The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
The Defense of Southern Conservatism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A review of The Land We Love: The South and Its Heritage (Scuppernong Press, 2018) by Boyd Cathey

I must confess that I feel a bit awkward about reviewing Dr. Boyd Cathey’s outstanding anthology, The Land We Love: The South and its Heritage. I am, as the reader may notice, mentioned in the preface, along with Clyde Wilson, as one of the author’s two most significant guides in preparing these essays. And despite the fact that unlike Clyde I didn’t write the foreword, I do appear with this eminent Southern historian on the back cover, as one of several bloggers praising the many fine qualities of Dr. Cathey’s work.

ORDER IT NOW

Notwithstanding my obvious conflict of interests, I did volunteer to review the book because it illustrates an observation that I’ve been making for the last forty years, namely, the most provocative writers for the onetime American conservative movement have been generally Southerners. Moreover, what’s rendered them worth reading is that their perspective is unlike the one that has prevailed elsewhere in the US. Southern conservatives wrote and still do, if this book is any indication, with a tragic sense born of defeat, an ingrained sense of place, and an appreciation for older, European conservative traditions.

The Southerners to whom I’m referring were and, remain even now despite their reduced numbers, the most relentlessly principled conservatives of my acquaintance. They conspicuously refused to bend their knee when the neoconservatives took over the establishment Right in the 1980s. Like Clyde and Boyd, they paid for their defiance by being marginalized by what Clyde mockingly described in 1986 as the “interlopers.” But significantly the true Southerners whom the movement’s hired hands expelled, never changed their stripes and still show contentiousness as well as a deep sense of honor. Anyone who surveys the titles of Boyd’s essays, e.g., “A New Reconstruction: The Renewed Assault on Southern Heritage,” “How the Neoconservatives Destroyed Southern Conservatism,” “How You Stand on the War Between the States: A Window into your View of the Western Christian Heritage,” and “Merchants of Hate: Morris Dees, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Attack on the Southern Heritage,” knows that the author has come to fight. He does so in essay after essay, attacking the SPLC as “merchants of hate,” exposing its longtime head Morris Dees as a corrupt profiteer playing on usually baseless fears about “extremism,” and assailing the various detractors of the Southern cause.

Although the anthology under review covers other worthwhile themes, there are two topics on which I’d like to focus. One, the author recognizes genuine conservatism, the presence of which he points out in his subjects. Presbyterian theologian and political theorist Robert Lewis Dabney, Southern literary scholar M.E. Bradford, the Agrarians, US Senator Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis are all cited as representing a well-defined conservative worldview. A sense of place, reverence for one’s ancestors, deep reservations about an expanding commercial society because of the cultural change that follows in its wake, resistance to administrative centralization and an unbending principle of honor are all conservative characteristics stressed in this anthology.

A worldview enriched by these elements seems so imprinted in the conservatives under discussion that they could not have acted in any way that contradicted who they were. Thus Lee felt compelled to resign his commission in the Union Army and to defend his beloved state against invasion by the federal forces. He was first a son of Virginia, born to its first family, and then only a citizen of a larger political entity. Dr. Cathey cites Jefferson Davis, addressing the Mississippi legislature in 1881 and telling its members that despite “all that my country was to suffer, all that our posterity was to endure, I would do it all over again.” Despite all the suffering that Southern secession brought his region and him personally, Davis did not regret his struggle for Southern independence, because he thought it was a just (and constitutional) course.

Dr. Cathey has observed a conceptual parallel between those Spanish aristocrats and legitimists he has studied (and indeed written a dissertation on) and Robert Lewis Dabney, the stern Virginia Calvinist who ended his life in Texas. Like the great historian of the American South, Eugene G. Genovese, Dr. Cathey views Dabney as the full-package for those who are looking for a prototypical man of the traditional Right. Dabney was a defender of fixed gender distinctions and viewed the idea that women should vote as being laughable, perverse or possibly both. Dabney regarded universal suffrage as a monstrous conceit: although all members of a political society “bear an equitable relation to each other, they have very different natural rights and duties.”

Further: “just government is not founded on the consent of the individuals governed, but on the ordinance of God, and hence a share in the ruling franchise is not a natural right at all, but a privilege to be bestowed according to a wise discretion on a limited class having qualifications to use it for the good of the whole.” Dabney also vocally opposed the introduction of free public education in Virginia in the 1870s. He considered such an enterprise to be an attempt by the state to supersede the authority of parents and the family. If the proposed reform took place, Dabney feared, the government of Virginia would be engaging in a “leveling action” “countervailing the legislation of nature.” In such a measure Dabney discerned the early stages of what would later be called “social engineering.”

Dr. Cathey never states (nor would I) that a conservative worldview provides the only path to understanding social or political relations. What he does indicate repeatedly in his essays is that advocates of gay marriage, feminism, and massive government interference in the family are most definitely not “conservative,” even if they happen to be involved in the questionable media operation that goes by that name. He also revives the debate that the late M.E. Bradford, “arguably the finest historian and philosopher produced by the South” had with the Lincoln admirer Harry V. Jaffa on the pages of Modern Age in the 1970s. Bradford fiercely resisted Jaffa’s notion of America as a propositional nation founded on the overarching principle that “all men are created equal.”

Unlike Jaffa, who celebrated Lincoln’s crusade against slavery in the American South as a vindication of what was supposedly our foundational belief in universal equality, Bradford defended the social and cultural particularities of his region, and above all its right not to be invaded and reconstructed. Behind this debate, in my view as well as in Dr. Cathy’s, was Bradford’s defense and Jaffa’s rejection of the “inherited traditions” of Southern society and the strict constitutional republicanism on which the South’s relation to the federal union was based. Equally relevant was Bradford’s obvious contempt “for the abstraction equality” and for the imperative to which it led among our political and journalistic elites to “impose our democracy and equality on the rest of the world.”

Dr. Cathey is right to perceive here a foreshadowing of the contention that later erupted between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives over a wide variety of questions. Although the followers of Jaffa, known as the West Coast Straussians (and named for Jaffa’s teacher Leo Strauss) are not necessarily the same as neoconservatives (Jaffaites tend to be much brainier), most of their ideas about the US as a propositional nation bottomed on the ideal of equality became neocon agitprop. The two groups, which Dr. Cathey treats as almost interchangeable, write for the same journals and attend the same conferences. Hillsdale College, which is run by a West Coast Straussian president Larry Arnn, rolls out the carpet for neoconservative but never paleoconservative speakers. In 2016 Boyd Cathey and I both had our names removed from a declaration of support for candidate Trump then running for president. It was a Jaffaite website that took this step. Needless to say, neoconservative names abounded on that declaration from which our names were removed. The reason for our shaming may have to do with the sides that were taken over the controversy between Bradford and Jaffa in the 1970s. The Jaffaites likely never forgave those who contemptuously dismissed the sacred doctrines of their teacher and who rallied almost instinctively to Bradford.

Two, Dr. Cathey devotes several commentaries to one especially dismal aspect of current white Southern political behavior, namely, the unwillingness of most Southerners, even the ones who are descended from gallant Confederate warriors, to rise to the defense of their ancestral monuments and memorials. Right now our author is deep into a legal struggle to keep the statue known as Silent Sam from being removed from the University of North Carolina campus. Dr. Cathey continues to be amazed at the reluctance of Republican politicians (who claim intermittently to be “conservative”) to keep Confederate monument from being dismantled. He quotes a commentary of mine that was posted on Daily Caller, contrasting the indignant response of Italian Americans to the efforts of the cultural Left to remove a statue of Columbus in Manhattan to the appalling indifference of many, perhaps most Southerners to the removal and defacing of their ancestral monuments. Note that many Southerners have a true ancestral connection to what they’ve turned their backs on. Like Dr. Cathey who mentions in his dedications two great-grandfathers and one great-great-grandfather who fought for Southern Independence, these self-hating Southerners have heroic ancestors whom they can celebrate. Instead they work to denude the South of its heritage or sit on their hands while others do the desecrating.

We should finally note that Italian Americans have much less of a familial stake in preserving Columbus’s monuments and reputation than Southerners have in the heritage they’re now denying. The figure whom Italian Americans (most of whom are descended from immigrants from Southern Italy or Sicily) are honoring, has only a very distant relationship to them. He was a Genoese, probably of Sephardic descent, who sailed to Central America under a Spanish flag. Columbus for his celebrants is a symbol of their ethnic identity and group pride, but perhaps not much more. Lee, Jackson, and Forrest should mean much more to Southerners who have lived in their region for at least several generations. These were the commanders under whom their ancestors fought for regional independence, while Jefferson Davis was the honorable president under whom these ancestors served.

Paul Gottfried is the president of the H.L. Mencken Club, a prolific author and social critic, and emeritus professor of humanities at Elizabethtown College.

(Republished from The Abbeville Review by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 257 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rich says:

    Columbus was absolutely not of Sephardic ancestry and I’m surprised someone as supposedly knowledgeable as Professor Gottfried would write such nonsense. Is he quoting the known liar Wiesenthal who wrote this in 1973? Writing something so ridiculously untrue makes me question Professor Gottfried’s intelligence. Will Gottfried, in his dotage, tell us Jefferson Davis was also a “crypto-Jew”? After all, the former first baseman for the NY Mets, Ike Davis, was Jewish and they share a last name…

  2. @Rich

    Is that vitriolic comment aimed at Professor Gottfried well reasoned? Of course not. He quite clearly writes “probably of Sephardic descent.”

    Wiesenthal is not alone in venturing the possibility.

    Here’s just one source touching on the possibility:

    Mosco Galimir writes: “In Tortosa, Salonica and Amsterdam, the name of Colón is found; all bearers of this name are Sephardic Jews.” Galimar continues: “Colombo is a Spanish name. The change of name was a custom amongst Jews. Palumbus, Palombo, Columbus, Colombo. Thus the evolution to Colombo, Colón. The Colombos were Jews from Catalonia. Colón is a common Jewish name found on the Mayorcas.” Mosco Galimir, Cristobal Colón, Discoverer of America, pp. 29-30.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    , @Bill Jones
  3. Rich says:

    Oh, a guy named Moses says a great European is from his tribe and that settles the issue? The evidence that Columbus was from an old Genoese Christian family is overwhelming. His people were known, they weren’t obscure and if they’d snuck out of some godforsaken jewish ghetto, it would have been a well known, easily discovered fact.
    Of course, folks with an anti-Italian or anti-Catholic bias have been trying to change Columbus nationality for many years, but in the end, their arguments have always turned out to be very weak. There is just way too much evidence of Columbus’ Italian Roman Catholic origins for a couple of obscure jewish supremacists to claim him.

    • Replies: @Catiline
    , @Anon
  4. Catiline says:
    @Rich

    Thank you Rich, you beat me too it. Of course their backup position is that Chris was a blond from the north of Italy; nothing to do with “Italians” who claim and celebrate him. The only thing missing from this article is the claim that the Vikings really discovered America. Truly pathetic.

  5. Until recently, most native-born Southerners, like myself, mostly derived from British / British Isles stock, even if we like to emphasize that bit of French on one side. Many point out that the “Upstairs / Downstairs” social hierarchy in the Old South was planted here by those early British settlers.

    Some say the traditional South is suffused with a Marine Corps mentality, a survivalist ethos that compels old-school Southerners to protect their own, their little town, their patch of land—to protect their homestead with honor, even from an overreaching, bureaucratic government.

    You still see a little of that, here and there, in the contemporary South. I think of one of the last examples I saw: a white homeschooling mother of three, living way back in the country in one of the few tiny towns where this mentality is still the cultural norm. Explaining that she refused to send her kids to morally rancid schools, preferring to teach them the morality that she was taught, she conveyed that Old Southern independence. And it works. I saw her kids regularly in that workplace. They were more articulate and more polite than the average.

    That mentality is mostly gone now. By the time I was a teenager, it was mostly vanquished, although I have seen traces of it all of my life, including from non-whites. This is the sort of thing that got Pat Buchanan chased off of the MSM, but it is simply the truth that many older, Black people in the South shared this traditional Southern mentality, creating more unity in their time than we have in the USA of today, with its immigration tsunami, fake multiculturalism and warring identity-baiting factions.

    I think of an old, mannerly, married, Black Southerner who worked with me at a fancy, Southern establishment. He took me aside one day, telling me not to believe any badmouthing of the owners….from my fellow whites. The owners trusted their Black employee with a lot of highly valuable items, giving him the keys to the place to make sure that he stayed out of the cold when waiting for his ride. This happened decades before the civil rights era; he worked for them in this fine place for half a century. He had a more stable, middle-class life than most contemporary Southerners. Whites and Blacks alike should be so lucky to find a job of that quality in the brutal, churn-mobile and impolite-to-an-extreme labor market of today’s transformed South.

    I think of a slightly younger man, an early Boomer, a Black man that I spoke with about a quaint Southern suburb. I was spouting the progressive line to him, lamenting the racism that still prevailed in the civil rights era South. This married, older, Black man laughed gently, letting me know that I needn’t feel sorry for the Blacks in that town in that era. This is him, not white-privileged me, describing in detail this parellel—but peaceful—society, with its own pecking order: the working-class layer of Black delivery drivers, cooks, etc; the middle and upper-class layer of Black teachers and the successful Black businesspeople, living nearer the whites; the youthes, with their Black prom-queen beauties and their college-bound nerds. He told me that, while making the rounds in these jobs serving mostly white businesses, Black citizens kept a close watch over each others’ children, reporting any bad behavior to their almost always married parents.

    It sounded like the stories of small-town life of white Southerners in that era, not so much like my Gen X youth and certainly not like today.

    Of course, it is a very different thing for smaller groups of minorities to successfully assimilate over time, creating their own versions—their own twists—on the majority-white Christian culture, and Black people were here from the Republic’s inception, anyway.

    America, including the South, is a place where many small groups of minorities, including legal immigrants, have successfully assimilated over time, adding interest to their communities without changing everything.

    When countries can’t accept small groups of minorities, they really do have a big problem. This is what turned the cultural powerhouses of continental Europe—parts of the world that created some of the finest products of human civilization ever known—into a murder machine in the Holocaust.

    But what today’s progressives are doing is a very different thing: they want to wipe out the traditional, American culture, which mostly does come from England & continental Europe, though not all of it.

    They want to do that while lying about the impact that mass-scale, welfare-assisted immigration has had—economically—on the American middle class and the working class. They want to lie about it, with everyone confirming their lies, and if you don’t lie about it, you’re a racist and a xenophobe.

    Well, if you are a Black American, like the ones described above, you can get away with telling the truth, but not if you’re white-privileged.

    Interestingly, one of those Black men worked for people who, in one half of the family, came to the South from another region of the country. They brought to Dixie some of the better elements of the North, and of European culture, with a dash of a minority culture. They did that with deference to the better aspects of Southern culture, intermixing the other cultures with traditional Southern culture. They did it with subtlety. They respected the South, adding a touch more refinement, without trying to replace the existing culture. They did it the intelligent way. I don’t see much of that in the contemporary South, which is now almost as full of the force-fed multiculturalism as any other part of the USA.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  6. @Catiline

    No the evidence is not overwhelming thus Professor Gottfried writing “probably of Sephardic descent”. No again to your claim that the evidence is easily discoverable. In fact it is due to the lack of documentation that has lead to the points of contention regarding Colombus’s genealogy. That Sir, is the reality of genealogical research.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Rich
  7. Rich says:
    @Michael Decker

    “Probably” implies near certainty. A couple of Jewish guys trying to claim a great explorer is nowhere near “probable”. If he’d written “possible”, which would still be nonsensical, that might be a little better. Gottfried has revealed himself. That’s all there is to it. Next month it’ll turn out some rabbi in England found out the Washingtons were from a ghetto in Minsk. The name “Colon” means dove, and was taken by many Christians in ancient times. A Jew of that era wouldn’t take a Christian name. And the Crown in Spain well remembered Jewish treachery during the Muslim invasion and would never give ships and a crew to one of that tribe at that time. All nonsense, and has already been pointed out to you, Columbus’ family was well known in Genoa, he wasn’t from an obscure family. His ancestors were well known tailors in the city. He had cousins, his parents, brothers and a sister in Italy. Why do you guys have to make everyone one of your tribe? Just shows your ethnicity’s megalomania and is another reason why many people come to dislike you. You guys have Milton Berle and Rodney Dangerfield, great European explorers aren’t yours. Sorry.

    • Replies: @Anon
  8. Heritage Of South Is Glorious And Heroic, Giving Hope For Future

    God bless those heroic southerners during the horrific 1860s who stood for principle of state sovereignty–which still exists long as the Constitution and 10th Amendment continue to exist.

    What happened in 1860s? Well, northerners understandably wanted to keep market open for free white labor, not wanting the competition of black slavery which slavery they feared, after Dredd Scott decision, would be spread to western territories and even to northern states, so they went to war–and they were extremely disappointed at the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 which freed the slaves to compete w. them.

    Northerners did not want the blacks who SHOULD at least have been sent back to Africa where they belong, or maybe re-patriated to Central America as Lincoln wanted. But the northern “radical” psychopaths after the war decided to inflict the blacks upon the now virtually enslaved, disenfranchised, and impoverished southerners–and this is the situation which remains to this day, except nowadays the northerners (the descendants) are additionally inflicted w. such slavery, not only south.

    But the Constitution remains, as I noted, and thus we whites will SECEDE (and nullify) and institute our own white states and nation once again as things continue as presently to degenerate in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler. Hail Victory and freedom. Amen.

    • Disagree: Ilyana_Rozumova
  9. I could never see what is “conservative” about having millions of African neighbors. If they belonged here, they’d have bought their own tickets.

  10. Hail says: • Website

    the most provocative writers for the onetime American conservative movement have been generally Southerners

    I wonder:
    – who Dr. Gottfried has in mind here, specifically;
    – what he means by ‘Southerner.’

    ____________

    As one example, is Pat Buchanan a Southerner?

    While Pat definitely sympathizes with the Confederate cause, he is only partially a Southerner by personal-ancestry. Of Pat’s four grandparents’ ancestral lines, in the mid-19th century two of the lines were in Ohio, one in New York, and one in Mississippi, this last one being the Buchanan patrilineal line. (At least one of the two Ohio lines was substantially or wholly of early-19th-century German origin.) One of Pat’s Mississippi-born great-grandmothers was the daughter of a Confederate Army officer who died during the war at Okolona, Miss., 25 June 1862. The Southern great-grandfather was also a Confederate veteran and captured during the battles around Atlanta in 1864.

    Pat himself was born and raised in Washington, D.C., in 1938. While it may have been a ‘Southern’ city in the 19th century, by the 1940s when Pat will have begun to gain a social-cultural consciousness, it was really not.

    This, then, raises a question which kind of flips Dr. Gottfried’s premise: Is Pat’s ‘Southern’ identity the cause of, or the product of, his (paleo)conservatism?

    • Replies: @Uncle Remus
  11. renfro says:

    You have to be a Southerner to understand the South
    You can move here,live here, visit here, write about it, study it, publish political screeds about us,you can dine with us, have social conversations with us………but if you weren’t born here of family whose roots go back to the colonies….you aren’t Southern and will never know us.

    One thing about the South, that frustrates some people who have caught onto it is Southerners really dont care what non Southerners think. Its not that we don’t have respect for someone else’s opinion…it just that it doesn’t ‘matter’ to us. We are however polite about it (most of the time) and don’t say that to you.
    Another Southern thing is our “red necks’…..we love our much maligned ‘red necks’…they are our Cool Hand Luke’s, no matter how many chains the warden puts on them they will keep running, they are rebels to the core.

    When all said and done the South is the last hold out of traditional America…..the nut the would be masters havent been able to crack.
    That is why the South is hated and denigrated by the usual suspects.

    • Replies: @Prester John
  12. Sure i will bite.

    The reluctance is that most people have been politically correct on the matter of the south. In other words, they kept silent so as to avoid getting southerners in a huff about their heroes, icons and nostalgia.

    No one simply wanted to state the obvious. Whatever views one has about Southerners being “conservative” is relegated to certain practices, such as decorum, etc. which I would agree are in fact worth valuing as conservative ethos.

    However, they were impulsive and their war was an act of treason. It doesn’t matter how honorably the south took to resign their commissions and state their objections. They attacked their fellow countrymen and as such engaged an act of treason. No the states were not countries or independent republics. There was no planque that offered them a way out of the union in the Constitution —

    Their respect for the founders hard fought, if needless revolution, was to start a ruckus about an issue for which there was no threat to them by the union. In otherwords, they could keep their slaves and nothing constitutional was in the works that would have changed that.

    ______________________

    ” . . . resistance to administrative centralization and an unbending principle of honor are all conservative characteristics stressed in this anthology.”

    It all depends on what it is that you honor. And while resistance to change is essential. When it becomes clear that whatever it is your are resistant to actually embodies immorality, unfairness, violations of faith . . . then change to reconcile said differences is not a luxury, it’s a must that demands hard work. One can embrace aristocratic practices until said practices violates or contradicts the conservative foundations one holds. And not coming to grips with that is hardly honorable.

    ““just government is not founded on the consent of the individuals governed, but on the ordinance of God, and hence a share in the ruling franchise is not a natural right at all, but a privilege to be bestowed according to a wise discretion on a limited class having qualifications to use it for the good of the whole.”

    And if you can find this located in the New testament as an ordinance of god, I would be delighted to read it.

  13. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    ” He was a Genoese, probably of Sephardic descent, who sailed to Central America under a Spanish flag ”

    probably ?

    The angloamerican use of ” probably ” is the mother of of all lies , of all manipulations in history , in science , in politics , in everything .

    The pseudohumble , pseudoscientific ” probably ” introduces deliberately the idea that Colon was jewish without any proof . Even if nobody can prove that Colon was nor jew , the ” probably ” introduces a permanet doubt about it .

    Everytime I hear an angloamerican say ” probably ” I think lets see what lie or manipulation he is ” probably ” trying to sell us .

    King James Bible
    But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil

    • Replies: @Hanoi Paris Hilton
  14. renfro says:

    An amusing story about the new south (the people who move here vr the old southerners was when I was in court a few years back to pay off one of my many speeding tickets. There was a fellow arguing with the judge cause he had gotten a ticket for his expired car inspection. He proceeded to tell the judge how it should have been handled. He droned on until the judge said ‘step to the side sir and pay your ticket. The weary judge then said to the court…”Do we have any more Yankees here today who moved down here to save the South.”

    Another less amusing was when my wife was at a plant and flower store. She took her purchases to the clerk’s counter and was suddenly almost knocked down by a man. He had evidently put some things on the counter and then wandered off to get something else. The clerk had set them to the side so my wife had no idea and thought she could pay and check out…but the man came rushing back like a bull loudly announcing that he was ‘first ‘ . My wife said nothing but as soon as man paid and was gone the clerk said to her…”damn yankees’…lol

  15. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:

    “Dr. Cathey continues to be amazed at the reluctance of Republican politicians (who claim intermittently to be “conservative”) to keep Confederate monument from being dismantled. He quotes a commentary of mine that was posted on Daily Caller, contrasting the indignant response of Italian Americans to the efforts of the cultural Left to remove a statue of Columbus in Manhattan to the appalling indifference of many, perhaps most Southerners to the removal and defacing of their ancestral monuments.”

    That’s because a man cannot have two masters. It’s one or the other. Southerners foolishly traded away their identity for Americanism and now they will soon lose both. Within the next 20 years, all Southern states could be ruled by BLM types due to immigration. Imagine the mismanagement of Detroit. Now imagine a third of the United States controlled by the same kinds of corrupt, inept people who run that city. If Southerners ever want to maintain any bit of their unique identity, they will have to drop this Unionism nonsense and embrace partition, and the clock is ticking.

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Craig Nelsen
  16. What does it matter if Columbus was a jew or not.
    The remarkable thing about Columbus is why he sailed, lack of gold in what now is Spain and Portugal.
    The developing economies were dependent on money, money at the time in the Iberian peninsula was just gold and silver.
    Banking, the creation of paper money, for some reason I do not understand, hardly existed in the peninsula.
    It is impossible that this was not known, we Dutch got rich from the trade between the Baltic and the Iberian peninsula, but we hardly ever transported precious metals.
    Before us the there was banking in Italy and France.
    So, who does not understand present day stupidities with money, maybe it is a consolation that these stupidities existed as long as money was used
    Charles P. Kindleberger, ‘A Financial History of Western Europe’, 1984, London, Boston, Sydney
    In this book the origin of the Spanish civil war is traced back to the time of the silver (and gold) fleets
    Gerald Brenan, ´The Spanish Labyrinth, an Account of the Social and Political Background of the Spanish Civil War’, Cambridge, 1960

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    , @Anon
  17. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    Colon was italian from Genova , Italy , and was at the service of Spain . First he offered his services to Portugal , the excellent portuguese seamen knew that the earth was round , and told Colon that his proposed route to go to China by the west ( ah , already China ! ) was 25% longer than the eastern route , so they dismissed Colon .

    Even so the Spanish Catholic Kings engaged Colon and financed the expedition . The portuguese were right , buy neither the portuguese , nor the spanish , not Colon himself , knew that in the midle of Europe and Asia , going the west route there was an unknown continent : America

    ” probably ” means toghether with anglo or germanic family names , racism , hate , towards Italy and Spain , towards latins , envy because latins discovered America , not anglos ,germanics or french . Well fuck the vikings .

  18. @Michael Decker

    The best marijuana is still Colombian, is it not? This proves that Maimonides pioneered the practical application of jet propulsion. I’ll be right back with the cite.

  19. @Catiline

    Maybe the Vikings discovered America, or maybe it was Columbus. All we really know for certain is that it was God’s Chosen People who made it great. Just ask any of them.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @M Edward
  20. @Michael Decker

    Like so many current jurists you conflate probable with possible.

    • Replies: @Michael Decker
  21. How can a philosophy so nobly opposed to “the expansion of commercial society ” also defend the institution of commercial cotton slavery whose surplus did so much to extend commercial and financial hegemony over everyday life?

    Not a trollish point, but a genuine inquiry.

  22. Jake says:

    “Notwithstanding my obvious conflict of interests, I did volunteer to review the book because it illustrates an observation that I’ve been making for the last forty years, namely, the most provocative writers for the onetime American conservative movement have been generally Southerners. Moreover, what’s rendered them worth reading is that their perspective is unlike the one that has prevailed elsewhere in the US. Southern conservatives wrote and still do, if this book is any indication, with a tragic sense born of defeat, an ingrained sense of place, and an appreciation for older, European conservative traditions.”

    The reason is that Southern conservatism is not, as are all other regional and class American ‘conservativisms,’ a somewhat conservative version of the prevailing WASP culture, which was formed fully, finalized, by a Judaizing heresy – Anglo-Saxon Puritanism – and therefore from its inception has been a revolutionary movement against Christendom, which necessitates that it be a culture acing against the interests and values of virtually all non-WASP white people, certainly the conservative forms of their ancestral cultures.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
  23. Jake says:
    @anon

    True.

    Even Southern Evangelicialism is now, and has been since at least the Reagan years, fully Americanized, which means it has slowly come to be anti-Southern and therefore self-emasculating, self-cannibalistic, culturally.

    Southerners have been assimilated to Yankee WASP culture, and that is proving awful for all ‘conservative’ opposition to liberalism, and to all white Americans who are not rich Elites.

  24. @Mr McKenna

    LOL. Not to mention space travel.

  25. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Rich

    I have no idea if Columbus was Jewish. Upon looking it up though I did find this page quite interesting for the coincidence of events surrounding his life.

    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/destination-the-new-world/

  26. @Mr McKenna

    The Vikings discovered Canada, conclusively. They even maintained a colony there for about one year but could not get along with the Natives.

    They PROBABLY discovered New England.

    But the Vikings themselves thought the Irish were first and reported that Irish monks were present in Newfoundland when they arrived.

    • Replies: @Hail
  27. @blank-misgivings

    Slavery has always existed in one form or another–why would it have been removed? What are u even talking about regarding “a philosophy so nobly opposed to “the expansion of commercial society ””–u make no sense. U may not be “trolling,” but ur nonsense amounts to same thing.

  28. @anon

    It’s all racial now. Just as whites no longer have the luxury of supporting a Libertarian Party, we can no longer afford such nice differentiations as Yankee and Redneck.

    The SPLC is in Alabama. The ACLU is in New York City. Joined at the hip.

    Or at least used to be. I hope the SPLC is in a death spiral.

    BTW, I’m going to bring this up here, with Ron’s forebearance:

    I’ve filed suit against the SPLC in US Dist Court for the Western Dist of Missouri on defamation grounds. Before anyone rolls their eyes, this is not a suit stating a claim for damages for being called a racist, or whatever, though they have certainly not hesitated to call me that and etc. I understand that those cases are inherently weak. My case is, I believe, far stronger than that.

    You can read it here.

    https://craignelsen.com/nelsen_v_splc/NELSENvSPLC.pdf

    It’s 63 pages long. Hey, if it works for Ron…

    I filed it in November, and, already, Morris Dees, Heidi Beirich, and Richard Cohen (who are named in the suit, and are attorneys themselves) have filed pro hac vice motions, as have two attorneys from Ballard Spahr here in DC. Local counsel in Kansas City is an attorney who is also the president of the journalists’ free speech consortium, or something like that, of Missouri.

    The SPLC has a half billion dollars in assets (much of it, deplorably, for a tax-exempt “charity”, in off-shore tax havens). They have more than a hundred attorneys on staff. They have more than a half dozen first-rate First Amendment attorneys preparing for this case. Interestingly, the author of the libel for which I am suing, a guy named Stephen Piggot, was not served a summons to appear because, came the response, “he is no longer an employee of the Southern Poverty Law Center”.

    Anyway, the SPLC’s attack on me last January utterly ruined me. I’m literally homeless and had to write this complaint in the back of my van. I really need to be preparing for this court case, too, but, damn, I spend most days making sure I have a warm place for my dog and myself to sleep.

    So, I’m just going to ask you guys for help. I know that’s not why people come to this site, so sorry for that and sorry, Ron, but I’m in kind of a fix, and it’s for a good cause. The SPLC has excoriated Ron Unz and Steve Sailer and so many others. They are pure poison. I really believe I can beat them and would be intertested in feedback on the case itself.

    So, here is the donation link if you can see your way to helping out:

    https://craignelsen.com/donate/index.php

    And here is the docket:

    https://craignelsen.com/nelsen_v_splc/index.php

  29. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    There is always some english and some dutch pontificating about a Spain about which they do not know anything . No banking in Spain ??? Who is the idiot that related Spaish civil war to the silver fleets ???

    Supremacist euroidiots .

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  30. Anon[154] • Disclaimer says:

    About the question of Columbus being of Jewish descent. I don’t recall when I first heard of this, supported by plausible reasoning, but it was prior to 1973.

  31. Anon[154] • Disclaimer says:

    Re: “Southern Conservatism”. For openers, I lost 13 collateral ancestors at Gettysburg, and our house was burned by Sherman’s “bummers”. I understand that our “civil war” was fought to “preserve the union” with the abolition of slavery coming late to the game. So, when the idea that we may have to defend ourselves from our government is mentioned, I do not smirk.

  32. @Anon

    Gerald Brenan, ´The Spanish Labyrinth, an Account of the Social and Political Background of the Spanish Civil War’, Cambridge, 1960

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  33. wayfarer says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

    Ways the SPLC is a Scam to Profit from “Hate Mongering”

    source: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/12-ways-southern-poverty-law-center-scam-profit-hate-mongering/

    Unmasked: Truth About the SPLC

    Southern Poverty Law Center Scam

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  34. Hail says: • Website
    @Jeff Stryker

    But the Vikings themselves thought the Irish were first and reported that Irish monks were present in Newfoundland when they arrived.

    Source?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Jeff Stryker
  35. George says:

    “The Land We Love: The South and Its Heritage ”
    Who is this ‘we’? Were any of the writers descendants of slaves? Were any of the writers writing from a Southern anti Confederate perspective? Any writers from West Virginia, that rebelled against the rebels?

    “The Defense of Southern Conservatism” Is Southern conservatism defined? What do ‘Southern Conservatives’ think about the federally enforced fugitive slave act? Is the fugitive slave act what they are conserving? Have Southern Conservatives formally renounced the fugitive slave act.

    Why is that white dude waving a Confederate battle flag 150+ years after that flag was relevant for maybe 3 years? Why is Southern Conservatism trapped into the white race and those 4 years (and waving a battle pennant not their actual flag).

    Any discussion of the largely Southern propelled Walker expedition to make Nicaragua a slave state? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

    Any discussion of dueling?

    Did any of the authors reference the preeminent Southern economist Hinton Helper?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinton_Rowan_Helper

    I did not see a table of contents and index on Amazon. I have no idea what is in the book but my guess is it is not really Southern or Conservative. Does the White dominated south exist any more? In Olathe Kansas a pissed of White guy, who was single and unmarried, singled out and shot a married father Indian Engineer. Who is the South, the Indian or the white dude?

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
    , @Anon
    , @Anon
  36. @wayfarer

    More and more people are seeing the light on this outfit, I think. On the other hand, the Yahoos can be pretty easily led. Nevertheless, I asked for a jury trial.

    • Replies: @wayfarer
  37. @blank-misgivings

    Your inquiry is based on applying 21st century standards of morality to a 19th century event.

    There is no honest answer based on that framing.

  38. @Mr McKenna

    The best weed is grown in mom and dad’s basement in Portland, Oregon.

  39. @jilles dykstra

    Columbus did not set sail for gold. He set sail for riches and mercantile trade advantages via a maritime short cut to Marco Polo’s Orient. The rest (including cities of gold and silver) was an accident of pre-satellite imagery circumnavigation.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  40. @George

    Who is the South, the Indian or the white dude?

    That would be neither.

  41. M Edward says:
    @Mr McKenna

    I’m of Viking descent and my ancestors, the Normans, were responsible for the Magna Carta and all subsequent advances in human evolution.

    “God’s Chosen People” ….. Gimme a break..

    Here’s what you precious “Chosenites” contributed to America….

    https://wethoughttheywerewhite.tumblr.com/

    The Transatlantic slave trade, the KKK, The Federal Reserve, Communism, WWI, WWII ……….. Wow Thanks Jews !

  42. wayfarer says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    A fighter, a real strong fighter, should always look dignified and calm, and I believe that any expression of aggression is an expression of weakness. A strong person will not be nervous and will not express aggression towards his opponent. He will be confident in his abilities and his training; then he will face the fight calm and balanced.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedor_Emelianenko

    47 Groups Weighing SPLC Lawsuit Warn ‘Editors, CEOs’: ‘You Are Complicit’ in Hate Group ‘Defamation’

    source: https://pjmedia.com/trending/47-groups-weighing-splc-lawsuit-warn-editors-ceos-you-are-complicit-in-hate-group-defamation/

    I’d being seeking honorary advice from every entity that’s ever been smeared by the SPLC.

    You’re engaging in the good fight, best of luck!

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  43. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Neither Spain nor Portugal set off to explore the world to find gold. The precipitating cause was the 1452? Fall of Constantinople and the Christian Europe oriented Byzantine Empire

    For thousands of years trade between China India Centrral Asia Europe and the Mediterrean went through what’s now know as Turkey. Mediterranean Sea through the Bosporus to the Black Sea and then the Silk Road or by ship and camel caravan from India to the Arab countries and across the Mediterranean to Europe

    The Europeans knew that if they sailed weste far enough they would find China
    What they didn’t know was that the Americas were in the way.

    Columbus spent years lobbying the courts of Europe looking for a sponsor He lobbied England’s Henry 7 amongst others.

    Spain paid for the voyage and won the prize. It was Cortez who found the gold in Mexico.

    Are you sure you aren’t a Jew? I ask because of the hatred of Spain and the Catholic Church that permeates every post you make. Many American Jews have never forgiven Spain for finally expelling the Jews and Muslims the same year Columbus set sail

    And, yes he was an Italian catholic who had a greater impact on the world than any Dutchman.

    The Muslims cut off all trade between China India and Europe

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  44. Mr. Ed says:

    Mr. Nelsen,

    Sorry but you just lost ten bucks; I tried to donate to you but Paypal insisted that I open an account with them, which I will not do.

    I’d advise you to get clear of Paypal, a not-to-be-trusted outfit.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  45. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @M Edward

    If Columbus was Jewish, why was he baptized a Catholic, marry a Catholic in a Catholic Church and place his son in a catholic monastery while he was out at sea?

  46. M Edward says:

    As the descendants of the founders of the country, it would seem as though they are ‘entitled’ to maintain their heritage without outsiders implying that they should be able to displace them or destroy that heritage….

    Pretty F-ing simple.

  47. Take a look at the upper right of the picture that accompanies this article, the white streak is a chemtrail, these are sprayed in the skies of America by the deep state to enable the electrification of the atmosphere to enable HAARP ie microwave weather control, check Geoengineeringwatch.org!

  48. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I don`t give a fig for Brennan`s opinions about Spain . Being english he could have written about the social and political background of english explotation , lies and crimes along history instead of nosing in other countries history . Tired of euroidiots and euroliars .

  49. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @George

    Kansas isn’t in the south

  50. @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Without any argument Columbus did not sail for gold.
    What people using this ‘method’ of ‘discussion’ expect, beyond my comprehension.

    • Replies: @Anon
  51. Rich says:
    @M Edward

    You are mistaken about my being mistaken. You guys have your own heroes, Rothschild, Goldman, Sachs, Marx and Trotsky, we’re not giving you Columbus, no matter how much you BS. Keep it up and I’m taking Alberto Einsteinio away, too.

  52. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:

    In the Casablanca motion picture, they say: when the South was defeated, what it lost was the right to live in the past, independent of history.

    Being I equally apart from Alpha Right Bloggers and Progressive Enlightened Newyorkites/Hollywoodites and their swooning cohorts, I’d like each category of people to have their country. If what they desired were not control over others but the right to choose their place on the history and culture chart, it could be done: there’s abundance of land to do it.
    But it can’t be done.

    And one shouldn’t get fooled by the weaker side manifesting less will-to-impose: cracks in the cover often show the inside, and the “Women should not be allowed to vote” “Intercourse with Negroes should be one of the worst criminal offences” folks ever forget to write: for the people who’d choose to live in our state.

    This judgment doesn’t cover the likes of you, Gottfried, or Clyde, or Brimelow or Francis, and other upright conservatives of the same kind. They were/are great people (which is the reason for their getting marginalized).

    However, I chose to mention a certain type of Right because you have even linked to its blogs in some of your writings.

  53. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    You do realize that the Spanish civil war was in the 1930’s and the Spanish silver fleets delivered the treasure to Spain 400 years earlier?

    And what makes you think your citing some anti Spanish anti Catholic book will prove your entirely false and ignorant statements,

    Isn’t there some Dutch Calvinist site where you can find fellow bigots to obsess over a war that ended in the 1580s?

    Dutch wealth began when the Dutch pirates joined the English French Algerian and Turkish pirates in robbing the Spanish treasure fleets

    The Dutch had to follow the Portuguese to find Indonesia

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  54. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Your comments would make more sense if you didn’t drag a 1580a obscure war into every thread.

  55. Anon[823] • Disclaimer says:

    As to Equality, it’s just the aptest buzzword to provide the quest for holding and augmenting already held power with a population-friendly dress.

    If people and countries were equal, that would render it useless to interfere with their business and “amend” the ongoing.
    Those who believe the least in any type of equality are equality’s public torchbearers.

    People like Bradford, real, genuine, students, may fall for the impression that it is about the names and ideas, whilst it is only about control and securing the instruments to have it. Thus they step into debates.

  56. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    Jeff’s almost right. It was Iceland not Newfoundland though.

    When Erickson and his crew first arrived in Iceland they found thriving Irish monasteries. The Vikings killed the old monks and enslaved the young ones. The Vikings left records about it. It’s common knowledge among historians of the Viking explorations and settlements.

    • Replies: @niceland
  57. @Anon

    Pity for you the Sont registers still exist, though far from complete.
    Any ship sailing through the Sont was registered, had to pay toll.
    Dutch ships were in the majority, our wealth came from trade between the Baltic and S Europe.
    An interesting aspect of the registers is that also the home port was registered, this shows that towns all over Holland particpated in overseas trade.

    • Replies: @Anon
  58. Anon[392] • Disclaimer says:

    just government is not founded on the consent of the individuals governed, but on the ordinance of God, and hence a share in the ruling franchise is not a natural right at all, but a privilege to be bestowed according to a wise discretion on a limited class having qualifications to use it for the good of the whole.

    Same as the New York (Times) – Hollywood – Washington (Post) Controllers, using “God” and “wisdom” in place of “equality” and “Progress”.
    Funny how they aren’t woke to their nigh-whole affinity to each other.

  59. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @George

    The national flag was the Bonnie Blue, white star in a royal blue field

    But the battle flag is much more beautiful and powerful due to the X.
    Hurrah hurrah for the Bonnie Blue flag

  60. @Anon

    In order to understand why Europe came to control the world you can read
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Civilisations’, London, 2000
    You seem to know nothing of Dutch trade already in Roman times.
    Frysian for the Romans meant ‘independent trader’.
    There are objects called books.
    You can buy them in bookshops, libraries loan them.

    • Replies: @Anon
  61. Anon[212] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    I have read indisputably scrupolous authors on the issue, and non-Jewish ones at that, and there is a chance, according to all, that Columbus were sephardic.
    Much more than a chance that the financial backers of the expedition were.

    I haven’t seen anyone serious claiming they own the truth in the matter.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Anon
  62. @EliteCommInc.

    Everyone who speaks or writes of “treason” about the South’s secession needs to point to the legality of the American Revolution; where is it? It doesn’t exist. True treason was committed then, against our rightful King, but we celebrate it because our side won. As a country founded on treason and revolution, it’s appalling that so many nearsighted people throw around the term “treason” when speaking and writing about a second such revolution less than 100 years later.

    Remove the mote from your own eye, sir.

    I’m a 12th generation South Carolinian, and every single line of my family was in the South before the first revolution. At least one male from every line of my family served the Confederate armed forces, in some cases as many as five brothers from one family. This is not intended to be bragging, which the treason crowd wouldn’t consider as such anyway, just a statement of what I’ve discovered in the past several years. I knew my great-great-grandfather on my father’s side, and my great-grandfather on my mother’s side served, but I didn’t know about all the rest until I researched my family thoroughly.

    I took an interest in history at an early age. The first real book I ever read, meaning it had more words than pictures, was a biography of J.E.B. Stuart, under whom my ancestor on my father’s side served. The second was a biography of Stonewall Jackson, under whom several other ancestors served, but I didn’t know it then. I was 10. I’ve studied history and my unique section of the country every since.

    Anyone who is not from the South who thinks they understand the South is an idiot; a thick-headed, dull, obtuse, and overly-opinionated numbskull. For in all honesty, very few Southerners understand our own region. We have become separated from our past, in spite of attempts to keep our own history alive. The simplest way to describe it as a land of contradictions. From being by far the most pious (there being FAR more churches than bars in any Southern town), to arguably the most cruel (i.e. lynching); from being the most well-mannered and cultured, to being arguably the most violent. Dueling was almost a sport here at one time. A former governor of SC wrote the dueling code that was used in the 19th Century. I could go on. It can be understood, but it takes far more time and study than the average person has available. It has everything to do with the blend of people and cultures that formed the South, which is remarkably different than the rest of the country, except for the West (not the coast), which IS Southern.

    Public education, hard to overly criticize from one perspective, that being educating children, was the main device used to separate us from our past, because along with it came core ciriculum, and the study of history written from the viewpoint of the winning side, the U.S.A., and a focus on the whole of the nation rather than any particular part. Education, as such, was propaganda, and it worked. General Micah Jenkins, who was a professor at the York Military Academy, forsaw as much before the war, which he didn’t survive, before there was general education in the South. Public schools were instituted by the North in Radical Reconstruction, in 1868.

    The South, as much as anywhere, and Southerners – genuine Southerners, not transplants – as much as any people, deserve their own history, culture, and place. Our ancestors bled for it.

    I quote Edward Carmack, Congressmen from TN:

    “The SOUTH is a land that has known sorrows; it is a land that has broken the ashen crust and moistened it with tears; a land scarred and riven by the plowshare of war and billowed with the graves of her dead; but a land of legend, a land of song, a land of hallowed and heroic memories.

    “To that land every drop of my blood, every fiber of my being, every pulsation of my heart, is consecrated forever. I was born of her womb; I was nurtured at her breast; and when my last hour shall come, I pray GOD that I may be pillowed upon her bosom and rocked to sleep within her tender and encircling arms.”

    I will not attempt to care any less than I do about how the rest of you feel about the South. I don’t think it possible.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
    , @iffen
  63. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Articles like this are why I’m a White Nationalist instead of a conservative.

    He wrote about the south without mentioning the detrimental effects of affirmative action discrimination against Whites. He wrote about the south without mentioning that most of the city governments are firmly in the hands of dis functional blacks.

    He’s got Magnolia and Moonlight disease.

    The tales about 2 respectable blacks 80 years ago has nothing to do with the way blacks behave today.

  64. anon[789] • Disclaimer says:

    “It’s all racial now. Just as whites no longer have the luxury of supporting a Libertarian Party, we can no longer afford such nice differentiations as Yankee and Redneck.”

    More Unionism. Listen to yourself, sir. Just listen. What exactly do you expect to happen that will change the current situation? A miracle to fall from the sky? Luck? Magic? Can you define this miracle and how it will occur? Can you give me the nuts and bolts of this and show me how it will work? Whites don’t have the kind of ethnic cohesion you wish for and never will, not before we’re overwhelmed or get WW3 with Russia, anyway. So, there is no solution along the current path.

    Here’s a shocker: having a separate country would solve all our problems because we’d be the ones in charge making all the rules. Under current immigration rates, no republican can be elected president again. Soon, no governor outside of Alaska can be a republican. At that point, we’re doomed.

    We’ll look back and ask what could have been done. Someone will point out that we could have just cut our losses and become separate countries; just as Israel is a homeland for Jews, we could have preserved ourselves in our own country ruled by our people for the benefit of our people…but no, apparently.

    True, you don’t just snap your fingers and make that happen. But that option can at least be gamed out. There is strategy and opportunity there. There is at least a small chance it could work. There no chance the current system will work.

    There is such a thing in history as fighting until you’re totally routed. Ask Napoleon. He could have stopped before invading Russia; he could have taken the peace terms offered to him before Waterloo. But no. He kept going and lost everything. That’s exactly where your mentality leads. You need to do some self-evaluation.

    “The SPLC is in Alabama. The ACLU is in New York City. Joined at the hip.”

    Alabama as a free country could ban the SPLC.

    “I’ve filed suit against the SPLC in US Dist Court for the Western Dist of Missouri on defamation grounds. Before anyone rolls their eyes, this is not a suit stating a claim for damages for being called a racist…”

    If we had separate countries, there would be no SPLC and we could redefine hate speech as the kinds of things the SPLC smeared you with, sir.

    “Anyway, the SPLC’s attack on me last January utterly ruined me. I’m literally homeless and had to write this complaint in the back of my van. I really need to be preparing for this court case, too, but, damn, I spend most days making sure I have a warm place for my dog and myself to sleep.”

    Here’s a way to get a bit of positive press and sympathy, sir. Pick up the Confederate flag and stand outside the SPLC building next to your dog and with a placard calling for partition, an end to Middle Eastern wars, and the end of the SJW police state; link an independence movement to other popular causes, economic and political. Film it with a mobile phone, live stream it. Put it on YouTube. Become a defender of the locals, become a folk hero unduly oppressed by an evil foreign organization and maybe someone will shoot you a buck or two. Become a dissident in political exile. Embrace your poverty and radicalize like the communist revolutionaries of the past. Write a political treatise calling for an independence movement. Pay back the system for what they have done to you, don’t just roll over and sue in their court system, play by their rules. It’d just be a show trial anyway, a fake procedure rigged against you with a predetermined outcome, so why are you playing into their game and legitimizing their rule over you?

    What would mean more to you? Getting a few scraps from their table in a pathetic lawsuit or smashing their table into oblivion altogether? The answer to this question is a direct measure of your character and ability. If you choose the former, you should just sell out and get lost now – beg forgiveness like a dog and maybe they chuck a few coins into your cup.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  65. @Craig Nelsen

    Please succeed, Craig. Despite the circumstances try to have a good Christmas. Hope you get some donations from this.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  66. Anon[789] • Disclaimer says:

    “In the Casablanca motion picture, they say: when the South was defeated, what it lost was the right to live in the past, independent of history.”

    Let’s live in a future where we are free and independent. It’s not over until we say it is over. Stop living by other people’s definitions and rules. Let’s make our own.

    “But it can’t be done.”

    Propaganda. It CAN be done. Happens all the time internationally and throughout history. Any assertion to the contrary is either defeatist nonsense or purposeful disinformation.

  67. Anon[247] • Disclaimer says:

    “Articles like this are why I’m a White Nationalist instead of a conservative.”

    White nationalism is a shallow end populated by social rejects shunned by successful middle-class whites. Always has been and always will be. Don’t kid yourself otherwise. The entire congress denounced you after Charlottesvile. You have precisely zero constituency and there is no chance to change that because all white people want to be considered moral and just; arguments are fought and won on the fields of moralism and not on the planes of autism. I am for what could conceivably work: partition. I’m a Southern Patriot, not a dork who fancies miracles will fall from the sky. I’m not a “conservative” either. Conserve what, anyway? An immoral police state and military empire?

    My strategy could possibly work because it can be fought morally: frame the current regime as unjust and immoral – racist, imperial, anti-freedom, corrupt, inept, and discriminatory, etc. Unlike white nationalist rejects, participants in this movement would have a modicum of shielding because they’d be seen as local heroes defending their people from oppression, not “Nazis” and bad people / white supremacists, which all middle-class people will reject. And with this strategy, there is hope for change. An independent system ruled by our people could be geared towards empowering our people just as Israel is a homeland for Jews. This movement is also implicitly white, so you’d still get the same goals you fancy under WN, just with a more appealing brand and more realistic chance of success.

    Advocating serious constitutional reform under a new system could be a powerful magnet for the disaffected and the impoverished. We could advocate doing away with these internet monopolies in our new country (powerful draw for a lot of young kids). We could also advocate banning the SPLC and charging the left with hate crimes; we could make opposing us hate speech just as they do for us now. We could advocate for ending wars, ensuring privacy rights and all manner of popular things to go along with our independence movement. Giving people cover, letting them believe our enemy can only do so much damage to us before we defeat and punish them will help draw out more fence sitters.

    Give people a reasonable plan and even a sliver of light at the end of a dark tunnel and at least some will take that journey into the unknown. The problem with white nationalism is that there is no realistic endgame, so you are perpetually left out in the wilderness alone – stuck with talentless hacks and Nazi weirdos who drag you down when what you really need is a higher class of supporter.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  68. Rich says:
    @Anon

    There is as much a chance of his being Sephardic as there is for his being a Martian sent to Spain to help them all get rich. Not much of one. And I’m sure there are always authors trying to kiss up to whatever ethnic group controls the publishing houses at the time they write their book. Columbus himself wrote that he was Genoese and he was a devout Roman Catholic serving the devout Roman Catholic Monarchs in Spain. This whole debate is nonsensical. It’s the kind of thing a Borscht Belt comedian would say to get some laughs in the old days.

  69. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    You started out attacking Spain and now you claim that all Dutch wealth came from the Hanseatic trade. Your wealth came from 400 years of looting Indonesia.

    Americans really, really don’t care about the 1580s war between Spain and the Dutch. Nor does Spain or any other European country

    • Replies: @Rich
  70. All else aside, the Southerners must defend their heritage in a form of statues of the gallant heroes…

  71. wayfarer says:

    Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

    Southern Poverty Law Center – 2016 IRS Form 990
    501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Charitable Organization
    https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/990_103117.pdf

    SPLC Funnels Millions into Offshore Bank Accounts

    SPLC “Trump Effect” Deception

  72. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I highly doubt Isabella and Ferdinand would have financed a Jew in the very year they finally got rid of them.

    My sisters DNA came out 2% Jew. Does that mean we’re jews? No Also less than 1% East Asian. Does that mean we’re Asians? No

    Sephardic means Jews descended from Spanish Jews deported by Isabella . His Colon family Genovese history goes back generations before the Jews were deported from Spain.

    The whole Columbus was a Jew is just English Protestant enlightenment bigotry against S Europe and catholicism. Our commenter Jilles is an excellent example of this bigotry.

    Remember the volcano of anti White European hatred that burst out in 1992 on the 500th anniversary of Columbus voyage??? That was a standard racist liberal Jewish led standard year of hate directed at all White Europeans, not just Columbus and Spain.

  73. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Netherlands was under the North Sea in Roman times. The land reclamation project didn’t start till around 600AD.

    I know very well how Europe came to control world trade due to the Portuguese and Spanish expeditions, not the Dutch and English.

    What I really really don’t understand is why you bring in Dutch history and your ridiculous hatred of Spain into every thread.

    What does Dutch history have to do with an article about the confederate heritage that segued into a discussion about the falsehood that Columbus wA a Jew?

  74. Rich says:
    @Anon

    The Dutch didn’t “loot” Indonesia. They built and planted and created a prosperous colony where before there was just murder, disease and suffering. Fair minded Indonesians look back to the era of Dutch colonialism as a kind of golden era where their country was pulled out of the stone age and lifted into the modern world.

    You’re right that most Americans don’t care about the Dutch-Spanish Wars, but then again, most Americans don’t care about history at all, unless it’s the constant harping on slavery and Jim Crow. But the Dutch revolt is actually a very interesting story and shows how a smaller country, if determined and motivated enough, can battle against a much stronger nation. On paper, the Spanish should’ve defeated the Dutch in a couple of months, but instead battled for decades.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Anon
  75. A. Person says:

    Sit tight.

    ***

    “There are several circumstances which occurred on this estate while I was there, relative to other slaves, which it may be interesting to mention. Hardly a day ever passed without some one being flogged. To one of his female slaves he had given a dose of castor oil and salts together, as much as she could take; he then got a box, about six feet by two and a half, and one and a half feet deep; he put this slave under the box, and made the men fetch as many stones as they could get, and put them on the top of it; under this she was made to stay all night. I believe that if he had given this slave one, he had given her three thousand lashes. Mr. Gooch was a member of a Baptist church. His slaves, thinking him a very bad sample of what a professing Christian ought to be, would not join the connection he belonged to, thinking they must be a very bad set of people;…” …(The Classic Slave Narratives.)

    ***
    This is the un-white-washed truth of confederate history and southern heritage.
    ***

    “Slaveholders hide themselves behind the church. A more praying, preaching, psalm-singing people cannot be found than the slaveholders at the south. The religion of the south is referred to every day, to prove that slaveholders are good, pious men. But with all their pretensions, and all the aid which they get from the northern church, they cannot succeed in deceiving the Christian portion of the world. Their child-robbing, man-stealing, woman-whipping, chain-forging, marriage-destroying, slave-manufacturing, man-slaying religion will not be received as genuine; and the people of the free states cannot expect to live in union with slaveholders, without becoming contaminated with slavery.”… (ditto.)

    ***
    Go ahead. Deny that slavery was the prime cause of the war to spank dixie.

    ***

  76. @EliteCommInc.

    As a born&bred Yankee I can tell you that your words are complete nonsense.

    The right of secession was allowed in the Constitution since no state would have ratified it in 1787 had it not existed. And New England states were actually the first to consider seceding in the 1840s or thereabouts with one of the first states to consider it being my own state of New York.

    Up until the War for Southern Independence that began in 1861, every citizen in the Confederation of States of America (all US states at the time) was loyal to his or her state over that of a federal government and all viewed their states as independent, sovereign nations in their own right. This viewpoint is what actually established the original states of America.

    As a result, there was no act of treason when many members of the US military chose to resign their commissions to fight for the South because all such personages viewed their loyalties as to the states they were reared in.

    Reading many documents about the Lincoln Administration, I found that he was one of the most monstrous US president to have ever existed. His concept of “Union” was based on an ideology that came from Henry Clay’s, “American System”, which was supported even in earlier years by such “monarchists” as Alexander Hamilton.

    Lincoln, like the rest of his ilk, saw far more benefit in having a strong centralized federal government than a simplistic confederation of states as the US was known as prior to the conflict. And when the South chose to seced it was over the debilitating tariffs he had imposed on them, which generated approximately 90% of the federal government’s revenue at the time. Had the South been allowed to go peacefully, the north would have been bankrupted over night. And though many northerners supported peaceful secession, Lincoln would have none of it.

    And the Southern Military Forces did not invade anyone and nor did they initiate the conflict. That was all Lincoln even when most northerners did not want a conflict of any type. As soon as the secession was complete with the original 7 or 9 states, Lincoln bypassed the Congress by having all the remaining northern states call out their state militias for immediate duty to invade the South, which they did. That is how Lincoln got his 75,000 man-army over night.

    In fact, based on Stephen Sears’ research in his recent opus magnus , “Lincoln’s Lieutenants”, the entire shooting war actually was initiated over an intelligence snafu that had President Davis’ misreading a communique that had come into his possession by the Fort Sumter commander telling Lincoln to NOT send any armed convoys to re-provision the fort.

    Southern Military Forces in Charleston were allowing necessities to go to the fort but when the first northern provisions ship showed up outside of Fort Sumter, Southern military commanders were then under the belief (as a result of the communique ) that the fort was being re-armed, which they also viewed as an act of war (which it was).

    Subsequently they fired on the fort where surprisingly not a single northern soldier died from the bombardment. Later a northern soldier was found dead but this was a result of some type of blasting fuse that when off accidentally after the bombardment had ceased.

    We should only hope that men of the stature of Davis, Lee, Jackson, and many others rise to reclaim the original traditions of the Confederation of States of America and rid of us the complete lunacy that has taken over this nation…

    • Agree: apollonian
  77. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I’m not a loser shunned by middle class Whites. In fact most middle class Whites would envy me. The Charlottesville fiasco
    had nothing to due with White nationalism. Wasn’t it about the proposed removal of a civil war confederate monument?

    The constitution is in the hands of an anti White ultra liberal judiciary that just makes up the law as they go along.

    Irralize that’s a very prole way of expressing it. But that’s our system based on English common law. Common law doesn’t mean favoring the common people.

    The courts have ruled many times that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to Whites. Brown vs Topeka 1956 Supreme Court recognized an adult Jewish attorney as having standing to be the plaintiff against the school district. She was neither a student nor parent of a child in the school district
    Yet the courts declared she had standing as plaintiff

    the Supreme Court forbade the state of Louisiana to regulate regulate dumping of animal parts blood and manure in rivers and creeks.

    Constitutionalists need to realize that Judge made law is a more than thousand year old rule in English American law and we are cursed with it forever.

    The judiciary makes the laws and can overturn laws made by elected legislators mean nothing when someone files a lawsuit and any judge can overturn that law

    Check out the history of gay marriage and transgender supremacy. It was all done through judicial decisions that became law.

    School desegregation is a good example. 1956 the constitution requires that children go to the school nearest their home instead of separate schools for blacks and Whites

    1966 the constitution requires that millions of children all over the country take buses to schools as much as 40 miles away. Los Angeles school district bussed black kids from the furthermost south east part of the district to the furthest north west part of the district for years. I knew a woman who went through it. Up at 5/30 am to get in the 6/20 bus for the 53 mile one way trip. And home after another 53 mile trip

    Instead of reading the constitution you should read some internet articles about constitutional law. They will explain how the constitution can be endlessly twisted by judges to create or overturn laws passed by elected legislators

    Save yourself neither other Whites nor the constitution can save us.

    Conservatism is a total loser position. They’ve lost every cause they’ve every espoused.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  78. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    I’m a big fan of John Calhoun. He wrote a lot about the right of secession. His arguments proved that the states had the right of peaceful
    succession. But the federal government and President Lincoln thought differently

    The war decided the question once and for all didn’t it?

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @Sean
    , @JamesinNM
  79. I am sure the book goes to great lengths to make specific references to what conservative southern principles and practices are worthy of holding on to. And that being said, I am not sure that you wouldn’t find similar beliefs and practices elsewhere in non-southern communities. or entire states that hold a narrow view of invading their traditions: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Montana . . .

    The problem for the South is not that they held traditions that were more discriminatory than other states. It’s they were so blatantly honest about it —

    by linking so much of their traditional positions to unconstitutional and even “unbiblical” as the south did embrace the ethos of being the Bible Belt, defending those contradictions enabled the other states to “scapegoat” both the states and the traditions they held. Attempting to do the same without at least acknowledging the errors or hypocrisy is inviting more “scapegoating” and ridicule fair or unfair.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  80. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    You’re right It’s just that I never liked Jilles diatribes about ignorant Americans and how we have to sell the house to pay for a Dr visit. My English relatives were under the impression that blacks don’t go to school at all and if you’re in an auto accident you lie on the street and die because we have no hospitals. Germans and other N Europeans are just as bad
    It’s all due to Russian communist anti American propaganda during the Cold War. And the European “ intellectuals” totally fell for it.

    I don’t see why jilles keeps bringing it up. He constantly sneers at America for genociding the Indians. He’s obviously never driven across Pine Ridge or been to Humboldt county ca.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  81. @Steve Naidamast

    EliteComm is full of **it.

    The work of Thomas DiLorenzo enlightened me to the type of man Lincoln really was. I recommend two of his books: “Lincoln Unmasked” and “The Real Lincoln.” No wonder his many contemporary critics called him a tyrant. The South was Right. Lincoln destroyed the Free Republic. Only those few who have read beyond government approved history books know what a war criminal the man really was.

  82. @Anon

    “War decided the question once and for all didn’t it.”

    All the war decided (proved) was the old dictum “Might Makes Right.”

  83. anonymous[985] • Disclaimer says:

    Enough with the Confederacy already. Burn that damned Democrat flag, and don’t protest when present-day Democrats knock down statues of the Democrats of old. (Instead, freak them out by thanking them for tearing down statues of their ideological forefathers!)

    For 40 years I’ve listened to Democrats falsely accuse conservatives of being “racist”, ever since the entirely truthful Willie Horton ad. And yes, I know about the Tariff of Abominations, I know how Lincoln set the stage for the unconstitutional expansion of federal power, and so on. But still, the cold hard fact is that the defense of the indefensible –slavery — was the core issue for the Confederacy, and that “Confederacy = slavery=racism” in most people’s minds.

    So when our side defends any aspect of the Confederacy — no matter how accurately– we give ammo to those who slander us as racists — and we alienate many who might very well support us.

    So… Stop it already.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
  84. @Steve Naidamast

    There is not event a hint in the Constitution of any such notion. And even Pres. Andrew Jackson a born and bred southerner agrees with reality.

    Whether said communique was real or imagined is inconsequential. The reason that the founders required a 100% consensus was for the very reason of binding a permanent union. They had already tested a confederation — it was unworkable.

    Hence the pre-amble in the Constitution . . .

    “In order to form a perfect Union . . .”

    As with the the Declaration — the binding requirement was not the mere signature one, some, most of the colonies (states) but every single one of them to assent to a revolution.

    That is the ratification process, a process which acknowledged a single union. A ratification that would make any act against the federal government and act of war and thereby an act of treason.

    Now I sympathize with the dilemma. how to get of an agreement by which my forebears have bound the state. That would have been a fascinating debate and discussion had civil heads prevailed. However, that was not the case. Completely ignoring that the south was always going to have the upperhand on the question of slavery, acting out of kneejerk, mentality, they began a war they were not prepared to fight as a nation and for which was dubious given the assent to the reasons for the revolution and the philosophical document that explained it.

    In fact, all one need do is examine the military oaths of service for the officer corp of 1848 or 1849 —

    Gen Lee did not resign his post when it was proffered the year before he entered west point. When he arrested john Brown he acted as not a state rep, but that of the US to which he was bound. Becoming a civilian did alleive him or any other southerner from being US citizenship.

    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  85. Sean says:
    @Anon

    A right is something that you can claim and have enforced by the state, or it is nothing.

  86. JamesinNM says:
    @Rich

    Please research the history of the slave trade in that time and Jewish or false-Jewish involvement.

  87. @follyofwar

    Well,

    if you or Thomas DiLorenzo can locate even a slice of legislation, even in draft form by Pres Lincoln to “free slaves” by hook or by crook have at it.

    he made it expressly clear he would do nothing to invite a unlawful breakup of the union, which he knew would mean war. In every respect save to the philosophical contradiction to the founding of the country — slavery was legal and such he would nothing to to break the laws of the land —

    Like every leader since the founding unity over the freedom of people — in this case black people — who served as slaves.

    doubt it, read the Emancipation Proclamation — a document written after the war commenced. Still he pandered that slavery was not an issue for him when it came to the laws of the land and maintaining the union forged and ratified by war, articles of confederation and then a complete bind in the Constitution of the US.

  88. JamesinNM says:
    @follyofwar

    Lincoln destroyed America and its de jure government and replaced it with a private de facto government for the bankers. Lincoln should be posthumously prosecuted for treason, and all memorials to him should be destroyed.

  89. @follyofwar

    The government approved books note that Pres. Lincoln freed the slaves — He did not.

    was President Lincoln a shrewd politician — laughing you bet. he managed to be against slavery and for it at the same time.

    Since there is so much swirling about southern values. Pres. Lincoln followed the path on the matter of Union in accordance with the most predominant Southern President , hero of New Orleans

    Pres./Gen. Andrew Jackson – who supported slavery 100% and made it clear anyone who sought to leave the union would hanged . . .

    I’ll see your Thomas DiLorenzo and your Pres Lincoln and raise you Pres/Gen. Andrew Jackson of North and South Carolina (having been born on the border — a true blue southern gentleman):

    ” ‘if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.’ When Robert Hayne ventured, ‘I don’t believe he would really hang anybody, do you?’ Thomas Hart Benton replied, ‘Few people have believed he would hang Arbuthnot and shoot Ambrister . . . I tell you, Hayne, when Jackson begins to talk about hanging, they can begin to look out for ropes!’ ”

    https://haysvillelibrary.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/andrew-jackson-the-nullification-crisis/

    I will stand with Pres and Gen Jackson on this issue – treason.

  90. I often wonder how much longer Southern whites can hang on to at least a semblance of power. Two Far Left know-nothings, Abrams (GA) and Gillum (FL), nearly won their respective races for governor in November. Four years from now they would probably win. The curtain is closing for the quickly-disappearing Southern Nationalists. With every statue that falls at the hands of the Leftist Mob, another piece of heritage is forever lost. When, if ever, will the pitchforks come out? The Brave New World beckons.

  91. @Anon

    Because, at times, Spain used to piss on the Netherlands and Jilles forebears were caught up in the storm!

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  92. @Anon

    ” Netherlands was under the North Sea in Roman times. The land reclamation project didn’t start till around 600AD. ”

    Unbelievable.
    It was Schopenhauer, I believe, who said ‘against stupidity even the gods battle in vain’.

  93. A. Person says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    ***
    Born and bred a Yankee? Yet, you think Lee was a hero?

    Lee was a full coward of the elite degree, as are most generals, in general. Lee, sitting on his steed, renewed his troops coming and going, yet Lee, who actually looked like Lee Harvey Oswald with a mustache, he, himself, was never closer than, lets say, five miles from the actual battle. In battle soldiers die. Lee didn’t want any of that.

    Never mind that Lee was a coward.

    Since you are a Yankee, (and apparently, in spirit, a dixie-duffer,) you might want to join-in and sing a little dixie ditty called Dixie.

    (Sing it, and sing it with great gusto.)

    Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton

    old times there are not forgotten
    
 look away, look away

    look away, Dixie land


    
 I wish I was in Dixie
 hooray, hooray
    
 in Dixie land I’ll take my stand
 and live and die in Dixie
 away, boy
    
 away
    
 away down south in Dixie

    ***
    Here’s the nuance. In the early 1800’s Dixie was a term which showed the longing of Negro slaves for a place where people were thoughtful of others, a place where Negroes were treated with kindness and consideration.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Dannyboy
  94. @A. Person

    One comment history.

    The readership here is little past your 10th grade level public school social studies essay. If I were you I’d repeat all 12 years of schooling before you even consider commenting here again.

  95. @EliteCommInc.

    It is really interesting to see a real fool write on serious material.

    I suggest you read about the 10th amendment, which was ratified in 1791…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    • Replies: @EliteComminc.
  96. @Anon

    ” It’s just that I never liked Jilles diatribes about ignorant Americans ”
    I can understand this.
    Especially USA citizens seem to be in the habit of thinking they’re on the top of the world.
    Now if the average person in Europe is much less or much more ignorant than the average in the USA, I do not know.
    But the average person in Europe does not have the superiority feeling one encounters with quite a few USA citizens.
    Cannot remember any intelligent person from Europe who was impressed with USA knowledge.
    Same for USA society, as a former Dutch EU Commissar said ‘not even capable of providing decent health care for forty million citizens’.
    But I can offer a consolation, I’m not the average Dutchman.
    BTW, USA ambassador Pete Hoekstra here a few days ago urged us to boycott Russian gas, Putin cannot be trusted.
    Comments were ‘does he really think we fall for his trick to sell us dirty and expensive USA gas ?’.

    • Replies: @Anon
  97. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @A. Person

    Go ahead. Deny that slavery was the prime cause of the war to spank dixie.

    Sorry, White men in any era, let alone that one, would never give up 500k of their own to free negros from anything. As negroes are slaves of their own animal behavior regardless of any formal slavery. Your sophomoric propaganda will never change those immutable facts.

    Negroes don’t want kindness and “consideration” (consideration from whom, exactly?). Because they are incapable of giving these things even to themselves on a large scale. What they want is endless tolerance of their monkeyshines. It’s never going to happen, which is the definitive behavior in preservation of the good.

  98. Being a conservative is not dependent on winning, though winning is great, to convince people that traditional ethos and lifestyle are the best choices to sustain and extend community would be nice.

    However, it is a lifestyle, not merely a political agenda. if the all the country goes same sex practicing, a conservative on that issue would remain conservative. So being a conservative is not dependent on how many people agree or disagree with the principles and practice.

  99. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @A. Person

    Lee was a full coward of the elite degree, as are most generals, in general.

    Nice prose and grammar.

    I suspect that we are witnessing the result of Black education.

  100. @Reuben Kaspate

    The father of Philips II had his court in Brussels.
    His cardinal mistake was to send his son to Spain to be educated.
    Philips thus was raised in the Spanish feudal agrarian society, he had no idea whatsoever about trade and industry in what now is Netherlands and the Flemish part of Belgium.
    The Spaniards he sent to Brussels to rule were as ignorant as he was.
    And so the Dutch rebellion began.
    We won by being clever
    Herbert H. Rowen, ‘John de Witt, Statesman of the “True Freedom”‘, Cambridge 1986

    • Replies: @Anon
  101. @Hail

    Source?

    There’s a million of them. St. Brendan the Navigator. Among others.

    At any rate, Vikings get the credit.

    Has to be said that neither Vikings nor Columbus were ever in the United States. Eric the Red discovered and colonized (Briefly) Canada and Columbus Cuba.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Catiline
  102. @Hail

    Dr. Gottfried no doubt is thinking of the contributors to the Agrarian manifesto of 1930, I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition, Allen Tate, Donald Davidson, etc., and more recent writers and scholars such as M. E. Bradford, Samuel T. Francis, Grady McWhiney, Forrest McDonald, Clyde Wilson, Donald Livingston, and many others.

  103. Cleburne says:
    @Jake

    God damn it Jake. I’ve told you this a million times. The religion of the native Southerner at the sub grandee level was New Model Army, non-leveler Puritanism. (It’s been corrupted by Scofield but that’s beside the point.) You simply do not know what you’re talking about. The Puritants weren’t Judaizers either.

    Nor have we Southerners been assimilated to Yankee WASP culture.

    I’m all for obsessive ideas but jeez, they should at least have one toe in reality

    • Replies: @Jake
  104. @Bill Jones

    No you are mistaken. I accurately cited Professor Gottfried’s own words. I didn’t co-author the article.

    I chose to use the word possibility. Professor Gottfried didn’t direct my thought processes. Thus there is no conflating.

  105. Anon[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Your college-entrance-length essay betrays fear, emotion, and lack of enough organizational capacity (frontal lobe capacity) to be more efficient in boiling your strong emotion down to concise statements.

    White nationalism is a shallow end populated by social rejects shunned by successful middle-class whites.

    White Nationalism is the de facto morality of civilization and the greater West, both historically and present. This is why the West is majority White until recently.

    Of course, the notion of “White” being a form of universalism in itself . The real and effective racism has always been much more specific, but all of it using White-ish skin as a baseline requirement.

    Always has been and always will be.

    The above statement can be best characterized as ahistorical self-soothing.

    The entire congress denounced you after Charlottesvile.

    1. The death at Charlottesville was the result of violent communists disturbing an otherwise peaceful protest. “Don’t kid yourself”.

    2. As if the people of that congress that is comprised of non-Whites, communists, and Jewish puppets have the spiritual or moral authority to legitimately judge any true White person. Don’t kid yourself.

    You have precisely zero constituency

    The entire effective conservative base is our constituency. Our man is in the White House.

    and there is no chance to change that because all white people want to be considered moral and just;

    Its rather sad that at this stage in the game you are still of the flawed notion that Jew worship is the only morality and that anything that threatens Jewish interests (like native European survival: political and otherwise) is immoral. That’s not morality. That’s their morality. Our morality is our survival, point simple. There is no negotiation of that fact.

    Our survival morality and that of others would not be in conflict if Jewish morality also did not include the domination of all other nations. That is immorality.

    Its rather sad that you are of the belief that your supremacist view of morality has survived. It hasn’t. It’s mortally wounded and, as we witness in the mad anti-Trump ravings of the Jewish press every day, it is loudly dying.

    What has replaced it is the true realization that it is moral when good people and good races survive. It is moral when liars and murderers are defeated.

    Your world and its morality is reflected in the rapes and beheadings of innocent White women. Your world is reflected in 9/11 and other jihadist events that mass murder civilians. Your world is reflected in the fact that Blacks kill as many Whites as Whites do every year (while being a fraction of our population). Our world and its morality is reflected in peace, law, and order for our people.

    arguments are fought and won on the fields of moralism and not on the planes of autism.

    That sounds like a challenge that you truly aren’t up for.

    I’m not a “conservative” either.

    You don’t say.

    Conserve what, anyway? An immoral police state and military empire?

    I see. You’re a blithering idiot.

    My strategy could possibly work because it can be fought morally: frame the current regime as unjust and immoral – racist, imperial, anti-freedom, corrupt, inept, and discriminatory, etc.

    Racism is absolutely moral. Fighting against it will have you in slavery before long, cuck. You have Stockholm Syndrome.

    Unlike white nationalist rejects, participants in this movement would have a modicum of shielding because they’d be seen as local heroes defending their people from oppression,

    Look you weak faggot (names justified on your low IQ ill manners): you aren’t proposing anything new. What you are proposing is the essential (non) strategy long ago adopted by the spiritually defeated masses of this nation in the hope that completely subjugating themselves to the Jewish narrative (holding onto the exceedingly thins trip of conservatism that they were allowed) would allow them to survive.

    That fellating Israel at the cost of our own nationalism would allow them to sniff the panties or ride the coat-tails of that nation into White survival.

    None of that was ever true, as we can witness by the death spiral that we entered thereafter. What you are suggesting is the behavior of the walking dead, it was long ago attempted, and in this past election it was decisiveley refuted.

    Get with the fucking program already, Gomer. Your slow-ness is noise in the system at this point.

    not “Nazis” and bad people / white supremacists, which all middle-class people will reject.

    Do you have Down’s Syndrome? Your as clueless-ness is something to behold.

    White Nationalism is the Middle Class ethic, by definition. Non-Whites overwhelmingly occupy the rungs below the middle class. The middle class exists only in its differentiation from those castes. The White Middle Class is not the Brahman Caste. Our job is not to teach lower Castes dysfunctional social values. That is the job of the upper castes. Our job is to both police the lower castes and to stay separate from them. We stay separate because civilization requires a Law and Order Caste that are not slavers (Jews). It is possible for lower castes to enter our caste with enough work and live de facto “White” lives. We are not pure oppressors, but we unapologetically punish lower caste behavior. That is our caste role.

    As your Rabbi would say: “let us differentiate”.

    The Middle Class is the Law and Order Caste that in prior times was known as the Kshatriya Caste. There is no more staunch repository of White Nationalism than in the Middle Caste, as you can view in their consistent voting behaviors, which is the largest reason why Communism’s primary economic goal is to eradicate not the current Ruling Caste but the Middle Caste / Class. That’s why they attempted to genocide the Kshatriya Caste Cossacks and Kulaks.

    The Upper Brahman tier is also White Nationalist, but they have the role of caste suppression through values communication. In other words, their role is to transmute dysfunctional, oppressive caste values to the lower castes. Their only competitor is the middle class, which is why that caste is kept in line with anti-White lip service and occasional genocide attempts.

    And with this strategy, there is hope for change. An independent system ruled by our people could be geared towards empowering our people just as Israel is a homeland for Jews. This movement is also implicitly white, so you’d still get the same goals you fancy under WN, just with a more appealing brand and more realistic chance of success.

    You’re trying to figure out the caste system while being autistically rude while you only have part of the picture (the part that is in the open).

    In trying to convince yourself of your theory, you’ve taught yourself that racism is immoral. What you’ve succeeded in doing is buying into the lower caste values that the upper caste uses to oppress lower castes. You aren’t suggesting the adoption of upper or even middle caste values, but of lower caste values. You are suggesting the adoption of the values that are meant to oppress non-White castes.

    Stop being a loud, annoying fucktard. With all due respect. You merely haven’ figured out the system as of yet. I gave you its bones above. Your current solution to backtrack over decades of failed cuckoldry is not viable, nor is it what anyone wants. Even the upper tier. All that your suggestion prior succeeded in doing is drastically weakening our caste position, political power, and our protection against those who would see us harmed. That is the effect that it would continue to have.

    This is all coming to a head and a resolution in the future, and the re-emergence of WN is a part of that.

    Advocating serious constitutional reform under a new system could be a powerful magnet for the disaffected and the impoverished.

    Fuck you for your disproven tactics and fuck them. They will come when it is a matter of racial survival. Most already have.

    We could also advocate banning the SPLC and charging the left with hate crimes; we could make opposing us hate speech just as they do for us now.

    You’ll never defeat them with incrementalism. They are too loud and powerful. They also don’t have control of their lower tier. This victory will come suddenly or likely not at all.

    The problem with white nationalism is that there is no realistic endgame, so you are perpetually left out in the wilderness alone

    Sure there is. Read your Bible.

    – stuck with talentless hacks and Nazi weirdos who drag you down when what you really need is a higher class of supporter.

    Its ironic you citing “talent” when you ahven’t been able o think your wa out of a paper bag. We still run this show. That’s the talent that supports you, whether we want to or not given your demonstrated spirit.

    Its better to fight and die bravely than as a weak willed pansy. Your defeatist suggestions, which attack your supposed brothers, after our victory in recent years is incomprehensively weak; even in spite of your lack of information.

    • Replies: @mcohen
    , @Jeff Stryker
  106. Dannyboy says:

    White European Christian Civilization is the greatest in recorded history.

    Can I get an AMEN up in here?

    🙂

  107. wayfarer says:

    Rothschild Federal Reserve System
    Most Prolific Slavers in American History
    source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/

    U.S. National Debt.
    source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

  108. Dannyboy says:

    Our boys walked on the Moon.

  109. @A. Person

    Even if slavery was the prime cause of the war between the states (which it wasn’t) Lincoln’s admin would have had to engage in endless mendacity to deny it. If men of the North were told that they were going to be sent thru the hell of battle, facing death or a lifetime mutilation, in order to free black slaves, they would have all fled to Canada. Racism against black as inferior people was nearly 100% back then. Lincoln thought that way as well. If Lincoln’s war was about freeing the slaves, and he was honest about it, he would have never mustered an army.

  110. Anon[213] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Another source is Saint Columba an Irishman 500 AD??? who sailed so far north west he encountered icebergs.
    A lot of French canadiens claim the first non military settlers were fishermen from Brittany, Dordogne Maine and other Atlantic coast provinces who’d been fishing off the grand banks and saltimg and smoking the fish on canadien islands for centuries.

    Cortez was the Spaniard who really got things going when he discovered Mexican gold. Like Saudi oil. Some nations get lucky at the right times.

  111. Bruno says:
    @Rich

    He was supposed to be Italian but didn’t speak any Italian language. His personal correspondence was written in ladino, Jewish Sephardi. And he signed it with : beezrat Hashem.

    So yes, there are many reasons to think he was (a crypto) Jewish .

    • Replies: @Rich
  112. mcohen says:
    @Anon

    Did you write this bullshit or scoop it whole out the bowl

    “Our survival morality and that of others would not be in conflict if Jewish morality also did not include the domination of all other nations. That is immorality.”

    Pity because it sort of negates the rest of your squeeze.

    “Dominate all nations” ……

    Troll

  113. Rich says:
    @Bruno

    Hilarious. Yeah and no one knew about it until Buddy Hackett told that joke on the Carson show about how Chris and his brothers Moe and Shemp got together with their cousin Larry to do a show in the Catskills. Are you guys serious?

    If you knew anything about the history of Spain you’d know it would have been inconceivable for a converso or crypto-Jew to have been given ships and a crew in 1492. Be happy with Sandy Koufax and Rod Carew, you don’t need everyone.

  114. @Anon

    WHITE NATIONALISM’S SOUTHERN JOKE

    Yankees hide their white nationalism behind hyphenated identities like “Italian-American” or “Irish Catholic” or “Minnesota Nordic”. Yankees tended to congregate in huge numbers like Italians in Jersey or Swedes in Minnesota until the entire region was defined by their demographic. There is a reason why the East Coast has had a terrible problem with organized crime and Minneapolis hasn’t.

    White Southerners on the other hand are a mongrel group of British sailors and French Canadian exiles who had their with Cherokee squaws. Most of do not even have a single European identity.

    I laughed when Richard Spencer had to take a DNA test to find out where his family was from in Europe.

    This is very strange to the Yankee because we are post-Civil War emigres whose families arrived in the early 20th century or very late 19th century.

    In the Northern Rustbelt, we know immediately who someone is from their name and district. If you are from Hamtramck, you’re going to be Polish. If you are from Minneapolis and your last name is Jurmo or Jarvinen than you are the grandson of Finnish immigrants.

    Yankees get away with “White Nationalism” through hyphenation because blacks see an Irish flag in someone’s front yard and don’t care. If they see a Confederate flag, they chimp.

    But beneath it all, it is a form of White Nationalism. When Trump boasts about the Stuben Day Parade (After his German-born father told Jewish renters that he was from Sweden LOL) that is White Nationalism.

    The difference is PC protects the hyphenated American when in fact Irish or Italian pride is a form of white (Well sort of, in the case of Italians) nationalism.

    But the Southern white cannot easily do this because they are a mongrel group claiming descent not only from British and French and even Dutch, but also from Cherokee women of ill repute around the harbors where Welsh and English sailors arrived.

    So while blacks will see the flag of Italy want to buy a slice of pizza, when they see the confederate flag, they chimp.

  115. lysias says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    The American Revolution was also an act of treason.

    • Replies: @EliteComminc.
    , @Hibernian
  116. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I’m more familiar with the oh sooo smug and superior Germans and English than you are with Americans

    The English are the worst with their constant slamming us for slavery. They seem to forget that we were an English colony when slavery began.

    And you with your sneering that Americans have to mortgage rgegiuse to pay for a Dr. visit. In some states more people get completely free medical care from birth to death via the county hospital and clinics than pay with insurance

    European countries have a national health system. America has a free county health system available to anyone who walks into the hospital or clinics.

    2 weeks ago a Honduran woman from that immigrant caravan waded ashore and gave birth in a San Diego county hospital a day later. She and the baby and her other children will receive free medical care for the rest of their lives.

    It’s not that I think America is such a great country. It’s just that I can’t stand the ignorant N Europeans who constantly attack America

    Here’s a conversation I had with a Cambridge uni grad twit

    He “ There’s no public transport in New York City”
    Me “ Have you every been to New York?
    He “ No, but I’ve been told”

    Your posts about your trip to America and finding nothing to say about Americans but endless claims that Americans are dumb and ignorant speak for themselves. It’s very much a humped people first in your family to go to high school and college point of view
    Plus when you were in school in the 60s European colleges were full of Marxist’s So were American colleges

  117. @Anon

    TEUTONIC PRIDE SPEAKS TO SOUTHERN “WHITE NATIONALISTS”

    People from a glorified British backwater colony descended from Welsh sailors or English debtors who had their way with Cherokee squaws of ill repute who took up with French-Canadian exiles from Nova Scotia do not need to tell us Yankees about “white nationalism”.

    You Southerners are mongrels. You have to take DNA tests like Richard Spencer to even know where your family is from in Europe.

    You think he or some Jew gay named Milo who French kisses his boyfriend in public places and could pass for Levantine is MY white leader?

    White Yankees don’t need these mongrels to instruct us on “pride”. We have it. You call us “hyphenated Americans” but we came after the Civil War and fueled industrialization and built cities from Chicago to Los Angeles (Though granted, Hispanics and blacks have trashed them to a degree).

    And we came in the late 19th or early 20th century (Mine and Trump’s family for example) so all this garbage about the Civil War does not apply to us. Southerners who talk about the Civil War forget that most of the whites with the power in the US today like the Irish and Jews and Italians did not arrive until after the Civil War concluded and they have defined the modern-American identity with their culture and inventions while old Colonial stock whites in the South and Interior continue to talk about some war that took place before we arrived.

    Southerners might have white pride, but we Northerners have “Ethnic pride” like Donald Trump, a German-American son of a man conceived in Germany.r

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  118. Cleburne says:
    @RebelWriter

    Well said sir, from one Old Southerner to another.

  119. Cleburne says:
    @anonymous

    Dennis Prager is on the phone. He wants his billshit back.

  120. niceland says:
    @Anon

    Jeff’s almost right. It was Iceland not Newfoundland though.

    When Erickson and his crew first arrived in Iceland they found thriving Irish monasteries. The Vikings killed the old monks and enslaved the young ones. The Vikings left records about it. It’s common knowledge among historians of the Viking explorations and settlements.

    You are much closer to the mark than Jeff, but the Icelandic sagas only mention the settlements of “papar” (Irish monks) in Iceland in passage. Just that some, few(?) of them were present in Iceland when the vikings showed up. Nothing more. Nothing about thriving Irish monasteries, their numbers or what happened to them. No relics have been found to shed light onto their existence. It’s a mystery.

    Recent studies about walrus bones and DNA seem to suggest that the Icelandic stock got wiped out just prior to Iceland settlements of the vikings. So Iceland was probably used as outpost for hunters decades before it’s official settlement. It’s quite possible the vikings killed the Papar when they arrived but no records exists to support this claim. And nothing about them is common knowledge among viking historians. All this is wild speculation over one sentence in the Icelandic sagas.

    • Agree: Hail
  121. Dear Gottfried and Southron invaders:

    Get off my lawn

    https://regtqm.com/product/john-burns-get-off-my-lawn-tshirt-by-civil-war-tees/

    Stop acting all sanctimonious when you were perfectly fine to use the full power of the federal government to make us otherwise ambivalent (who cares about the damn blacks?) “Yankees” be your slave-catchers.

    You burned Chambersburg before we burned Columbia.

    Signed

    John Burns

    Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

  122. luke2236 says:
    @Catiline

    um…yeah…the Celts and Danes were here in good numbers at least a thousand years before Christobol Columbo.
    Columbo was most likely a marrano.
    Deal with it. Ths truth sometimes hurts.

    • Replies: @Catiline
  123. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    There are two reasons for White Southern Consciousness.

    1. The American South was not unique in its racial prejudice and oppression. Such was a common feature of imperialism, and the US was a product of imperialism. US imperialism led to ‘genocide’ of Indians and black enslavement. If Southern Whites should forever hang their shame over slavery, then Northern Whites should forever hang their heads in shame over ‘genocide’, as well as the millions of people that the US killed in Asia and Middle East. All nations of the Americas, North and South, developed by conquest, ‘genocide’, and slavery. More blacks were shipped to ‘Latin America’. And Ottomans and Arab imperialists were also exploitative and oppressive. Furthermore, oppression was common in every corner of the world at the time. Many non-imperialist nations enslaved their own populations and harsh punishments were meted out to rebels and troublemakers. Russia ended serfdom around the time US ended slavery. Slavery was common in China and Japan. And certain social institutions, if not exactly slavery in the technical sense, were extremely oppressive. So, there was nothing special about slavery in the South. Granted, one could argue that White Americans should have known better because they were more advanced than other cultures, but in the end, people are people. Look how, even today, most Americans don’t care that their nation served as war machine for Jewish globalists whose policies ended up slaughtering 100,000s or maybe even millions in the Middle East. We are supposed to honor Obama as a sign that the US has come a long way, but Obama, a shameless shill of Zion, destroyed Libya and turned it into an open-air slave market.
    One odd thing about current US Narrative(under Jewish control) is that Southern Slavery is usually conflated with the Holocaust. But if any American historical event is comparable to Shoah, it was the ‘genocide’ of the Indians. In contrast, even though blacks were oppressed, they were encouraged to multiply and allowed to serve in roles as second-class citizens, which was at least something. So, why don’t Jews associate the American Indian Tragedy with Shoah? Because American Indians were undone by Immigration, the stuff of holy narrative for the Jews.

    2. Whites were justified in fearing the blacks. If white southerners had enslaved other whites and treated them with overt suspicion and hostility, it would have been far less justified. White slaves, upon emancipation, could have been expected to become part of free white society. Or, if whites had enslaved a smaller or weaker race like brown Indios or Asians, they would have had less cause to be particularly fearful because Indios and Asians tend to be rather tame.

    But, lo and behold, whites idiotically imported muscled West African blacks with naturally aggressive temperament and bigger dongs. So, this made racial equality or harmony impossible in the South. Either whites would have to hold blacks down with social oppression OR whites would have to submit to blacks in mode of natural oppression.
    Getting rid of white social oppression of blacks could not lead to racial quality. Once whites and blacks were made equal under the law, whites were bound to lose out because blacks are naturally tougher and more aggressive.
    In schools, streets, stores, and etc, blacks will go on intimidating whites. Blacks will feel as predators over wussy white prey. Also, with blacks dominating sports, white guys will become pathetic cuck wussies and their white girls will become jungle-fever whores.
    And that is happening in huge numbers all across the South. Afro-Colonization of White Wombs and cucky-castration of white males is the future of the South.

    This could have been prevented IF whites had honestly expressed their fear of blacks and done something about it long time ago. But their white male pride prevented them from doing so and instead sought out ‘great white hopes’ to whup the big bad Jack Johnson. And even when blacks totally took over the most popular sports and beat up white kids, whites sought escapism in the movie fantasy of white super-heroes and characters like Rocky and Rambo.

    In the end, you can’t run and hide from reality and truth. The reckoning is happening because the truth can’t be suppressed forever. The South is going from white social racial domination over blacks to black biological racial domination over whites.
    Even though whites are accused of ‘racism’, everything between whites and blacks is race-ist because race is real and racial differences are real. Even if all whites in the South turned proggy, burned all Confed flags, and renounced ‘racism’, the the race-ist fact would remain: Blacks are tougher, more aggressive, and less intelligent than whites, and these differences result in tons of societal problems despite all the PC yammering about fighting ‘hate’.

    Even if all white guys were to go into wussy white boy mode and suck up to blacky, blacks will feel arrogance and contempt and look down on the punkass white boy who be so weak and worshipful of the masterful Negro who be conquering white women.

    • Troll: renfro
  124. I wish everyone here would stop watching/believing Fox “News”, or any other MSM/CIA propaganda, most worship Fox, turn off the Televangelists, John Hagees etc…and put down the Schofield bible and do not attend a Church that preaches war or worships so called Israel.

    I honestly don’t see how anyone considers the Republicans any different than the Democrats today. They talk different, but you ALWAYS get the same, often worse. Trump decision on Syria was good, if its true. Needs to do the same everywhere, Iraq, Afghan, Africa, everywhere, and stop providing weapons/money to Ukraine, stop stirring shit in Latin America. Cut off Israel welfare and weapons. Make peace with Russia, China, and Iran. Not likely, I know.

  125. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Sovereignty Of States, Right Of Secession Exists–And It’s Going To Happen

    Idiot: don’t u realize secession then was precisely the very answer to ur stinking problem, fool? And ur genocidal war was illegal and un-Constitutional TREASON, making war against the states (a), (b) a now legitimate foreign nation which had seceded, in accord w. Dec. of Independence and the secession fm Articles Confederation in 1788.

    “Sanctimony”?–it’s mere matter of fact: states are sovereign, period, and union NEVER had more than “DELEGATED POWERS” which were duly un-delegated–get the picture? Fugitive slave act was mere device by u idiots up north, no less than south, to compromise and keep south in union.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    What do u imagine the 10 Amendment means?–when it speaks of “powers,” does that mean whatever u or judges or “majority” say?–or is it enumerated in the letter of the law, the Constitution itself?–if it wasn’t, then what’s purpose/use of such Constitution?

    And how could secession or nullification have been “prohibited” (which it isn’t) when states seceded not only fm Britain, but also the original Articles Confederation? How would states have voted for union if they didn’t retain sovereignty and option of secession?–which was explicitly noted by several states. Sovereignty is something that’s un-alienable–even if u pretend to giving it up, u can just take it back.

    Look fool: what happened was that north understandably objected to Dred Scott decision by which they suspected slavery could be extended to western territories and even the north–which would have threatened the security of free white labor, to which whites naturally objected. But the solution was (and still is) nullification and secession. As I recall, state of Wisconsin actually nullified the Fugitive Slave Act.

    Get a clue: Constitution still exists, including sovereignty of states, and including 10th Amendment. Present multi-racial, satanistic, Jew-dominated, Jew-serving empire cannot continue, and whites and Christians must and will secede–it’s gonna happen–prepare, sucker.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  126. Boyd Cathey cannot be a Southern conservative because he is a Catholic. The RCC is a multi-culti church. This means Cathey would accept black/Asian priests-popes.

    Christopher Columbus was not Jewish. This idea about Columbus being Jewish was pushed by the insane Christian Zionists. The Zioevangizer preacher Perry Stone was stated that America was discovered by the Jewish Christopher Columbus to provide a safe haven for the Jews being expelled from Spain. Pure degeneracy and madness!!!

    Paul Gottfried felt uncomfortable reviewing this book because he is a Jew. He is not a conservative. Conservative Jew is an oxymoron. Gottfried has no idea about conservatism or about the West. He is not a part of the West because he is Jewish.

  127. @lysias

    You will get no argument from me.

    And probably just as unneccessary

  128. @Steve Naidamast

    The tenth amendment does not grant states the bright to be their own country. The tenth amendment is a legally binding jurisdictional issue.

    Every state right had to conform to what was permissible via federal jurisdiction. The Constitution is the supreme law of all the states and withing that umbrella the states could enact anything so as it did not not violate the national mandates. The Bill of Rights is the section one would want examine ensuring states rights. And why those rights are so vital to getting the states to sign to a permanent national status.

    https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/states-rights

    If one wanted to contend the states as independent Republics — then the place to hang one’s hat — are the Articles of Confederation —

    But Constitution is another matter.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419

    I think the south should have taken their case before the SC. as they were happy to do so regarding other cases of jurisdiction.

    The states acknowledge the supremacy clause as they routinely took cases before the Supreme court — thereby acknowledging that the Constitution was binding on all. Nationality once adopted was binding on all.

    https://www.conservapedia.com/Supremacy_Clause

    https://constitution.laws.com/supremacy-clause

    But why take my word or the data —

    I give you Pres./Gen Andrew Jackson —

  129. @apollonian

    The right of leaving ?
    Although it seems to be an art 51 somewhere in EU regulations, the right to leave, Brussels does anything to prevent that after leaving the EU the British have better lives than when still in the EU.
    These kinds of rights, just words on paper.
    Already in 1918 Wilson formulated self determination, what did not exist in the USA.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  130. anon[413] • Disclaimer says:

    “Go ahead. Deny that slavery was the prime cause of the war to spank dixie.”

    Funny how these same moralists who were attacking my country, supposedly over slavery, were simultaneously murdering and advocating the murder of local natives in the upper Midwest; in fact, Lincoln is responsible for the largest mass lynching in American history during the war of aggression – lynched over 60 natives after his soldiers starved and provoked them into rebellion. Funny how that works. It’s almost like this empire was merely using slavery as an excuse. These great moralists went on to erase an entire class of people, not to mention all the millions they’ve killed in recent Middle Eastern wars.

    “spank dixie”

    God, I can’t wait to spank your empire. Punch it in the f**king mouth. The way things are going though, Russia and China might get the first crack at it, though.

  131. anon[413] • Disclaimer says:

    “I wish everyone here would stop watching/believing Fox “News”, or any other MSM/CIA propaganda”

    I wish that, too. Unfortunately that is unrealistic. A better strategy is to give them an alternative. That will start first on the internet. In the mean time, I would suggest hitting up RT and perhaps getting them to cover the issue of partition – get the ball rolling. Later, we can make arrangements with overseas governments for funding of our separate media institutions, perhaps in exchange for future basing rights.

  132. anon[413] • Disclaimer says:

    “Boyd Cathey cannot be a Southern conservative because he is a Catholic.”

    Like I said, we need a better class of supporter. Internet autists aren’t going to cut it. That’s why WN won’t work and is a waste of time. This guy not only throws shade on one of our best and most loyal people, but he’s also just wrong (or a disinformation agent) on Catholicism because lots of Southerners are Catholic; ahem, Louisiana anyone?

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  133. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Cons des belges , ( stupid belgians ) , et hollandais ( and dutch ) , megalomaniac blockheads .

    The father of Phillip II made a very good decission to send his son to Spain , which was succesfully colonizing a new continent , was containing and defeating the turks in the mediterranean , was united with Portugal and large parts of Italy , and was facing the greedy protestant heretics of north Europe .

    The Netherlands , small country with just 40.ooo swampy km2 , overpopulated with 17 million people , 12 % or more muslims , never amounted to very much in the history of Europe . Its main ” acomplisment ” along history has been to be a heaven for the usurers and pirates of the swamps , now Holland is a fiscal paradise for the plundering of Europe ,

    The whole Europe is rebelling aginst the Brussels plutocratic eurotiranny , Brexit , gilets verts…
    , wait for the next elections for the European Parlament in spring 2019 !!

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  134. anon[186] • Disclaimer says:

    WHITE NATIONALISM IS THE JOKE (AND A HIDEOUT FOR SOCIAL REJECTS)

    “People from a glorified British backwater colony descended from Welsh sailors or English debtors who had their way with Cherokee squaws of ill repute who took up with French-Canadian exiles from Nova Scotia do not need to tell us Yankees about “white nationalism”.”

    Exactly. Because the Northeast is a bastion of it. You’ve got guys like Andrew Cuomo, the first governor in the country to threaten boycotters of Israel with boycotts and prosecution. And you’ve got people like Christine Hallquist who almost became Vermont’s governor. So much for your ethnic pride. You can keep it.

    “You Southerners are mongrels. You have to take DNA tests like Richard Spencer to even know where your family is from in Europe.”

    European is European. Do South African Whites or Australians need to take some kind of DNA test to feel racial solidarity? No. Like us, they’re aren’t rootless cosmopolitans who lack a sense of identity. And don’t kid yourself buddy, very few of you are pure breeds these days. Trump’s daughter married a Jew and converted. Lol, “ethnic pride”.

    This guy’s comment represents all that I’m talking about. He mouths off about White Nationalism but then tries to draw some kind of distinction between Europeans. You’ll never win with that, just like I said. His version of “ethnic pride” is acquiescence to defeat. Period. The guy looks out of his window and sees somebody else’s group running things and tries to rationalize it with “ethnic pride” … which means precisely nil in the real world. It’s a consolation prize. We’re not the ones who need a DNA test to give meaning to our lives – a connection to a far away foreign country we’ll never travel to; our country is here. We are natives. We, the few who are left, know exactly where we come from, and we’ll rise again for freedom.

    In this effort, we’ll reach out to those who support our cause elsewhere and promise them immigration rights in exchange for their public support. As with Israel, this will be a homeland for our European peoples. However, we must be clear that this man’s kind of WN is a dead end and should be rejected; it’s toxic, it opens us up to toxic people, it is unpopular, and it is polluted with unpopular Nazi imagery and other WN idiocies that turn off socially functioning people. His “ethnic pride” is a pink slip to early retirement, and guys of his ilk should be purged completely. These are the kinds of losers who did you in at Charelottesville. You are better off without them. Purge them and make it public that they aren’t welcome around.

    “You think he or some Jew gay named Milo who French kisses his boyfriend in public places and could pass for Levantine is MY white leader?”

    Probably. You’re a bunch of child predators and sexual deviants anyway. So, the homosexual thing isn’t such a stretch.

    “White Yankees don’t need these mongrels to instruct us on “pride”. We have it.”

    For all it’s done for you. See you at NYC’s Puerto Rican Day parade.

    “You call us “hyphenated Americans” but we came after the Civil War and fueled industrialization and built cities from Chicago to Los Angeles (Though granted, Hispanics and blacks have trashed them to a degree).”

    Funny that. You’re not the majority in any of those cities. Congrats. Like I said, his “ethnic pride” is a dead end consolation prize for a loser.

    And it’s you who call yourselves that. Like most of your rootless WN kind, you’re neurotic and paranoid because you don’t have a core identity. You obsess over DNA tests because you don’t have an identity the way we do, or did. We don’t call you anything. We don’t care.

    “And we came in the late 19th or early 20th century (Mine and Trump’s family for example) so all this garbage about the Civil War does not apply to us.”

    And that’s why we need separate countries. We basically already are. Let’s formalize the arrangement.

    “Southerners might have white pride, but we Northerners have “Ethnic pride” like Donald Trump, a German-American son of a man conceived in Germany.”

    Which means you sit around shooting the shit about the old country you’ve never been to and don’t plan on visiting. Enjoy your retirement home, because that’s exactly what you represent – a dead end for losers.

    • Replies: @anon
  135. anon[186] • Disclaimer says:

    “I’m not a loser shunned by middle class Whites. In fact most middle class Whites would envy me. The Charlottesville fiasco had nothing to due with White nationalism. Wasn’t it about the proposed removal of a civil war confederate monument?”

    It was…at first. Then WNs with Nazi flags showed up and started trouble. It was definitely about White Nationalism, or involved it, because lots of overtly WN websites promoted it. No normal person wants to be associated with that. And don’t kid yourself. If you announce publicly that you are a White Nationalist, you will be immediately shunned by everyone. A lot, and I mean a lot, of the people associated with that nonsense are social rejects and autistic losers. That’s why they got smashed at Charlottesvile. The blind leading the blind. WN won’t work, ever. Partition might. Why not try it?

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  136. anon[258] • Disclaimer says:

    “We should only hope that men of the stature of Davis, Lee, Jackson, and many others rise to reclaim the original traditions of the Confederation of States of America and rid of us the complete lunacy that has taken over this nation…”

    Controversial opinion: I’m not a fan of either Davis or Lee. Davis fled in disgrace instead of fighting to the last; he should have gone out like Travis at the Alamo. He also should have been far more ruthless at the start of the war. And Lee was too much of a gentlemen. He should have taken his forces and fought a protracted guerilla war to the last like the Taliban. Unfortunately, he “did the right thing” and surrendered. Grant rewarded this act by turning Lee’s home into a gravesite and now he’s demonized in the public’s imagination as an evil man. His people are invaded, his monuments are assaulted by Marxist terrorists, and his symbols lie destroyed while his people are about to lose their homes and political power to the invaders the democrats are letting in. These were “good men” but good men aren’t who we need anymore, if we ever needed them in the first place.

    • Replies: @renfro
  137. @Anon

    A very good decision.
    Ever read
    Garrett Mattingly, ‘The Armada’, Boston 1959 ?
    A disaster caused by mismanagement.

    Had Philip been educated in Brussels, how would Spain have fared ?
    It would not have had a king who built a monastery as a palace, the Esquorial, with the royal bedroom next to in built in cathedral, with a window opening into the cathdral.
    Philips just was a religious fanatic, who let Spain remain a feudal religious museum, that just entered modern times when Franco died.

    How many Indian lives in S America would have been spared had he been educated in Brussels, who knows.
    There would not have been the need for gold and silver to be used as money.
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003

    Holland never amounted to much.
    The 1648 conference where present Europa was shaped was led by two non aristocratic Dutchmen.
    It is hilarious to read how the presence of two simple citizens caused havoc in protocol.

    If my ancestors did great things can be debated, but Wall Street is a Dutch name, street at the ‘wal’, probably a defensive earthworks.
    Russell Shorto, ‘The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan & The Forgotten Colony That Shaped America’, 2004 New York

    And possibly you could google Hugo Grotius, Erasmus and Spinoza
    If there is an english description of fluitschip, I do not know.

  138. Cleburne says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    LOL, you’re pretty much an idiot. Poor little Chambersburg. You’re bleating about that compared to the destruction Cump visited on Georgia, or Sheridan in the Shenandoah?

    Let me ask you something: how’s the “grand republic” working out for you Northern asshats? Desmond is Amazing, the 10-year-old transgender stripper. THat’s what you Yankee scum achieved with your great victory.

    There’s really nothing to say to people like you other than go fuck yourself.

  139. @jilles dykstra

    Declaration Of Independence MEANS Something, Suckers–Get A Clue

    But Jilles, what then would be meaning of Declaration of Independence?–it’s same as “Declaration of Secession.” States are sovereign, PERIOD–sovereignty cannot be alienated. Union had only delegated powers. Union had no sovereignty but what was GIVEN (“DELEGATED”) to it; Confederates withdrew those delegated powers.

    Note there were books written on the subject of sovereignty and right of secession, as by Abel P. Upshur, “A Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Character of our Federal Government: Being a Review of Judge Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.”

    Andrew Jackson–a real psycho–vowed to go to war w. S. Carolina in 1830, and wanted to hang John C. Calhoun who demonstrated the right of states to nullify–and to secede if necessary–this by Calhoun was in addition to Jefferson and Madison’s expositions upon nullification which were published in the late 18th cent.

    Jackson’s “Proclamation” (actually written by Ed Livingston, the Sec. of State) was torn to shreds by Littleton Waller Tazewell’s “A Review of the Proclamation of President Jackson.”

    Remember, a state’s dispute w. other states has no higher tribunal–state has right to nullify on its own authority–as union was mere creation of states. And “Supreme Court” is a biased partisan of the “federal” network, totally compromised in prejudice towards union, not competent to bindingly decide what the Const. means or says regarding nullification and secession–no more competent than any other opinion–and this was made clear by Jefferson and Madison.

    Don’t forget union and Sup. ct. are SERVANTS, “AGENTS,” and subordinate to the states which made the Constitution no less than Articles of Confederation.

    It’s great thing that “Brexit” and nationalism of Trump vs. “globalist” genocidal dictatorship–as of “Agenda-21 and -2030” “pop. reduction,” have now come up, giving people excellent food for thought. Morons who pretend states are NOT sovereign are effectively saying states gave up their sovereignty to become slaves or serfs, or mere provinces of a greater, imperial power–which is absurd and cannot be found anywhere in any document, though these brainless fools insist it’s “implied,” like Joseph Story, the Sup. ct. justice.

  140. @wayfarer

    Thank you.

    The difference between my suit and those of the 47 others is that I am NOT suing for being placed on the SPLC’s “Hatewatch” list. Nor am I suing for being called a racist, neo-Nazi, etc. While those things are certainly harmful to one’s reputation (roughly one year ago, thanks to the SPLC, complete strangers were screaming “go home Nazi, we don’t wan’t your shit here” at me from passing cars in the small town of Lexington, Missouri), they aren’t actionable because there is no verifiable statement of fact in an allegation of, say, anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism, racism, and the rest are whatever you say they are.

    The SPLC, of course, knows that. From the article over which I am suing:

    A number of Lexington’s 4,000 residents are not happy at the prospect of Nelsen relocating to their town and setting up this club. One resident compared Nelsen’s arrival in Lexington to that of neo-Nazi Craig Cobb, who attempted to start a whites-only colony in the tiny town of Leith, North Dakota, in 2012.

    Though Nelsen is not a neo-Nazi, he is certainly sympathetic to the white nationalist cause. In a letter he sent to residents announcing his scheme, Nelsen wrote, “I believe the devastation among white males is the predictable result of decades of white male bashing in popular culture. By the time a white male graduates from college, he has been subjected to assaults on his dignity, his manhood, his history, and his culture.” Later in the letter, Nelsen claimed the club is open to all races, but he isn’t convincing anyone. Articles on the archived ProjectUSA website by Nelsen include subjects such as “The White Minority.”

    Normally, it would be assumed that the SPLC had inoculated itself from a defamation action by the concessive adjunct, “Though Nelsen is not a neo-Nazi,” and by attributing the charge that I am a neo-Nazi to an unidentified resident of Lexington. I argue, I hope convincingly, that they defamed me by endorsement of the libelous claim that I was opening a “whites-only” boxing club in Lexington.

    The whole argument is here, for anyone interested:

    http://craignelsen.com/nelsen_v_splc/NELSENvSPLC.pdf

    I named the author of the article, Stephen Piggot, in my civil suit, but Thursday the US Marshal responded: “Return of Service unexecuted by USM on behalf of Craig Nelsen as to Stephen Piggot. USM-285 form reads: “No longer employed by SPLC.” (Melvin, Greg) ”

    If I had the money, I would be sure that, if this goes to trial, he is forced to answer my questions in front of the jury.

    BTW, to those who have donated to our effort, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I am going to thank each one of you personally, but I do want you to know how encouraging it is to know I am not fighting this fight alone.

  141. @anon

    It was…at first. Then WNs with Nazi flags showed up and started trouble. It was definitely about White Nationalism, or involved it, because lots of overtly WN websites promoted it.

    As I understand it, there was one guy with a Nazi flag. It sounds as if you are trying to mislead. If so, why?

    Guys like you seem to be trying to make “White Nationalism” the new “Nazi”, demonizing both whites and patriots right down to acronym-ifying us as “WN”–something akin to “white supremacy”.

    The implication here is that, somewhere, there is a whole shadowy movement of whites plotting to ethnic cleanse–I don’t know, exile, deport, genocide–every non-white person in America. As a full-blooded white person myself, who pays attention to something other than football, it’s kind of surprising to me to never have run into a member of this fascist menace, since, according to you people, they seem to be behind just about everything.

    Please explain where you get this view from, because, from where I sit, it just looks dishonest.

  142. iffen says:
    @RebelWriter

    I will not attempt to care any less than I do about how the rest of you feel about the South.

    Right back atcha!

    You and these other “Southrons”, along with Johnny Rebs come lately like Gottfried, think that you own the South. You don’t. I will match you Southern ancestor for ancestor. We can match the number lost in the War if you want. You don’t own it any more than copper-headed lapdogs like Howell Raines. What you do own (proudly) are the fire-eaters’ willful and unnecessary destruction of the South and a determined effort (to this day) to prevent the education of the proles. I don’t blame you for being opposed to the education of the populace. It is definitely a risky idea from your vantage.

  143. anon[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    The problem with the South is that it’s full of blacks. What do you plan to do with them all? It would be easier to give blacks a few states in the South for their own separate country and whites take the rest of the U.S.

  144. @apollonian

    I never know what to do with all these legalistic considerations.
    You see this now in the EU.
    The right to leave the EU exists, no doubt about it, some art 51 states it clearly.

    But the discussion in EP in the morning, when at five in the late night it had become clear that the leave camp had won, was far from accepting that a member state could stop being a member.
    In my opinion politically exactly the same situation as with the secession of the southern states.

    What Brussels clearly is doing is to set an example: you leave us, we punish you, in such a way that nobody ever will follow your example.
    Military war is out of the question these days, thus we use the ‘soft power’ EU politicians favor, economic power, sanctions, whatever.
    Legal considerations, just hogwash.
    Soft power war, also quite expensive, how expensive, w’ll just know in a few years from now.

    Brussels will not burn down literally GB, as in the Civil War the north did with the south, it tries to do so economically.
    Dutch enterprises already speculate what will happen if there is no deal: our parliament passed a law giving the minister of economic affairs enormous power in case of a no deal Brexit.
    The opposition complains about dictatorial powers.

    Treaties, international law, human rights, all great, when real conflicts of interest exist, just words, in my opinion.
    What will happen I do not know, but, if the worst comes to the worst, within a few days or weeks reality will force politicians to some solution.
    Cannot see how Germans, for example, will accept that car export to GB simply stops.

  145. @Sir Launcelot Canning

    Please succeed, Craig. Despite the circumstances try to have a good Christmas. Hope you get some donations from this.

    Thank you. I will, and I am, and a merry Christmas to you, too.

  146. @Mr. Ed

    Sorry but you just lost ten bucks; I tried to donate to you but Paypal insisted that I open an account with them, which I will not do.

    Hi, your attempt is much appreciated. There is an option to use a credit or debit card without opening a PayPal account. It isn’t as noticeable as the “Donate with PayPal” option–you know how they do–but it is just below the PayPal button.

  147. Catiline says:
    @luke2236

    Certainly, that’s why the D.C. in Washington D.C. stands for “Danes and Celts”.

    P.S. You misspelled “Christobol” ans “Columbo”.

  148. Catiline says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Has to be said that neither Vikings nor Columbus were ever in the United States. Eric the Red discovered and colonized (Briefly) Canada and Columbus Cuba.

    I was waiting for this one.

  149. @anon

    I don’t know which “anon” you are, or how long you’ve been posting here, but here are my details. I am a cradle Catholic whose family has been RCC for hundreds of years. I went to RCC grammar, high school and graduated from a Jesuit university. I know the RCC inside and out. I left the RCC because I don’t accept black/Asian priests-popes. The RCC demands that a person’s first loyalty is to Rome. Cathey’s first loyalty is to Rome, not the USA or the South. American WASPs were always suspicious of the RCC and they were correct in their suspicions. Americanism has been denounced by the RCC.

    I’m not shading Cathey, I’m pointing out facts. Also, the American RCC has collapsed. Conservative Catholics have nothing in common with Pelosi, Biden, Kerry type Catholics.

    I am not a WN, I am a Western nationalist. The West is not black/Asian/Jewish/Muslim. These groups must be repatriated or segregated. Blacks in the USA will have to have their own state.

    Assuming you are RCC, if you want to OSCULUM INFAME black/Asian priests-popes, you are free to do that. Big picture, the RCC worldwide has collapsed. The papacy needs to be moved to either the Philippines or the Congo. There is no more “conservative” or “liberal” outlook. What is critical is preserving the West. Biology is first, beliefs second. The Catholic Church became great because it was started by Caucasians in the Middle East and flowered in Europe. Blacks/Asians are parasites in Western Christianity.

    We need a new church for the West. The Orthodox Church with its racial/ethnic churches is the future.

  150. Dannyboy says:
    @A. Person

    Lee was perhaps the greatest man this Nation ever produced.

    A near perfect example of “the magnanimous man”. Certainly the greatest military mind.

    You are lowlife Leftist rat filth, who’s kind will soon be taken care of, permanently.

    • Replies: @Rich
  151. Dannyboy says:

    August 9, 1960

    Dear Dr. Scott:

    Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

    [MORE]

    General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

    From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

    Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

    Sincerely,

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

  152. Rich says:
    @Dannyboy

    Lee appears to be an honorable man, but under no circumstances can he be considered our greatest military mind. He lost the War Between the States because of some very basic military mistakes. Invading the North was a tragic error, as was wasting his forces at Gettysburg. I can understand his thought process, if he’d been able to inflict enough damage to the Union forces they might have been willing to negotiate a separation, but he badly underestimated the resolve and strength of the Union Army and left the South at the mercy of the North after his great defeat.

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
  153. @anon

    More Unionism. Listen to yourself, sir. Just listen. What exactly do you expect to happen that will change the current situation? A miracle to fall from the sky? Luck? Magic?

    I expect to win. My case is solid, I can attack from unexpected directions, I have nothing to lose, and I don’t give up.

  154. Jake says:
    @Cleburne

    It has been totally remade by Scofield, and many others.

    Anglo-Saxon Puritans were arch Judaizers, which is something that was so well known by the dawn of the 17th century that Shakespeare’s main heir Ben Jonson wrote about it comically.

    It is very sad to say, but there is little of the South left that has cultural power, which suggest that the future is far from bright.

    If you know anything about the Old South, its anti-Puritanism will stand out to you. I suggest you read William Taylor’s Cavalier and Yankee: The Old South and American National Character to get a start.

  155. @apollonian

    good grief,

    the Supremacy Clause. That one little hiccup to all the gymnastics that each state ratified acknowledging the supremacy of the union they had just created.

    Sure the states gave power to the union, they gave themselves over to a national identity. That does not make them independent nations. Their sovereignty had to conform to the Constitution, that’s what they agreed to.

    And why they engaged the Supreme Court — thereby recognizing national authority and were bound to it as they expected others to be so bound.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  156. As for all of the commentary about honorable men. i have always been willing to allow fort personal dignity and in so doing accepted the long held politically correct deference to southern confederates.

    But its a very tough row to hoe when clearly these honorable men engaged in such deep seated hypocrisy such as embracing liberty as a right and then owning slaves and worse claiming that God intended blacks to be slaves as the descendants of Cain based on skin color

    The bible makes no such reference as to the mark of Cain. Making such ethos honorable makes honor cheaply gained.

  157. Anon[171] • Disclaimer says:

    “I expect to win. My case is solid, I can attack from unexpected directions, I have nothing to lose, and I don’t give up.”

    I sympathize as no American should ever be reduced to destitution and homelessness as the result of an opinion, even a controversial or repugnant one. And I hope you win your lawsuit. Otherwise, our forefathers died for nothing. Shocker: they sorta did.

    However, your response isn’t quite what I was referring to, but your comment is illustrative none-the-less. Succinctly, what’s next – in terms of taking back our society, our culture, and our people’s future? What long-term strategy does anyone have for winning the day, for putting guys like the SPLC out of power and ourselves into power permanently? I’ve seen lots of people who fancy themselves as alt-right, white nationalist, dissident right, libertarian, or conservative present a problem without ever offering a viable solution. Some cling to the fantasy that the economy will collapse ushering in a Mad Max world where everything magically gets worked out (fringe libertarians), and others act as though some kind of miracle will occur which solves all our problems (White Nationalist Unionists), but the vast majority don’t seem to have even thought about organizing with a realistic plan and an achievable end goal in mind (conservatives). Some are even black-pilled defeatists.

    What you’ve written here is reactionary, or at least your lawsuit is. The Ruling Class has done something to you, so you’ve done something back to them – a lawsuit to get back a few crumbs they’ve stolen from you. I sympathize with your plight, it’s very sad and like I said I hope you win the day, but embracing failed ideologies and bad strategy only ensures this kind of repression will continue into the future, either to yourself or to others. Wars are won when you’ve broken the other side’s ability or willingness to make war in the first place; culture wars are no different. Instead of merely reacting, shouldn’t we be preventing our opponent from making war on us in the first place by breaking their abilities in said contest?

    [MORE]

    Shouldn’t we instead be rigging the game such that our opponents are stripped of their authority and authority is handed to us? In an independent country, such an organization as the SPLC could be banned, and its ideology labeled as hate speech and removed. How then would they be able to ruin people such as yourself? Don’t think that’s possible? Well, it’s exactly what the Ruling Class does to Americans, it’s what the Israelis do in their own country (boycotting them is a crime), it’s what the South Africans do in their country (hate speech laws), it’s what Indonesians do (everything laws), and it’s what European ruling elites have done in their countries through speech laws. Seems to work for others. So, why aren’t we trying to do the same to our enemy? You really don’t think saying “white privilege” isn’t hate speech, do you? I think it is. It’d be cool if we had our own country where we could ban it and drive its proponents into the destitution the SPLC has foisted upon others, wouldn’t it?

    As I see it from the standpoint of military history, there are only two realistic options for an effective counter-attack here:

    1) You face your enemy head-on in battle, fighting with like tactics (nearly impossible here considering their head start, enormous influence and wealth, and willingness to suppress upstarts)
    2) You change the rules abruptly to favour your side; in the ancient world, good commanders would accomplish this by choosing a battlefield that advantaged them, perhaps one where they’d have the high-ground

    The latter option is what partition represents. Since we cannot effectively organize under the current system, we change the system to favor us. Any Southern state / Red State that secedes and becomes independent automatically then has a voter base more sympathetic to your concerns. In a free XXX state, most of the opposition’s organization, moral authority, media influencing ability, money, and foot soldiers are excluded geographically; and with a more pliable voting base, we can remove the rest through legislative action: ban and deplatform their organizations (that’s what they are doing to us), declare opposition to Southern heritage symbols hate speech and ban it along with “white privilege” talk and all the rest, fund your own media while excluding theirs (their media monopolies do exactly that to you), organize our own institutions to ensure our dominance forever so this can never happen again, etc.

    It’s true that this option is not guaranteed to succeed as the Empire will fight back, but of all the options I’ve evaluated, it is the most realistically achievable. You only need one Southern or Red State to secede and you would have a country the size of many modern day European countries.

    But how do you make this happen? Some more radical types are going to endorse street protests. I think that is dumb. There will come a time for that, but only in support of an overarching goal and within a system in which we have some control: state governments and a political party. Otherwise, the protesters are left out in the cold – defenseless and easy prey to doxxers and the narratives of the controlled media; the protestors need a constituency that does not include just the active protestors on the streets. That’s what partition and an independence party can do.

    We are quickly going to enter an era where no republican can be elected president again due to immigration. At that point, tensions will flare as the democrats get out of control with repression as they did before under Obama. We have already seen some of this tension in the immediate aftermath of the 2012 and 2016 elections: there was succession talk after Romney’s 2012 loss and Cal-Exit (which the deep state crushed) after Hillary’s 2016 loss. I expect this to continue and strengthen going forward. So, if you start now on a campaign to elect small numbers of dissident right types to uncontested or easily winnable positions within state government, co-opting the Republican Party, you’d be in prime position to take advantage of it. People might very well turn their passions to what you represent in the aftermath and choose to elect your people to state government; it’s much harder for the deep state to control a far away state legislature than it is the levers of power in the DC-LA-NY media axis.

    This is the strategy that has proved most effective in Europe, so it saddens me that Americans don’t seem capable of repeating it domestically, especially so considering current events; a group of secessionist rabble-rousers in a Red State legislature would be in prime position to take advantage of the government shutdown by blaming everything on the democrats and using that as proof that the government no longer works, making secession the only viable option going forward.

    What does a positive end-game look like? Answer: we either secede or we bring the Ruling Class to the negotiating table if they want to save their empire – we make them acquiesce to our demands on hate speech, immigration, various constitutional reforms (14th amendments), etc.

    How does a party do that? Answer: by threatening the Ruling Class’s interests – their empire. Primarily, such a party runs on a platform of secession, but secondarily it adopts normie-popular policies that tangentially threaten to unravel their project: limiting immigration (makes it harder to compete with China, or so they think), anti-war (threatens overseas wars and recruitment efforts domestically), universal healthcare (threatens their military budget), pro-hate speech against the left (silences our opposition, strengthening our position), pro-Southern culture and identity (weakens their ability to control our population while also strengthening our social cohesion), college tuition reductions (scares the rich), anti-Russia gate (inflames the politburo into scaring the masses with war talk), anti-affirmative action discrimination (“you’re the racist, racist”), anti-political correctness, media monopoly anti-trust actions…basically, a series of emotionally charged policy positions that favor us and harm them simply by being discussed.

    How is this more likely to succeed than White Nationalism? Answer: whites fight on moral terms and all whites want to be seen as being good people, even when doing bad things like converting the natives to Christianity or conquering other people’s nations in order to install democracy, even though a great many are killed in the process. Therefore, white nationalists have no natural constituency (at least they won’t for the immediate future) because it’s easy to peg them as immoral and bad, something whites recoil from. On the other hand, a independence movement with the same kinds of people is naturally somewhat shield to a reasonable degree from assaults by groups like the SPLC; when they attack a group seen as representing the ethnicity of Southerners and fighting for their perceived interests, then at least some people will side with the Southerners as a “only I get to attack my family, not you” reaction; much like Aikido, attacks may very well backfire on the attackers as they are of a foreign ethnicity seen to be attacking a local ethnicity. This cover makes political organizing, street protests, and policy advocacy much easier to do publicly. That’s how you get guys off the internet.

    It’s important to realize that you win revolutions by having some elite element appeal to the lowest common denominator; and that is often done through an appeal to emotionalism. Caesar was a cult-like figure admired by poor Roman masses jaded after a long civil war in a declining, corrupt and inept republic; the Bolsheviks were brought to power on the backs of the enraged proletariat; Napoleon seized a revolution based upon popular discontent and hatred of the economically better off. What do you notice about these movements? None of those groups succeeded because they won intellectual arguments in closed spaces among gifted thinkers. So, I think it’s likely the dissident right will not win the day by arguing statistics on the internet. You need policy. You need a strategy. You need bad feelings and emotionalism. You need to dump arguments like “muh private industry” and “muh constitution” and fight fire with fire. You face an enemy that has no principles or internal monologue of their own to contend with, so how is it not appropriate to not respond in kind? Do you really think you have a chance fighting with one hand tied behind your back?

    Unfortunately, a lot of what I’m seeing on the American right is a combination of shortsightedness and extreme naivety…plus a stubborn refusal to abandon the old order in favor of a new one; thus, the Unionists who wish us to fight with a magical white solidarity that doesn’t exist and never will until we are totally routed and driven from the field. Future: Brazil…if we are lucky. The Soviet Union if we are not.

    Well, what kind of tactics do you suggest for such a party? Answer: one tactic that I might suggest is that you piggyback on much of the extreme left’s policies. For example, they have legitimized the concept of deplatforming (banning dissent) and hate speech laws (outlawing wrong think). We know those tactics are incredibly effective and are more easily accepted by the general public than the complicated statistical arguments presented by the dissident right. Therefore, such a political party couldn’t really be opposed effectively on those policies if it began advocating them for the left because the public has already accepted them as legitimate and won’t be as receptive to sophisticated counter arguments by opponents. In the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 loss, perhaps to an unacceptable candidate, those kinds of policies will become much more popular among the right. And I expect them to be somewhat effective at empowering our side at the opposition’s expense if enacted. This tactic, as with many others, would serve to enhance our party’s political power such that secession becomes more achievable. Of course, this is oversimplified and is just one of many tactics that I could suggest, but you get the point. You’ll have to get creative and be willing to throw off old shackles of thought if you want to win the day.

    Why would whites outside the South support a Southern partition? Answer: for the same reason that Jews outside of Israel support Israel. If we run on a platform that promises to whites elsewhere (implicitly) that those who support our independence movement would be allowed to move here or retire here, then that invests them in our project – gives them skin in the game, so to speak. Let’s say there is a white republican conservative in a place like Ohio or Northern California. Ordinarily, he wouldn’t just pack up and move to a place like Mississippi. However, the safety net/parachute option might be a powerful draw to get his support, even if he never wants to move here. In the back of his mind, he might already be thinking of the Coalition of the Fringes. Maybe he thinks in twenty years some democrat might try to jail him for wrongthink, ruin him for the wrong idea said in public, or even try to steal his home in some insane reparations effort; then he thinks, “well, at least I’ll have some other place to go if things get too bad here.” That was the very draw that led many Jews to support Israel. A Southern – European, implicitly white (then explicitly after partition), country might very well draw support from some fellow whites in precarious situations elsewhere.

    But it didn’t for South Africa, right? No, it didn’t. But things are different now, especially in the West. Besides, in a negotiated separation, we could engineer a population transfer from our country to the United States that would benefit our demographics, allowing us to avoid South Africa’s problem (and ours is still better than theirs was).

    In summation, your opposition is organized, and it is willing to skirt traditional democratic and civil norms in order to achieve goals for their own group. Your opponent is organized to an extraordinary degree and has used that organization to rig the game’s rules in their favor while you remain disorganized and without a realistic plan of action. You can’t win in that system. Either fight to change the system or submit to being dispossessed and left fighting for crumbs.

  158. @EliteCommInc.

    [Comments filled with spelling or grammar errors, including “u” and “u r,” are much less likely to be published, as well as comments focused on obscure, totally off-topic religious issues. You might be happier at some other website.]

    Constitution Is “Supreme,” But Laws Must Be Duly Constitutional To Be Valid

    “Elite…”: don’t forget, a committed Christian, hence anti-semite, like myself, suffers a certain problem and circumstance which is I’m being HEAVILY censored on this site, and my replies and responses aren’t all showing up–like, for example, my response to ur pathetic babbling about what is written in New Test. about Jews, on the other thread–it was censored and deleted by the editor, so don’t think I didn’t have a cogent, substantial statement for u. I also had a cogent response to Unz’s “open ltr” which he deleted, giving the LIE to Unz’s pretended “light-hand” for censorship, ho ho ho ho. Unz is the TYPICAL Jew, never doubt.

    But here’s ur problem for the “supremacy clause,” buddy: IT WAS ALREADY COVERED by Jefferson and Madison over a two hundred yrs ago. Laws are only “supreme” as they’re duly CONSTITUTIONAL, and the state decides, NOT the Supreme Court which is naturally biased in favor of the federal gov’t.

    Union is NOT “supreme,” stupid, and NO “state ratified acknowledging the supremacy of the union”–u’re just a brainless, moronic liar–u must be a Jew, right? Union has “delegated powers” to act in regard to foreign powers, for example, to exclusion of states, but otherwise the states are sovereign, and regarding such delegated powers, those powers can be duly un-delegated, in accord w. the law of contract and the sovereignty of the states–which happened in 1860s, in 1787 and 1788, and previous to those in 1776. Read the “Declaration of Secession”–oh excuse me, I meant the Declaration of Independence, sucker.

    Now listen, fool: the states simply made a Constitutional Contract WITH THE OTHER STATES, no one else, which Calhoun and others called a “compact.” States thus created a SUBORDINATE agency, called the “union” which acted as agent to foreign powers, etc.–the union represented the states.

    The states HAVE NO SUPERIOR, as they’re sovereign, the union having ONLY “delegated powers,” which are quite retractable and withdrawn, which is what Confederate states did, forming their own gov., as provided in the US Declaration of Independence–ever hrd of it?

    States are sovereign, NOT THE UNION, and sovereignty is un-alienable. And there is NOTHING in the Const. which provides for a “national identity”–u’re just a stinking, serial liar who lies. Sovereignty stands by itself–it does NOT “conform” to ANYTHING, idiot. No constitution could possibly “give” any sovereignty–it could only recognize and acknowledge it as something already existing, that’s all.

    Ur last sentence, “[w]hy they engaged…,” makes no sense, which is typical for u, I’d say.

    “Elite…,” I don’t know what u’re “elite” at, as u’re very ignorant and presumptuous, pretending u know anything, but u really ought to read the original Kentucky (by Jefferson) and Virginia (Madison) Resolutions, which go over the topic here which u brought up about “supremacy,” etc.

  159. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Burns, is it possible that you don’t realize that Chambersburg was burned after the Southern states had already suffered a massive invasion, with death, destruction, rapine, plunder and all the rest of it,
    by your oh-so-moral fellow Yankees? This was no little tit for tat. What the hell is wrong with you?

    • Replies: @apollonian
  160. @apollonian

    The comments regarding my poor script are duly noted. Appreciate it. I am unaware of my misuse or “U” or “UR” It is my understanding the issues in discussion are to southern conservative values. And I am further unaware what discussions I have advanced based on obscure religious issues. “conservative values” are generally observant of existentialist truths as foundational principles — a supreme being, and in the case of southern conservative values — impossible to reference , in my view without talking religion.

    — However, I will take note of my references to maintain conforming to the expectation —
    ________________

    I think you find — laugh – despite the heated hostility that your comments will generally be left to whatever you post. It is one of the more gracious aspects of the editor and editors here. I say that as someone who meets with no small amount of hostility —

    In my view, and what I hope I maintain as a standard, regardless of the heat is to avoid making personal attacks — and that can be very very hard — and to do even when said personal attacks might be justified as tit for tat —

    Ok, excuse my moralizing —
    _______

    Now about this embrace of the states as republics. I have to reject the idea. for the reasons previously stated.

    As is demonstrated by the behavior of the states, including southern states, the way to challenge a federal, or state law was to to advance the case to the Supreme Court for interpretation. I do not approve of slavery, however, I think the discussion on whether or not any state could quit the union is an important or at least interesting (fascinating) – bit the method – war – is simply not out of the question. I think the South should have made their case in court and on the Congressional floor. Because when the states ratified the constitution, they also agreed that the federal system was now in place and they would abide by it. In otherwords, without a clear legal mandate as granted by its membership — a state was bound by the same. That supremacy clause was there for a reason. It’s like the understanding clause. As if to say,

    “Ok we are of sound mind and we agree, that Union as laid out if the constitution is binding on one and all”

    That would include the process of settling disputes, including changing the law, challenging the law etc. by the means noted in the binding document. you desire to break that contract, well, there’s a method, and it is not war. War of the nature advanced by the south was an act of treason. Now the descendants of the founders may not have appreciated that bind, but that is the bind created to establish the US as a country. I am not aware of any amendment, congressional standing or court ruling that permitted nullification by any state of any region. That said – the union was a binding agreement. States do not have the power in and of themselves to invalidate federal law.

    ************

    About the issues of faith and practice. I regret that i did not read your response whether it is because I missed it – not uncommon — or for any other reason. I generally try to respond to comments:

    1. when I disagree
    2. out of respect for the other’s effort and less common
    3. affirm the position stated and rarer still
    4. to add some levity – not a humorous person laugh.
    5. all the above

    As to scripture, there is no admonition for christians to persecute or even reject Jews in any manner. The very first christians are understood to be jews. However, in christianity being Jewish is just not important. Neither Christ and especially the Apostles make it clear — Judaism is not a superior place holder in the church in any manner – not at all, in no way. I think I fully comprehend your passion regarding how many christians respond to Israel and Jews. a though christianity is somehow a subset of the faith. It is not, in every way it is superior and jews are invited as is everyone who desires to know Christ. But being Jewish hold no unique status other than acknowledgement that they were the people chosen to be the light of the Most Holy. And now those who are believers have that Holiness inside them by the Holy Spirit. Christians are certainly welcome to embrace jews in the hope of giving them the gospel – that is the mandate for every believer as i understand scripture. I further grasp that your passionate feelings are about the very odd place the US finds itself in politically in relation to Jews and Israel. I think that is a valid concern. Primarily because christians need to exercise all due caution when translating our faith into politics — agree. but in this I would expect you or anyone else to be able to make scriptural references in their accurate context – that can at times be dicey.

    _______________-

    Ok back to the union issues.

    Though I think my previous answers cover your follow on critique, the agreed upon manner in which the states of the union could challenge a law was via advocating for its change and challenging it in court. And here is where your contract analysis defeats your own case. The manner by which a state could break a contract is spelled out via court action or advancing a new law.

    a. actually writing a law to be adopted in Congress, that provided a means of severing from the union.
    b. going before the supreme court and challenging federal “overall” jurisdiction.

    It has generally been unacceptable to break a contract by hitting the other contractor in the nose. And doing so would constant such a violation that would render one criminally or civilly (most likely both) liable. And if you resisted the enforcement of the contract by force, you would be met by force.

    The Declaration of Independence is largely a philosophical document, not one that was legally binding. However, its assent required the agreement by all, for the very same rationale — that of unity above independent state action. Otherwise, the document itself has no unifying purpose. And each state could do as it pleased. But that was not the case — it was a statement of the whole, while each stated subjugated itself to that whole purpose of independence as one body. And in creating that union, they adopted the Articles of Confederation, and when that proved insufficient, they subjugated even more independence for the sake of a unifying legal frame to which all were responsible one to the other “by contract” to abide by.

    Your reverse osmosis here doesn’t work. when it comes to exercising state dominance over the union, the process is via congress by 2/3, or some manner of majority vote. Your suggestion invites a process that turns the Constitution back into the Articles — no. The Constitution is an entirely new agreement, and entirely new contract. And the reason is to the issue of state independence which each state gave up for a more “perfect union”. And that more perfect union established a process to determine the legality of action.

    I find it odd that you lean heavily on the Declaration and yet defend slavery. The very cornerstone of the Declaration is that men are by nature, by God free — hence you’ll have to pull more than a rabbit out of your hat to question any slave revolt of any kind that sought freedom, afterall in your view the over riding document is the Declaration —

    The progression of polity here was to create a sovereign nation that the states would support and breaking that contract — in my view is ok, but the Constitutional process is the mechanism or one could engage in treason, forgo the legal processes and make war on one’s fellows in the hope of winning.

    State sovereignty was bound or limited to the Constitution, but could not exceed the boundaries of nation state law. That is why the supremacy clause is so vitally important. It makes clear what the states are giving up to gain.

    The complaints about federal power are fine – the process is through the systems noted in the constitution and I agree that the purpose of the constitution is to transform a sovereign nation. But there is no indication that the sovereignty was a mixed monarchy or anything close to it. These are challenges to very specific federal mandates: These challenges were not acts of war but in accordance with the laws of the land, and neither did the two states in question seek to break from the union. They argued that the union was in violation, they ultimately prevailed. No war required and no contention that the states were sovereign so as to advocate fro breaking the contract.

    Note: Hamilton’s view is that the some states were seeking to immolate the union, dissolve the union.

    https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-acts
    https://www.britannica.com/event/Alien-and-Sedition-Acts

    Most importantly, note the political process to challenge the constitutionality of the legal statutes in question, not war by rather – they make clear the violations to the Constitution’s Bill of rights, especially violating free speech.

    1. political process and
    2. legal repeal.

    https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-acts
    I would also note that only two states engaged in formal complaint — hardly a consensus about state sovereignty apart from union.

    I would pay very close attention to the actions of Pres. Jefferson regarding the notion of national identity, whose actions all but demanded that what the country was as a whole a single entity and he sent Lewis and Clark to make his case about the viability and certainty of nationalism. And nothing he did whole in office sought to sever the union, you claim he rejected. In fact his behavior was just the opposite. You do realize that Pres. Jefferson had Aaron burr arrested for attempting to encourage the cessation of southern states to Spain — an act of treason. Had Pres. really thought the states independent , he would have shrugged his shoulders,

    “Hey that is up to them to decide.” He did anything but. So whatever his concerns about Unionist power, he fully supported that the states were part and parcel to the US and even encouraging independent action severing the union could get one arrested.

    The sovereignty issue you are attempting to parlay into a cause for state republic status. is not a call for severance. It’s a demand that the Constitutional protections be adhered to.

    “RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.”

    Their opening statement is in fact a defense for the national standards regarding freedom of expression.

    “RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.”

    I keep wondering if you have actually read the resolutions you use as defense. each one is defending the Constitutions and stating in very clear terms that the government has exceeded its authority, but not a single one declares independence from the union save as to the laws not held by the federal authority. They are not declaring themselves republics and they state withing what limits their sovereignty exists.

    The rhetoric belies the the intent, and one doesn’t have to read between the lines to understand it. Short form, they are telling the feds they have violated the “Laws of the land,” not the state in fact many states had their own laws against being criticized.

    • Disagree: apollonian
  161. @Uncle Remus

    He thinks he’s soooooooooo cool telling people to “get off [his] lawn,” ho ho ho ho, the stupid puke. Thus he justifies over a million white southerners killed and a million blacks too, not to mention hundreds of thousands northerners killed, many more wounded horribly–can u imagine the putridity of this p.o.s.? It’s why u KNOW south will rise again–and this time we’ll have many, numerous allies, of all races, all the states–as we see this putrid, stinking empire now the docile slave and attack dog for what?–Israeli terror-state and globalist genocide of Agenda-21 and -2030. For isn’t that the logic?–if states are slaves of the national empire, then that national empire is slave of the world gov., right? Yankee scum (I was born in north to northern parents, so I know).

  162. @apollonian

    correction:

    sidenote: the state, in fact many states had their own laws against criticizing the state..

  163. Dannyboy says:
    @Rich

    Monday morning quarterbacking is very much in vogue these days.

    Lee was overrated, Grant was underrated etc… etc.

    The mere fact that Lee was the overwhelming first choice of Winfield Scott and the Union might tell you something,

    How many different Commanders did shitbag Lincoln go through before he finally settled on Grant?

    McClellan twice, Grant twice, McDowell, Burnside, Meade, Pope, Hooker…lol.

    “Within days of Lee assuming command of the army, Porter Alexander spoke with Captain Joseph C. Ives of Davis’s staff. Alexander inquired if Lee was audacious enough, believing that such an attribute was an absolute requirement if the South, with its inferior resources and manpower, was to have “any chance at all.” Replied Ives: “Alexander, if there is one man in either army, Federal or Confederate, who is head & shoulders, far above every other one in either army in audacity that man is Gen. Lee, and you will very soon have lived to see it.”

    A Texan private subsequently compared Lee’s temperament to that of “a game cock,” adding that the “mere presence of an enemy aroused his pugnacity and was a challenge he found hard to decline.” In Lee’s words, he strove to “destroy,” “ruin,” “crush,” and “wipe out” enemy forces.”

    • Replies: @Rich
  164. Dannyboy says:

    You know what kind of big balls it takes to divide an already numerically inferior force in front of an invading host?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chancellorsville

    That’s called going “all in”.

  165. renfro says:
    @anon

    These were “good men” but good men aren’t who we need anymore, if we ever needed them in the first place.

    I suggest you get down on your knees and pray for some good men to surface in the US……if they don’t ….then even those of you who don’t believe in principles, conscious , honor and duty are gonna be exterminated by the kind of ‘not good’ men you think should replace them. Its your funeral in the end.

    During the Republican National Convention of that year, Eisenhower mentioned that he kept a picture of Robert E. Lee in his office. That prompted a dentist from New York to send the following letter to the White House:

    [MORE]

    August 1, 1960
    Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower
    White House
    Washington, D.C.

    Dear Mr. President:

    At the Republication Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.

    I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.

    The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did, was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being held as one of our heroes.

    Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?

    Sincerely yours,

    Leon W. Scott

    Despite undoubtedly having more important things to do as president, Eisenhower must have felt his answer was of such importance that he took the time to send Dr. Scott the following reply from the White House:

    EisenhowerAugust 9, 1960

    Dear Dr. Scott:

    Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

    General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

    From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

    Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

    Sincerely,

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

  166. @renfro

    Pres. Eisenhower’s response is why he was chosen as the commander of Allied Forces — he could be diplomatic and an astute politician. But his letter also reveals just how ingrained the compromise over union was. That despite the “bloodshed” Gen Lee is rated as something of an icon instead of the traitor he was despite his ” honorable reasons”.

    The colonial revolutionaries tarred and feathered “Honorable men” who chose to remain loyal to Great Britain.

    Allowing men and women to have some failings is all well and good. But anyone trying to defend the attack against the US in some honorable cause is just bizarre. I would be curious of those same defenders how many would defend the blacks who took sides with the Philippine rebels because in their mind — they were simply fighting to be free and they could not in good conscience reconcile killing Philippines for something they themselves were still struggling to lay hold of in full in the US. Certainly an honorable position moral and ethical consistency.

    One of the problems is that the South as with other states is all in for union when it benefits them. After all Texans did not say to Pres. Polk, stay out of the fight with Mexico that is our problem and as an independent Republic we’ll deal with it —-

  167. @renfro

    I would further not that Gen. Grant thought the South traitors. So despite Pres Eisenhower’s diplomacy the contemporaries at the time , such Gen Grant made no excuses for the treason of attacking the US in an effort to break it apart.

    I think Gen Lee’s contemporary carries far more weight.

    • Replies: @renfro
  168. Dannyboy says:

    This next go round, you people won’t get the magnanimous Southern gentleman.

    You’re going to get this guy instead.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._Anderson

  169. renfro says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Your opinions don’t count….you didn’t have any fore fathers involved and you obviously didnt get the explanation Ike gave about the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years when the Civil war began.

    You can go now weird one. You arent allowed to criticize your betters.

    • Agree: Dannyboy
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  170. Curle says:
    @Rich

    “Will Gottfried, in his dotage, tell us Jefferson Davis was also a “crypto-Jew”?”

    Maybe. My family, of very old southern origin, is of reasonably close relation with Davis, and Jefferson, and though tipped off years ago to Sephardic origins disbelieved it until FTDNA came up with an Sephardic marker algorithms. Guess what?

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Hail
    , @renfro
  171. Rich says:
    @Dannyboy

    Look, I’m not trying to disparage General Lee, everything I’ve read about the man indicates he was an honorable man, but in the end, he lost. Grant outgeneraled him. Of course it’s Monday morning QBing, I understand that, but hindsight is 20/20 and he should have fought a war more in the fashion of Fabian’s victory over Hannibal. Invading the North and being defeated at Gettysburg doomed the South and Lee gets full credit for that disaster. That decision prevents me from calling him “America’s greatest military mind”. No disrespect intended.

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
    , @Patricus
  172. @renfro

    Laughing. You may use whatever arbitrary standard you wish to sever citizens from expressing one’s view. however,

    It is not my opinion. It is the opinion of two men both who served in the armed services and became presidents. Their opinion,

    Anyone attempting to sever the union by force is engaged in treason, I would add to that the voice of Pres Jefferson who arrested Aaron Burr for a scheme to entice the western southern states to secede and join Spain.

    I ave no idea if anyone from my lineage was engaged in the civil war. However, as a US citizen, i can certainly look at the data and form a point of view and express the same.

    But I can certainly understand why you find my views not to your liking. It will be interesting to see what standard you use to disavow the opinions of Pres./Gen Grant, Pres. Gen Andrew Jackson, Pres. Jefferson . . . Pres George Washington, who considered a failure to pay taxes an act of treason. It’s easy to imagine his view of cessation.

    I thought for sure my”jewishness” would be an issue. laugh.

  173. Rich says:
    @Curle

    There you go, you guys have to have everyone, right? Only your ethnic group gets to be heroes, and you guys wonder why people dislike you. Just because one of your grannies slept with old Abe down at the general store to get a discount on pickles, doesn’t mean the great Jefferson Davis was of your tribe, okay?

  174. Hail says: • Website
    @Curle

    It seems really doubtful to me that Davis had any significant Sephardic-Jewish ancestry. A distantly related individual’s trace-amount of x ancestry could be from any source (family tree branch), not necessarily a branch shared in common with Davis.

    Was there ever confirmation on whether Jeff Davis’ wife, Varina, had Subsaharan blood? A whispering campaign by critics of Davis in the war years in Richmond had it so. And she looked it:

    • Replies: @Bliss
  175. renfro says:
    @Curle

    Maybe. My family, of very old southern origin, is of reasonably close relation with Davis, and Jefferson, and though tipped off years ago to Sephardic origins disbelieved it until FTDNA came up with an Sephardic marker algorithms. Guess what?

    Well one thing about you is certain. You’re a liar. And a very dumb one. And you’re not from old Southern origins and related to Jefferson or you would have know that NO DNA was ever taken from Jefferson ….as you claimed in a prior comment.
    Usually I see this kind of stuff on Jewish sites where they claim they have discovered the Jewish roots of every famous dead person in America. LOL

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304211804577500870076728362

    ”In reality, the 1998 DNA tests alleged to prove this did not involve genetic material from Thomas Jefferson. All they established was that one of more than two dozen Jefferson males probably fathered Sally Hemings’s youngest son, Eston.”

    As typical the JewYorkTimes contributed to the myth be running a story –“Jefferson was First Jewish President’…..and never corrected it.

    Furthermore your claim that …..”My family is of reasonably close relation with Davis, and Jefferson, and though tipped off years ago to Sephardic origins disbelieved it until FTDNA came up with an Sephardic marker algorithms. Guess what?” ……Is another lie.

    Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301023/

    FIDNA nor any other of the ancestry test can tell you if you are Jewish or part Jewish.
    Its a common misconception held by people who buy these test about genetic ancestry that it can reveal information about an individual’s ancestry. It cannot. What DNA testing, that is all the rage these days, tells you is where people with ‘similar’ DNA lived and live. They will not be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or what race or social group they identified with. They will only tell you regions like Spain , East Europe, West Europe, Asia etc., etc.. Anyone can go to the FIDNA site and see all their reports types to confirm this.

    People like you that tell such lies give me a headache and make me waste my time correcting your crap for others so I don’t feel like being polite to you.
    I repeat you are deliberate liar so my guess is you are a jew hasbara brat following the trainers instruction to pretend you are ‘one of us’ and then start to do your pigeon droppings . Problem is you are too stupid to pull it off.

  176. Bliss says:
    @Hail

    So the First Lady of the Confederacy, Varina Davis, was of visibly african ancestry. And the right hand man of her husband, President Jefferson Davis, was a Sephardic Jew: Secretary of State Judah Benjamin.

    And since President Eisenhower is being discussed here, his mother too looked visibly part african:

    The african phenotype got further diluted in Dwight Eisenhower but it was still visible:

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @iffen
    , @Jeff Stryker
  177. Rich says:
    @Bliss

    You do realize that the black and white cameras and photographs of the past aren’t as clear as the cameras and photos of today, don’t you? I’d be very surprised to learn that the President of the Confederacy had a coloured wife, although I suppose anything is possible. Maybe she was part Martian?. If Ike had African ancestry, he was the palest African I ever saw. Maybe he was one of those albino Africans that they cut up to get the good joojoo from?

  178. So much for the tired,

    This is none of your business, because your great uncle never fought in the civil war.”

    the constant scrabble to be relevant vie biological lineage. Look if you live in the US and you are a US citizen, the conflict and the outcome of that conflict has direct impact on the structure by which one lives as citizens and given that in the minds of some the issue, even if mistaken, remains unresolved then no US citizen can be dismissed from discussion merely because their ancestors hold no marker at Gettysburg.

    If such were the case, then perhaps no one should be permitted to discuss anything about the country unless they were signers to the Declaration of Independence, or landed at Plymouth Rock, or signed the Mayflower Compact or fought in WWI or WWII or was involved in the battles of Tripoli.

    Nonsense.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  179. iffen says:
    @Bliss

    You do know that most of us don’t go ape-shit when the possibility of a non-cau in the woodpile is considered.

  180. @EliteCommInc.

    How does the Civil War have anything to do with the people in Milwaukee or Chicago or Washington State? Some of these cities were still British or Spanish-owned at the time of the Civil War.

    Industrialization of the Northern US was post 1865 and the whites responsible did not arrive in the US until the late 19th or early 20th centuries.

    In the event that you had not noticed, few of the groups that now define the Northern US-Germans, Italians, Slavs, Irish-Catholics in the main-live in the South or have anything to do with its history.

    We are more like Canadians than people in Mississippi.

  181. @Bliss

    Southern genealogy is weird-people don’t know whether they are part-African, or great-granddad was a Jew or WHAT they are.

    In the Upper Midwest, you can work out where people are from by their zip code. Hamtramck and Warren are Polish as is West Milwaukee.

    In the North we know immediately from a last name and a religion. If your last name is Hanssen and you are Lutheran, your family is Norwegian. If your mother’s last name was O’Brien, she is Irish.

    Catholics in the Northeast and Upper Midwest will be Italians, Irish and Slavic. Germans split between Catholic and Lutheran like Trump.

    But Southerners don’t know WHERE they are from or whether they are part-African.

    It makes me grateful that we Northerners have grandparents who spoke in their birthplace languages and belonged to ethnic communities.

    To speculate whether you are an African or part-Jewish must be a bummer.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  182. My comment is to the suggestion of who can discuss historical events . . .

    one suggestion was that only those that have had participants in said events can express a view —

    I challenge the idea and express why I disagree. As your own comments reflect one of the problems with said standard – the civil war was not merely a personal event.

  183. Hibernian says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Minnesota and Wisconsin are famous for radicalism and Iowa and the Dakotas, as rural as they are, are touched by the same radicalism.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  184. Hibernian says:
    @lysias

    It was an act of successful treason.

  185. Hibernian says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Los Angeles was largely built by Southern, and rural Midwestern, white people.

  186. At the time of the Civil War it belonged to Spain. In the 1870’s it attracted farmers and oil prospectors but it was Hollywood and yes, the Jews, who transformed it into a boom town.

    Southerners did arrive during the Depression from Oklahoma and everywhere else.

    But it was really Hollywood that transformed from a farming community into the Rome of the 20th and 21st century.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  187. @Hibernian

    Laugh.

    This has gone off the rails. The discussion I am referring to has to do with the argument that anyone who didn’t have ancestors in the civil war fight is irrelevant to the conversation. Because the civil war has consequences in very real consequences for citizens today. It was not a family feud of blood but of citizens, some related, many of no relations at all.

    As for radicals, the US was born of radicals. The revolution was not a conservative event. And that event and its causes are the shoe strings that the south uses to advance withdrawing from the union. But having pledged loyalty to it, their attempt is treason and is treason in every way. Their personal honor makes absolutely no difference, loyalty to the state that beset them against their countrymen — is no less treason, because they were honorable in some other fashion.

    But the record of what occurred is very clear.

    I am watching Stephen King’s “The Stand” there are repeated references to the “will of God” — but that doesn’t make the movie a christian film. Just because you want to quit the union doesn’t mean you can without engaging the due process to so.

    The psyche of the US citizen is one towards independence or will, and history suggests that impetuousness to exert it is our founding and ethos and polity or else we would have gone the way of Canada to Independence – minus a revolution.

  188. Hibernian says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    It was ceded to the US by Mexico, in 1848, 12 years before the Civil War. Mexico had become independent in 1821. As far as the Southerns and Midwesterners are concerned, I mean they formed the work force. Also, aerospace was a massive employer, albeit less glamorous than Hollywood.

  189. @Jeff Stryker

    Southern genealogy is not weird. You’re the weirdo. You married a Chinese woman and have Chinese offspring. Fortunately, you live in Asia. Your comments on racial purity are insane.

    As to Eisenhower, he was not black. His mother is not black.

    Southerners kept good records. Ever hear of the one-drop rule?

    As to Jefferson Davis’ wife, there are other pictures where you can tell she is not black.

    Bliss scribbles a lot of nonsense. Sometimes she/he sounds like a Muslim. This time she sounds like a Stormfronter.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  190. @Anon

    I capitalize “White”, you can capitalize “Jew”and “Jewish”.

  191. @attilathehen

    Polish Catholic girls from the Rust Belt look good when they are young with those high Slavic cheekbones and perfect pouty lips but…a white man has to be making a fair amount of money to be an eligible bachelor. I wasn’t.

    Also, you have to find the money to send the kids to Catholic school.

    Cannot manage any of that.

    I’m sure you understand why the most ineligible bachelors might as well move overseas where it is easier for white men to find a marriage partner.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  192. @Jeff Stryker

    “I’m sure you understand why the most ineligible bachelors might as well move overseas…” You have confirmed your inferior Western male cuck status. It’s better you went to Asia. We don’t need a genetic defect like you in the West. Your Chinese offspring got the genetic defects of being Chinese and your cuck genes. Monsters.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  193. @attilathehen

    A few years ago I got in touch with a Polish guy from Flint I shared a dorm with, until he dropped out after getting a Polish Catholic girl pregnant his sophomore year. He dropped out and returned to Flint at that time to marry her. Abortion in 1993 was out of the question for Polish Catholic young women.

    Anyhow, he spent the last 20 years in Flint. The house he inherited was worth nothing; he could not have given the place away.

    He told me that his formerly tidy and pleasant Polish neighborhood had disintegrated into crime and decay. He was stuck there.

    Compare that to my life on the tropical beaches of Asia and high-rise apartments of Dubai.

    • Replies: @iffen
  194. iffen says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Compare that to my life on the tropical beaches of Asia and high-rise apartments of Dubai.

    Mark 8:36

    “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

    King James Version (KJV)

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    , @Bliss
  195. @iffen

    Excellent. This degenerate cares only about his pleasures. His low IQ Chinese offspring will most likely marry blacks. He mentioned Dubai and there are many blacks there. Also, Dubai is Muslim. More degeneracy. I doubt though his life is so idyllic. He has no reason to comment on the West. He constantly tries to rationalize his cowardice and has a bizarre hatred for the West. At least he and his offspring are not in the West.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Bliss
  196. Bliss says:
    @iffen

    That’s so hypocritical coming from someone who gloats about his kinds hate-based “alliances” with asian heathens against fellow Christian Americans who happen to be black.

    Where in the Bible did you learn that was good for your soul?

    • Replies: @iffen
  197. iffen says:
    @attilathehen

    He constantly tries to rationalize his cowardice and has a bizarre hatred for the West.

    I don’t read it that way. It is the normal conflict between what is good for the group and what is good for the individual. But for the Grace of God …

    I just regret the possibility that his missing vote in Michigan could be the one to keep Michigan great again and tip the balance in the Electoral College for keeping America Great Again.

    Worrying too much about miscegenation is creepy.

    But, I give you points for being consistent, clear and direct.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  198. iffen says:
    @Bliss

    That’s so hypocritical coming from someone who gloats about his kinds hate-based “alliances” with asian heathens

    I think you need to disregard my attempts at humor and sarcasm.

    I feel a very deep connection and concern for Southern working class blacks. I put them in “my” group when confronting most political questions.

    Hypocrisy can be cultivated as a virtue. 🙂

    • Replies: @Bliss
  199. Bliss says:
    @iffen

    I feel a very deep connection and concern for Southern working class blacks. I put them in “my” group when confronting most political questions.

    No you don’t. It’s too obvious.

    Hypocrisy can be cultivated as a virtue. 🙂

    The Bible deems hypocrisy a sin. To cultivate hypocrisy is to cultivate sin. You find that amusing?

    • Replies: @iffen
  200. Bliss says:
    @attilathehen

    His low IQ Chinese offspring

    Lol. You know nothing about IQ yet you talk as if you know what you are talking about.

    Just as you know nothing about the Bible. As your endless rants against black and asian christians so clearly prove.

    Here’s news for you: the Bible is not a European book. None of the events in the Bible take place in Europe. They take place in Africa and Southwest Asia.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  201. iffen says:
    @Bliss

    It’s too obvious.

    Maybe it’s just you. I know what I think about race and what I used to think about it.

    Just because I’m not Afro-centric or condescending toward blacks like most SJWs doesn’t mean I’m racist.

    The kind of hypocrisy that underlies politeness. Saying something tastes good or looks good when you think otherwise just to keep your opinion from hurting someone’s feelings.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  202. @Bliss

    Which personality are you in comment 203 Bliss?

    The Bible does detail activities that happened in Europe. St. Peter and St. Paul went to Rome. I’m pretty sure Rome is in Europe. The Apostles went to Greece. I’m pretty sure Greece is in Europe. There is a European background in the Bible.

    As to blacks/Asians, they have lower IQs. I have consistently stated that if they want to be Christian, they must have their own churches.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Corvinus
  203. @iffen

    Thanks. As I try to be consistent in my commenting, I will once again state who are our biggest problems: insane anti-Semites, gentile males involved with Asian females, and trad Catholics/Christian Zionists. Until we deal with these groups, we will not solve our problems in the West.

    E. Michael Jones is a combination of 2 of the above groups. He is a trad Catholic and an insane anti-Semite. He thinks conversion to the RCC is the solution to the West’s problems. He blames all problems on Jews. He refuses to deal with IQ and its relation to race. Here is a youtube interview he gave. At the 1:08 mark, he and hosts start to talk about IQ. EMJ becomes hysterical and will not address IQ, let alone IQ and its relation to race.

    When someone like Stryker talks about miscegenation, knowing that he is a gentile married to an Asian female and who has Asian offspring, he falls into a group I mentioned above. Of course, blacks marrying whites creates problems. But Asians are also a problem. I don’t have a problem with American Indians and Eskimos because they are small in number and being Asian their genes are recessive if one marries whites for several generations. Todd Palin is 1/8 Eskimo. He’s kosher. John Derbyshire and his Chinese family are haram. Derbyshire is another example of a gentile male who degenerated when he married a Chinese female. He has written that Asians are smarter than whites. They are not. Derbyshire and his clan have to move to China.

    Some high-caste Euro-mestizos from Latin America assimilate very easily. Again, we look at IQ and their race and determinations can be made.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  204. Bliss says:
    @iffen

    The kind of hypocrisy that underlies politeness.

    You quote Jesus as if you believe in his Gospel of Universal Love when your heart is full of hate for black Christians. And your buddy Attilathehen pretends to be Christian when her heart is full of hate for asian christians as well, which she shamelessly keeps reminding us of.

    That’s hypocrisy/sin of the highest order. You know the wages of sin, right?

    • Replies: @iffen
  205. Bliss says:
    @attilathehen

    we look at IQ and their race and determinations can be made.

    Where in the Bible does it teach to look at IQ and race?

    Jesus taught the exact opposite of what you believe. For example, since according to HBD dogma IQ correlates inversely with poverty:

    It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

    Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

    Luke 6:20

    As for racism:

    The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.1 Samuel 16:7

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

    Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. John 7:24

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  206. iffen says:
    @Bliss

    when your heart is full of hate

    You know the wages of sin, right?

    I only hate evil and uncaring elites.

    John 8

    7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

    Matthew 7

    1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

  207. @Bliss

    So, I’m dealing with the universalist, Christian, brotherhood of people Bliss today. Okay.

    Yes, the Bible does not mention IQ. It only refers to wisdom and foolishness. Today we know that wisdom and foolishness are related to IQ and race. Again, remember when the Bible was written. It was in a very limited area where most people were Caucasians. The odd black/Asian that appeared among them would have just been a curiosity. Slaves were Caucasians, not blacks. People were similar in appearance so this is why the Bible states we must look at the heart of a person. But, again, how you live your life publicly is a clear indication of the condition of your heart. Actions speak louder than words.

    Also, many people would have probably had facial scars from diseases for which there were no treatments. Leprosy was considered a state of sin in the Old Testament, but Jesus taught people not to be afraid of lepers and to help them. Once Christianity was firmly established, hospitals were built to treat people. This is what is meant by not judging by appearances. Today we know that physical ailments do not mean a person is a sinner. We treat the physical, but everyone must work on their spiritual side and be the most moral person they can be.

  208. Bliss says:

    It was in a very limited area where most people were Caucasians.

    The people of the Bible weren’t white. In the Bible white skin is associated with a skin disease, leprosy:

    Exodus 4:6-7

    Then the Lord said, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, the skin was leprous[a]—it had become as white as snow. “Now put it back into your cloak,” he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh.

    Yes, the Bible does not mention IQ. It only refers to wisdom and foolishness. Today we know that wisdom and foolishness are related to IQ and race.

    That’s too funny coming from an ignorant, mean-spirited fool. What race does that identify you as?

    Where the hell did you learn that the Chinese are a low IQ people? It couldn’t be from this forum where the opposite is mentioned multiple times a day. So you are lying willfully to people who can’t be fooled on this point. Which proves what a low intelligence you possess and, much worse, reveals the sinfulness in your heart. You know the wages of sin, right?

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  209. Bliss says:
    @attilathehen

    The Bible does detail activities that happened in Europe. St. Peter and St. Paul went to Rome. I’m pretty sure Rome is in Europe. The Apostles went to Greece. I’m pretty sure Greece is in Europe. There is a European background in the Bible.

    There is no European “background” in the Bible. Greeks and Romans appear very late, as invading aliens. Northern Europeans don’t exist at all. The Israelites revolted against the Greek and later the Roman occupiers of their land.

    Jesus was tortured and crucified by Roman foreigners. The early christians were cruelly persecuted by the pagan Europeans, eaten alive by wild animals in front of thousands of cheering spectators. Peter and Paul went to Rome to be crucified and beheaded respectively.

    The background of the Bible is in the MENA region, not Europe. The language of the Bible is Afro-asiatic, which originated in Africa. The nation most often mentioned in the Bible (other than Israel) is Egypt, which is in Africa. Ethiopia too is in the Bible.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    , @anarchyst
  210. @Bliss

    Have you seen mosaics and other paintings from the time of Jesus? The people are Caucasians.

    There are 3 race groups: Caucasoids, Mongoloid and Negroids. Caucasoids are first in IQ, Mongoloids second and blacks last.

    The Chinese are Mongoloids and thus a second-tier racial group. The only intelligent Asians today are the Japanese. Compare China to Japan. Which country is better? India has an ancient Aryan past which produced the Hindu philosophy, it came up with zero. However, they mixed with Asians and they are low IQ country today.

    The people on this forum who talk about Asian IQ superiority are degenerate, cuck, gentile Western males involved with Asian females. John Derbyshire is Exhibit A for this. There was another commentator who scribbled nonsense about how glad he was to have found his wife in the Philippines. Pure degeneracy and madness!!

    Asians contributed nothing to the development of the West and science. I want Asians to stop culturally appropriating computers, televisions, telephones, cars, airplanes, guns, the list is endless.

    • Replies: @iffen
  211. @Bliss

    Your “historical literacy” reveals that you are a functional illiterate.

    Egypt is in north Africa. Before the Muslims conquered North Africa, the people were Caucasians, not afro-Asian. The ancient Egyptian were Caucasians and the built one of the greatest civilizations that ever existed. St. Augustine and Hannibal are examples of these pre-Islamic, high IQ people. Islam destroyed this gene pool through black slavery, cousin marriage, polygamy and concubinage. Egypt today is a black country. Ethiopia was once Caucasian. When they are mentioned in the Bible, black genes had been introduced in Ethiopia, thus beginning the loss of IQ. The last emperor of Ethiopia was Haile Selassie. If you look up pictures of him, he is a very light-skinned, black man. This shows that whiteness was the standard in Ethiopia. That standard is now gone.

    • LOL: Bliss
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  212. Dannyboy says:
    @Rich

    Nobody “outgeneraled” Lee. The Confederacy lost because they were outnumbered and outgunned by a foe with more men and greater resources.

    Grant was a slow witted mediocre drunk, with tons of poor Germans and Irish to pour into Lincoln’s ill-conceived meat grinders.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @Rich
  213. @attilathehen

    I’ve been to Egypt and it is Arabic. Ethiopians are mixture of Arabic and black, possibly with ancient Jewish admixture.

    The only Caucasians that were ever in North Africa were Jews.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  214. anarchyst says:
    @Bliss

    “Jesus was tortured and crucified by Roman foreigners” at the behest of the jews. Although Judea was a part of the Roman empire, jews of the time were still troublemakers and fomented much hate and discontent–something the Romans were eager to avoid.
    This is no different today, with Israel commanding the USA to fight its battles…as is always the case, and throughout history, jews NEVER “fought their own battles”, but always got others to do their “dirty work” for them.

  215. @Jeff Stryker

    For a “world traveler,” you are incredibly stupid. Maybe you really are “color-blind” in that you can’t distinguish between red and green or black and white.

    St. Augustine and Hannibal were Caucasians. The ancient Jews were Caucasians. Modern day Jews are mixed with black/Asian/some European and Caucasian. Modern day Jews have high intermarriage rates with blacks/Asians.

    Here are images of modern day Egyptians.

    https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?206794-How-much-SSA-in-these-modern-Egyptians-Could-they-pass-as-New-World-mixes

    These people are black. They speak Arabic. They have little connection with ancient Arabs. Modern day Egyptians have an average IQ of 84. This low IQ was caused by mixing with blacks.

    Are you and Bliss related?

  216. @Dannyboy

    Gen. Lee’s superior strategic genius cannot be reconciled against several losses — especially his command at Gettysburg. His choice to send men across an open field with no cover for over a mile(?) –

    https://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/06/03/the-killing-field-12-remarkable-facts-about-picketts-charge/

    It was the end.
    __________________________________

    Gen. Grant was neither slow witted or a drunk. He was persistent and unrelenting to a task –” dogg’ed”

    As for Pres Lincoln — the war was won under his leadership.

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
  217. iffen says:
    @attilathehen

    Asians contributed nothing to the development of the West

    Gunpowder. Where would we be without gunpowder?

    China. Are you some kind of barbarian that eats off melmac?

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  218. @iffen

    Like Europeans couldn’t have figured out how to create gunpowder. Are you involved with Asians?

    • Replies: @iffen
  219. iffen says:
    @attilathehen

    Are you involved with Asians?

    No, but folklore holds that they have tight little twats, so I think that explains a bit.

    I’m one of those Christian Zionists, once removed.

  220. Rich says:
    @Dannyboy

    For a fellow who wasn’t outgeneraled he somehow lost a war. If Lee was so brilliant, he should have known he was both “outnumbered and outgunned by a foe with more men and greater resources”. He should have seen that an invasion was futile and fought a different war. If you don’t think Southern soldiers were thrown into the meat grinder, too, you haven’t studied the war sufficiently.

    Professor David Gleeson estimates that 20,000 Irish served in the Confederate Army, not an insignificant number.

    As Mr Lincoln is reported to have said, “Find out what whiskey Grant drinks and send a barrel of it to my other generals.” Now, the war’s been over a long time, give the devil his due. He beat your guy fair and square.

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
    , @Dannyboy
    , @Dannyboy
  221. Dannyboy says:
    @Rich

    “He beat your guy fair and square.”

    That expression is funny to begin with, but coming from Yankees, it’s downright hilarious.

    Lee ordered Pickett’s Charge because he had to. Grant, on the other hand ordered 16,000 men to their death at Cold Harbor because neither he nor his subordinates possessed the balls and imagination to do otherwise.

    Hell, why not? Plenty more where they came from…lol

  222. Dannyboy says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “Gen. Lee’s superior strategic genius cannot be reconciled against several losses — especially his command at Gettysburg. His choice to send men across an open field with no cover for over a mile(?)”

    https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/articles/mistakeofallmistakes.aspx

    “Gen. Grant was neither slow witted or a drunk. He was persistent and unrelenting to a task –” dogg’ed”

    It’s easy to be “dogg’ed” when you have a surplus of men and material.

    Old Honest Abe “the railsplitter” was a sleazy Midwest lawyer with a retard son and a batshit crazy wife, who fantasized about suicide.

    Thankfully our boys put him out of his misery.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  223. Dannyboy says:

    “Gen. Lee’s superior strategic genius cannot be reconciled against several losses — especially his command at Gettysburg. His choice to send men across an open field with no cover for over a mile(?) – ”

    Typical Yankee pablum

    https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/articles/mistakeofallmistakes.aspx

  224. Dannyboy says:
    @Rich

    For a fellow who wasn’t outgeneraled he somehow lost a war. If Lee was so brilliant, he should have known he was both “outnumbered and outgunned by a foe with more men and greater resources”.

    Maybe he loved his people and wanted to serve their cause despite the odds?

    “He should have seen that an invasion was futile and fought a different war.”

    If I recall correctly, Lincoln invaded the South.

    • Replies: @Rich
  225. Rich says:
    @Dannyboy

    First off, you’ve got me wrong, I actually sympathize with the Southern cause and believe secession was, and should be, a legal course for any state or group of states.

    That being said, Lincoln disagreed and knowing he had a much larger and better armed force, invaded. Lee, with inferior numbers and weapons believed he could invade the North and inflict enough damage that the North would give up forcefully keeping the Union together. He was wrong. He gambled when, in the opinion of many military historians, he should have fought a defensive war.

    He may have been an honorable man, but in the end, he was a loser.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  226. Patricus says:
    @Rich

    Grant outgeneraled Lee??? Churchill’s History of the English speaking Peoples has a couple of pretty fair chapters on the American civil war. He labeled Grant as representing “the negation of generalship”. Grant would attack, lose 10,000 men to Lee’s 4,000, then attack the next day with similar results. Eventually attrition wore down the smaller and poorly supplied South. Those with overwhelming numbers of troops and supplies should be able to annihilate a weaker enemy and keep sacrifices to a minimum. Lots of northern mothers had good reason to despise US Grant.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @EliteCommInc.
  227. Rich says:
    @Patricus

    Churchill? Really? The man whose bad decisions led to the destruction of the British Empire? If he backs your man, you’re definitely backing the wrong horse.

  228. @Dannyboy

    I am very appreciative of Dr. Foote’s views on the Civil War. Taking a step back is fine to the overall goal —

    However, the choice to send that assault across that open field was devastating and a mistake. That he had reasons to believe it would succeed does not overcome the obvious error.

    I won’t haggle about the resources. But even when Gen. Grant had a lesser command — he fought and took his fights generally head on. When he lost a battle, his position was to take the matter up again. His single minded obsession was to destroy his opposition it seems by any means necessary – hence unleashing General Sherman.

    The assassination of Pres. Lincoln was a loss for the South.
    ————————————

    Had Gen. McClellan had any sense he would have put the southern confederacy to bed three years earlier. Had he had Gen Grant’s understanding — the war would have ended much sooner.

  229. @Patricus

    Over played,

    the numbers lost in Gen Grants command were the numbers reflected on both sides all throughout the wars prosecution.

    Not a fan of wikipedia however,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_costliest_American_Civil_War_land_battles

  230. Corvinus says:
    @Rich

    “That being said, Lincoln disagreed and knowing he had a much larger and better armed force, invaded.”

    Actually, there was no “invasion”. The South, opposed by Lincoln’s stance on slavery, attempted to leave the Union. The North, along with Southern unionists, sought to keep the nation intact and took defensive action. Of course, there were a myriad of factors why the Civil War happened.

    • Replies: @Coag
  231. Corvinus says:
    @attilathehen

    “I have consistently stated that if they want to be Christian, they must have their own churches.”

    Which is decidedly anti-Christian.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  232. Coag says:
    @Corvinus

    From the southern perspective the north and south were two separate nations joined in consensual union, and when the union ceased to be useful to the south, the south lawfully seceded but were invaded by the north.

    The southern perspective was no more right or wrong than your northern perspective on such things, but the trial of strength decided the legalities in favor of the north.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @Corvinus
  233. @Coag

    I would be curious to know exactly what this “lawful” process was.

    I would be interested to know the process they used to overcome the supremacy clause.

    • Replies: @Coag
    , @apollonian
  234. Coag says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Whatever the black letter edifice either side wishes to construct, natural law can always be resorted to.

  235. Corvinus says:
    @Coag

    “From the southern perspective the north and south were two separate nations joined in consensual union, and when the union ceased to be useful to the south, the south lawfully seceded but were invaded by the north.”

    Actually, at the time when our nation was created, the perspective was that the Thirteen Colonies, which included the North and South, had been part of the British Empire and sought to create a separate entity while acknowledging their cultural differences. When Lincoln was elected, and the expansion of slavery left in peril, the South chose to remove itself from the Union. A decision was thus made by those in the North (and Southerners) who believed that a divided America would be overall detrimental to both of its futures.

    “Whatever the black letter edifice either side wishes to construct, natural law can always be resorted to.”

    Please be more specific here.

    • Replies: @Coag
  236. Coag says:
    @Corvinus

    “Actually, at the time when our nation was created, the perspective was…”

    Actually, by the time of Lincoln the cultural destinies of north and south were completely divergent and foreign to each other, and sectional interests (including slavery) were felt to be untenable under the federal union. Your reading of your modern concept of an American nation into past eras is wildly anachronistic, and did not apply in 1860, in 1833 (Nullification Crisis), in 1815 (Hartford Convention), or even in 1789, when it was still unclear to which extent the 13 sovereign states abdicated their sovereignty.

    “Please be more specific here.”

    Read the Declaration of Independence. John Locke, Jefferson, etc.

    Anyways, the legal quibbles are unimportant compared to the decision on the battlefield, and that’s what we must all submit to unless there are irresistible forces in the future that dissolve the union.

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Corvinus
  237. @Coag

    HOW Did 1860s War Arise?

    Coag: note the 10th Amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    (a) Thus secession was NOT prohibited–and couldn’t have been, otherwise states wouldn’t have ratified in first place.

    (b) Note also, only certain “POWERS”–not sovereignty–were “DELEGATED.” Thus the union was subordinate to states, the union a creature made by states to serve the states.

    (c) Several states noted along w. ratification that they would withdraw (practical secession) fm union if they determined it wasn’t working-out–all in logical, natural accord w. Declaration of Independence.

    (d) Note the states all seceded fm Great Britain (1), and (2) then the Articles Confederation–they could only have done this if they were sovereign, and NEVER gave up this sovereignty, which sovereignty is inalienable–only delegating “powers,” as noted. To have given-up sovereignty, they would have had to repudiate original Declaration of Independence.

    (e) There was serious talk, after the war of northern aggression, of putting Jeff Davis on trial for treason, and lawyers looked seriously into it, many lawyers, including fm northern states, volunteering to defend Davis. But the northern lawyers determined NOT to prosecute because they knew Davis would win, the states being (OBVIOUSLY) sovereign, states having MADE the union in the first place.

    ————

    But the problem still remains for explaining how and why the war began, the northerners otherwise having to be accounted utterly INSANE for their murderous aggression against all logic, reason, and ltr of law. And the answer seems to be in the implications of the Dred Scott Decision in which it verily seemed people could take their slaves anywhere within the union regardless the state laws, including into the territories, the northerners wanting to preserve the rights and privileges of their free labor and not to have to competing w. slave labor.

  238. Corvinus says:
    @Coag

    “Actually, by the time of Lincoln the cultural destinies of north and south were completely divergent and foreign to each other, and sectional interests (including slavery) were felt to be untenable under the federal union.”

    Not quite. By 1860, there were distinct similarities in the North and South, as well as specific differences, when it came to culture. The problem here is that the southern plantation lifestyle, which was elitist in nature, dominated the Southern institutional landscape. The sectional interests were perceived to be untenable first and foremost by the ruling classes, with the rest of population following suit by way of propaganda. Recall that a healthy number of Southerners were upset that the South broke away from the Union because this group felt they lacked a skin in the game and would end up being cannon fodder.

    “Your reading of your modern concept of an American nation into past eras is wildly anachronistic, and did not apply in 1860, in 1833 (Nullification Crisis), in 1815 (Hartford Convention), or even in 1789, when it was still unclear to which extent the 13 sovereign states abdicated their sovereignty.”

    The concept of the modern American nation was an evolving process. We have always had fractures in our Union, just as we always had several commonalities that bound us. The Civil War could have been the breaking point. Fortunately, slavery was obliterated, and the process of repairing the nation to make it stronger began.

    ““Whatever the black letter edifice either side wishes to construct, natural law can always be resorted to.”

    You are still being vague here. What is your actual point? What context are you providing here? It requires a “fleshing out”.

    “Anyways, the legal quibbles are unimportant compared to the decision on the battlefield,”

    No, these “legal quibbles” remain decidedly important especially today.

  239. @Corvinus

    “Corvinus” Must Tell Us What He Knows

    Which is decidedly anti-Christian.

    What?–if there’s anyone more anti-Christ and anti-Christian than “corvinus” I don’t know who that would be–typical of people like him. Yet here we have “corvinus” pretending to know all about it.

    So tell us, corvy, what is Christianity?–what’s it all about?–can u say what the basic philosophy is?–tell us. I’m not asking for some huge exposition, just the basic things–which would justify the statement made, quoted above.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  240. Coag says:

    “The sectional interests were perceived to be untenable first and foremost by the ruling classes, with the rest of population following suit by way of propaganda.“

    Irrelevant. The same could be said of any historical event including the American Revolution, yet historical events have always happened and will always continue to happen regardless of the ahistorical apathy of pluralities or majorities of populations. In any case rank and file Southerners showed up in impressive numbers for the war—“cannon fodder” or not it reflected a patriotism clearly separate from American nationalism.

    “You are still being vague here. What is your actual point? What context are you providing here? It requires a “fleshing out”.”

    In the world of reality, no matter what the letter of the law says, an entity strong enough to seize their advantage by force can always defend its actions with a law (such as “Natural Law” or “Divine Law”) higher than any existing legal system. The American Declaration of Independence is an example of this appeal to Natural Law to justify the rebellion.

    “No, these “legal quibbles” remain decidedly important especially today.”

    Not really. They’re purely academic discussions engineered post hoc to rationalize strong political passions. Centrifugal trends in American unity are reappearing, and you can produce any number of academic legal justifications for recent, well-known local actions that deny the authority of the federal government.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  241. @EliteCommInc.

    Obsessed “Elite…” Struggles To Grasp What He Refuses To Accept

    I would be curious to know exactly what this “lawful” process was.

    I would be interested to know the process they used to overcome the supremacy clause.

    The simple answer regards SOVEREIGNTY–which the state has and always had, having seceded fm G. Britain and the Articles Confederation–and which sovereignty is inalienable–which “elite…” can’t seem to grasp. The union was/is mere AGENT of the states, w. only “DELEGATED POWERS”–which were duly un-delegated by the only sovereign entity, the state.

    There’s no magic ritual the state had to perform. Essentially, all that was/is needed is an announcement which is sufficiently backed by the people and/or their legislature or convention.

    It only goes to show the basic thick-headed incompetence of ignorant fools who just can’t–and won’t–figure it all out regarding “exactly what this ‘lawful’ process was.”

    “Over-coming supremacy”?–was mere creation and agreement made by states w. one another (a), and (b) such “supremacy” exists only as whatever law or action was/is in accord w. Constitution, a creation of the states–and NOT to be decided by an agency of the agent union, like the Sup. ct. which is naturally biased, as pt’d out by Jefferson in Kentucky Resolution of 1798-9.

    Thus the union can NEVER tell any sovereign entity, like the sovereign states, what to do–states are NOT slaves–the union can only say what’s appropriate for itself, hence any party which is voluntary part of that union. An “IN-voluntary part” is SLAVERY by definition, and totally impossible and inconceivable–the very purpose of the agent union to PREVENT.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  242. Corvinus says:
    @apollonian

    “What?–if there’s anyone more anti-Christ and anti-Christian than “corvinus” I don’t know who that would be–typical of people like him.”

    Merely because I correctly pointed out the err of her ways? Wow, just wow.

    “Yet here we have “corvinus” pretending to know all about it.”

    Not pretending, just knowing what I know.

    “So tell us, corvy, what is Christianity?–what’s it all about?–can u say what the basic philosophy is?–tell us. I’m not asking for some huge exposition, just the basic things–which would justify the statement made, quoted above.”

    Stating that non-whites must have their own Christian churches separate from whites is anti-Christian. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them.” (John 10:27) ALL of his sheep under His natural guidance, not separated by man’s artificial barriers.

    • LOL: apollonian
  243. Corvinus says:
    @Coag

    “Irrelevant. The same could be said of any historical event including the American Revolution, yet historical events have always happened and will always continue to happen regardless of the ahistorical apathy of pluralities or majorities of populations.”

    Actually, it is relevant. Without the elites driving home the narrative, the masses are less likely to follow.

    “In any case rank and file Southerners showed up in impressive numbers for the war—“cannon fodder” or not it reflected a patriotism clearly separate from American nationalism.”

    The lower rungs of Southern society showed up in great force in part due to the perception that there way of life was being threatened. They fought for their home soil and for their version of American nationalism.

    “In the world of reality, no matter what the letter of the law says, an entity strong enough to seize their advantage by force can always defend its actions with a law (such as “Natural Law” or “Divine Law”) higher than any existing legal system. The American Declaration of Independence is an example of this appeal to Natural Law to justify the rebellion.”

    Right, the problem is that two competing groups look at that law and may have different interpretations of it. It is not the law itself. Nothing surprising here given the knack for we, as people, to justify something even if it is other than justifiable.

    “Not really. They’re purely academic discussions engineered post hoc to rationalize strong political passions.”

    And generally those academic discussions turn into definitive public actions. Exactly why these “legal quibbles” remain decidedly important especially today.

  244. @apollonian

    Hmmmmm . . . i stand by my previous answer. Nothing here impacts it in any way. The states reliquished national sovereinty — in order to create a more perfect union — the seal on the deal was the supremacy clause.

    The supremacy clause was in fact the answer to what it meant to be in the union — that national authority would be overall.

    The history of the states was to defer to the Supreme court on disputes. Their choice to engage in national decisions about matters between states serves as keen example, they understood that the state had sovereignty on issues not expounded in the constitution, but acknowledged said constitution was the law of the land —

    Enough of the repeat — you have not described a legal process that the southern states engaged to sever their responsibility to the union. For example, federal troops and federal monies were spent in protection and enforcement . . . explicate the agreed upon renumeration for the contribution by the other states to the sates desiring to leave .

    If in fact the state were sovereign, you will have a hard time justifying that states not disposed to return slaves should have. After all an escaped slave was not in another sovereign territory according to you — southern states mandated that said property must be returned and that by federal mandate. If each was sovereign — then no state requesting a slave be returned should have had dispute. After all, they did recognize this sovereignty to their northern neighbors — surely.

    ———————

    I would the state had actually engaged in a due process discussion on separation as opposed the act of violence they engaged.

    • Disagree: apollonian
  245. If one disagrees, they are welcome to advance the due process by means of orderly disunion made by southern states.

    Merely attempting justify the violent choices they made.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  246. @renfro

    Well stated. On the other hand what I, as a denizen of the North, would consider “The South” of yore is disappearing, and rapidly I might add, having succumbed to American homogeneity fueled in part by demographic change (including, ironically, more and more Northerners moving to the South fleeing cold weather, high taxes etc. etc.). A pity, that.

  247. apollonian says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    Can’t Argue (Successfully, Anyway) With Psycho

    Look, sucker: thou are simply psychotic–a typical passive-aggressive, obsessed fool, attempting to justify mass-murder, as of the bloody yanks, Republicans, and “radicals.” Thou do not understand “Constitutional-contract,” pathetic ignorant fool–don’t understand contract, the union mere agency, NOT a national gov. w. only enumerated powers which were DELEGATED by the ONLY sovereign entities, the states.

    For if thou admits the Constitutional Contract or Compact, as of Calhoun, then one understands two (or more) equal parties, and that if one party is in violation, then the other is absolved of any further obligations–thou wants to pretend this is “negotiable” and this to be arbitrated by one of the parties–brainless psychotic moron.

    OBVIOUSLY, the Sup. Ct. is not, could not be arbiter, as that makes the agent union (merely representing some of the interested states) the master presiding overall. Only the states can arbitrate among themselves, there being no higher authority possessing SOVEREIGNTY. States are not inferiors supplicating to some higher authority, idiot. And only the state can decide for itself whether its sovereignty is being violated or not. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE to state deciding for itself IS SLAVERY, but pyscho like thee can’t figure it out.

    And thou continues to ignore Jefferson’s and Madison’s expo to this (above-noted) effect in the resolutions. Thou blatantly lie when thou asserts states gave up sovereignty–thou are just babbling fool–a psycho.

    “…national authority would be overall.”

    Above is just an obvious, stupid, ignorant lie–just babbling by a psycho.

    But psychotic scum rule, as after 1865–I don’t deny–and doesn’t mankind chafe under yoke of present-day psychopaths who rule by means of criminal enterprise like central-banking and world-gov. dictatorship, presently pushing Agenda-21 and -2030 GENOCIDE in humanity’s face? Psychopaths RULE by means of such as thou’s brilliant reasoning and brilliant inferences–against the explicit ltr of the law (10th Amendment, for one).

    States seceded fm KINGDOM of G. Britain in which secession wasn’t allowed, but psycho like thou can’t figure-out secession is right of any sovereign entity which is (still) the state(s), and that’s why secession wasn’t and COULDN’T have been PROHIBITED by 10th Amendment. But by all means, go ahead and keep babbling like the psycho thou really are–I’ll just click “LOL” fm now on, eh?

  248. Cases between states

    SECTION 2. Clause 1. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Land under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    ANNOTATIONS

    The extension of federal judicial power to controversies between states and the vesting of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of suits to which a state is a party had its origin in experience. Prior to independence, disputes between colonies claiming charter rights to territory were settled by the Privy Council. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was made “the last resort on appeal” to resolve “all disputes and differences . . . between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever,” and to constitute what in effect were ad hoc arbitral courts for determining such disputes and rendering a final judgment therein. When the Philadelphia Convention met in 1787, serious disputes over boundaries, lands, and river rights involved ten states.1042 It is hardly surprising, therefore, that during its first 60 years the only state disputes coming to the Supreme Court were boundary disputes1043 or that such disputes constitute the largest single number of suits between states. Since 1900, however, as the result of the increasing mobility of population and wealth and the effects of technology and industrialization, other types of cases have occurred with increasing frequency.

    Boundary Disputes: The Law Applied.—Of the earlier examples of suits between states, that between New Jersey and New York1044 is significant for the application of the rule laid down earlier in Chisholm v. Georgia that the Supreme Court may proceed ex parte if a state refuses to appear when duly summoned. The long drawn out litigation between Rhode Island and Massachusetts is of even greater significance for its rulings, after the case had been pending for seven years, that though the Constitution does not extend the judicial power to all controversies between states, yet it does not exclude any,1045 that a boundary dispute is a justiciable and not a political question,1046 and that a prescribed rule of decision is unnecessary in such cases. On the last point, Justice Baldwin stated: “The submission by the sovereigns, or states, to a court of law or equity, of a controversy between them, without prescribing any rule of decision, gives power to decide according to the appropriate law of the case (11 Ves. 294); which depends on the subject-matter, the source and nature of the claims of the parties, and the law which governs them. From the time of such submission, the question ceases to be a political one, to be decided by the sic volo, sic jubeo, of political power; it comes to the court, to be decided by its judgment, legal discretion and solemn consideration of the rules of law appropriate to its nature as a judicial question, depending on the exercise of judicial power; as it is bound to act by known and settled principles of national or municipal jurisprudence, as the case requires.”1047

    https://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/27-suits-between-states.html

    https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/29-suits-between-two-or-more-states.html

    And there is the Supremacy Clause

  249. As for the revolution —

    you should understand that the binding agreement was essentially the DOI, which each state representative had to sign so that each state fought for independence.

    That document was pressed to agreement — consent by all. it was the first official act of the states towards creating their own nation. The DOI served as declaration of war by the continental congress and would not have passed had any colony/state not signed.

  250. anon[631] • Disclaimer says:

    “If one disagrees, they are welcome to advance the due process by means of orderly disunion made by southern states. Merely attempting justify the violent choices they made.”

    Sure. Vote to leave or just have the legislature vote and have the governor call out the national guard. All people have the right of self-determination, and if the democrat party no longer believes in borders then they have no right to keep us in theirs. Whatever counter argument you make relies on ancient parchment signed by long dead people with limited connection to the present. The idea that my people should be forever bound by the actions of others in the distant past is absurd and offensive. What legal reasoning did the colonists really have to secede from the crown? Answer: none. They just did it and justified it during and after the fact. Our people need nothing beyond the same reasoning. So, quote all the parchment you want. It’s nothing more than ink on a page to me.

    Anyone who thinks this empire isn’t going to hell after what we’ve seen over the last few years is beyond hope. Consider what we’ve seen and ask yourself if this is really a country you want to be a part of anymore:

    1. the CIA clearly controls much of the American media as revealed when a CIA plant wrote a Politico story under a false name.

    2. the Washington Post has recently claimed that merely defending Western Civilization is “racist”. The GOP voted to condemn Steve King for saying virtually nothing offensive. What vermin.

    3. the FBI tried to overthrow an elected president.

    4. the media is clearly in the tank for the government and the democrat party. With the Disney Fox merger, the same guy who fired Rosanne would one day fire Tucker Carlson for wrongthink, meaning that EVERY source of mainstream media would be a version of MSNBC. Thanks Trump.

    5. the democrat party is now the warmongering party.

    6. constant lies by the media asserting our government is controlled by Russia – constant calls for war.

    7. rampant anti-white media coverage, BLM to gin up votes for the democrats.

    8. CONSTANT SJW outrages and hysterias. CONSTANT smite the rando stories.

    9. most republican media and the Republican party is worthless. See losers like Mitt Romney.

    10. the US government is among the most corrupt in the world. Campaign contributions are essentially bribes, government critics die mysteriously all the time …

    11. the congress, with the full support of 100% of republicans, voted to pass an anti-First Amendment bill criminalizing criticism of Israel (boycotts). Despicable. That was their first act during a shutdown, and it sets the precedent for the rat part to one day do the same to conservatives. Don’t be surprised if the permanent democrat majority party one day votes to outlaw hatespeech, with hatespeech being anything they don’t like.

    12. mass deplatforming (banning) of political dissenters. This could quickly get much worse should the democrats win in 2020.

    …and I could go on with this. It’s just embarrassing that people aren’t on the independence movement train at this point. Care about gun rights and freedom of speech? Want to live in a country where you are free from oppression? Want to avoid wars with Russia and China? Want to express yourself without being the subject of a hate campaign? Well, you can kiss that all goodbye in the future under current immigration rates…and soon. This system cannot be reformed, so it is not worth saving. Stay in it too long and there will never be a way out. Anyone who thinks this immoral system can be reformed is welcomed to lay out a detailed, and plausible, case stating how. I have yet to see one.

  251. @EliteCommInc.

    For those of you that want to know – “The Reconstruction Trilogy” by Thomas Dixon Jr.

  252. I appreciate the process put forward. But it is not a due process. However, the issue was to the southern states, and it’s quite obvious that they didn’t so engage.

    “Vote to leave or just have the legislature vote and have the governor call out the national guard. All people have the right of self-determination, and if the democrat party no longer believes in borders then they have no right to keep us in theirs. Whatever counter argument you make relies on ancient parchment signed by long dead people with limited connection to the present. The idea that my people should be forever bound by the actions of others in the distant past is absurd and offensive. What legal reasoning did the colonists really have to secede from the crown? Answer: none. They just did it and justified it during and after the fact.”

    Interesting. But that is not the contract they signed onto. Obviously you don’t have a due process mechanism, but merely a philosophical reason. That is not enough. Due process is one rooted in the legal structures that the states signed on to when they became states under union national jurisdiction and of which they are a party.

    I think the evidence is overwhelming against violent departure, just because said state doesn’t like “X”.

    Bound by contract, of the will of said people of said states. The problem with representative democracy is that one’s representatives may make choices, the represented don’t approve.

    Of your laundry list, there are some salient issues. None of which amounts to a case for the due process of departure.

    Again the point of the discussion was to lay out the case of due process employed by the Southern states — it doesn’t exist, nor have your created one.

    1. The CIA has been using reporters since there was a CIA to make it case to the public. Often print journalism has complied or been used as a conduit to advance issues by various departments, congress, the judiciary and the white house. There is not anything all that new here.

    2. The Washington Post is print medium — not a government agency. That’s an issue to take up with them.

    3. I think the issues with the FBI’s behavior are being addressed and while troubling, the departmental wranglings of departments can effectively be redressed minus a civil conflict.

    4. Media machinations to influence public onion of government are issues to take up with them, especially regarding social or private enterprise polity — again does meet any reasonable standard for war.

    5. There are advocates for needless military intervention in both parties and beyond.

    6. Calls for war and Russia involvement to overthrow the government via the election of Pres. Trump are not supported by the evidence — don’t buy into it or support.

    7. Not liking the media’s point of view does not make a case for violent war for separation —

    8. I take it you are fine when the media was ginning up stories disparaging blacks — whites will survive being criticized “free speech”. As much vitriol as you espouse, I a surprised you want a revolution because your feelings are hurt by others who do the same.interesting.

    9. Opinions of the republican party vary

    10. I certainly agree that we need to change our means of political financial contributions —

    11. Mass platforming — this from someone wants a revolution because some other group criticizes whites . . .

    At the end of the day no dues process was employed by the southern states and you have not made said process available here.

  253. I have seen “Birth of A Nation.”

    Mighty weak tea for history. And it absolutely misses any mark for a description of due process to separate from the union.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS