Parrott’s View

Michigan

Matt Parrott writes:

“The Catholic Church that Chechar envisions destroying Latin America and the Protestant Yankees Hunter Wallace envisions destroying Dixie are merely the zombie carcasses of Christianity, spearheads of the capitalist impulse to expand into their respective societies and steamroll over all the institutional and ideological obstacles to the profit which feeds the power structure.”

A few thoughts:

1.) I think it is a mistake for anyone to search for a “root cause” of our plight.

If you look at it from a Southern Nationalist perspective, the dominant theme is going to be a neverending series of disasters that have been inflicted on the South as a consequence of the existence of the Union.

Suppose you were talking about Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, or Alaska. Like the South, the Far West states have also been peripheral to America’s national decline. Brokeback Mountain, for example, was a short story created by a Connecticut Yankee who graduated from the University of Vermont.

It is places like New York City and Los Angeles that create the dominant culture and it is the masses of White people who live in the Northeastern corridor, that area in the Deep North settled by Yankees that stretches along the Canadian border from Maine to Minnesota, and down the Pacific Coast who are in the driver’s seat of America’s decline and who are taking us over the cliff.

The rest of the country – places like King County, TX – are the passengers strapped and locked in the backseat by the existence of the Union. If they had control of the vehicle, their cultural DNA would move them in another direction.

2.) If you look at it like Chechar from the perspective of Mexico, it is extremely hard to blame Jewish influence (which was minimal after the Inquisition) for the way the racial caste system evolved in Latin America as opposed to North America.

Catholicism played a more important role there. The same is true of New Orleans which because of its Latin and Catholic origins was always the great outlier to the South’s “one drop rule” racial caste system.

The precise mix of causes of our racial and cultural decline will vary depending upon location. In the South, Christianity sustained the Confederate war effort, sanctified the “Lost Cause” during the Jim Crow era, and fueled opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and the Counterculture, whereas in the North it led to William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and the Freedom Riders.

Christianity had little to do with the South’s racial and cultural decline: the Southern Baptist Convention didn’t embrace anti-racism until the 1990s. It was the last major cultural institution in the entire country to do so.

In Cuba, which like the American South was part of the “Golden Circle” civilization, the Catholic Church was an adjunct of the establishment:

“The Church was part of the system of slavery. It supported, reinforced, and reflected the status quo. It preached obedience to the white master among the slaves, and propagandized the then present inequality and suffering as preparation for an equitable afterlife.”

3.) The history of the South and the Caribbean shows that capitalism can fuel the growth of a racial caste system.

Seymour Drescher’s The Mighty Experiment: Free Labor versus Slavery in British Emancipation, Fogel and Engerman’s Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery, and Christopher Brown’s Moral Capital: Foundations of British Aboltionism show how the “Golden Circle” was cut down in its prime.

The driving force behind the demise of New World slavery was the emergence of evangelical Christianity in Britain in the late eighteenth century. Methodism fueled anti-slavery in Britain while bolstering slavery in the South.

Like the Catholic Church in Cuba vs. Mexico, Methodism in Britain vs. the South illustrates how a causal factor like Christianity can interact with another causal factor like the plantation complex to produce one result in one area and exactly the opposite result in another area.

The presence of slavery in the South and the Caribbean moderated the Jewish Question. The lack of slavery in the North meant that whiteness was of less importance there and led to more explosive conflicts over religion, ethnicity, and class.

The Second World War completely transformed White racial attitudes in the North – the war against Hitler was seen as an ideological crusade for Americanism – whereas it had no impact at all on the South.

Three of the biggest causal factors in the North’s racial decline – Jewish influence, evangelical Christianity, and the Second World War as an ideological catalyst – crashed like waves on a beach at the Mason-Dixon line.

50 Comments

  1. I refuse to let you insult real titans of the West like Alexander the Great and get away with it.

    Consider me the interface between your pitiful concepts of history and the real world of which you know no part other than a consumer that keeps his silly views to himself. *spit*

  2. Matt,

    I think you should spend more time examining the history of the Midwest and trying to explain why the “free soil” paradise created by the Northwest Ordinance ended up producing men like George Julian, Benjamin Wade, Zachariah Chandler and Joshua Giddings.

  3. @Wo-man/Tamer of Savages

    This new incarnation of yours, “internet badass snob”, is hilarious. Keep it up. It’s more entertaining than “NYC pussy who got saved from a homeless nigger by a dot-head taxi driver”. And I piss on Alexander the Great.

  4. No one ever cares what you do, Chris. You’re a renowned dumbass.

    And I have a vacation from the internet coming up soon so I’m in beast-mode.

  5. Matt Parrott wrote: ‘If Southern friendship is predicated upon endorsing importing and enslaving negroes, then I reckon I’ll have to do without friendship.’

    You described my people’s elites – people like Jefferson, Hampton, Calhoun, Rhett, etc. as ‘degenerate scumbags.’ I don’t require that you endorse the Southern plantation system and our civilisation, however, even a civilized conversation (much less friendship) is impossible when you go around writing articles and comments attacking our ancestors and leaders.

    You might also want to look up the facts before you repeat fallacies about the South’s economic standing and viability of our system. The economic backbone of the USA prior to 1860 were Southern plantations – not Northern factories.

  6. The economic backbone of the USA prior to 1860 were Southern plantations – not Northern factories.

    This strikes me as hagiography. What are your main sources?

  7. What was the Southern plantation contribution to national GDP (if you know)? I don’t want to split hairs over it. I’m sure it was significant. But the calling it the backbone of the entire American economy until 1860 seems excessive.

  8. I don’t know, Lew. However, it’s regularly figured that the South paid somewhere around 2/3 of the Federal taxes. Likewise, in the colonial era (which, I realize is going back a ways but it does illustrate the point that the South was far wealthier than the North) Dr Paul M Pressly figures that the North had about 60% of the population of British North America but only 30% of its wealth.

  9. @ Hunter

    The Confederacy didn’t intrude on West Virginia, the Union Army intruded on West Virginia. LOL. Philippi which is in north central WV, almost a suburb of Pittsburgh, where the first battle of the Civil War was fought, had been flying the Palmetto flag since December of 1860!

    Also, the whole farming thing in WV is a lot more nuanced than you realize.

  10. Palmetto,

    You described my people’s elites – people like Jefferson, Hampton, Calhoun, Rhett, etc. as ‘degenerate scumbags.’ I don’t require that you endorse the Southern plantation system and our civilisation, however, even a civilized conversation (much less friendship) is impossible when you go around writing articles and comments attacking our ancestors and leaders.

    I fully apologize for that overly broad and overly harsh statement.

    I do believe the system was disastrous, not one to emulate, and with foresight could have been prevented.

  11. And projecting the neologism “white” onto ancient times is a crime against historiography. Those women were caucasian apeakers of an aryan language.

    You consider non-WNism to be trolling. You probably had the same blinders on when you were a “counter jihadist”. Let me know when you outgrow your current phase And are capable of serious discussion.

    Troll or not, those are good points. Chechar’s a strange one, for sure. Didn’t it take him something like ten years or so to work out that “paranormal research” was yanking his chain – you know, stuff that most halfway intelligent readers figure out is BS in two hours max. We can all make mistakes and get led up blind alleys so it’s not necessarily a mark against him, but sheesh, it does make you wonder.

  12. Matt,

    I think you should spend more time examining the history of the Midwest and trying to explain why the “free soil” paradise created by the Northwest Ordinance ended up producing men like George Julian, Benjamin Wade, Zachariah Chandler and Joshua Giddings.

    The majority of the people of the Midwest wanted neither to preserve the Union nor to own humans. A cherry-picked assortment of counter-examples (including Quaker goofballs and New England transplants) and a martial-law dictatorship of the state government forcing us into the war doesn’t change that.

    My hometown recounts one episode where some Union soldiers patrolled through town to track down some deserters. The townspeople (including my ancestors, I believe and certainly hope) lynched them. While I have ancestry on both sides of the war, I prefer to identify with that one.

    As noted in my previous comment, I apologize for the outright epithets against the Southern elites as a whole. I could have made my point without indicting untold numbers who were surely honorable and upstanding men.

  13. Until recently, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland were effectively White ethnostates, and look at the disaster they have inflicted on themselves. See also Ireland and the IRA.

  14. Until recently, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland were effectively White ethnostates, and look at the disaster they have inflicted on themselves. See also Ireland and the IRA.

    Yeah they imitated the South and brought in large numbers of darkies into their homelands, now that’s a disaster

  15. What was the Southern plantation contribution to national GDP (if you know)? I don’t want to split hairs over it. I’m sure it was significant. But the calling it the backbone of the entire American economy until 1860 seems excessive.

    Agriculture until the latter 19th century was the ‘backbone’ of every country’s economy, and the US was no exception. America roughly quadrupled per capita production over the course of the 19th century, growing more quickly in the second half of the century than the first as industry began to account for an ever larger proportion of the economy. The southern plantation economy was certainly quite productive, but in the grand scheme of 19th century development it can’t help but take a back seat to goings on up north.

  16. Nope.

    Blacks weren’t imported here because people were stupid enough to believe that “diversity is our strength.” That’s what happens with Somalis in Maine and Minnesota.

  17. It’s not a good point in this context where that kind of precision isn’t needed.

    It’s hardly nit-picking to point out that extreme racial consciousness is a rarity in any era. But extreme racial consciousness is what would have been required for there to be any justice in Chechar’s condemnation of Alexander for failing to foresee the racial consequences of his policies 200+ years down the track. Humans rarely think that way. It’s a small miracle for the average schmo to think five years ahead, and that’s even when chain of consequences is obvious, let alone five hundred years ahead when the chain of consequences is anything but obvious. Alexander may not have been the average schmo, but invoking the schmo helps to demonstrate that Alexander’s ‘failing’ in this regard is all too human. Indeed, the more I think about it the more I’m forced to conclude that the fact a white race was still around in the 19th century, say, is better attributed to geopolitical happenstance than to human agency. Yet as Ecclesiastes puts it “time and chance happen to them all,” and from our vantage point in the 21st century we have the opportunity to observe that fateful dictum playing out firsthand.

  18. HW- very good post. Each nation has their own demons, that is true.

    But the philosophical presuppositions behind those ideologies, in most cases, are the same.

    BTW- Our ‘friend’ Joe/Joew, still posts daily on my blog- or tries to.
    His vituperative phlegm is amazing to behold, if one were to read the entire post.
    I spam every single one of them, as soon as I see the signature, or the ‘sound’ of Joe’s rants. But he’s let slip that he’s been over on Dr. Lasha Darkmoon’s site, under two different screen names.

    They are- (FYI) :
    Vinny From Throggs Neck The Bronx
    Tony In Bensonhurst

    His posts go from rave to rant, and back again, sometimes in the same post. Truly, he needs a doctor’s care… or stronger meds. And prayer.

  19. “If White people had a country, even one which they won through a vanguardist insurrection, Ireland shows they are fully capable of squandering it.”

    Two things forever scarred the Irish Psyche. The Sodomite priest thing (helped by Vatican II) and the Celtic Tiger- greed on Irish Whiskey.

    Both made the Celts forget who and what they are. They are also 30-40 years behind the US, ideologically speaking, so they are in the mindset of the late 1960’s right about now. Irish Savant is a great resource to read, btw.

  20. Silver,

    I am not sure, but IIRC at Majority Rights Linder, more than a year ago, told you that you are pretending to be pro-white while you are not and that you hold second intentions. Are you the same Silver of that MR thread?

    As to what you say of Alexander the “Great”, if you compare him not with the developed consciousness of 500 years later but with the Spartans, you will regard him as a race traitor. This is William Pierce’s take:

    Quote:

    Despite his military and organizational genius, Alexander did not understand the racial basis of civilization. He dreamed of a unified world-empire, with all its diverse races expressing a single culture and ordered by a single rule. At a great feast of reconciliation between Greeks and Persians at Opis, on the Tigris River some 40 miles above Baghdad, in 324, when his conquests were complete, he stated his dream explicitly.

    Forced Racemixing

    And throughout his brief but uniquely dynamic career of empire-building, Alexander acted consistently with this dream. He adopted Asiatic customs and dress, blending them with the Macedonian lifestyle and requiring many of his officers to do the same. He left in power many of the native satraps of the conquered regions, after receiving their oaths of loyalty. And it was not Macedonian Pella, but Semitic Babylon which he chose as the capital of his empire.

    Alexander preached racemixing, and he practiced it. During the conquest of Sogdiana (comprising the modern Uzbek and Tadzhik Republics of the U.S.S.R.) he took to wife the daughter, Roxane, of a local baron. Four years later, at Susa, in 324, he also married the daughter of the defeated Persian king, Darius II. On that occasion he bade his officers and men to imitate him; nearly a hundred of the former and 10,000 of the latter took native brides in a mass marriage.

    Alexander’s brides, and presumably those of his officers as well, were of noble Persian blood, which, even as late as the fourth century B.C., meant most of them were White—Nordic, in fact. But certainly most of the 10,000 brides of his soldiers were not; they were Asiatics: Semites and the bastard offspring of Semites and Aryans and a dozen other races.

    Short-lived Empire

    On June 13, 323 B.C., at Babylon, Alexander, not yet 33 years ears old, died of a fever—and with him died the unnatural dream of a mixed-race universal empire. Most of his Macedonian troops at once repudiated their Asiatic wives. His satraps began revolting. The various plans he had set in motion for homogenizing the culture and government of his vast realm became sidetracked.

    Elements of Alexander’s empire survived long after his death. In Egypt, for example, the Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty lasted three centuries; Queen Cleopatra was not an Egyptian by blood, but a Macedonian. And in the east, after the breakup of the empire, local rulers claimed descent from Alexander, even as late as modern times.

    But the far-flung empire itself had no natural unity, no unity of blood or spirit; and even if Alexander had lived long enough to impose an artificial unity of coinage and dress and language and custom, it would still have required the strength of his unique personality to hold it together. And it is well that the empire died with him; otherwise it might have sucked the best blood out of Europe for centuries, in a vain effort to maintain it.

    /end quote

  21. “Blacks were imported here because people were stupid enough to believe that ‘diversity is our strength”.

    – Another predictable attempt at passing the blame, but as doomed as the so-called “civilization” you’re obsessed with resurrecting. Niggers were brought here by Southerners, to pick cotton for Southerners. And you damn well know it.

    “That’s what happens with Somalis in Maine and Minnesota.”

    – That would be the doing of those Protestant Christian churches who’s faith you count yourself an adherent of. But a weak deflection nevertheless — the descendants of Southern nigger slaves in America, niggers with last names like Lee, Jackson, and Davis, outnumber the few handfuls of Mugawaba Clickclickgruntgrunt’s about 100,000 to 1.

  22. And don’t you dare try to stifle discussion by bringing up Linder’s smears on Silver from a year ago you blog-rat. As if anyone here cares about Alex Linder.

  23. P.S.

    Although the well-known American historian Will Durant was almost the opposite of a racialist historian, what he says at the beginning of the chapter “From Aristotle to the Renaissance” in his bestselling history of philosophy is germane to understand why the cultural miscegenation that Alexander promoted was poisonous for the still adolescent Greek psyche (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

    Quote:

    When, in 399 b. c, Socrates was put to death, the soul of Athens died with him, lingering only in his proud pupil, Plato. And when Philip of Macedon defeated the Athenians at Chaeronea in 338 b. c, and Alexander burned the great city of Thebes to the ground three years later, even the ostentatious sparing of Pindar’s home could not cover up the fact that Athenian independence, in government and in thought, was irrevocably destroyed.

    The domination of Greek philosophy by the Macedonian Aristotle mirrored the political subjection of Greece by the virile and younger peoples of the north. The death of Alexander (323 b. c.) quickened this process of decay. The boy-emperor, barbarian though he remained after all of Aristotle’s tutoring, had yet learned to revere the rich culture of Greece, and had dreamed of spreading that culture through the Orient in the wake of his victorious armies. The development of Greek commerce, and the multiplication of Greek trading posts throughout Asia Minor, had provided an economic basis for the unification of this region as part of an Hellenic empire; and Alexander hoped that from these busy stations Greek thought, as well as Greek goods, would radiate and conquer.

    But he had underrated the inertia and resistance of the Oriental mind, and the mass and depth of Oriental culture. It was only a youthful fancy, after all, to suppose that so immature and unstable a civilization as that of Greece could be imposed upon a civilization immeasurably more widespread, and rooted in the most venerable traditions.

    The quantity of Asia proved too much for the quality of Greece. Alexander himself, in the hour of his triumph, was conquered by the soul of the East; he married (among several ladies) the daughter of Darius; he adopted the Persian diadem and robe of state; he introduced into Europe the Oriental notion of the divine right of kings; and at last he astonished a sceptic Greece by announcing, in magnificent Eastern style, that he was a god. Greece laughed; and Alexander drank himself to death.

    This subtle infusion of an Asiatic soul into the wearied body of the master Greek was followed rapidly by the pouring of Oriental cults and faiths into Greece along those very lines of communication which the young conqueror had opened up; the broken dykes let in the ocean of Eastern thought upon the lowlands of the still adolescent European mind. The mystic and superstitious faiths which had taken root among the poorer people of Hellas were reinforced and spread about; and the Oriental spirit of apathy and resignation found a ready soil in decadent and despondent Greece.

    / end quote

  24. I love arguing with 313Chris because it is obvious he knows little about this subject.

    – The slave trade was banned in 1808.

    – The Cotton Kingdom was created in the decades AFTER the slave trade was banned.

    – Niggers were brought to America by the British and Yankees. The South didn’t have a navy or merchant marine. Yankees continued to participate in the slave trade to Latin America until a year after Fort Sumter.

    – Yankees like Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton believed that blacks were their equals.

    – Slavery was legal in all the colonies until the American Revolution. It was more intensive in the South because New England was unsuited to cash crop agriculture.

  25. A few thoughts on the Southern Nationalist radio show…

    1. I believe the average life of the slave being longer than a Northern factory worker of the era works quite well with my narrative. From the outset, I’ve stated that the Northern industrialists were scumbags (and I’m not going to moderate that one!). Furthermore, my primary complaint with the Southern system was its marginalization of the White underclass, not the purported abuses of the slaves.

    2. I never claimed that Appalachian or tobacco country poverty were products of the slave system.

    3. The Vermont reference is not fair, in my opinion, as I’ve consistently insisted that traditionalism is at least as important as identity. Nowhere in my writings have I insisted that things would be just fine if only we didn’t have minorities.

    4. I didn’t intend for the article to be an attack on the South. We all agree that the South has been under a continuous military and cultural assault from up North. What I attempted to accomplish with the article was explaining why the North has been doing this. The “Yankees” have been doing it to the Midwest, to White immigrants, to foreign countries, and so on.

    My attempt to answer that question is with elite greed. The very rapid ascent of abolitionism from a fringe sentiment in Northern circles to the entire nation’s sacred moral position that rapidly smells less like an organic outgrowth of the Northern White mentality than an organized and financed elite putsch with specific goals in mind.

    I’m totally with the South on its right to self-government. In fact, several years ago, before I was publicly active, I attended a Libertarian Party meetup in which I stated that it was not the North’s business how the South handled its diversity, and that sovereign states must necessarily respect the sovereign decisions of other states. I nearly got my ass kicked with that one and we had to leave early. I still stand behind that position.

    But I don’t yet understand what your “cause of the cause” is (open question to either Palmetto Patriot or HW). Why is the North so hellbent on imposing these things on the South? Meanness? Scumbagguery? Moral panic? …Greed?

  26. Matt, I included a note about your apology for the comments about our ancestors with a link to that apology. I do appreciate that. I still disagree with you, quite clearly, but I do wish for the disagreement to remain civil. I’m friends with Heimbach, your ally in the new project, and wish y’all the best even if you and I have some disagreements.

    As far as your question about the ’cause of the cause’ and why the North is so hellbent on imposing these destructive things on the South, this is something I’ve covered for the last few years on SNN. It arises historically from the morality of the Puritans and the sense of morality of the Northeaast. Of course, it has evolved a lot over time since (see the book ‘Yankee Babylon’ for how this impulse was secularized). However, the basic impulse has remained the same. Dr Hill has talked about this as well. The idea is that ‘the world could and should be different from what it is.’ It goes hand in hand with the Enlightenment concept of ‘Progress’ (‘the inexorble march of infinite progress’) that was rejected in the South and classical societies that also comes from other sources (for example, the massive influx of Leftist revolutionaries to the Upper Midwest in and after the year 1848) than the Puritans. These views had a lot of influence on the North in general. While the Yankee ethnic group is today rather small (a minority in most Northern States) the Yankee sense of morality (a crusading mentality that one must go out and remake the world according to one’s own self-righteous views) is very much part of the North still. You hear it in the language of their politicians. You see in their media. It’s pervasive. And it’s abhorrent. We call such people ‘do-gooders’ down here and they are disliked, to put it mildly. But at this point I don’t think most Americans can help it because it’s so ingrained in them through the US media and US educational system from an early age. They are taught that it’s morally right to go out and ‘change the world’ according to their Leftist perspective. That’s why they have to crusade against White Southerners, White South Africans, Serbians, etc.

  27. @PalmettoPatriot

    I’m friends with Heimbach, your ally in the new project, and wish y’all the best even if you and I have some disagreements.

    Thank you.

    Heimbach is at least as much of TYN as I am, and I’m pretty sure he’s closer to you than me on this issue. I don’t want people getting the idea that I speak on behalf of the entire project when I stake out these positions of mine.

    It arises historically from the morality of the Puritans and the sense of morality of the Northeast.

    You acknowledge that the primary group pushing this is a radical minority, and that they’re leveraging institutional channels to push it on the rest of the North’s residents. Do you think it’s coincidental that their “moral crusades” happen to also be economic and political conquests? In parallel, do you think the moral crusade to reach the Latin American savages might have had an economic and political motive?

    And, finally, if it really is this organic cultural trend, how did abolitionism spring from being the isolated opinion of a small segment of irrelevant cranks to being the official moral position of the entire republic so rapidly?

  28. Matt, it would take a multivolume book to properly answer that, if such an answer could ever be full explained. However, I would emphasise the destruction of the Whig Party (which had previously been the party of Northern centralisers and their less numerous allies in the South). When it fell apart the Republican Party (over the course of several years) became the dominant party of the North. It was a coalition of Northern industrialists, financial interests, abolitionist moralisers and so forth. It had a lot of money but as far as activism it relied upon what I would label Left-wing Christian Evangelicals. They were the descendants (at least ideologically, if not biologically) of the Puritans. Don’t know if you seen the movie ‘The Outlaw Josie Wales’ but the Jayhawker woman in that movie captures the essence of those people. They were undoubtedly motivated by their warped sense of morality and had a very self-righteous attitude to them which even Italian historian Raimondo Luraghi (who is a Marxist historian) recognizes in his works. They were in one way the pawns of what Robert Barnwell Rhett and Southern nationalists called ‘the money power’ of the North and yet they also had influence on the policy of the party. Sort of like the Evangelicals who joined the GOP en masse in the 70s and 80s. But even more destructive. Anyhow, this is just one part of the story, but no means the complete narrative. However, it’s an important part of the story.

    In your article you have a pic of that fanatical anti-White lunatic John Brown with the quote ‘From Isolated Radicals to the Dominant Vanguard.’ I would agree. You also say ‘Up until they were strategically useful, Northern abolitionists were (like ourselves) isolated and alienated cranks. Only when their sincere and passionate ideological positions became useful to an elite did they transform virtually overnight from irrelevant fanatics into a serious revolutionary vanguard.’ That’s partially true, at least. However, the underlying hostility to the South had long been there. And the North’s crusading nature had always been there. Combine that with a bunch of Enlightenment nonsense about ‘Progress’ and a revolutionary spark from thousands of Leftist immigrants and throw in the political crisis of the death of the North’s main political party and you get the rise of the Republican Party and death and destruction and anti-Southern crusade which followed.

  29. 1.) The White underclass was marginalized and disenfranchised … in the Jim Crow South, not the antebellum South.

    In the Jim Crow era, the poll tax was passed to disenfranchise blacks under the 14th Amendment. With the exception of South Carolina, antebellum politics in every Southern state was dominated by the White majority of small slaveholders and non-slaveholders.

    The White underclass was marginalized in Rhode Island until the 1840s.

    2.) The “Butternuts” who settled the Southern Midwest were the same people who lived in West Virginia and Kentucky. Poor people in both the North and South moved to the West.

    That’s why the territories were so hotly contested.

    3.) Vermont was racially homogeneous and developed a strongly egalitarian culture because it lacked an oligarchy like Massachusetts and its other neighbors in coastal New England.

    In traditional societies, the White underclass had fewer rights and were far more heavily exploited than in the antebellum South. In places like Alabama and Tennessee, the White majority controlled the government, which was a radical idea in Europe at the time.

  30. @PalmettoPatriot

    The overarching trend is not exclusive to America’s political history, and the malignant mercantile colonialism (and its characteristic moral and ideological patterns) is not limited to Yankee Puritans. As such, I’m not convinced by the specific narrative you present. It’s not that your narrative is incorrect. It’s not.

    But that’s the thing.

    I believe you’re getting lost in the specific way this larger pattern happened to manifest itself in our particular context, …from a particular perspective. I’m sure a White Afrikaner, a White Brazilian, a White Australian, and untold others could sit and tell an utterly different story with different parties, different movements, different historical actors being on this or that side …with all of the stories following the same basic story line and arriving at the same basic conclusion.

  31. he introduced into Europe the Oriental notion of the divine right of kings;

    Please explain how the Heraclids did not first introduce this notion.

    That’s my key disagreement with the excerpt you shared.

  32. I think it is a mistake for anyone to search for a “root cause” of our plight….

    Says the website devoted to bringing back the Confederacy…..LMAO!

  33. – The slave trade was banned in 1808. – Hunter

    D.R. Hundley praises the end of the slave trade that would have overwhelmed Southern Whites of all classes because the Africans were too cheap: a dollar a head in their homeland. This is something few understand, the abolition of the trade raised the value of slaveowner’s holdings, considerably. Made-men were the strongest supporters.

  34. Matt Parrott? Ain’t he the guy that fled Indiana when threatened by some Antifa types out of Bloomington?

  35. Whatever the specifics of the history the *present-day* case is quite clear that the South has – for now at least – a distinct political culture and would be better off as a separate nation making their own laws.

  36. Fighting is the nature of the game in WN. – Hunter

    This is how it happens.

    WN or fellow-traveler: So-and-so western historical figure was a degenerate scumbag! So-and-so western historical figure was a notorious race-traitor!

    Normal person: No, you’re describing yourself.

    WN or fellow-traveler: Ban this troll who is here in bad faith.

  37. I am not sure, but IIRC at Majority Rights Linder, more than a year ago, told you that you are pretending to be pro-white while you are not and that you hold second intentions. Are you the same Silver of that MR thread?

    Yes, one and the same.

    Linder is well within his rights to be suspicious of my motives, but the charge that I’m being disingenuous – that I’m ‘pretending’ – only holds water if you assume that non-PC race talk is the sole preserve of WNs.

    Despite his military and organizational genius, Alexander did not understand the racial basis of civilization.

    You can stop right there. The point is that precious few people have ever understood it. And of those who do understand it, it’s not quite clear to me that they what they ‘understand’ is actually even true – few are more prone to preposterous exaggeration and extreme reduction than WNs.

  38. You’re a spic. A true disgrace to Latin Whites.

    Chechar’s would have to be the most spectacular case of racial false consciousness ever witnessed. You almost have to feel sorry for his innocent assumption that he and WLP are united in common cause. In reality, he’s only ‘white’ if we’re playing by ‘Latin house rules’ and even then some might grumble. NA militants would have had his head on a pike.

    Chechar, come ya te dije una vez, hombre, te guste o no somos hermanos en esta lucha, tu y yo.

  39. Have you seen his tribute pic of WLP surrounded by laurels on his site? What was there before? Orianna Fallaci, perhaps, before he realized she was a clueless race-traitor.

  40. People have a right to err, so I’m not going to assail him for that. His views require adjustment, not outright repudiation. (Though, unfortunately, based on past behavior, I suspect any adjustment may well lead to outright repudiation in his case.)

Comments are closed.