of the 1860s, towards abolitionism, it is best summed up by Nathaniel Hawthorn, who, after John Brown’s premature burial, offered the following…
‘NEVER WAS A MAN MORE JUSTLY HANGED.’
Somehow this all changed in 20-25 years. How?
One word: Kansas.
The abolitionists were politically irrelevant before the South attempted to extend slavery to the territory of Kansas in violation of the Missouri Compromise. The Kansas-Nebraska act polarized the nation and the abolitionists used that opportunity to enter the political mainstream. This Whig Party collapsed and the Republican Party formed with explicit abolitionist goals.
The really disastrous civil war was 1775, not 1861.
In the decade 1753 – 1762, Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism peaked. The Jewish Naturalization Act of 1753 was repealed the same year it was enacted due to a popular backlash. The Naturalization Act of 1740, insofar as it related to Jews, was nullified by a 1762 Rhode Island supreme court decision.
The implicit ideology of the first British Empire was White identity, Protestant faith, and Anglo-Saxon constitutional government.
The American Revolution pushed both Britain and America into a less ethnocentric direction.
Britain moved towards multi-cultural imperialism, America towards post-Christian liberalism.
This change of outlook occurred during the period of time between the Bute administration’s decision to pursue a policy of Parliamentary taxation of the colonies in late 1762, and the Stamp Act riots in August 1765. It was during this time that White Anglo-Saxon Protestants on opposite sides of the Atlantic became so exasperated against each other that they rejected the previously prevailing ideology of White, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon supremacy and instead turned toward the multi-cultural elitism of Josiah Tucker in Britain, and the liberalism of James Otis in America. The motive in both cases was largely spite against their cousins on the other side of the Atlantic, for whom they no longer wished to feel any sense of responsibility.
The greatest beneficiary in both cases was the Jews.
It would be interesting to investigate the what role, if any, Jewish financiers played in the British decision to enact the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765.
Was the Sugar Act, in part, Jewish payback against Rhode Island for the court decision of 1762?
Did they use the Tories & Bedford Whigs as their unwitting instruments for these inevitably disastrous acts, as payback for the Tory & Bedford Whig role in overturning the Jewish Naturalization Act of 1753?
@BTI…
A fine contribution to this page is this remark of yours.
Your central premise, initially stated, is well supported here.
An unfortunate thing of life that we do not see the full ramifications of our choices until much much later down the road.
Christ warns us of this, as have many others – to be very very circumspect about our pursuits.
Merry Xmas!
BTI,.all very good points too consider sir, here is the point I choose too make, if the English had only extended the same rights and privledge’s too ole Virginia, that they extended too themselves, things would have been different, I personally have no regrets about 1776, only gratitude towards those who bled in the snow at Valley forge, with only the word’s ” We have no king but JESUS” and the visage of General Washington too sustain them….
Cristina Romana: It’s interesting that the civil war happened at the same time Maximillian ruled as Emperor of Mexico. The American government protested, but could do little while they were fighting the Confederates. Seward, the Secretary of State, proposed that the North and South end their war and unite to get the French out of Mexico, but that didn’t come to much. Benito Juarez has been compared to Lincoln in some ways, and they did correspond. Juarez faced a lot of opposition from the conservatives in Mexico, and it must be remembered many nations took the North’s side because then nationalism was very much the tide…sort of like wokeism is now…and uniting countries seemed irresistible.
Certainly Mexico had a lot of fractures with disunity, but they came together to get rid of Maximillian and the French.
I think now disunity is almost the zeitgeist, and much dislike of national governments are quite popular, but the problem is a weakened national state is being absorbed by corporate, globalist power. We want to fight globalism, but how? it’s akin to the new protestant nations in the 16th century taking on the Catholic Church, a super national power.
It’s argued that religious fervency governed North and South behavior. As Paul Johnson said in his History of the American People, the civil war was started by two states, Massachusetts and South Carolina. I think slavery was only a symptom of deeper schism between two factions, and the South realized that, eventually, the North would outnumber them in Congress since slavery couldn’t realistically expand. So, many in the South”s leadership decided that it was now or never. And yes, John Brown did his bit. Read my review of the film Santa Few Trail in Countercurrents.
I’d argue we have that choice now: to break up into smaller regional units with historical and racial unity, or just be swamped in mass immigration, partly curried by globalist leaders. It’s getting close to the now or never stage.