Antebellum Christianity and Southern Racialism

Virginia

Here’s an excerpt from David Goldfield’s America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation:

“Slavery had made the black man in America, in a few centuries,” Virginia jurist William C. Daniell explained in 1852, “what thousands of years had failed to accomplish for him at home, cultivating the aptitudes of the negro race for civilization and Christianity.”

As Daniell’s boast implied, it was incumbent upon White Americans, as part of their Christian duty, to rescue inferior races by offering instruction and the possibility of salvation. This was a key argument of white southerners for the institution of slavery, that it raised a downtrodden race from its primitive African origins to the possibility of salvation through Jesus Christ, inculcated discipline, and fashioned a family life unburdened by the need or concern for daily subsistence.”

I have always loved the nineteenth century.

In the nineteenth century, the Jewish Question was remarkably muted, and racial equality was contested in America between Northern and Southern Christians. In the South, Christianity was always invoked to justify racialism, slavery, and white supremacy. In parts of the North, Christianity often clashed with all these things, most famously with the abolitionists.

While researching the origins of the “Golden Circle,” I learned this was also true of Cuba. In Cuba, the Catholic Church also justified racialism, slavery, and white supremacy. This seems to have been true of all slave-based plantation societies with the exception of foreign born Baptist and Methodist missionaries operating in the British West Indies.

Update: More on the “incompatibility” of racialism and Christianity:

“It was not coincidental that the white southerners who took back their governments from black and white Republicans were called Redeemers, nor that the process through which it occurred was called Redemption. The term “redemption” was, of course, in widespread in America prior to the Civil War, especially among evangelicals. It referred to the process by which Jesus sacrificed His life to rescue sinful mankind from God’s wrath. The term implied a new birth as those who come to Christ are cleansed of their sins and saved “unton a new life eternal.”

Confederates talked of “redeeming” their states from Union control during the Civil War. After the war, the term usually implied a two-step process. Redemption would cleanse southern sins and therefore restore the Lord’s blessing on the South that He had withdrawn, as evidenced by defeat. It would remove “the yoke of Yankee and negro rule.” Redemption, therefore, would secure for white southerners the victory denied to them in the Civil War. The process toward Redemption was clear. As an Alabama editor declared in 1871, “The road to Redemption is under the white banner.” White southerners employed evangelical Protestantism to recreate an antebellum regime cleansed of sin. White religion in the South became the handmaiden of white supremacy.”

How strange.

According to some White Nationalists, racialism and Christianity are irreconcilable, yet our own history shows us otherwise.

This entry was posted in American South, Christianity, Dixie, History, Race Relations, Slavery, Virginia. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Antebellum Christianity and Southern Racialism

  1. stonelifter says:

    Don’ t fail for those people’ s lies. they did away with slavery for economic reasons and not for moral issues

  2. Earl Butz says:

    You only have to look at all of the miscegenation that occured in Cuba prior to 1960 when the Catholic church was firmly established in Cuba! What % of Cuban population was of mestizo-zambo origin in 1960? 90%? More? Less? Let’s face this too—a lot of White Cubans ain’t all that White either. LOL.

  3. In America, the Catholic Church was never racialist. Protestants sometimes were Jim Crow racialists.

  4. Mosin Nagant says:

    “Slavery had made the black man in America, in a few centuries…what thousands of years had failed to accomplish for him at home, cultivating the aptitudes of the negro race for civilization and Christianity.”

    Not really so. It was really like having applied tons of fertiliser to sand and declaring it productive soil, when the development of true topsoil out of sand requires at least thousands if not millions of years.

    What was really accomplished by the heavy importation of sand on the fertile topsoil was to dilute and reduce (perhaps permanently) the natural fertility of the topsoil — all for the sake of the slave users’ short-term profit and convenience, without any true Christian regard for the right of the kidnapped Africans to remain free where they always were.

    None of the apostate “Christianities” you cite in your post could have relied on the Bible, which teaches the principle of Separation from cover to cover — and where the Israelites were commanded not to live among, but drive out or destroy ALL of the non-Israelites in their Promised Land — NOT allowing them to keep any or bring more in to live among them for use as slaves.

  5. Mosin Nagant says:

    “I have always loved the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century, the Jewish Question was remarkably muted….”

    The muted nineteenth century set fruit that ripened in the twentieth.

  6. Fr. John+ says:

    “None of the apostate “Christianities” you cite in your post could have relied on the Bible, which teaches the principle of Separation from cover to cover — and where the Israelites were commanded not to live among, but drive out or destroy ALL of the non-Israelites in their Promised Land — NOT allowing them to keep any or bring more in to live among them for use as slaves.”

    I would agree… and disagree with Mosin. Just as in Antebellum Dixie, so, too, in ‘Israel’ (quotes used to differentiate the biblical nation, from the apostate ‘nation-state’ of modern “Isra-Hell” over in the Levant) there were ‘mixed multitudes’ and slaves of other races, that never were included in the full covenant of the People of God – thus, my tacit disagreement with Mosin’s scenario.

    Theologians (whether catholic, protestant or orthodox) all speak of something called ‘common grace’ – the ‘bread that falls from the master’s table’ that dogs (non-Elect races- both in O.T., and in N.T.) procure, simply by living with/among the “Israel of God.” [ Gal. 6:16] That St. Paul speaks of this delineation, clearly shows the severed covenant with O.T. ‘Israel’- even in his day, and the supercession/establishment of the Church as God’s Israel, as both normative, and instructive for those of us, living in the ‘last days’ – lo, these past 2000 years.

    So, applying these insights, we can easily see that a) of course non-Europeans (i.e., non-whites) would benefit from living among God’s Israel= Europe (and by extension, the USA, Canada, Oz, NZ, etc.). Such was the case in Dixie. But to presume that such ‘common grace’ would extend to full communicant/Body of Christ ‘equality’ is neither biblical, nor historically verifiable- thus, my agreement with Mosin. This ‘jump’ from slave class to White Man’s equal, comes about because of one thing- the adoption of the rationalist philosophical forms of Rome, via the filioque, from her Schism with Christendom, ca. 1100AD. All Western countries sooner or later adopted the view that conquest=conversion, and why not? Rome led the way. Indeed, Woodard’s American Nations clearly states that establishment of colonies- whether Tidewater, New Amsterdam, El Norte, or the Golden Circle, has as its motto-’ Christianity’ and as its reality- greed and gold.

    I used to have to justify the increasingly harsh stories of cruelty to the ‘natives’ in Juniperro Serra’s California Missions, because I didn’t understand that Rome’s philosophy was aberrant. I do, now. I used to have to wonder why some Americans interbred with the Amerindians, and some did not- I now know that the former were non-elect members of the Race of Israel, while the the latter were covenantally obedient members of the Israel of God. It’s that simple.

    So, in reading the history of US (U.S.) we need to remember those two facts. Conscious racial exclusion is Biblical. Conscious melting-pot racial fornication, is not- whether it comes from Abolitionists, Romanist, or Multiculturalists.

    And a nascent Neo-Dixie needs to decide ‘this day, whom she shall serve.” [ Josh. 24:15] That too, is also quite simple.

  7. Denise says:

    The JD (Jewish Disaster) was “muted” in the 19th Century, because they hadn’t got their claws into EVERY institution in the West, at that point. Whites were still in control. The Church had not yet been wholly corrupted. The Marxists (Jews) used Race as a weapon against Whites. The promotion of race-mixing was a chief stratagem to get Whites to destroy themselves. Come on. You know this. The fact that you assert your love for the 19th Century, when Whites were doing amazing things, and then note that the “JQ was muted” indicates that you would like them to just GO AWAY as much as I do.

  8. The Jewish Question was “muted” in the nineteenth century because most of the Jews that lived in America at the time had little interest in challenging racialism, slavery, or white supremacy.

    Most of these Jews were Sephardic Jews who had lived in the Americas for centuries. They had spent centuries reaping the benefits of racialism, slavery, and white supremacy which downplayed religious differences in favor of racial differences.

    The Jews that came to America in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century from Central and Eastern Europe (like the ’48ers who came over from Germany) were immersed in the radical leftwing subculture that had emerged in Europe after the French Revolution.

  9. Fr. John+ says:

    And, Hunter, as we all know, the Sepharvim are completely different from the AshkeNAZIS.

  10. Dixiegirl says:

    What Earl says returns to my idea that the key u.s. factor is really the Romanization of the country, the move from 1965 Immigration Act for it to become (as it nearly has now) from 90% Northwest Euro Protestant nation (ethno-nation) to nearly majority catholic.

    Now, one can argue they are not “real catholics,” as people do. Or argue over WHERE the problem occurs (1100, Fr. John, Vatican II, WWII, etc…) But the fact is, the —as Fr. John puts it— “conquest = conversion” meme is way older than u.s.

    And much more prevalent in the u.s. since Hart-Celler, etc., decided that catholic-conquered South & Central Americans would be living among Northwest Euro Protestants, and that they —not the Children of the Founders— would be setting the tone and climate of the country.

    This is the real change. And Religion is not nothing!!! Changing a country’s Religion background (the religion of its people) is HUGE. Nearly as HUGE as changing its color. And both have been changed in 60 years.

    Fr. John said:
    “….This ‘jump’ from slave class to White Man’s equal, comes about because of one thing- the adoption of the rationalist philosophical forms of Rome, via the filioque, from her Schism with Christendom, ca. 1100AD. All Western countries sooner or later adopted the view that conquest=conversion….I used to have to justify the increasingly harsh stories of cruelty to the ‘natives’ in Juniperro Serra’s California Missions, because I didn’t understand that Rome’s philosophy was aberrant. I do, now. I used to have to wonder why some Americans interbred with the Amerindians, and some did not….”

    The abolitionists had more in common with the Northern Romanists—- in the sense of Empire, conquest—- and then deciding THOSE THEY CONQUERED (and only those they conquered, not themselves) should INTERMARRY.

    It’s as if their dream was to conquer Dixie, force inter-marriage via propaganda, and school programs to explain why it was necessary—

    —Whether Mamet’s EDMOND (must-see movie) or Tarantino’s Django Unchained for Christmas, etc.

    (OT, but another avenue beyond miscegenation of Empire, is the intense trauma-based reality of early catholicism —and one can take that theme back to more ancient times that prefigured the catholic. Only this clarifies the new shaming meme of msm that has come into vogue— headlines targeting viewer emotions of shame, exposure, embarrassment, shock, etc., seen on all ‘opening pages’ of news sites; as well as “shock” in various msm forms, like reality shows about people doing faux pas, getting hurt, doing gross things, etc., the extreme-violence narratives, the inculcation of fear-based emotional reality, and so on.

    As religion of population changes from a Northwest Euro “soft power” mode, it’s become a roman based/ trauma-based psychology for the masses—- this is evident to anyone who knows what they are looking at, imo.

    The trauma-based culture— is using media to inculcate fear on many levels. To ensure this becomes the primary emotion the population will really feel. Fear and emptiness (emptiness, because they can never get anything they REALLY want, like ethnic-familial closeness— fear and void. Stories of bio-terror, sex abuse (“will I be the one???” random violence, etc, fill children’s’ minds) This causes an almost addictive need that can be transposed onto things s/a shopping, or two-minute “hates” about racism, to keep people terrified, silent, in line, etc.)

    Sorry to go on, but interesting stuff, imo.

    Ethno-nationalism is NOT A FEAR BASED reality. It’s reality is based in the deepest love a person knows (parents). Then extended family security, and real understanding, validation, etc.

  11. Dixiegirl says:

    Ethno-natioanlism is the opposite of trauma-based control of populations.

    Sadly—- no one who has gained can Admit that the U.S. was ethno-nationalist before. (“For us and our Posterity.) To say so, (many newer-comers feel) is to de-legitimate themselves. So— how do you give southerners, colonials “a voice,” and yet still keep all the gains you made in getting power?

    —they wanted to run the society, but they wanted to run the wasp society, not this new society they created (in order to get power), lol.

  12. Dixiegirl says:

    @ HW— Most of these Jews were Sephardic Jews who had lived in the Americas for centuries….

    The Nation of Islam’s claim that Columbus was potentially a jew was very interesting for that reason. The Spanish expulsion DOES seem very tied to slavery— but never saw much more about it anywhere else beyond “A Secret Relationship…”

    Are there other books that go into Spanish expulsion/ u.s. slave trade?

    Btw HW—- I am very glad you and others exist who think about these things and are willing to go beyond senseless college fare, in trying to understand things. Sort of cracks me up— in the sense that it’s really Southerns only who know about, think about REAL slavery. The North just gets what it wants from it— that monetary gift that keeps on paying for them.

  13. Fr. John+ says:

    “As religion of population changes from a Northwest Euro “soft power” mode, it’s become a roman based/ trauma-based psychology for the masses—- this is evident to anyone who knows what they are looking at, imo.”

    Dixie G- why I posit the time-date in my writings is, because up to that point,Europe was both a) self-contained-short of pagan Viking excusions into Greenland, and b) not into ‘Empire-building’ – as such.

    It’s only after the Schism (and almost directly after, if you look at what occurs within 100-150 years after 1054) that bizarrities begin to emerge- the Norman ‘conquest’ of a ‘brother nation’ (with backing from the pope); the Rise of Thomistic philosophy (which put a damper on western theology until Luther); the establishment of Caesaro-papalism; (what you are chronicling with your ‘protestant vs. mestizo’ empires) St. Bernard of Clairvaux/Cistercians- rise of Marian ‘co-redemptrix’ theology in West; start of the First, Second, Third Crusades (talk about ‘Empire conquest’- and of the Middle East- shades of ‘war on terror!’) ; First/Second/Third Lateran Council(s) – THE major council of Rome, after the last Ecumenical Council, to clarify their new ‘teachings’; Abelard is castrated as a ‘means to not sin?’ (contrary to all monastic penances heretofore, paving the way for the flagellants of the Inquisition); rise of the ‘great’ Talmudic scum- Maimonides & Rashi; Thomas a Becket (and his siding with a foreign pope rather than local king, and his ‘martyrdom’)… etc. culminating with “St.” Francis of Assisi, and his ‘conversion efforts’ with the Muslims. Ridiculous.

    All of this takes place within one century of the Roman Schism. None of it was in place before, none of these ideas/constructs/teachings existed prior to Rome’s Schism.

    One has to wonder why the West so quickly and so radically walked away from both her own history, and that of the other 4/5ths of Christendom, UNLESS a ‘new gospel’ was being preached. That’s my take on it.

  14. Mosin Nagant says:

    “And, Hunter, as we all know, the Sepharvim are completely different from the AshkeNAZIS.”

    Hunter appears to be serious, but Fr John is joking, right? Genetic studies don’t show such a complete difference, and the Kohanim mark, especially, is common ground.

  15. Mosin Nagant says:

    “It’s only after the Schism (and almost directly after, if you look at what occurs within 100-150 years after 1054) that bizarrities begin to emerge- the Norman ‘conquest’ of a ‘brother nation’ (with backing from the pope)….”

    Interesting point on the instigation of endless internecine conflict — brother nation against brother nation, cousin against cousin — such as Lincoln’s War.

  16. Fr. John+ says:

    Mosin- right. I was joking. Though the very few Sephardim I have known seem far less ‘Jewish’ than the ‘Nazi variety.

  17. Mosin Nagant says:

    Re: “the ‘Nazi variety”:

    Not to confuse ” ‘Nazi ” as a shortened form of Ashkenazi in any way with Nazi for National Socialist.

  18. Earl Butz says:

    C’mon Hunter, a Jew, is a Jew, is a Jew. LOL.

  19. Dixiegirl says:

    I’m no scholar, as many have noted, lol… so I’ll be looking up some of that stuff, Fr. John. Like St. Bernard, etc.

    Orthodoxy doesn’t have the history in America, so many are fairly unaware of it, and if they do know of it, will have heard the RC version of the split, as they hear the R-C “names” of themselves and their own religious history, also.

  20. David F. says:

    @Fr. John+
    I don’t want to start a digression on Church history, but some of your comments are simply bizarre.

    You are Orthodox; why are you complaining about Caesaropapism? That was the way the Church operated in the heyday of the Eastern Empire. The Western Church was distinctive in NOT accepting Caesaropapism, and the idea is much older than the Great Schism. Constantine’s deference to Church authorities in matters of doctrine was an important precedent, as was the rise of the papacy as the dominant political force in Italy as the Western empire disintegrated. Wait…now you’re criticizing Thomas a Beckett for supporting Church independence in the investiture controversy…what exactly IS your position on Church-State relations?

    You’re criticizing the Crusades? Did I misread you? The First Crusade was called because the Eastern emperor begged for help against the Muslim horde–and who did he address as the only authority in Europe capable of mounting a unified defense of Christendom? The Pope.

    Abalard was castrated by thugs hired by his girlfriend’s father. You make it sound like the Church had something to do with it!

    The Orthodox could profit enormously by reading St. Thomas, and considering the power of Natural Law as a concept for directly assaulting non-Christian philosophies. From my perspective in the West, the Orthodox are not even in the game.

  21. Reynauld de Chatillon says:

    Yup, it’s the fault of them damned Papists! Talk about a broken record….

  22. test says:

    ““And, Hunter, as we all know, the Sepharvim are completely different from the AshkeNAZIS.””

    Numbers make a difference. If you’re too few to conceivably replace the ruling class directly then you’re not going to try. You’ll stick to indirect influence through money and finance instead. The great 1880-1930 (ish) surge from continental europe into what used to be the Anglosphere countries changed that.

    Plus of course the extension of public education and mass media which made it possible for a small minority to wield such vastly disproportionate influence.

  23. Proud Globalist Race Traitor says:

    Dixiegirl, you state that ethnonationalism is not a trauma-based ideology? What about all of the children told by their parents that they can’t play with children of other ethnic groups? That is traumatic. Love of one’s own ethnic group is great, but if any political identity and critiques of other ethnic groups is introduced, or any coersion to avoid participating in other cultures, it becomes traumatic. You write beautifully on the degradation of society through materialism/economism, but despite all that, it’s a lesser evil than ethnonationalism. Better to have globalization and a world with diluted ethnic identities, for the vast majority who can get along under that system, than to try to go back to the old broken system of ethnic nation states.

  24. test says:

    “ethnonationalism is not a trauma-based ideology”

    Ethno-nationalism is human nature.

  25. Reynauld de Chatillon says:

    Proud Globalist..why does a troll like you come here to peddle your new world order crap??

  26. Reynauld de Chatillon says:

    Proud Globalist:
    “Better to have globalization and a world with diluted ethnic identities, for the vast majority who can get along under that system, than to try to go back to the old broken system of ethnic nation states.”
    hey pal..look around the world..the vast majority is NOT getting along under “globalization”. See: former Soviet Union; former Yugoslavia; former Czechoslovakia: former British India:, Ceylon..Cyprus..divided between Turk and Greek.” So what do you have to gain from diluted ethnic identities?? Only one tribe that I know of….

  27. Reynauld de Chatillon says:

    Proud globalist:
    I never told any of my children they couldn’t play with children of other ethnic groups..what was traumatic was when they were of school age and came home telling me of being teased and bullied by blacks and Mexicans….who the hell are you troll????? If your a true race traitor like the Jew Ignatiev (who isnt really a race traitor because Jews aren’t white)..just blow your brains out to make way for a nice non-white.

  28. Fr. John+ says:

    “You are Orthodox; why are you complaining about Caesaropapism? That was the way the Church operated in the heyday of the Eastern Empire.”
    David- You don’t know the difference between ‘Symphony’ and Caesaropapalism?

    Of course there is a monarchic aspect to Christendom. But what Rome did was to take the PAGAN EMPIRE building elements, and use them to conquer lands that were not part of the Ecumene- the European continent, and ‘claim’ them via the Pope’s doctrine of universal jurisdiction. Something the Orthodox never did.

    “Constantine’s deference to Church authorities in matters of doctrine was an important precedent…”

    To what? To the decrees of a CHURCH council, Nicea? How is THAT to be compared with the triple crown of Medieval Popes, which even the Orthodox said went against the Christian Rome of either Constantine, or the Paleologoi?

    “You’re criticizing the Crusades? Did I misread you?”
    Yes, I am criticizing them. The Roman ‘Catholic’ knights treated their Christian ‘brothers’ in Byzance just like the pagan Muslims- how was that ‘Biblical’? Rape, theft, disregard of millennia-old custom, starting with Humbert’s Hubris, in claiming the East to be ‘heretical’ is MORE than enough reason to smell shit in the Papacy’s drawers.

    I don’t doubt that Byzantium had her problems. They had different KINDS of scandals, etc. But we’re not using Byzantine Models in the West, we are using ROMAN ones. My criticisms still stand.

  29. Fr. John+ says:

    “The Orthodox could profit enormously by reading St. Thomas, and considering the power of Natural Law as a concept for directly assaulting non-Christian philosophies. From my perspective in the West, the Orthodox are not even in the game.”

    Yup. And that’s gotten us SOOOOO far, toward building the Kingdom “on earth, as it is in heaven,” hasn’t it?

    That’s the problem with the West. Refusing to go to the root, we pretend scholasticism didn’t lead to Rationalism, which led to the Enlightenment, and thus, to the BS about ‘equality of man’ – I will give you something. The Yeomanry of England under the Orthodox were a damn sight better than under the later English kings, all of whom studied the accursed Aquinas’ theological nit-picking, even up to Henry VIII- and if you are so enamoured of that, then why do you cavil at what Henry did, initially as the ‘Theologian of the Pope’ – that is, until the Pope’s very egotistical wishes were not followed, and Henry did what Kings should have done- had a compliant Archbishop to help them -without aid of a foreign ecclesiac- determine the faith for his own Folk.

    You should go compare notes with Oculus. I can’t tell who’s cribbing from whom.

  30. Lynda says:

    Fr John – learn history. Facts.

    “Caesaropapism” – what could possibly be the meaning of a term like this used by the Christians who style themselves ‘Orthodox’ post the Great Schism – usually in the context of their accusations of the West for the Crusades. And lest we forget, the horrid colonial conquests of Western Christian nations?

    Justian I (that would be Flavius Petrus Justinianus Augustus 527-565 A.D.) broke the Eternal Peace under his policies of revovatio imperii. He invaded the barbarian kingdoms of the former Western Roman Empire controlled by the Ostrogoths . So he invaded Damatia, Italy etc.

    How is this different than the invasions of the Western nations under the Western Patriachate in Rome when the entire Christian East – convulsed for centuries by Christological heresies fell to the sword of Islam? The Crusades were undertaken to free these nations from Sharia Law. And – yes they did commit some atrocities – of which no Roman Catholic is proud – against Byzantine peoples.

    It does not change the fact that this was a policy of revovatio imperii – in exactly the same mould as Byzantine emperors. Are we to think that Justinian’s forces didn’t knock heads in Italy and Dalmatia?

    I am sure you refer the sacking of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders. Seriously. Who defends this? It is of a piece with other imperial atrocities such as the invasion of Rome in 653 A.D. Emperor Constans II supported all the Monothelite heresies of the Constaninopolatin Patriarchs. He sent exarch Calliopas to invade Rome. They knocked heads, took Pope Martin I prisoner and brought him back to Constaninople with ill treatment and privations. They paraded him through the streets for the harassment of the mob. They tried him in a kangaroo court and exiled him to the Crimea.

    The Christian West and the Christian East have been at serious enmity since that time.

    Western nations of the HRE did invade pagan nations in the Americas. They threw down the institution of public human sacrifice (up to 80,000 per day by both Christian and Aztec accounts). They ended that system of rule and law with bloody war and instituted Christianity.

    How is this different from Russian Orthodox invasions of pagan Tartar nations? Khazaria? Roman Catholic Poland Lithuania? Roman Catholic Ukraine?

    Empires are empires. They all act imperial. That is why they are empires. It is always up to the people who really do hold the holy faith to civilize the Beast.

  31. Vendikar says:

    Christianity is pro-White when it is WHITE, Western Christianity. Oliver is factually quite right when he says this, the Whites adopted those parts of Christianity which were White and softpedaled or got rid of the rest, but open hostility to Christianity per se is foolish. (Even Hitler knew better.) Oliver was quite happy to speak at “Rally for God, Family and Country” events throughout the 60s. His diplomacy in dealing with the issue as in his talks which have survived on the Internet should be the standard to observe. Indeed, even HAC has largely done so in his novels, his NAR is founded to give Christianity-mostly but clearly not exclusively the CI variety-National Socialism, and White “Old Believers” equal status in his utopia.

    “Judeo-Christianity” and very especially Christian Zionism ( the God-Damned Rapture Bunnies as I call them to their face) must be opposed. Messianic Judiasm is fine for Jews and the fools who want to be Jews-when we split up they will go to the same areas where Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews go, i.e, Israel as such, Jewrida or if we deign to give them a chunk of the Northeast, probably Queens, Brooklyn and North New Jersey. But there will be none of it in OUR nations. I can’t conceive of Islam or Hinduism in our nations either, but how it plays out in reality will be stranger than my imagination.

    The Scofield Reference Bible, of course, will be officially toilet paper, as will Hal Lindsey’s and John Hagee’s screeds.

  32. Afterthought says:

    The south was racialist despite Christianity, not because of it. Christianity has been multi-racial since the Acts of the Apostles.

  33. Reynauld de Chatillon, David F.: You both represent the correct view, but my advice is to ignore the Catholic-bashers. Don’t waste your time arguing with them. They hate the Jews and the Church and nothing you can say is going to change that. They support the White cause — that’s all that matters.

    Later, after V-BRA Day, we can sort out our religious differences. I personally think that separation between religions is as important as racial separatism, which is why I support the SwitzAmerica concept for the PSR; “a place for everybody and everybody in their place”.

    But for now, please ignore anti-Catholic trolling. White backs are against the wall and we’ll be lucky to survive at all — arguing about religion helps no one but BRA and the Global Luciferan Revolution that is behind it. For the duration, my motto is pas d’ennemis a Blanc.

  34. David F. says:

    @Robert Oculus III

    Thanks. I’m not bothered by Fr. John’s eccentric interpretations of history; I was just horrified by the idea that other OD readers might be learning Western Civ from his posts…

  35. Came across an interesting article.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011701781.html

    REVOLT SIMMERS AT (Black Catholic) CHURCH


    The order from the archdiocese had been clear: Stop the accusations, the name-calling, the disobedience to the authority of the Catholic Church.

    But parishioner Bill Alston, bundled against the cold outside a church, didn’t care as he passed out fliers alleging to his fellow Catholics that a leader at his nearby home congregation, Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Anacostia, was “disrespectful, insulting and profane” and that the diocese was sweeping it under the rug.

    The Rev. Michael Jones poked half of his body out the front door and shook his head disapprovingly. “Shame, shame, shame,” he said. “You were told to cease and desist.”

    “So, everything the bishop says is right?” Alston asked.

    “Yes,” the priest said. “That’s what happens in the Catholic Church . . . . It’s not a Baptist church. You obey the priest and the bishop.”

    “I don’t think so,” Alston said, turning away to hand out another flier.

    (. . .)

    What they have learned is that butting heads with a 2,000-year-old institution is no easy task. People at every level of church hierarchy have told them the same thing: The Catholic Church is no democracy.

    “”We don’t know from Sunday to Sunday if this is going to be a peaceful Sunday or everyone is going to be in an uproar,” said parishioner Carolyn Wheeler, 62, whose grandfather was a founder of Our Lady.

    Unsettling Changes

    Eighty-five years ago, black Catholics, relegated to the basements of segregated churches, founded Our Lady with the help of sympathetic whites. The church became a landmark, what the archdiocese calls one of its jewels, and the Panorama Room became famous for its hilltop vista — with views of two states and the District — and its cabarets, political gatherings and town meetings. In 1989, Ted Koppel brought ABC’s “Nightline” in for a forum on urban violence.

    (. . .)

    “We’ve existed for 2,000 years,” Fest said of the Catholic Church. “This parish has existed for 85 years. The pastor has certain rights and responsibilities. It’s not a majority-rule kind of thing.”

    (. . .)

    To the dismay of many parishioners, the group picketed on Morris Road SE in front of the church this summer. Its placards compared Fest to a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and they chanted slogans including “Jim Crow has got to go” and “Give us our church back.”

  36. A God fearing principled anti-democracy that only elevates gifted celibate black leaders grounded in classical culture to positions of power (ex. Peter Turkson).

    The Catholic Church is in nearly every way the opposite of BRA.

  37. stonelifter says:

    The Catholic church is BRA. tIt supports rights for negros, the Mexican invasion, the welfare state which is economic warfare on the White middle class, it supports gun control, forced busing, forced integration, the whole spectrum of feminism ( excluding the sexual aspects). In fact the Catholic church supports every part of BRA outside issues of sexual mortality.

  38. John says:

    I’ve never told my kids “don’t play with blacks”

    virulent racists don’t really do that.

    Racism comes later after some big dumb alpha nigger breaks your best friend’s nose or you see a paki gang pimp out a teenage girl. Racism is a song of painful experience and coming to terms with reality.

  39. Mosin Nagant says:

    Re: “In fact the Catholic church supports every part of BRA outside issues of sexual mortality”:

    – not considering priesthood pedophilia and homosexuality. But then, WN is rife with every kind of fornication.

  40. John says:

    Catholic priests are no more likely to be paedo than any other part of the general population. I’d hazard a guess that they are less dangerous. The main issue was that they shuffled offenders around and pretended it wasn’t happening. There’s certainly a brotherhood of homosexuals though.

  41. I didn’t mean to imply the Catholic Church is crusading against BRA on any of those fronts. Just that it is organized in an opposite manner, which allows it to generate/preserve faith and culture for thousands of years.

    Every defeated southern state is guilty of the same litany of BRAisms, Stone. The Catholics had slave empires that predated and outlasted North American negro slavery. In the US they simply rendered unto Lincoln just as they would have done to Davis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>