David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
The women especially were the most obliging in every respect, and, upon the whole, we should have been the most suspcicious of human beings had we entertained a single thought of perfidy on the part of a people who treated us so well. January 18, 1827..
The islanders for whom we entertained such inordinate feelings of esteem were among the most barbarous, subtle, and bloodthirsty wretches that ever contaminated the face of the globe. January 18, 1827.
In truth, from everything I could see of these wretches, they appeared to be the most wicked, hypocritical, vindictive, bloodthirsty, and altogether fiendish race of men upon the face of the globe. It is clear we should have had no mercy had we fallen into their hands. February 20, 1827.
The above quotations are from a 19th century novel about antartic polar exploration. It was published in 1838, as The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket by Harper Brothers. The author? None other than Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849).
The people described in Poe’s novel are black. All black. The “whites” of their eyes are black. Even their teeth are black. They have one fear: white. The animals of the island, including the albatross, were all black. Birds eggs were black. The people’s huge village, on an island nearest the South Pole, comprised huts “of the most miserable description imaginable,” and lay in no perceivable order. The heaths were all covered with black animal skins. The narrator (Pym) says the “village” wasn’t worthy of the name.
Edgar Allan Poe, 1809-1849
Commentators on Poe’s novel see a dramatization of some slave camp in the deep South. In the experience of the narrator, commentators see an expression of the South’s worst fear: a slave revolt. Be that as it may, there are insights–perhaps into both the white and black psyches, that are apparently pertinent today.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday he apologized to Shirley Sherrod for forcing her to resign from her government job in Georgia.
Regarding the Sherrod Charade, that is, the hooplah over Shirley Sherrod, the NAACP, and the “White” House, it is abundantly clear that the Negro race is psychologically insatiable. No sociological evolution or government coerced socio-economic advancement will suffice to remedy the pertetual disquietude of the foreign race.
The nagging, pestilential error that white people make is pity. The Negroes will never achieve equality as long as white people pity them.
Does the American Negro deserve pity? Is he to be an object of special compassion? If so, why? Is he not in fact equal?
I say it has nothing to do with slavery or history. It has to do with the fact that black people feel as uncomfortable around white people as white people feel around black people. The contrast of appearance, behavior, and values is simply extravagant. There is no remedy.
Martin Luther King’s insistance on “character” was way off mark. The last thing the Negro needs is to be judged by his character. Character is the one thing profundly lacking. Or, we should say, character is the one thing most offensive about him, moreso than any appearance. The black man in American has always been known for not having character.
Rev. Charles C. Jones (1801-1863) wrote of this issue in 1842, in The Religious Instruction of the Negroes In The United States (Savannah: Thomas Purse, 1842).
A knowledge of the moral and religious condition of the Negroes is essential to correct feeling and action thereto. Until we arrive at such knowledge and have it pressed upon our serious consideration, we shall have no just sense of obligation–we shall feel no criminality for past neglect–no disposition for future amendment: nor shall we be able to adopt plans for their improvement, as we must necessarily become acquainted with the nature and extent of a disease before we can hopefully prescribe for it.
Indeed, Rev. Jones writes from a differen era, and surely we should expect the modern American Negro to have developed far beyond these early descriptions. Alas, Rev. Jones prophesies, “the race has been from time immemorial just what it is and just what it must continue to be.” Yet, Jones calls for Christian missionary work among the Negroes. That is the point of his book. He says that the white missionary work for the Negro faces serious disadvantages.
The first disadvantage which I shall mention is our intimate knowledge of the degraded moral character of the Negroes. From childhood we have been accustomed to their slovenly, and too frequently, their scanty dress; to their broken English, ignorance, vulgarity, and vice. What in them would disgust or grieve a stranger, or truly afflict us if seen in white persons, we pass by with little or no impression, as a matter of course;–they are Negroes. Their character is held in low estimation, throughout the United States; and, considering what it is, not without reason; for that character cannot be esteemed which in itself is not estimable. Whatever is idle, dissolute, criminal, and worthless, attaches to them. Unconsciously, or rather, instinctively, we determine what the fruits must be from their known character, condition, and circumstances; and when they do appear, we are not surprised. We say, “what better can be expected?”
The Rev. Jones elaborates with excruciating detail the social and psychological observations to be made in the antibellum days.
In 2010, however, we might expect to see a different sort of Negro in America. We certainly do. A marvelous development has taken place. There are great achievers among American Negroes, achievers in mind and body. However, if the character of the people is reflected in their “leaders,” we cannot say there has been significant development of soul. Black leaders parade poverty, pity, and pigmentation prostitution. Nothing more. They promote dependency, disquietude, resentment, and subversion. American black people have never had a worthy leader. They have instead clowns, puppets, pimps, and aggrandizers.
But, as long as white people pity black people, the Negro will always be a slave, a mechanical, reactionary social problem. As long as white people do not render true equality to the blacks–by not pitying them, not giving them special favors, not groveling before them with apologies, blacks will never be free. They will continue to manipulate the white man, continue to aggrandize their plight of appearance–disguising their own self-depreciation in the cloak of “slavery,” and continue to deceive themselves. Compassionate but cowardly whites continue to let the Negro remain in such a pestilential condition.
The Negroes Soetoro and Holder (that is, president “Obama” and his appointed attorney Eric Holder) have declared war on the white race. Never mind their war on America. It is the white race they venture to punish. That’s what’s happening in America today.
As an American Indian, I am amazed and dismayed. I admire the white man for his former warrior’s strength, yet, I also admire him for his compassion and self-consciousness. He is unique in both. However, at this stage, he needs to re-assess the effects of his proud conscience. His glorious soul needs some readjustment. He needs to realize that he is the envy of all dark races. He is hated. He is the object of their pent up fury. He must measure his compassion now. He must limit the indulgence in his own conscience.
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant must be brave enough to bear the burden of superior strength, talent, and mind. If he allows himself to be destroyed, for his conscience’ sake, he will be of no use to anyone. His accomplishments in the world will come to nought, and the hords of the heathen will quickly reduce the world to the descriptions of Arthur Gordon Pym.
57 responses so far ↓
1 Pamela K. // Jul 22, 2010 at 10:30 am
Poe’s Tsalal? Could he actually be referring to the headhunting populace of Papua-New Guinea?
Can Obama’s insatiable appetite to literally devour white flesh be equated with cannibalism? It’s an interesting point.
2 Politically Incorrect // Jul 22, 2010 at 11:53 am
Notice EVERY famous “black” intellectual or leader is, in fact, mulatto. Frederick Douglas, Booker T. Washington, G.W. “peanut genius” Carver, Barry Soetoro, Eric Holder, Oprah, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael (“Martin Luther”) King Jr.
This is gene piracy. Mulattos like these are smart and successful due to the White admixture in their blood. As mongrels, they have no genuine identity. They certainly look black, as the beautiful White features are recessive and destroyed once a White man mongrelizes his children with a non-White.
So, the mongrel mulatto chooses to be “black” and to be “authentic”, he must be SUPER black, which is why many light-skinned (mulatto) blacks are often the nastiest and most hateful of them all.
Miscegenation is an abomination.
3 Following Him // Jul 22, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Dr. Yeagley … You are a brave man for even posting what Rev. Jones said. It will no doubt be taken out of context and be credited to you. I have no problem with what you or Jones have said.
I do think though that lately the character of all men comes into question. I believe character is what you are inside, who you really are when no body is watching, when no one is around. It has to do with a person’s soul and how much of God’s light you have received.
Concerning racism … as long as there are different races … there is going to be racism. I don’t believe that can or will ever change. Birds of a feather flock together, etc. We are flawed people.
Mankind needs to quit looking at the outside and start looking at the heart; but truthfully, only God can do that. It would be a lot easier to do if some races would start acting like kind, loving people rather than animals.
Thank you for a variety of interesting thoughts you bring to me through your excellent writing ability. Blessing to you …
4 David Yeagley // Jul 22, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Pam, THere’s been a lot of research about Poe’s sources for this novel. The link I gave for the book is the Penguin Classic edition, with Harold Beaver. It also has Jules Vern’s sequel to Poe’s novel. Polar exploration was like going to the moon in the 1830′s. The world was really opening up. Travelogues and adventure narratives were coming out of the press like water, so to speak. Theories about the earth itself, the globe, the ocean, etc., were the rage. Poe obviously pieced together a lot of different reports, and created his own quasi-realistic novel.
Poe never went to any of these places, of course. I don’t know what people he had in mind, other than the American Negro. I’m sure he read of blacks in the far southwest pacific, from Australia and New Zealand, and New Guinea.
I know he consulted a Hebrew scholar to get some words to put in the mouths of his savages! This is well documented.
5 Pamela K. // Jul 22, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I think the real problem lies in the fact that someone who is both black and white often feels caught between two very distinct cultures with no loss of animosity between them. Many blacks resent the existence of bi-racial children and many are quite vocal about voicing their apparent disdain towards them. One of the first questions asked about Barack Obama by the liberal black media was, “Is he black enough for us?” Can you imagine the outcry of self-righteous indignation from the same group if white people asked, “Is he white enough for us?”
6 David Yeagley // Jul 22, 2010 at 12:37 pm
PoliticallyIncorrect:
I wrote a piece once, An Invasion of Mulattos.
I am a breed, myself. I have to take what I dish out on this one! I’m Indian and white.
7 David Yeagley // Jul 22, 2010 at 12:41 pm
FollowingHim: It is always a risk to write of these things. I should say, a risk to write what everyone really feels, but is afraid to say.
No one enjoys hurting someone else’s feeling. No sane, normal person, anyway. No one would say, “Depart from me, because I don’t like anything about you. You repulse me. I’m sorry, but, that’s just my reaction.”
But, I think in all this, that very basic reaction is present, but unspoken. I say it’s Gestalt psychology of perception. We’re wired to react aversely to that which is different from us. It is a defense mechanism. Perfectly normal. It’s what holds societies together.
We don’t enjoy hurting someone else, because we don’t like being hurt.
Somehow, we should learn to respect each other’s aversions. That’s the trick. Don’t ask someone to endure something they don’t really like. Be big enough to be considerate of him.
Does this make sense?
8 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 1:38 pm
“Somehow, we should learn to respect each other’s aversions. That’s the trick. Don’t ask someone to endure something they don’t really like. Be big enough to be considerate of him.
Does this make sense?”
————————————————–
Yes.
There has to be a place of refuge and safety. A monastery and a strip-club cannot be housed in the same building. Different moral and cultural natures need their own spaces where they can breathe free.
Each culture and people and ethnic nation needs its own place under the Sun — to grow and thrive among its own flora and fauna.
A man or nation cannot be truly free if forced to bend over backwards to accommodate an alien element. A meadow and a forest cannot occupy the same plot of earth; a mountain and a canyon do not share the same spot. There is a place for all things in this world, if we follow the natural order.
This is all common sense, after all. But common sense is rare to non-existent when indoctrination effaces it from human consciousness and self-censorship is de rigeur. .
9 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 1:45 pm
The hypocrisy of Martin Luther King’s statement on character is best observed in the fact that the U.S. government has sealed his files from the public because they reveal a very unsavory character. If the truth about this man’s character were generally known, his legacy would crumble and liberals would be put to shame for making him a national idol.
The best thing that could possibly happen in American politics now would be the full release and disclosure of the King tapes. After all, if he’s our greatest American hero, we should be delighted to have more of him!
10 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 1:49 pm
How many great classical violinists do we have who are of pure black African heritage?
Ray Charles, obviously a talented black musician, was classically trained — up to a point. But he wanted to play other music. This is perfectly natural. Culture IS to some extent in the genes.
The area where Blacks do well in classical music is primarily in singing. All human races have singing talent in about equal measure.
11 Following Him // Jul 22, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Absolutely. “Do unto others” is still the best way to live. I hope I don’t have aversions to skin color. But yes, I probably do.
What I have aversions to are the attitudes behind the actions of people no matter the color of skin.
I am not opposed to a black president. I’m just opposed to this black president. Not the man … just his ideas, his flawed thinking.
Everyone is a little bit prejudiced about certain things; but I hope I never become a racist. Although … as I look around at the world, I wonder if I’m not headed in that direction.
12 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:01 pm
“Everyone is a little bit prejudiced about certain things; but I hope I never become a racist. Although … as I look around at the world, I wonder if I’m not headed in that direction.”
———————————————
“Racist” is a political word. It’s vague and indefinite. It’s used to silence people. It’s now beginning to mean any White person who does not date inter-racially. It’s meanings change with the political seasons.
I am confident that you, just like myself, do not hate anyone based on skin color.
13 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I can assure you that if a woman had a white skin but still had all the other physiological characteristics of the Negro, I would not find her attractive.
Truth is, I don’t prefer white skin that is without some gentle warmth of color in it; aluminum-siding white skin is a bit too pale-looking, usually. But the real issue is that racial differences go far beyond mere skin color.
Different races — especially at the polar extremes — behave differently. Even babies are now know by scientists to have racial awareness.
14 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:19 pm
In other words, chalky white skin is less attractive than normal or average European skin tone.
This is not, however, the issue.
It is known that when a community, school, church, or other social institution becomes 40% black or more, a power struggle develops. Indeed, Black and Hispanic students struggle for power in schools, even where there are no Whites. Asians and Blacks compete for power in social situations. All this makes a multicultural country weaker, not stronger.
——————-
I believe that Hillary Clinton is now telling the Jewish-American community that more inter-faith marriages will improve the nation. She says that interfaith marriages are a good thing. Hillary Clinton says we need more intermarriage.
You see, Liberals are not really neutral on these questions. They have an agenda.
15 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Hillary Clinton says we need more intermarriage.
16 Pamela K. // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Bables could hardly know how to have racial awareness when they are born! Babies are the most innocent of all God’s creatures. Yet, President Barack “I don’t want my daughter punished with a baby” Obama has called for the mass slaughter of the innocent. A baby is a ‘punishment’? Promoting an active agenda of abortion-on-demand is the worst kind of racism!
17 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Newsweek – See Baby Discriminate.
18 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Discrimination is natural. God put it into human nature. Or, it developed into human consciousness through genetic impression.
19 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Discrimination is not the same as race-hatred. Here it is simple recognition of race differences.
Liberals like Hillary want people to lose all distinctions and become blended into a undifferentiated human mass. They want sheeple, not real people. Liberals desire power over people’s lives — even to the point of dictating their tastes and preferences.
20 Pamela K. // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Food For Thought
Bigot-” a person who is utterly intolerant of any creed, belief or race that his not his own.”
Racist- ” a person with hatred or intolerance of another race or races.”
But do these two words really mean the same thing?
The origin of the word, “bigot” has been greatly disputed. It was first used in France before the beginning of the thirteenth century, as an opprobrious name for the Normans.
Some scholars believe that the French borrowed it from the old Teutonic oath, “bi got”.
There is a legend circulated in the 12th century that when Charles the Simple, in 911, granted the lands of Normandy to Rolf, which that wily Norse chieftain had already seized, Rolf refused to perform the usual courtly act of kissing Charles’ foot with the indignant oath, “No se, bi got!” or “No, by God!” This saying became historic and was later applied by the French to describe anyone obstinately set in his or her opinions, beliefs, or mode in life. Notice it does not apply specifically to opinions about other races. So, who changed the meaning of this word?
Source: “Thereby Hangs A Tale” Stories Of Curious Word Origins By Charles Earle Funk
21 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 2:59 pm
“It is usually thought that for “racism” to exist, the existence of “races” per se is a prerequisite. It is subsequently argued that if races did not exist, racism could not exist either. Many people assert that race does not, in fact, exist. Thus they argue that since race does not actually exist, anyone, now or in the past, who claims that race does actually exist is – a racist! That is, by one definition, any mention of race at all is ipso facto proof of “racism.” ”
From Defining Racism.
22 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 3:06 pm
“A similar question has been raised about the long-term political stability of a liberal society. Non-liberal societies are typically held together by shared conceptions of the good, such as a common religion, or by common ethnicity. Members of these societies are willing to make sacrifices for each other because of their commanalities. But what holds a society together when its members come from different ethnic and racial backgrounds and do not share a common conception of the good life?”
– Prof. Will Kymlicka, Queen’s University, Ontario in “The Oxford Comanion to Philosophy.”
23 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 3:13 pm
“Interestingly, many nineteenth-century liberals, agreed that liberalism is viable only in countries with a sense of common nationhood, a view shared by some recent theorists of ‘liberal nationalism.’ Most post-war liberal theorists, however, have rejected the idea that liberalism should ally itself with nationalism, and have instead asserted that a common commitment to liberal principles is a sufficient basis for social unity even in multicultural countries. [. . .]
One difficulty with this view is that it provides no guidance on how the boundaries of distinct political communities should be drawn. Indeed, it provides no explanation for why there should be distinct political communities at all. Why shouldn’t all societies that share liberal values merge into a single state, aiming ultimately to creatie a single world state?”
– Prof. Will Kymlicka, Queen’s University, Ontario in “The Oxford Comanion to Philosophy.”
24 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 3:25 pm
“Rock music has got the same message as before. It is anti-religious, anti-nationalistic and anti-morality. But now I understand what you have to do. You have to put the message across with a little honey on it.” (John Lennon, spoken not long before his death in 1980, Pop Goes the Gospel, p. 84).
What the liberals are aiming for is an end to religious and racial distinctions — and to nation-states.
Anti-Nationalism – Wikipedia.
25 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Another problem with anti-racism zeal is that not a few Blacks react to the answer “No,” as if it is ALWAYS “racist.” When this kind of Black is not given what he asks for (or demands), to him, this is “racism.”
Whites tolerate from Blacks, as in the case of rap music, things that would formerly have placed a White behind bars. Now this may be “racism,” as it demonstrates a lower expectancy from blacks in terms of morals. Black rappers can say anything they wish with little fear of consequences. This degrades the general moral tone of society at large.
America has basically implemented liberalism since the 1930s — increasingly as the yeas went by. Is this really working? Is this country a better place than it used to be — better for the greatest number of citizens?
26 Pamela K. // Jul 22, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Abortion Is Anti-Semitic/Racism
http://www.scholarscorner.com/ethics/Anti-Semitism.html
27 zephyr // Jul 22, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Did you really think the charge of racism against a black person would stick?
Not with the double standards in today’s world. That’s why we need to end the “pc” revolution.
28 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Here is the opinion of the late Albert Schweitzer:
“I have given my life to try to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all white men who have lived here like I must learn and know: that these individuals are a sub-race. They have neither the intellectual, mental, or emotional abilities to equate or to share equally with white men in any function of our civilization. I have given my life to try to bring them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status: the superior and they the inferior. For whenever a white man seeks to live among them as their equals they will either destroy him or devour him. And they will destroy all of his work. Let white men from anywhere in the world, who would come to Africa, remember that you must continually retain this status; you the master and they the inferior like children that you would help or teach. Never fraternize with them as equals. Never accept them as your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you.”
Dr Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize Winner 1951 (“African Notebook” 1939)
29 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 4:45 pm
American Negroes will enjoy equality only when sincerely conservative American Black leaders govern them in a situation of self-government. There are plenty of historical examples of Negro success in the United States. These need emulation.
30 Thrasymachus // Jul 22, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“Did you really think the charge of racism against a black person would stick?
Not with the double standards in today’s world. That’s why we need to end the “pc” revolution.”
———————————————-
A former mayor of Detroit once stated that “Only Whites can be racist.”
In the world of culture and of politics, there actually is a “race war” — a war that Whites appear to be losing. And this is not to the ultimate benefit of the Negro, either. The White Liberal’s to blame.
After all, if the Black Man is equal to the White Man, he should naturally aspire to independence and self-rule. That’s what every child does when he or she grows up and leaves the family nest.
31 David Yeagley // Jul 22, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Thras, I wonder if Schweitzer read any Edgar Allan Poe? That quote you’ve given, I’m sure has been repeated in many forms by many different authors (starting with Arabian Nights if not long before). I shall look for Schweitzer’s work on line, or in a used book store. I’m sure it is well-hidden from public view.
32 Pamela K. // Jul 22, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Liberal blacks resent biracial children because this is yet another way for whites to “steal the black identity.”
To the black liberal, interracial relationships are a throwback to the plantation system when their women were forced into sexual submission by their white masters.The only problem with promoting this, even if it’s only in their warped minds. is that the children born of these unions in our present society usually have a black father and a white mother.
Furthermore, black liberals have a special venom for white females involved with black men. These women are viewed as the real predators, who are suffering from a “Mandingo Mentality”. If you know the story, then you’ll know what I am talking about!
These are clearly racist sentiments, however, black liberals feel that the white people have not been punished enough and should be made to feel constantly guilty for the sins of the past, both real and imagined.
That said, I haven’t lost any sleep lately.
33 David Yeagley // Jul 22, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I think the average American black, today, is light years ahead of the average African black. They have been greatly blessed since being brought to America.
They feel, however, that the latter part of this blessing was brought about by civil rights, black liberation theology, etc.
Of course, that wouldn’t happen if they weren’t here to begin with.
34 Pamela K. // Jul 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Well, it’s too late to send them all back! Besides, I don’t think the African nations would appreciate it.
Besides this, a lot of blacks here today do not consider their original origins to be Africa. I know of a man who is a native of Trinidad who makes it clear that although he is a black man, he does not consider himself an “African-American”. I see where he is coming from. I guess if I was born in Haiti or the West Indies or Jamaica, even though I was classified as black, I would consider myself to be a citizen of those nations, not Africa.
35 Pamela K. // Jul 22, 2010 at 9:57 pm
As a postscript, I would just like to add that I really hate the way liberals, be they black or white, have been allowed to monkey around with history, particularly American History.
Take for instance the classic Arthur Miller play, “The Crucible”. The chief antagonist in this story was Tituba, a black slave woman from the West Indies. In the original play, Tituba is described as Rev. Parris’ Negro slave in her fifties. However, in a new modern take on the story, black lesbian communist Angela Davis claims that Tituba was not black but Arawak Indian! Furthermore, the Wikipedia claims that Arawak Indians practiced the religion known as obeah. This is not true! Obeah is a religion whose origins come from southeastern Nigeria. It was brought to the West Indies by black slaves. The Arawak Indians might have known about obeah, but they did not practice it. At least I don’t think so.
36 Pamela K. // Jul 23, 2010 at 7:42 am
This is what Angela Davis actually said about Tituba. I had it backwards. Again, her mentality speaks for itself:
“There are those who dispute her African descent, countering that she was Indian, perhaps hoping to stir up enmity between black and Native American women as we seek to recreate our respective histories…. For, in the final analysis, Tituba’s revenge consists in reminding us all that the doors of our suppressed cultural histories are still ajar,” states African American lesbian feminist scholar and activist Angela Davis.
37 Pamela K. // Jul 23, 2010 at 7:52 am
“There are those who dispute her African descent, countering that she was an Indian, perhaps hoping to stir up enmity between black and Native American women…”
I’m not sure that’s really what Arthur Miller had in mind when he wrote, “The Crucible”. In fact, I think he was motivated by the real life ‘witch hunt’ being conducted by Senator Joe McCarthy at the time. Only this latter ‘witch hunt’ was nothing of the sort. McCarthy’s intention was to expose that Hollywood was rife with communists and he was right! It still is!
38 David Yeagley // Jul 23, 2010 at 11:15 am
Maybe then there are two institutions that need to be revoked, removed, and started over elsewhere: Hollywood and Washington, DC!
39 Pamela K. // Jul 23, 2010 at 11:50 am
Wasn’t the original capital suppose to be New York City? Personally, I think it should have been Philadelphia, which means, “City of Brotherly Love.”
40 David Yeagley // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:39 pm
How about Guthrie, OK? Or, Selina, KA?
They should move Hollywood to Iowa.
41 Pamela K. // Jul 23, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweeping down the plains, is too nice of an area. So is Kansas, the Sunflower State. Besides, I’m not too sure you westerners want a bunch of high-minded, stuffed-shirt liberals from the East Coast and California bringing you more hot air! Both Washington DC and Philadelphia were once beautiful cities… It’s a shame so much waste and corruption has changed them into nothing but urban wasteland.
42 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 2:18 pm
“Furthermore, black liberals have a special venom for white females involved with black men.”
——————————————
PK, since you are an ardent supporter of black-white marriages — something when normalized will destroy both races — I really have nothing more ever to say to you. We have irreconcilable differences if beliefs. For me, race comes close to being a sacred distinction. Nevertheless, I am sure that you’ll feel very much at home in the multiracial New America.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson proposed about white women who mated with black men:
“Jefferson made provision for the case of a white woman who might bear a mulatto child. Both the mother and her child were to leave Virginia within a year of the birth. In the event of their failure to do so, mother and child were declared to be “out of the protection of the laws.” ”
PK, you will doubtless be pleased with the views of the Left and its dream of the future of the U.S. Bill and Hillary Clinton will congratulate you.
In any event, I’m through talking to you.
Back in 1996, Conor Cruise O’Brien wrote in The Atlantic:
“In the multiracial American future Jefferson will not be thought of as the Sage of Monticello. His flaws are beyond redemption. The sound you hear is the crashing of a reputation.”
“I believe that the orthodox multiracial version of the American CIVIL RELIGION must eventually prevail — at whatever cost — against the neo-Jeffersonian racist schism. That the orthodox version should prevail is vital not only for America but also for the future of nonracial democracy, and of Enlightenment values generally, in those parts of the world where these are now dominant or where people are struggling to bring them into effective being.”
43 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Jared Taylor – “Race Realist.”
44 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Those who support the present State of Israel, be warned!
The vigorous promotion of interfaith and inter-racial marriage — “non-racial democracy and Enlightenment values” — will likely incite “Liberals” to take punitive actions against Israel — just as they did against South Africa under apartheid.
The Muslims understand this and are fully prepared to use it to their advantage.
45 Pamela K. // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“And God said, “Let there be light, and there was light.” Genesis 1:3
46 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:27 pm
This article is a warning. This dangerous current of thought is being generated by current liberal dogma.
Israel: an apartheid state?
47 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm
The hateful “liberal” anti-racist organizations are turning on Israel.
Declaration by South Africans
on
Apartheid Israel
and the
Struggle for Palestine.
48 Pamela K. // Jul 23, 2010 at 4:03 pm
The Roots Of Anti-Semitism
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/dprince.html
49 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 5:54 pm
“The spirit that opposes the re-establishment of Israel is the spirit that opposes the return of Jesus.Though it may wear many disguises,it is the spirit of Satan himself.” — Derek Prince
—————————————
The spirit described above has a name: “anti-nationalism,” or “Liberalism.” This is the spirit that is opposed to ALL ethnic nation-states.
The same forces that war against Israel also war against the white race and other peoples.
50 David Yeagley // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Opposing the return of Jesus. Now, that’s interesting! Who opposes that?
I mean, how is that opposition manifested, and by whom? I know He said that the tribes of the earth shall mourn. They’re not happy to see Him. But, how can they oppose His return.
They can oppose those who are trying to announce it.
51 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:34 pm
The argument of Derek Prince was that certain political conditions are prerequisites for the return of Christ. Thus the devil, in attempting to frustrate the realization of those political and religious developments would keep the return of Christ “on hold.”
My argument is that, if Mr. Prince’s reasoning is correct, the anti-nationalist forces that would abolish all ethnic nation-states would turn on Israel to abolish it also. This accomplished, Christ would not, according to Mr. Prince, be able to return, as this re-gathering as a necessary prerequisite to the Second Coming.
Anti-nationalism, anti-racism, anti-ethnic nation-states, and globalism — all these manifestations of Liberalism would work towards furthering the Satanic Rebellion. God ordained nationhood. His arch-enemy would naturally seek to destroy it using a political philosophy. That philosophy obviously is Liberalism. Liberalism is anti-religion and anti-nationalism. No nations, but rather a single world state — this, if achieved, would hinder the return of Christ by frustrating the necessary preconditions for that return.
52 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Of course, such a thing cannot succeed.
But racial or ethnic patriotism encourages the recognition of the sovereign rights of nation-states. This, in turn, would grant Israel security. Nationalism is a policy in favor of Israel. Thus the opposition against it.
53 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Encouraging miscegenation as the solution to racial tensions is an anti-nationalism phenomenon.
Racial and ethnic loyalty strengthen nationalism as a political policy.
When I’m on the streets, I fee instinctively some mysterious and subtle bond of sympathy with persons of my race — a feeling I do not have for persons of very different racial origins. Whites are like my extended family.
54 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm
“His [Christ's] arch-enemy would naturally seek to destroy it using a political philosophy. That philosophy obviously is Liberalism.”
—————————————————–
Liberalism endorses “more intermarriage.” See Hillary Clinton’s latest statements. MLK also endorsed this. Basically, anything that Liberalism endorses is likely to be in rebellion against God’s rule. If Satan is the god of this age, and liberalism is the predominant political ideology and civil religion of this age, that makes everything Liberalsism stands for suspect — including the active encouragement of large-scale interfaith and inter-racial marriages and the elimination of national borders and the destruction of the ethnic nation-state! All these things are of one piece. I call this the “Return to Babel.”
The Modern Christian, in endorsing racially destructive social norms, is co-operating with the forces of anti-Christ.
55 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 7:32 pm
“Every nation, however small,
is a unique part of God’s plan for mankind.”
(Alexander Solzhenitsyn)
Every nation is to be respected. Nationhood is sacred. — Θρασύμαχος
56 Thrasymachus // Jul 23, 2010 at 7:41 pm
An interesting and thought-provoking — even controversial! — Bible study:
The Bible and Segregation
By C. R. Dickey
57 Thrasymachus // Jul 24, 2010 at 3:25 pm
In post #56, it is not my intention to claim or insist that specific white nations are “Israel.” (How could I know such a thing?) The point I wish to make is that genealogy and ethnic nationhood are clearly honored in the Scriptures. There is nothing sinful or wrong with the ethnic nation-state.
You must log in to post a comment.