Archive for May 14th, 2006

The First Secession

It has been said that the US Constitution did not address the question of secession.

It COULDN’T.

The Article of Confederation, agreed to by all thirteen states, began by stating that this was a “Perpetual Union.”

It also stated that any change in the Articles required a UNANIMOUS vote of ALL thirteen states.

The Constitution decalred that if nine states ratified the new Constitution, the Perpetual Union would end, and those nine states would be the new Union.

On April 30, 1789, when President Washington took the oath of office in New York City and the new Constitution went into operation, there were exactly eleven states in the Union, the same number as the Old Confederacy.

The new Federal Government was in no position to say that eleven states could not seced and form a new Union if they wanted to.

North Carolina joined the Union in 1790. Rhode Island would never have joined it if Congress had not threatened to treat Rhode Island, which depended on the Perpetual Union, as a foreign state.

No, the question of secession from “one Nation, Indivisibe” never came up in the framing of the United States Constitution.

If it had, the Union would have been aborted at birth.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Comments

Mark

Mark says,

““I think that there was a nasty seed planted at Yale about 1836 as well, but I don’t even try to figure everything out.”

“You were around in 1836? So and you Bob have something in common!”

Comment by Mark

Surely you’re kidding, Mark.

I wasn’t at Yale in 1836.

Me and John C. Calhoun left there LONG before then.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments

Superficiality Goes Deep

“Don’t pay attention to the externals.” They keep telling us.

Let me tell you a story.

In Mary Stuart’s story of Merlin, he and his servant meet a beautiful girl at a convent gate.

The servant, being merely a servant and not an intellectual, says, “Damn the parents who woud lock a beautiful girl like that up in a cloister.”

From the Church’s point of view, the more beautiful the girl, the kinder she is, the smarter she is, the finer human sacrifice she makes of herself. The Church is monmanical about HER sacrifice. The Church has never given a nanosecond’s attention to the sacrifice FUTURE generations are being forced to make.

You see, since that girl was locked up in a convent, thousands of that girl’s potential descendants would like to have been bore beautiful and smarter than they were and will be. For the Church, MORALITY begins at conception.

Which means that Jesus had no message for us at all, right? When he got here, we weren’t conceived yet.

In my youth, before Roe versus Wade, there was an unspoken alliance between the Catholic Church and the political left.

Today that sounds stunning today.

We are speaking of the Catholic heirarchy and official Catholic Opinion back then. The Catholic Church took the lead in integration in the South. The Catholic Church had always said that race makes no difference. The only thing that was important to the Church was Doctrine.

Words, not race.

Which was exactly what liberals said. To a liberal as to a Catholic the words of Marx or Arthur Schlessinger were what mattered.

Race, like all inborn chartacteristics, was unimportant.

Liberals and the Catholic Church were in absolute agreement aht what was in your genes was superficial. What you believed at the moment was all that mattered.

On campus in those days things were WORSE than they are today. Anybody who said that ANYTHING was hereitary were immeidately accused of Hitlerism.

I always knew that a smart woman would have smart children. A beautiful woman, unless her genes are randomly thrown into sudden unnatural combinations, will have beautiful children. As I have said before, the best beer and the best Cola, if mixed, taste like hell.

The ultimate heresy on my part is that a kind woman whill tend to have kind children. Liberals in the 1960s could stand it if I stuck to beauty, and they would forgive me if I said that intelligence was inherited, thought that was Hitlerism.

But kindness?

The bread-and-butter of liberalism is that they can solve “The Circle of Violence.” People how abuse their children are the offpring of parents who asbuse their children. This is the “Circle of Violence.” By ending the violence in one generation, liberals can end the violence in all generations.

So liberals and the Church heirarchy agree:

If Sister Mary of Chastity or Miz Free of the Lesbian Women’s Lib Movement stop one geneation from beating their children, the “Circle of Vilence” will end, and the result will be eternal.

I think that the kindness genes from Sister Mary or Miz Free will cease to exist, but the next generation will children abused as before. Idnetical twin studies, which have beensuspended, show that identical twins adopted into totally different environments not only commit crimes, they commit THE SAME CRIMES AT THE SAME TIME.

Which is why you haven’t seen an identical twin test in a long, long time.

Back to the little story above.

Everybody reading hte story can read. They know that genes are nothing. They know that that servant who was cursing the parents who would persuade a beautiful girl to lock herself into sterility were just being True Idealists.

After all, as we all know, the servant was letting his loins do the talking.

But in my opinion, the loins are a LOT smarter than any group of Intellectuals or the Churchmen they happen to agree with absolutely.

One anti let his pipous mask slip and told me I was silly to oppose the end of the white race because it would happen a long, long time from now. The simple fact is that nobody CARES what will happen to future generations.

But our LOINS care.

Our PREJUDICES care.

Those loins and those prejudices are the wisdom of a million years of evolution. By comparison, the Words of a professor or a Pope are the babblings of the moment.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Comments

Coincidences

No one answers Bob’s Mantra:

” Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

They say it is incoherent and simplistic, quite an achievement.

They deny there is such a thing as “white.”

But what about the fact that ALL white countries and ONLY white countries are singled out for third world immmigration?

That’s a coincidence.

There are otehr coincidences which MUST be coincidences for the anti’s fragile world to exist. They will send you to prison in a lot of coutries if you DENY they are coincidences.

So all mixed-blood countries, ALL of them, have a very low standard of living.

But tens of thousands of people get paid to take them one at a time and explain how that country just HAPPENS to be poor.

When I was coming up everybody had to repeat the words: “Modern anthropologists have proven that all races are equal in innate abilities.” No anti says that now, no anti is allowed to REMEMBER that now.

This statement was so widespread you would read it in the Reader;s Digest Almanac: “Modern anthropolists have proven that all ‘races are equal in innate ability.”

So all differences were coincidences.

How widespread was this statement?

I rememebr reading it in a COMIC BOOK.

It showed three runners, one white, one black, on Oriental, all breasting the tape in a FOOT RACE at the same time, with the words, “Modern scientists have proven that all races are equal in their inborn abilities.”

Now you can’t find ONE anti who would admit that Mommy Professor ever required everybody to belive in innate equality, lest of all in a FOOTRACE.

I was watching an Olympic final in a dash and contestants were from Germany, America, Africa and all. But every single one of them was black.

And I am sure an anti would not be embarrassed to go into the personal history of each black athlete and show why he HAPPENED to end of as THE champion footracer in his country. But nobody has takent hat crap seriously in over a generation if they didn’t get PAID to.

Or if they simply have no sense of shame at all.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments

Unimportant and Dangerous

On the antis thread in Stormfront no one ever answers Bob’s Mantra:

” Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

What they do is say

1) It is incomprehensible and

2) It is incomprehensible.

One simply cannot be simplistic and incomprehensible at the same time.

Likewise, the antis have two lines about white survivalism:

1) We should quit because everybody is against us and nobody will support us and

2) Out in the real world antis justify suppressing every word we have to say because what we say could lead to a Nazi Regime.

In other words we have no support and we might take power.

Why do we argue with these clowns as if they were serious when we just need to quote THEM to show what nitwits they are?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment