OD’s Indictment

Behold the triumph of freedom in Jamaica

British West Indies

In preparation for writing OD’s first book, Shattering The Golden Circle: The Failure of Free Society in Dixie, Haiti, and the Caribbean, I have spent months intensely researching the rise and fall of slavery in the Caribbean and American South.

I’ve been trying to understand why slavery was destroyed and why approximately four million free negroes were turned loose on our society.

I don’t have to tell you that the consequences of the abolition of slavery have haunted us to the present day. I’m getting to the stage where I am starting to draw some firm conclusions about how and why this happened:

(1) First, New World slavery was overthrown during “the long nineteenth century” from 1770 to 1890.

(2) Second, the decline of the West is not due to a Jewish conspiracy, although Jews have thrived as an effect of the moral decay, especially in the twentieth century. It is not due to any inherent biological predisposition on the part of Whites to embrace racial and cultural suicide either.

(3) Third, I am convinced that the decisive years in pushing the West down the present road to suicide are 1750 to 1850.

(4) Fourth, the culprit is a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview during this period that led to the creation of secular and religious versions of humanitarianism that have progressively undermined the foundations of our civilization.

(5) Finally, the twin doctrines that are to blame for our decline, which brought about this critical shift in moral outlook, are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity.

This is the ultimate source of the “black cloud” that hangs over our civilization. Discuss.

Note: I will also speculate that industrial capitalism created a middle class that was peculiarly receptive to this worldview – the perfect triumphalist bourgeois ideology – and that the spread of liberal democracy gradually empowered this class in the West which used its newfound power to “progressively” act out its utopian fantasies.

Why did the South and the Caribbean deviate so strongly from this general direction in the nineteenth century? In the South and the Caribbean there was a third cultural pole, race-based plantation slavery, which created a stronger cultural immune system.

About Hunter Wallace 9532 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

39 Comments

  1. The commoners’ struggle against the aristocratic overlords extends way back farther in history, at least back to the Norman Conquest. In fact, commoners were really beginning to make headway against aristocratic privilege by the 1600s (read up on English history of that century). In other words, the aristocrats were translating their feudal society overseas into the New World, just as it was being destroyed in the Old World.

    If you think those sonsabitches deserved to continue their lifestyle of opulence-built-on-exploitation, just because the exploited were from different races, you are missing some major features of the long struggle of history.

    You are forgetting what you yourself took great pains to document previously, that the White commoners of the South HATED the aristocratic planter class, right up through the Civil War. It was only the Reconstruction experience that brought Southern Whites together.

    In short, you are blaming “liberal republicanism” and evangelical Christianity… but missing the much longer and deeper historical antagonism: the populist struggle against aristocratic wealth and privilege.

  2. Chris,

    I thought you would be pleased with my analysis of the Yankee Question. I’ve explained the problem as a cultural/religious/moral disease that is historically situated between the years 1750 and 1850.

    In other words, there is not a primordial ethnic antagonism. It is not something that is in the blood of Yankees. On the contrary, the problem is their ideological and moral belief system, which was a historical byproduct of the American Revolution and the Great Awakenings.

    Hopefully, this theory will douse the flames of ethnic rivalry around here, and we can begin to look at these negative traits in their proper religious and ideological context.

  3. 1) The 19th Century could just as easily be defined as running from 1848 to 1914 with the beginning being pushed back to 1828 to coincide with Andrew Jackson’s successful run for his first term. It helps keep the Revolutions in America and France and also the Bonaparte reaction and the prior Enlightenment Philosophers in the “18th” Century.

    2) I wouldn’t let the Jews off the hook so readily as they have exerted a strong moral/ideological effect on the 20th Century.

    3) I agree as The Great Awakenings, and the rise of both Romanticism and utilitarianism roughly coincide with those dates.

    4) Yes, see #3.

    5) Not all Enlightenment philosophers were advocates of “liberal republicanism” although it this pernicious worldview did start early with Locke and ended badly in Rousseau’s Romantic ideals and Bentham’s (and by his actions, Andrew Jackson’s) reductionist Utilitarianism to which we are still slaves today. Most political discourse today, from Marxism to Libertarianism seems mired in the swamp of an unstated but assumed utilitarian point of view.

    As for the religious aspects: yes. See #3.

  4. Yes, why can’t secular enlightenment liberals and the various flavors of mainstream religious so-called conservatism, see that they are just two sides of the same coin? I represent a synthesis of these two sides; economic socialism, combined with Christian cultural policies, open borders and opposition to Israel. It’s too bad that more of my fellow liberals keep being at each other’s throats, instead of enjoying the beautiful black cloud we have created, freeing humanity from the need to be slaves or to enslave. The last shall be first and the first shall be last; weakness is strength; the wretched of the earth shall rise; racial death is new life for the individual and for mankind.

    And Justin, good comments.

  5. I’m not letting the Jews off the hook.

    KMac has thoroughly analyzed their impact on the twentieth century. I’m not disputing the existence of destructive Jewish influence at all. I’m saying that it is an effect or a consequence of this earlier shift in moral sensibilities in the West.

    Shit attracts flies. In this case, the pile of shit in Western culture is the rise of Enlightenment liberal republicanism and evangelical Christianity, specifically the universalist and egalitarian and humanitarian tendencies of both ideologies.

  6. I should also add here that “Christianity” per se isn’t the problem. If Christianity is the problem, then how did racism and slavery in the New World get started in the first place?

    In the eighteenth century, there seems to have been a mutation in Christianity which generated the evangelical sensibility, which you can see on display in the Wilberforce movie below.

  7. There was no end to slavery, merely a transition to a different form of slavery.

    Before the Civil War, the predominant form of slavery had been physical and affected mainly the White Irish and Black Africans.

    After the Civil War, the Federal government ended physical slavery but then enslaved the entire population economically, politically, culturally and socially.

  8. I think you are onto something HW. I look forward to more on the topic.

    As far as the Christianity issue, two things,

    Never forget Christianity is a Jewish sect albeit one we Euro folk put our stamp on. That leaves Christians vulnerable to Jewish ideas, memes if you like some good many bad and ties two cultures together who maybe ought not be.

    2nd I would not be surprised that the Late Enlightenment finally pushed aside the harsher Old Testament Christianity for a softer New Testament One and that change in focus is what you are talking about. The 1800’s was a period of vast change and it gave us some pretty strange stuff like dispensationalism and the vile do-gooders like the temperance movement.

    Even so these stresses started much earlier, witness the Levellers from the English Civil War who were proto Anarchist-Communists or the Anabaptists of the early 16th who were basically Communists or even Wat Tyler back in 1380 or so.

    These differing interpretations of Christianity have been a constant issue since I dunno Paul maybe but until we got Urban enough they couldn’t catch in scale. Its not a surprise that the more urban societies of the 19th century were a fertile ground for this . Woolly Headed thinking is part and parcel with cities after all and rural people generally are tradition bound even rebelling peasants who usually feel they have been cheated of traditional rights.

  9. Never forget Christianity is a Jewish sect albeit one we Euro folk put our stamp on. — Matt Strictland

    And Mr. Strictland…

    Never forget that the fundamental assertion of Christianity is Jesus Christ as Perfect Man and thus empirical evidence of God, i.e., empirical evidence for objective Supremacy.

    Both the orthodox Jew and the radically liberated Jew ABSOLUTELY DENY this bold assertion. In fact, both could be understood as devout anti-Supremacists.

    I think there is self-evident rationale for the white man to put his stock in the only religion that asserts objective Supremacy.

  10. When the Normans invaded England the brought in the tow Rouen Jewish slave merchants. However, William banned the slave trade unless he got a cut and he turned all freemen into serfs who suffered under feudal tax obligations church tithing. Most of this money wound up in the purse of Jewish merchants.

    Freedom failed.

  11. One factor is the presence of Equiano. He must have been the Obama of his own day. Book tours and speeches. He’s a wildcats in these assessments. For example his book was a mega bestseller. Perhaps a quick post on him would help explain the milieu.

  12. “are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity.”

    HW- I think you need to define your terms a bit more exactly here. You can go the gamut from Evangelical Confessional Lutheranism (which is called the ‘Evangelical Chruch’ in Germany to this day) all the way to the snake-handling yahoo’s in the hills of Appalachia. Which is YOUR version of ‘Evangelical Christianity’?

    (You begin to clarify at one point above, I know… but still.)

    As to Matt’s comments: “Never forget Christianity is a Jewish sect albeit one we Euro folk put our stamp on. That leaves Christians vulnerable to Jewish ideas, memes if you like some good many bad and ties two cultures together who maybe ought not be.”

    It might be instructive for y’all to read Brother Nathanael Kapner- a jew, who converted to Orthodox Christianity, who is now in the Russian Orthodox Church, and who clearly points out that Orthodoxy is not ‘derived’ from Jewish memes (as Matt says) but is the ‘fulfillment’ of Old Testament Judaism. (writer Israel/Adam Shamir makes the similar point, in his writings.) In other words, the two systems have NOTHING in common, for, At the point where BC and AD mesh, a complete rupture occurred. ANYTHING that smacks of similarity between True Judaism (Christianity) and JEWISHism (Talmudicism) is merely aping the former, by the latter.

    And it’s only the desire on the part of the Deicides to keep the [sic] ‘goyim’ in the dark over their own inheritance, that any such statements like Matt’s, are allowed. As roadblocks to true understanding of Europe’s own religious patrimony.

  13. “When the Normans invaded England the brought in the tow Rouen Jewish slave merchants”

    They also brought the Papal office, rationalism, and the doctrine of filioquism into England at the same time. The Orthodox English Church up to Harald, had been opposed to it. Not so, the heirs of illiterate Charlemagne…..

  14. “(T)he aristocrats were translating their feudal society overseas into the New World, just as it was being destroyed in the Old World. If you think those sonsabitches deserved to continue their lifestyle of opulence-built-on-exploitation, just because the exploited were from different races, you are missing some major features of the long struggle of history.
    You are forgetting what you yourself took great pains to document previously, that the White commoners of the South HATED the aristocratic planter class, right up through the Civil War. It was only the Reconstruction experience that brought Southern Whites together (…) you are…missing the much longer and deeper historical antagonism: the populist struggle against aristocratic wealth and privilege.”

    Interesting comment, Justin. I’m with the Celts and Saxons against “Norman” overlords, too.

  15. “The Orthodox English Church up to Harald, had been opposed to it.” That is what I meant by the Celtic Christian ethnic Christianity, as opposed to the (claimed to be) Universal, Fr John.

  16. “Which is YOUR version of ‘Evangelical Christianity’?” Good question, Fr John. The “evangelical Christianity” being blamed for or identified with the “Black Cloud” needs to be defined and identified, because all GENUINE Christianity is in fact truly evangelical.

  17. Okay.

    But why did this suicidal ideology come to the forefront?

    Why did it consistently and roundly defeat competing ideologies?

    And, speaking in generalities, how could it be defeated?

  18. ‘Evangelical Christianity’ as used here appears to me (please HW correct me if wrong) to mean a Christianity that in essence is semi-secularized and takes it goals from political and social movements. It wants to place God in the harness to serve some social or political end.

  19. I’m pretty settled on the above, which is to say, the diagnosis and the sequence: the cultural disease being Enlightenment liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity between 1750 and 1850.

    Of course I fully plan to probe deeper. I stress this is only an outline or a rough sketch of a general conclusion. I’m pretty sure that I have a satisfactory answer for two of your questions.

    (1) Why did this suicidal ideology come to the forefront? I’m certain that this was a consequence of the series of wars that raged between Britain and France from 1756 (Seven Years’ War) to 1815 (Napoleonic Wars).

    The major result of those wars was the total defeat of France and the emergence of Britain after 1815 as the world’s reigning hegemon. After the Second World War, the United States took over this role from an exhausted Britain which had nearly destroyed itself fighting off its German challenger.

    Great Britain and the United States (both of which were strongly influenced by liberalism and evangelical Christianity) created the liberal international system (after the defeat of Napoleon) and imposed their preferences on the world through their military hegemony.

    (2) Why did it consistently and roundly defeat competing ideologies? I’m not sure I would put it that way. It was a damn near thing for Britain to fight off the challenges from France, Germany, and Russia.

    As for the United States, the Yankee Empire has the good fortune of having no natural military competitors in the Western hemisphere, and through its dominance of the Union it can control North America, and through North America it can dominate the Western hemisphere.

    There were a number of occasions when it might have gone the other way: if Britain and France had intervened in the War Between the States on the side of the Confederacy, if the United States had not intervened in the Great War and Second World War, if Germany had not gone to war with Russia, if Japan had gone to war with Russia instead of the United States, etc.

  20. Although Jews have conspired against Christians and the Western world that was created by them, they are not the main ones responsible for the decline of the West. The only way these people get any power or influence in our culture is if we allow it through lack of vigilance or neglect. If the West would have kept in mind what the New Testament and the Church Fathers taught about the Christ rejecting, Christ hating people, we never would have allowed them to have the prominance they now have in our educational, media, and political establishments. When the West re-discovers it’s Christian (Catholic) roots, rejects Protestantism ( for it’s nothing more than a sbtle form of Judaism) and realizes the Jews are the oil to or water, their power will go up in smoke in a very short time.

  21. I was under the impression evangelical Christianity has origins in the late 19th century. The use of the word evangelical as a label for a strain of Christianity is a recent coinage, too, again, unless I’m mistaken. What I’m getting at is if “evangelical” Christianity didn’t exist during the time frame at issue, if this subset of Christians didn’t think of themselves as “evangelicals,” why are you using that term instead of one describing a strain that was around at that time (ex: Calvinist)?

    Regarding how these poisonous ideas prevailed over competing ideas, I think military conquest and forcible imposition are major reasons. These ideas prevailed because they were imposed not chosen. If the other side had won the French Revolution, US Civil War, WW 1 and WW2, the world would be a different place. In the late 1850s, the US Supreme Court ruled blacks had no rights white men were bound to respect. Ten years later, blacks were free people. What changed? The pro-black side killed their opposition.

  22. A more subtle question.

    How did the anti-white group get into the position to massacre the Southerners? What deal with the devil was made? What rallying cry was invoked? What resentments
    were exploited?

  23. You think under monarchism we will be stuck with Emperor Nero?

    We have Emperor Zero right now. And who came before him? Shrub. And before him? Slick Willy.

    Electoral democracy simply doesn’t work.

  24. @peppermint

    “you think under Monarchism we will be stuck with Emperor Nero?”

    – Yes. Monarchism facilitates the existence of monsters like Nero.

    “We have Emperor Zero right now.”

    – Not for much longer. Toughen up.

    “And who came before him. Shrub.”

    – Bush, at his worst, was no Nero. Get a grip already.

    “And before him? Slick Willey.”

    – Clinton was actually a better president than he’ll be remembered for.

    “Electoral democracy simply doesn’t work.”

    – America has elected plenty of great presidents too. This is the New World, and America is, and always will be, a free Republic. If you don’t like it, then you’re free to move to Socialist/Monarchist Europe and rummage through garbage for food with the rest of Majesty’s “subjects”.

  25. No one who has stood up to liberaldom has prevailed.

    It is interesting how all attempts to destroy or at least weaken it have met with total failure.

  26. Chris: you are an idiot. Take off the rose colored glasses. Amurrica is no longer a Republic as originally envisioned, it is a liberal democracy with universal suffrage, meaning that the lowest common denominator and their desires will always prevail. Democracies always devolve into tyrannies. We are well on the way.

  27. Proud Bolshevik Race Traitor: your enlightenment has already killed over 60 million last century. Not enough for you?

  28. Traitor,
    as wayne points out
    We already saw what is up your sleeve. See the USSR in the 1930s with various Traitorsteins, Proudskis talking about equality then (and now)

  29. Justin: the founding fathers had very great respect for the British constitutional monarchy. I’m for populism to an extent–namely among people of a common race, ethnicity, religion, and language. This no longer applies to Amurrican.

  30. HW, you are just wrong that some “mutant meme” appeared in England which produced Evangelical Christianity. It was brewing for literally centuries, and just finally rose to power at that time.

    Read up on Tyler’s Rebellion, for example, of the late 1300’s, along with its associated religious movement, the Lollards, of the same time period. The common people of England, and their egalitarian Christian religious views, were held down by violence for literal centuries by the ruling aristocracy.

    It all goes back to the Norman Conquest, which imposed the feudal slave system and associated religious system on the commoners of the British Isles.

    You act like it is some kind of freakish mutation to have a GENERAL DESIRE for FREEDOM and EQUALITY. It isn’t. It is the most long-standing and natural impulse in native British society.

  31. Justin: there were kings in the British isles long before the Norman invasion of 1066. Nobody here is cheering serfdom. The people of Britain gained their freedom over centuries, but that freedom was for British subjects only. It derailed during the enlightenment when through regicide royalty was replaced with so-called republics, which immediately began to sell out the fatherland. France is the perfect example. Read “The Camp of the Saints”.

Comments are closed.