The Logic of Juneteenth
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
On the fourth of July, Americans celebrate the freeing of their country from the binds of the British. In the same way whites cannot be victims of racism because racism equals prejudice plus power, the idea of one group of whites attaining freedom from another group of whites is an affront to the concept of liberation. The freedom blacks gained from the abolition of slavery is a more significant form of liberation than the freedom colonial aristocrats gained by breaking away from the British empire. So of the two American independence days, Juneteenth is more important.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I wonder what we’ll call the day we finally break free from the binds of the black undertow?
And in the 156 years since the last negro slave was freed, remembering many had been free men long before then, what have these people accomplished? Most of what we call the modern world had yet to be invented in 1865. The telegraph was the only form of long distance communication and steam engines the only working form of mechanical propulsion. If we had relied on the negro we wouldn’t have advanced a day beyond “Juneteenth”, 1865. As David Duke pointed out the horse made a more important contribution to the building of America than the negro rather than celebrate the threadbare history and contributions of negroes would should put the horse in our pantheon of heroic figures
On behalf of the the Oxen Americans for Freedom, I announce our intention to sue you for affirmative action and reparations for all OAFs. Ponies? It’s Cows what built America!
What about mules?!
This is only more progress in the same direction that white, Christian America headed beginning with the Civil War. It’s the ongoing negrification of the American white man, which was known to be a likely consequence at the time, and yet didn’t deter anyone. Certainly, even at the beginning, Jefferson knew that destruction of the white race through hybridization would occur, as he fathered at least one child w/Sally Hemings, his negro slave. Abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner saw nothing wrong with it. Teddy Roosevelt celebrated “the melting pot”, which takes such mixing as a given. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 codified it into law.
Also, the logic of Juneteenth as described here is congruent with other things that have long been accepted. For example, at his memorial the statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. stands 30 feet tall, whereas the statues of Lincoln and Jefferson at their respective memorials are only 19 feet tall, implying that MLK is more than half again as important as either of the two presidents; clearly a much bigger man.
Thus it appears that Christianity, in its applied form of wokeism, is just as racially destructive as ever.
You're an idiot who keeps repeating the same things over and over without thinking.
I tried to care about Juneteenth. I couldn’t do it. It’s just too silly.
When will the Mohammad Ali Jinnah of rump euro Americans emerge? Or will euro Americans really go out with a whimper?
Evanston IL has already cancelled July 4 fireworks and replaced with June10eenth celebration, expect that trend to explode next year. Evanston hilariously is next to Skokie where Klan put up its last big show up north back in 80s.
Also, the logic of Juneteenth as described here is congruent with other things that have long been accepted. For example, at his memorial the statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. stands 30 feet tall, whereas the statues of Lincoln and Jefferson at their respective memorials are only 19 feet tall, implying that MLK is more than half again as important as either of the two presidents; clearly a much bigger man.
Thus it appears that Christianity, in its applied form of wokeism, is just as racially destructive as ever.Replies: @indocon, @By-tor, @Rosie, @Juvenalis, @Dumbo
Stop drawing a line from past back to 100+ years ago, doing so you are missing the elephants standing right infront of you in the room. It’s the sheer greed and stupidity (in case of Baptists) of protestant white America that is going to be its undoing.
We wuz town mares n sheeeit!
indocon: “Stop drawing a line from past back to 100+ years ago, doing so you are missing the elephants standing right infront of you in the room. It’s the sheer greed and stupidity (in case of Baptists) of protestant white America that is going to be its undoing. ”
That those elephants were standing in the room 100+ years ago too is my point. In fact, for whites Christianity was racially destructive from its beginning. Worship of a Jewish God is inherently racially destructive. For the American white man, there is but one God, and he is Jewish. MLK, standing 30 feet tall, is his prophet.
To put it another way, if what you say is accurate, then why have so many of the most brilliant minds of the various centuries of the Christian era failed to notice? Why didn't Aquinas notice, for example? Why didn't Leibnitz?
Please note: I have not asked why Christianity is bad, and I have not asked why Jews are bad. I already know a little about those. I have asked a different question.
(For information, I have read Gibbon's Decline and Fall, cover to cover.)Replies: @Rosie, @nebulafox
“We’re great only because of you Jews who came along and told us how to organize ourselves and place you in positions of passive income!”Replies: @Realist
Also, the logic of Juneteenth as described here is congruent with other things that have long been accepted. For example, at his memorial the statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. stands 30 feet tall, whereas the statues of Lincoln and Jefferson at their respective memorials are only 19 feet tall, implying that MLK is more than half again as important as either of the two presidents; clearly a much bigger man.
Thus it appears that Christianity, in its applied form of wokeism, is just as racially destructive as ever.Replies: @indocon, @By-tor, @Rosie, @Juvenalis, @Dumbo
Thomas Jefferson did not father the child with the slave, but his hard-living brother Randolph, who often associated with slaves when visiting Monticello, or his son Isham Randolph, who lived at Monticello, most likely did.
By-tor: “Thomas Jefferson did not father the child …”
It’s true that the DNA evidence only implicates some Jefferson was the father, but Sally Hemings was his dead wife’s half sister, and the apple of Jefferson’s eye. He took her with him to Paris when she was only fifteen years old. He gave her the run of Monticello, and her sons were the only slaves he freed upon his death. If you want to believe that Jefferson was enough of a fool not to know he was being cuckolded by his brother, that’s up to you, but I don’t think you’re doing his reputation any favors.
Raise your hand if you support making Juneteenth a national holiday…
“Your funeral.”
https://www.hitler-archive.com/photos/1937%2009%2025%20-%2048%20-%20pMtm1mBI.jpgReplies: @usNthem
Sorry “old sport/boy”, you’re on ignore so I’ll just have miss out on your “intellectual” snark. Go along and run off to your favorite world star hiphop and watch the polar/panda bear hunting videos – no doubt a big turn on – old sport…
In regards to mules they are a human made hybrid with desirable qualities. I watched a NASA TV documentary on the building of what is now the Stennis Test Center in Mississippi where a famous picture was taken. If featured a mule working to advance the site where our rockets to reach the moon were to be tested. The site was so muddy and hard to navigate only a mule could do the job. The photo went, as we say today, viral.
Another mule anecdote. When George Vanderbilt was building his magnificent mansion in the Smokey Mountains of North Carolina in 1895 he placed an ad for workers. Laborers would receive $1 per day but those who brought a mule got $1.75!
Still the basic horse was indispensable to our ancestors. It was faster than oxen and pulled our plows, wagons, cannons and soldiers into battle for the first 250 years of the settlement of North America
Horses taste like shit.
Cows are what built America my vegan friend. As a guy who owned a historic American farm, I never found any plow harnesses for ponies. Fields were plowed and down by Oxen (cows). Ponies were just used for light/fast transport.
Oh, and did I mention that horse tastes like shit?Replies: @Curmudgeon
Sorry Mario, this reply was directed at “old sport” truff.
That those elephants were standing in the room 100+ years ago too is my point. In fact, for whites Christianity was racially destructive from its beginning. Worship of a Jewish God is inherently racially destructive. For the American white man, there is but one God, and he is Jewish. MLK, standing 30 feet tall, is his prophet.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Stan d Mute, @John Johnson
Your proposition is not mad, but does it not skip over 2000 years of Christian history?
To put it another way, if what you say is accurate, then why have so many of the most brilliant minds of the various centuries of the Christian era failed to notice? Why didn’t Aquinas notice, for example? Why didn’t Leibnitz?
Please note: I have not asked why Christianity is bad, and I have not asked why Jews are bad. I already know a little about those. I have asked a different question.
(For information, I have read Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, cover to cover.)
But then I suppose it has a lot to do with theology. Calvinists do seem to worship Jews, I assume because of the shared idea of "election." For their own part, Catholic ideas about venal and mortal sins, and the need to atone for the latter to reinstate grace seems rather oldtestamentish to me, too.
Gnostic, mystical, and Lutheran Christianity, though very different from each other, are all peak anti-Jew. All seem to draw more from ancient paganism than Judaism?Replies: @Curmudgeon
Dead wrong. Consensus is that Jefferson is the father. That means neo-agrarians like you get whipped.
Also, the logic of Juneteenth as described here is congruent with other things that have long been accepted. For example, at his memorial the statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. stands 30 feet tall, whereas the statues of Lincoln and Jefferson at their respective memorials are only 19 feet tall, implying that MLK is more than half again as important as either of the two presidents; clearly a much bigger man.
Thus it appears that Christianity, in its applied form of wokeism, is just as racially destructive as ever.Replies: @indocon, @By-tor, @Rosie, @Juvenalis, @Dumbo
How is “wokeism” applied Christianity? Please explain.
Also, the logic of Juneteenth as described here is congruent with other things that have long been accepted. For example, at his memorial the statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. stands 30 feet tall, whereas the statues of Lincoln and Jefferson at their respective memorials are only 19 feet tall, implying that MLK is more than half again as important as either of the two presidents; clearly a much bigger man.
Thus it appears that Christianity, in its applied form of wokeism, is just as racially destructive as ever.Replies: @indocon, @By-tor, @Rosie, @Juvenalis, @Dumbo
Teddy Roosevelt only believed in “melting pot” mixing insofar as it applied to Americans of different White European ethnic ancestral origins melding together into one unified American national identity—not miscegenation across race lines. Speaking on Americanism, Roosevelt did not even allow for possibility that anyone but White people of European descent could assimilate into the historic American national majority.
Note TR specifically calls upon American citizens to put allegiance to fellow Americans over loyalty to “Europeans” of their ancestors’ homelands. Probably not intended to be explicit assertion of ‘white nationalism’, but merely taken as given—the thought of non-Whites ever becoming pure unhyphenated heritage Americans being inconceivable:
—Theodore Roosevelt (address to the Knights of Columbus at Carnegie Hall, New York; October 12, 1915)
That those elephants were standing in the room 100+ years ago too is my point. In fact, for whites Christianity was racially destructive from its beginning. Worship of a Jewish God is inherently racially destructive. For the American white man, there is but one God, and he is Jewish. MLK, standing 30 feet tall, is his prophet.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Stan d Mute, @John Johnson
•Troll
To put it another way, if what you say is accurate, then why have so many of the most brilliant minds of the various centuries of the Christian era failed to notice? Why didn't Aquinas notice, for example? Why didn't Leibnitz?
Please note: I have not asked why Christianity is bad, and I have not asked why Jews are bad. I already know a little about those. I have asked a different question.
(For information, I have read Gibbon's Decline and Fall, cover to cover.)Replies: @Rosie, @nebulafox
I don’t get the “jew on a stick” thing. Jesus was born a Jew, to be sure, but he wasn’t a very Jewy Jew. He stood in diametrically opposition to everything the Jewish establishment stood for, and suffered the consequences.
But then I suppose it has a lot to do with theology. Calvinists do seem to worship Jews, I assume because of the shared idea of “election.” For their own part, Catholic ideas about venal and mortal sins, and the need to atone for the latter to reinstate grace seems rather oldtestamentish to me, too.
Gnostic, mystical, and Lutheran Christianity, though very different from each other, are all peak anti-Jew. All seem to draw more from ancient paganism than Judaism?
I often thought the spread of Christianity to Northern Europeans was not a big leap. God/Mary/Jesus is not far off Óðinn (Odin, Wotan, Woden)/Frigg/Þór (Thor). Both have an afterlife. There are many parallels. Hávamál is a good starting point. There are several translations, and I think if fair to say, that none are perfect. As in the case with translations of any language, nuances are missed, even more so in texts hundreds of years old.
http://www.anomy.net/havamal/Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
The “umpteenth” federal freebie given to the pooooooooo‘, preeeeeeeecious, Blacks….at the White Working Class’ expense
The Detroitization of Holidays; from rightfully honoring honorable White Heroes, to celebrating nothing but glorified Blacks.
Will any of the WHITE descendants of WHITE SLAVES – America’s ORIGINAL SLAVES – be allowed to celebrate alongside Blacks? Yes, I know the answer….
( And if ANY Black, or White / Jewish Leftist says the words “Indentured Servitude”….TELL THEM TO GO TO HELL !!!! )
Rosie: “How is “wokeism” applied Christianity? Please explain. ”
I explained it here: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/its-raining-comments/#comment-4725534
It is certainly true that 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. But that fury cannot hold a candle to the fury of an ideologue whose ideology is being proven inescapably wrong.
Are you a VEGAN ?
Horses taste like shit.
Cows are what built America my vegan friend. As a guy who owned a historic American farm, I never found any plow harnesses for ponies. Fields were plowed and down by Oxen (cows). Ponies were just used for light/fast transport.
Oh, and did I mention that horse tastes like shit?
That those elephants were standing in the room 100+ years ago too is my point. In fact, for whites Christianity was racially destructive from its beginning. Worship of a Jewish God is inherently racially destructive. For the American white man, there is but one God, and he is Jewish. MLK, standing 30 feet tall, is his prophet.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Stan d Mute, @John Johnson
It’s truly astonishing that so many white “men” credit the greatness of our achievements on the alien JewGod imposed on us rather than our innate abilities. It’s the original cuckoldry.
“We’re great only because of you Jews who came along and told us how to organize ourselves and place you in positions of passive income!”
It's true that the DNA evidence only implicates some Jefferson was the father, but Sally Hemings was his dead wife's half sister, and the apple of Jefferson's eye. He took her with him to Paris when she was only fifteen years old. He gave her the run of Monticello, and her sons were the only slaves he freed upon his death. If you want to believe that Jefferson was enough of a fool not to know he was being cuckolded by his brother, that's up to you, but I don't think you're doing his reputation any favors.Replies: @Stan d Mute
It’s just hilarious that anyone gives the remotest of fucks about Jefferson’s sex life.
Juvenalis: “Speaking on Americanism, Roosevelt did not even allow for possibility that anyone but White people of European descent could assimilate into the historic American national majority. ”
Endorsing the melting pot concept while not explicitly excluding negroes and Jews seems to me to concede the game right there. And what attempts did Teddy Roosevelt ever make to repeal the citizenship and franchise that had been granted to negroes? None whatsoever, afaik. The eventual demise of the white race through intermixture should have been, and probably was, as obvious to him as it was to his contemporary, Senator Theodore Bilbo, the author of Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization.
V. K. Ovelund: “To put it another way, if what you say is accurate, then why have so many of the most brilliant minds of the various centuries of the Christian era failed to notice? Why didn’t Aquinas notice, for example? Why didn’t Leibnitz?”
Scientific concepts of race only began with Linnaeus in the eighteenth century, and the idea that the various races were locked in a biologically determined struggle for survival only dates from Darwin, so both Aquinas and Leibnitz were dead and in the ground long before then. I doubt that either man had much experience with Jews, and in any case, Aquinas would no doubt have followed the biblical account, which in Acts 17:26 has it that all men are of “one blood”, i.e., the same race. Also, it’s very clear that the Christian’s obligation is to extend love (agape) to everyone. After all, Christ’s supposed love was for all mankind (John 2:2), and according to Paul (Galatians 3:28), his message was for everyone, regardless of race or gender. Nothing could be more clear than that Christians should do likewise, since they are supposed to imitate Christ (1 Peter 2:21-24).
separate species ("Homo afer" as they are not terribly sapiens) but
decided against it as it would have meant giving up his (the earliest workable)
species definition (fertile F1, in the original).
Both Linné and Darwin held that no biologist worth his beans would class
Europids and Africans as the same species.
Also, the logic of Juneteenth as described here is congruent with other things that have long been accepted. For example, at his memorial the statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. stands 30 feet tall, whereas the statues of Lincoln and Jefferson at their respective memorials are only 19 feet tall, implying that MLK is more than half again as important as either of the two presidents; clearly a much bigger man.
Thus it appears that Christianity, in its applied form of wokeism, is just as racially destructive as ever.Replies: @indocon, @By-tor, @Rosie, @Juvenalis, @Dumbo
How is the importation of African slaves and the negative consequences of it including the racial mixing with blacks, somehow the fault of Christianity? Most Christian preachers criticized both slavery and miscegenation, and also, it was equally done in Muslim countries, with negative consequences there as well (the male slaves were castrated, but there were lots of Sally Hemings in Arabia too).
You’re an idiot who keeps repeating the same things over and over without thinking.
Stan d Mute: “It’s truly astonishing that so many white “men” credit the greatness of our achievements on the alien JewGod imposed on us rather than our innate abilities. ”
Yes, that’s Christians for you. Always trying to claim credit for things Christianity had nothing to do with, and always trying to escape blame for things for which it is clearly responsible.
Stan d Mute: “It’s just hilarious that anyone gives the remotest of fucks about Jefferson’s sex life. ”
Jared Taylor is responsible for a lot this. He objects to the idea Thomas Jefferson was the father of any of Heming’s children, but he ignores the considerable circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
However, a lot of people in the Unz crowd and similar circles worship various past presidents, even including Lincoln, incredibly enough, even though it was Lincoln who prosecuted a bloody war to set the negroes free and then was the first to propose making them citizens and giving them the vote. More than any other single individual, it’s Lincoln who is responsible for the racial situation in America. It’s the same sort of schizophrenic mentality that holds the police in high regard, even though it’s the police who are the enforcement arm of the anti-white federal gov’t.
Dumbo: “How is the importation of African slaves and the negative consequences of it including the racial mixing with blacks, somehow the fault of Christianity?”
The fact that it was done by Christians means the Christian worldview might have something to do with it.
Dumbo: “You’re an idiot who keeps repeating the same things over and over without thinking. ”
You’re aptly named, Dumbo. But my words are only for the non-Dumbos. Feel free to place me on ignore.
The fact that it was done by Christians means the Christian worldview might have something to do with it.
Not very convincing when Muslims imported even more slaves.
Polls have shown that secular Whites today are more supportive of miscegenation than both Muslims and Christians.
Bliss.
“Blacks Are History Mumf”?
I explained it here: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/its-raining-comments/#comment-4725534Replies: @iffen, @nebulafox, @Rosie
its endless quest to equalize the inherently unequal.
It is certainly true that ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’. But that fury cannot hold a candle to the fury of an ideologue whose ideology is being proven inescapably wrong.
Scientific concepts of race only began with Linnaeus in the eighteenth century, and the idea that the various races were locked in a biologically determined struggle for survival only dates from Darwin, so both Aquinas and Leibnitz were dead and in the ground long before then. I doubt that either man had much experience with Jews, and in any case, Aquinas would no doubt have followed the biblical account, which in Acts 17:26 has it that all men are of "one blood", i.e., the same race. Also, it's very clear that the Christian's obligation is to extend love (agape) to everyone. After all, Christ's supposed love was for all mankind (John 2:2), and according to Paul (Galatians 3:28), his message was for everyone, regardless of race or gender. Nothing could be more clear than that Christians should do likewise, since they are supposed to imitate Christ (1 Peter 2:21-24).Replies: @nokangaroos
Linné said nothing about “race” but originally intended to classify blacks as a
separate species (“Homo afer” as they are not terribly sapiens) but
decided against it as it would have meant giving up his (the earliest workable)
species definition (fertile F1, in the original).
Both Linné and Darwin held that no biologist worth his beans would class
Europids and Africans as the same species.
The way things are going that will never happen.
“We’re great only because of you Jews who came along and told us how to organize ourselves and place you in positions of passive income!”Replies: @Realist
Agreed. Whites have done more to advance humanity than any other ethnic group.
nokangaroos: “Both Linné and Darwin held that no biologist worth his beans would class Europids and Africans as the same species.”
Not true. In The Descent of Man Darwin devotes an entire chapter to explaining why, though quite different races, they are in the same species. Linnaeus used the term variety instead of race but divided humans into four varieties: Europaeus albus (people from Europe), Americanus rubescens (people from the Americas), Asiaticus fuscus (people from Asia), and Africanus niger (people from Africa).
He argued that races were subspecies which goes against modern egalitarian doctrine.
Just as any liberal or egalitarian why wolves have subspecies but humans do not.
Their response to this question is along the lines of cause that would be racist.
They really can't explain it. Humans are granted their own taxonomic exemption but liberals try to hide this through sophistry.
To put it another way, if what you say is accurate, then why have so many of the most brilliant minds of the various centuries of the Christian era failed to notice? Why didn't Aquinas notice, for example? Why didn't Leibnitz?
Please note: I have not asked why Christianity is bad, and I have not asked why Jews are bad. I already know a little about those. I have asked a different question.
(For information, I have read Gibbon's Decline and Fall, cover to cover.)Replies: @Rosie, @nebulafox
Gibbon argued that Christianity contributed to Rome’s decline, but also helped mitigate the fall. It’s a more nuanced argument than he’s often given credit for. That said, I think the takeaway here is that Gibbon is essentially working out of the same tradition that Polybius or Plutarch did in ancient times, i.e, the character of a given polity and the actions of Great Men determine history.
I think modern history tends to overcorrect a bit in denying the significance of these things altogether. But as a science, history has changed a lot in the last century or two. It’s only been relatively recently that we’ve looked at more mundane factors that probably come closer to the essence of why the Western Roman Empire imploded.
(I think there’s also a very simple rebuttal to the “Christianity caused Rome’s decline” thesis that everybody, pro or anti, seems to miss. The Eastern Roman Empire didn’t fall. It even began to recover and thrive as the West spun in the toilet. It did so to the point where Justinian was eventually able to reconquer parts of the former West. The biggest factor in undoing that project and dooming Rome as a superpower was the bubonic plague. That was coming no matter what the Romans worshiped.
The East enjoyed a number of advantages over its Western counterpart, above all geography and Constantinople’s center of gravity, but lack of religious turmoil wasn’t one of them. If anything, the East was more Christianized than the West was in the 4th Century. After all, that’s where the religion started, that’s where the native language of the New Testament was dominant, and that’s where the biggest communities of early Christians were. The East was also far more prone to the kinds of divisive theological debates that Christianity introduced, thanks to a Hellenistic culture that encouraged intellectual debate and inquiry in a way that Western Latinate culture didn’t.)
History is not a science. It is more of an art.
I didn’t get that vibe at all. He’s talking about Europeans because the only demographically significant non-Europeans in the US at the time were blacks and natives, which happen to be the two groups that have always have dealt with unique roadblocks to joining the American mainstream. I don’t think his arguments about “hyphenated Americans” would have changed when discussing the Chinese or Japanese communities in the West. I could be wrong, it’s been a while since I’ve read about him, but that’s what I recall.
(This doesn’t mean I think Theodore Roosevelt would endorse modern American immigration policy, but I don’t think almost any American beyond a certain point in past would have considered today’s policies conceivable. Even 1970s, 1980s liberals would be considered firebreathing racist reactionaries by most Democrats and not a small number of Republicans on immigration today, if their stances at the time were preserved. Hell, just look at Barbara Jordan of all people.)
From what I recall from T. Rex’s account of his White House meeting with Booker T. Washington-something which the South didn’t forgive or forget-Roosevelt’s stance on black people was that the race could evolve to be on par with white people over the course of the coming century, and it was in America’s enlightened self-interest to ensure that black individuals who were “already there” be treated with respect. I get the same vibe when he’s talking about the Philippines. He also seemed to vaguely approve of Brazil’s dual track strategy of encouraging upwardly mobile blacks to intermarry with whites and mass European immigration as a more long-sighted alternative to permanent segregation when he visited the country after his Presidency.
That’d this would all be considered deeply racist by today’s standards should go without saying. But in his own age, that put him on the confirmed progressive side of the ledger. I’ve always thought that plugging figures from the past on today’s standards is silly. Remember, our own descendants are going to judge us on standards we can’t possibly predict today.
(If anything, Roosevelt’s true racial contempt was reserved for natives in the US. Some of his comments about them were appalling even by the standards of the time.)
I explained it here: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/its-raining-comments/#comment-4725534Replies: @iffen, @nebulafox, @Rosie
I think wokeism is heavily subconsciously influenced by a very specific, very American brand of Christianity, and to an extent is filling the vacuum left by America’s secularization over the past 20 years. The negative reaction that a lot of older school European liberals are having to the wave of wokeism sweeping the young stems partly from the fact that it is a foreign import, I suspect.
Get the vibe that a lot of women who would have been small town church ladies in another time have become wokeists, you know?
Consensus does not constitute proof. The consensus of the US Congress is that Israel is a “friend”. There is zero evidence of that.
Expert consensus is the only thing that matters in this world. No expert consensus = your ass is going back to the stables.Replies: @Curmudgeon
But then I suppose it has a lot to do with theology. Calvinists do seem to worship Jews, I assume because of the shared idea of "election." For their own part, Catholic ideas about venal and mortal sins, and the need to atone for the latter to reinstate grace seems rather oldtestamentish to me, too.
Gnostic, mystical, and Lutheran Christianity, though very different from each other, are all peak anti-Jew. All seem to draw more from ancient paganism than Judaism?Replies: @Curmudgeon
As a non bible-thumping, one-time Lutheran, Jesus was born a Galilean, not a Judean . His refutation of the Pharisaic Talmudism, now called Judaism, is the core of Christianity.
I often thought the spread of Christianity to Northern Europeans was not a big leap. God/Mary/Jesus is not far off Óðinn (Odin, Wotan, Woden)/Frigg/Þór (Thor). Both have an afterlife. There are many parallels. Hávamál is a good starting point. There are several translations, and I think if fair to say, that none are perfect. As in the case with translations of any language, nuances are missed, even more so in texts hundreds of years old.
http://www.anomy.net/havamal/
Thor, on the other hand, is no Jesus. Thor is shallow. Jesus was profound.
The best link between the Old Testament transitioning to the new, and Norse mythology, I think, is after Ragnarok.
Balder and his rebirth have a lot of Christinaity to them; which may have prepared the Norse for their eventual conversion. Or it may have been changed in later accounts to fit Christianity better; as the main account was written by a convert.
Horses taste like shit.
Cows are what built America my vegan friend. As a guy who owned a historic American farm, I never found any plow harnesses for ponies. Fields were plowed and down by Oxen (cows). Ponies were just used for light/fast transport.
Oh, and did I mention that horse tastes like shit?Replies: @Curmudgeon
Not in my experience. Stringy meat to be sure. The taste of all meat from ruminants is dependent on what they eat. For a real bovine treat, try ones fed silage.
I explained it here: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/its-raining-comments/#comment-4725534Replies: @iffen, @nebulafox, @Rosie
First of all, remember click the reply button when you … reply to someone.
Second, the merits of your case.
It seems to me that you identify with oppressors, and believe your interests are harmed by an ethos of empathy for the Other, especially when they are weak. Hence, your belief that Christianity is antagonistic to White interests.
A medieval Christian in debt to Jewish banker, or indeed a modern Christian in debt to a Jewish banker, will obviously see things differently.
You are on shaky ground even claiming that political correctness stems from Christian morality at all. It is much more a weapon of warfare against downscale Whites than a sincere and spontaneous expression of concern for the downtrodden (which is, of course, the opposite of Christian morality).
wouldn’t it make more sense to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation, or Lee surrendering to Grant at Appomattox.
this new federal holiday, as constructed currently, doesn’t make much sense, even in it’s ostensible format as a national good faith celebration of the end of slavery, which as other people have pointed out, it’s probably not. it’s probably just another leftist trojan horse.
for one, it was a regional thing limited to one state. and second, why did it take 2 months for the people there to learn about it anyway? in a sense this makes it the most characteristically african of things – africans are stone age humans who can’t do anything for themselves, and europeans had to do everything for them, even the part about telling them when they were freed.
the railroad system and telegraph system were operating in 1865, so forget technology explanations. yet even a technology explanation for the speed of communication already concedes that africans can’t do anything. they had zero to do with any of that tech, just as they’ve had zero to do with any tech ever.
technically, yes, when war started, the Union and Confederacy started sabotaging each other’s telegraph lines, and rail lines. so communication into the south was compromised by 1865. but there were still telegraphs and railroads.
The war between the states that resulted in the melding of the states into one nation, indivisible, terminated the governmental recognition of the ownership of one individual by another. It in no way removed the ownership relationship between the Federal government and the individual. The continuing existence of military conscription, if and when needed by the government, is proof of that relationship. You are a G.I.
But as a science, history has changed a lot in the last century or two.
History is not a science. It is more of an art.
nebulafox: “Get the vibe that a lot of women who would have been small town church ladies in another time have become wokeists, you know? ”
Absolutely. Even the word “woke” hearkens back to the waves of Christian religious revivals that swept across the country in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, known as the Great Awakenings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakenings
Quoth wiki: “Closely related to the Second Great Awakening were other reform movements such as temperance, abolition, and women’s rights. … The abolition movement emerged in the North from the wider Second Great Awakening 1800–1840.[18]”
Rosie: “Jesus was born a Jew, to be sure, but he wasn’t a very Jewy Jew. ”
On the contrary, in the gospels, he is depicted as a typical Jewish rabbi. He says that “salvation is of the Jews”, that his mission is only to the Jews, and he refuses to perform a miracle for a white woman who begs him to heal her daughter unless she agrees to call herself a dog (Mark 7:24-30), which she then whimperingly does. This equation of non-Jews to dogs or other non-human animals (e.g., cattle) is something rabbis have engaged in for millennia.
Because if you're going to be so uncharitable as to base your whole judgment on a few passages, not generally taken literally by anyone but you, then I can't imagine any religion at all would be acceptable to you.
https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/4689416-L-nj-Y-xu-n-Quote-If-you-meet-the-Buddha-on-the-road-kill-him.jpg
Not true. In The Descent of Man Darwin devotes an entire chapter to explaining why, though quite different races, they are in the same species. Linnaeus used the term variety instead of race but divided humans into four varieties: Europaeus albus (people from Europe), Americanus rubescens (people from the Americas), Asiaticus fuscus (people from Asia), and Africanus niger (people from Africa).Replies: @John Johnson
Not true. In The Descent of Man Darwin devotes an entire chapter to explaining why, though quite different races, they are in the same species.
He argued that races were subspecies which goes against modern egalitarian doctrine.
Just as any liberal or egalitarian why wolves have subspecies but humans do not.
Their response to this question is along the lines of cause that would be racist.
They really can’t explain it. Humans are granted their own taxonomic exemption but liberals try to hide this through sophistry.
Since I don’t have the level of certainty as many here about the value of the revolution, I will respond to the juxtaposed presentation. Get systemic discrimination, that’s easy. History is a slip slide through the goal posts.
But the colonists did not break away from racism. They were British citizens and i white citizens considered as part of the same flock. The British soldiers stationed here we not her against their stead. but were in fact posted as protectors against other foreign powers and native Americans. In fact, it was the British on the homeworld who funded the colonies until they became successful. A protection that the colonists well enjoyed and only came under complaint when parliament decided its high time the colonists share some of the expense by providing billeting and beer. One would have thought that the expectation was a demand that soldiers take up residence in the very homes colonists lived in instead of the typical fort posting that troops routinely occupied.
Trial by jury, right of free speech — even utterances bad mouthing royalty. Freedom of travel, though they were expected to obey the treaties with natives of the continent, the colonists routinely violated those agreements and then complained when the native peoples took issue with their intrusion . . . the one grievance the colonist had and the only one which had some salience – was direct representation, not even the meager tax was unreasonable. Imagine that, having to pay taxes for all the services funded by the crown, parliament and their fellows in Britain.
Compared to existence of slavery —- uhh that is some comparison on the matter of discriminating practices.
—————–
Now I don’t get Juneteenth as a valuable means of obtaining a better foothold of the rights or responsibilities guaranteed. Seems a rather hollow gift or grift to the actual issues. But the case with respect to a systemic bias is overwhelmed with data points And that has nothing to do with CRT.
But it takes a mighty mighty and long haul truckers around the world to make a case that what the colonists experienced as British citizens is a comparable to the experience of african american citizens
The fact that it was done by Christians means the Christian worldview might have something to do with it.
Dumbo: "You’re an idiot who keeps repeating the same things over and over without thinking. "
You're aptly named, Dumbo. But my words are only for the non-Dumbos. Feel free to place me on ignore.Replies: @John Johnson
Dumbo: “How is the importation of African slaves and the negative consequences of it including the racial mixing with blacks, somehow the fault of Christianity?”
The fact that it was done by Christians means the Christian worldview might have something to do with it.
Not very convincing when Muslims imported even more slaves.
Polls have shown that secular Whites today are more supportive of miscegenation than both Muslims and Christians.
On the contrary, in the gospels, he is depicted as a typical Jewish rabbi. He says that "salvation is of the Jews", that his mission is only to the Jews, and he refuses to perform a miracle for a white woman who begs him to heal her daughter unless she agrees to call herself a dog (Mark 7:24-30), which she then whimperingly does. This equation of non-Jews to dogs or other non-human animals (e.g., cattle) is something rabbis have engaged in for millennia.Replies: @anon, @Rosie
•Troll
That those elephants were standing in the room 100+ years ago too is my point. In fact, for whites Christianity was racially destructive from its beginning. Worship of a Jewish God is inherently racially destructive. For the American white man, there is but one God, and he is Jewish. MLK, standing 30 feet tall, is his prophet.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Stan d Mute, @John Johnson
That those elephants were standing in the room 100+ years ago too is my point. In fact, for whites Christianity was racially destructive from its beginning. Worship of a Jewish God is inherently racially destructive. For the American white man, there is but one God, and he is Jewish. MLK, standing 30 feet tall, is his prophet.
History is incongruent with your beliefs.
The Holy Roman empire lasted 1000 years and had no problem warring against its Muslim enemies.
Then along came Napoleon to spread secular egalitarian democracy by way of the gun. Modern secular Sweden has fully adopted egalitarian democracy and will put you in prison for merely asking why bringing in more Muslims is a good idea.
I certainly have my criticisms of Christianity but to say the West would be better off without it requires quite a bit of faith. The Soviets believed their utopia would happen after getting rid of Christianity and they had to backtrack on that. Millions in fact believed that Communism and secularism would triumph over Christianity and capitalism. Well we all know how that worked out. So maybe take the arrogance down a notch, there was also a time when Communists were arrogant and thought that burning churches and killing priests would lead to progress. Turns out it wasn’t that simple.
It is also why Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings. There was nothing else.
I prefer what little I can find of pre-Christian beliefs. It fits better with my imagination, but this is spirituality. None of those beliefs have anything like doctrine required to become a functioning mainstream religion.
I do wonder whether Christianity is also facing facing insurmountable problem, though. For 1900 years after Jesus, most people could look at the rhythm of Jesus's life and get it, but even the miracles no longer seem miraculous. Jesus helped the blind to see and cured a leper. I could do both, in some cases, with access to Google and a pharmacy! How does one engage imaginatively with that? Where is the awe supposed to come from?
I know little about Mormonism, but my impression is that it has partly solved this problem.
John Johnson: “[Darwin] argued that races were subspecies …”
In the almost one thousand pages of The Descent of Man, Darwin never uses the word “subspecies” even once. This kind of elementary mistake is typical of the rest of your stuff too. As I keep telling you, the opposition you’ve set up in your head between “secular” and Christian is a false one. Science has disabused many whites of belief in the supernatural claims of Christianity, but its moral framework remains untouched. Thus, even many people who claim to be atheists still have a Christian worldview. I guess you are just too stupid to understand this.
But keep trying. It’s always great to hear from the world’s greatest expert on everything! LOL.
By the logic of Juneteenth/BLM/Critical Race Theory/et. al. Major General Gordon Grange – the Union general that issued the order freeing the slaves in fulfillment of the emancipation proclamation – must be canceled as Grant and Lincoln have been. Right? Right?
Secession Day! The day Red States seceded from blue shitholes and formed The Free United States.
On the contrary, in the gospels, he is depicted as a typical Jewish rabbi. He says that "salvation is of the Jews", that his mission is only to the Jews, and he refuses to perform a miracle for a white woman who begs him to heal her daughter unless she agrees to call herself a dog (Mark 7:24-30), which she then whimperingly does. This equation of non-Jews to dogs or other non-human animals (e.g., cattle) is something rabbis have engaged in for millennia.Replies: @anon, @Rosie
A question for you: Do you hate all religions, or just Christianity?
Because if you’re going to be so uncharitable as to base your whole judgment on a few passages, not generally taken literally by anyone but you, then I can’t imagine any religion at all would be acceptable to you.
There’s no such thing as “proof”; that’s another verbally constructed hallucination that you fall back on when the going gets tough, like “God” and “satanic pedophiles”.
Expert consensus is the only thing that matters in this world. No expert consensus = your ass is going back to the stables.
- the earth was flat;
- the sun orbited the earth; and
- the fable of the Red Sea pedestrians residing in Egypt.
All have been "proven" false.
As for "expert consensus", it depends on which experts you ask. There are as many "climate deniers" as "climate promoters", all, allegedly, experts.
It’s spelled Juneteenf, you hateful bigot.
On the fourth of July, Americans celebrate the freeing of their country from the binds of the British. In the same way whites cannot be victims of racism because racism equals prejudice plus power, the idea of one group of whites attaining freedom from another group of whites is an affront to the concept of liberation. The freedom blacks gained from the abolition of slavery is a more significant form of liberation than the freedom colonial aristocrats gained by breaking away from the British empire. So of the two American independence days, Juneteenth is more important.
I say:
The term aristocrats can be used for the Southerners, but not for the Northerners. The mid-Atlantic might have some.
I was disappointed to learn that the scumbag treasonites in the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate have some Anglo-Norman blood but that might be from the Maryland branch of that rancid family of putrid treasonous scum.
The Anglo-Norman aristocrats who made up the ruling class of the Southern colonies were different kinds of English from the East Anglians who settled Massachusetts. It can be said that the particular regional ruling classes, with Virginia and Massachusetts being the focus of colonial power, decided to put aside their differences because they thought they could get a better deal independent of the British Empire and they always knew they had to make deals with the English and a demonstration of power and will is baked into the cake for Englishness.
Payback came for the ex-colonists around 1812 and the English had great fun burning down the house. That’s about what we would expect and I don’t have any resentment for the English for doing so.
NEVER SAY NEVER MR. AUDACIOUS EPIGONE!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON YOUR BLOG
I was hoping that was an accident, his comment/picture was quite funny.
Rosie: “… if you’re going to be so uncharitable as to base your whole judgment on a few passages, not generally taken literally by anyone but you …”
That’s a very perceptive remark. There’s a lot of ways you could take being called a dog. Maybe Jesus meant it “poetically”. Maybe it was his way of jocularly telling the woman that her bark was worse than her bite. Or maybe there’s truth to the rumor that Jesus was a negro, ‘cuz ebryone knows dey call dem bitches what dey is, gnomesayin?
Here’s a little ditty you can interpret figuratively too, if you like:
I often thought the spread of Christianity to Northern Europeans was not a big leap. God/Mary/Jesus is not far off Óðinn (Odin, Wotan, Woden)/Frigg/Þór (Thor). Both have an afterlife. There are many parallels. Hávamál is a good starting point. There are several translations, and I think if fair to say, that none are perfect. As in the case with translations of any language, nuances are missed, even more so in texts hundreds of years old.
http://www.anomy.net/havamal/Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
I find that Odin is a lot more complete a figure than “God”, as usually understood. For example, Odin has an extremely strong feminine side.
Thor, on the other hand, is no Jesus. Thor is shallow. Jesus was profound.
The best link between the Old Testament transitioning to the new, and Norse mythology, I think, is after Ragnarok.
Balder and his rebirth have a lot of Christinaity to them; which may have prepared the Norse for their eventual conversion. Or it may have been changed in later accounts to fit Christianity better; as the main account was written by a convert.
I agree. A lot of people don’t realise how few sources we have for European beliefs prior to Christianity. This is because Christianity defined Europe. Christendom and Europe were synonyms.
It is also why Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings. There was nothing else.
I prefer what little I can find of pre-Christian beliefs. It fits better with my imagination, but this is spirituality. None of those beliefs have anything like doctrine required to become a functioning mainstream religion.
I do wonder whether Christianity is also facing facing insurmountable problem, though. For 1900 years after Jesus, most people could look at the rhythm of Jesus’s life and get it, but even the miracles no longer seem miraculous. Jesus helped the blind to see and cured a leper. I could do both, in some cases, with access to Google and a pharmacy! How does one engage imaginatively with that? Where is the awe supposed to come from?
I know little about Mormonism, but my impression is that it has partly solved this problem.
Probably never: They’ll likely be a thorn in our sides for all eternity.
this new federal holiday, as constructed currently, doesn't make much sense, even in it's ostensible format as a national good faith celebration of the end of slavery, which as other people have pointed out, it's probably not. it's probably just another leftist trojan horse.
for one, it was a regional thing limited to one state. and second, why did it take 2 months for the people there to learn about it anyway? in a sense this makes it the most characteristically african of things - africans are stone age humans who can't do anything for themselves, and europeans had to do everything for them, even the part about telling them when they were freed.
the railroad system and telegraph system were operating in 1865, so forget technology explanations. yet even a technology explanation for the speed of communication already concedes that africans can't do anything. they had zero to do with any of that tech, just as they've had zero to do with any tech ever.
technically, yes, when war started, the Union and Confederacy started sabotaging each other's telegraph lines, and rail lines. so communication into the south was compromised by 1865. but there were still telegraphs and railroads.Replies: @HallParvey
They weren’t freed. They were stolen. They now belong to the Federales. Just like everybody else.
The war between the states that resulted in the melding of the states into one nation, indivisible, terminated the governmental recognition of the ownership of one individual by another. It in no way removed the ownership relationship between the Federal government and the individual. The continuing existence of military conscription, if and when needed by the government, is proof of that relationship. You are a G.I.
Expert consensus is the only thing that matters in this world. No expert consensus = your ass is going back to the stables.Replies: @Curmudgeon
There was “consensus” that:
– the earth was flat;
– the sun orbited the earth; and
– the fable of the Red Sea pedestrians residing in Egypt.
All have been “proven” false.
As for “expert consensus”, it depends on which experts you ask. There are as many “climate deniers” as “climate promoters”, all, allegedly, experts.
Red states have a higher percentage of black residents than blue states do.
If whites were smart, they'd make an alliance with Latinos and Asians. This alliance could crush the Libshit/Black front. The WLA Popular Front could take over state legislatures and Congress. Even in ostensibly blue states such as NY State. If there were leadership, NY State would be ripe for a Republican takeover - don't laugh, it's true.
But the Republican Party is brain dead and whites don't want to make an alliance with Latinos and Asians so my idea is pie in the sky.Replies: @Sick of Orcs
A great many will emigrate when the gibs stop.
There will be no affirmative action or forced association via (((civil rights.))). It would not be an ethnostate but would retain the abandoned Constitution.
Glad to gear from you, AE. I'd please like to be on your Approved List for open threads.
They’ve made tremendous contributions to popular music. No one put a gun to anyone’s head and forced them to dance to, buy, or listen to this music.
True that.
If whites were smart, they’d make an alliance with Latinos and Asians. This alliance could crush the Libshit/Black front. The WLA Popular Front could take over state legislatures and Congress. Even in ostensibly blue states such as NY State. If there were leadership, NY State would be ripe for a Republican takeover – don’t laugh, it’s true.
But the Republican Party is brain dead and whites don’t want to make an alliance with Latinos and Asians so my idea is pie in the sky.
Not if Secession is planned right.
A great many will emigrate when the gibs stop.
There will be no affirmative action or forced association via (((civil rights.))). It would not be an ethnostate but would retain the abandoned Constitution.
Glad to gear from you, AE. I’d please like to be on your Approved List for open threads.
If whites were smart, they'd make an alliance with Latinos and Asians. This alliance could crush the Libshit/Black front. The WLA Popular Front could take over state legislatures and Congress. Even in ostensibly blue states such as NY State. If there were leadership, NY State would be ripe for a Republican takeover - don't laugh, it's true.
But the Republican Party is brain dead and whites don't want to make an alliance with Latinos and Asians so my idea is pie in the sky.Replies: @Sick of Orcs
“Colorblind” Recucklicans don’t want an alliance with Whites.