Welcome All ye Disenfranchised!

Many of you are visiting this blog due to the recent CPAC controversy, where my friend Matt Heimbach and I made national news by showing up and asking (in civil, articulate tones, mind you) a few simple questions.

What was our main concern?

There is a lot of rhetoric in conservative circles about reaching out the mestizo demographic, or reaching out to homosexuals and blacks.

Our question: why not reach out to whites? 

This is exactly what the GOP needs to do, as a matter of fact.  Steve Sailer and the guys at VDARE have done an excellent job in pointing this out.  Please educate yourself about the Sailer Strategy.

What was the GOP’s answer to this question?

Well, you have seen the fall out.  The GOP doesn’t want to answer.  They’d rather side with a few left wing British nut-jobs and pretend I was “advocating for slavery” – even though I SPECIFICALLY told them that I wasn’t!   I guess fine distinctions like supporting or not supporting “slavery” are too hard to draw for our liberal friends?

The GOP wants to continue its war against unique culture / ethnic / racial distinctions.  The GOP wants us all to blend together into a mocha-colored, capitalist utopia.

For the fair-minded reading this:

All peoples, all races, can benefit from having their unique distinctions respected, preserved, and honored. There’s nothing wrong with that.  (Is there?  Is there anyone willing to self-consciously defend the mocha-colored dream world?  Post here and we can debate it).

So, to the degree that the so called “Frederick Douglas Republicans” attempt to preach a phony “raceless” civic-nationalism, they will fail.  Minorities in America are especially adept at seeing through this sort of ruse.

However,  after the session was over, I approached Mr. Smith, and we had a great conversation.  He put some of my fears to rest and assured me he agreed with Booker T. Washington’s statement (about us all being as united as a hand, but separate as the fingers – in fact, said Mr. Smith, Washington got that from Frederick Douglas to begin with).

If that is the general attitude of the Frederick Douglas Republicans (and I believe they were sincere), then all I have to say is:  It’s about time.  I hope it catches on. 

I got an autographed copy of their book and hope to read and review it with a discerning eye.  But even now, I suspect we have far more to agree than disagree on.

To Conclude, a statement about the “slavery” issue:

As a proud southerner, I hate the malicious denigration of my ancestors and their society.

You disagree with the institution of southern slavery?  Fine!  All I ask is that, before expecting me to blindly (and naively) accept trendy rhetoric on the topic, you respect the historical, sociological, and religious complexities of the situation.   For instance, Mr. Smith kept implying that slave labor is absolutely free, and it was to this I was objecting (at least, that’s what I was intending to object to).

It’s true, as the economists who advocate for a subjective theory of value have noted, the entrepreneur’s risks, technology, and managing ability, are indispensable parts of the business enterprise. It’s no different for a plantation.  It’s not as if slaves formed their own logistical infrastructure and took financial risks.  They were provided with housing, food, medical care, etc.  That’s not even a controversial point.  We all know it’s true.

Unfortunately, truth isn’t popular in the GOP.

Anyway … if the Frederick Douglas Republican movement catches hold and if it respects the Godly diversity in our society (and doesn’t try to merge all our interests together, or claim that we have no legitimate group interests), then it’s a positive direction for the tea-party and I hope to support them in the future.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Welcome All ye Disenfranchised!

  1. James Berry says:

    You seem to be all over the web this morning! At least now I can put a face to the voice…

  2. Cracker Barrel says:

    Amazing how speaking the truth = “KKK slavery advocate.” Your report is appreciated.

  3. Pity Party says:

    It’s funny how you think that giving food and shelter to slaves, was something to be recognized for. Yes, they gave them food and shelter, after dragging them over here AGAINST THEIR WILL, and buying them as if they were cattle. You can’t pick where in history to stop paying attention. You’re a moron. Even at your most “disenfranchised” you were still valued more than any slave.

    • Mary in Austin says:

      I agree with you, Pity Party. The only benefit of this racist getting national publicity is the bad news it represents for CPAC among the sane majority in America.

      • shotgunwildatheart says:

        Of course, we hoped to tilt the narrative.

        Why should CPAC focus solely on winning hispanic and negro demographics?

        Really? Why NOT reach out to whites? We’re people too, Ms. Austin.

    • Cracker Barrel says:

      Pity, the African slaves who were brought to this country were already enslaved by their own people, each slave with a fifty-fifty chance of ending up in a stew pot.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Thanks for the kind words PP.

      Consider that the entrepreneur’s (and thus: the plantation owner’s) economic situation in the business model is just as important as the worker’s. The land, the capital, the risk, is all carried by him.

      I know radical egalitarians like yourself aren’t fond of fine distinctions, but keep this one in mind in the future.

    • If you released the descendants of a million cattle in Detroit, they would be nowhere near so destructive as the decendants of slaves. At the very least, they’d improve the soil.

    • thewhitechrist says:

      Yes, Dragged against their will, by African rival BLACKS who wanted to maintain their hegemony in the ‘dark continent,’ and by whom? JEWISH SLAVERS who set up and ran the ‘Triangle trade,’ as history clearly noted.

      It was the Colonies who were the beneficiaries (!?) of slavery, to be sure. But who ameliorated the slaves’ lot, after their dispossession by Blacks and Deicides? Why, it was harmless li’l old White Christians. Gee, I feel somehow I should be sorry for that fact?

      No creo yo!
      – Fr. John+

  4. Sam says:

    The idea that the GOP should reach out to whites is a bit confusing. White’s are the base of the GOP. Reaching out means trying to attain something outside of your base. Reach out to whites is a contradiction and it means your not using words correctly.

    Second, slaves where kidnapped and made to perform forced labour. Being given food and shelter is not adequate compensation. You should familiarize your self with slave ships and human rights. However, if you honestly believe what you are saying, I’ve got a fifty acre farm I would be happy to have you come live at. Don’t mind the wiping, and I might hang you if I think you stole something.

    • Cracker Barrel says:

      The majority of slave ships were Jewish-owned, with slaves being purchased from their “brothers” in Africa, who owned and commonly ate them. There were MANY laws on the books here about how much clothing, food, provisions had to be provided to slaves, and most slaves grew gardens or raised animals on the side to sell to get some income for themselves. Again, I am not “advocating slavery,” just stating some ignored history.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      It’s only confusing to radical egalitarians, Mr. Sam.

      You should do as I suggested in the article, and check out the Sailer strategy. I’d love to hear you interact with it.

    • Dan Poole says:


      “Reaching out means trying to attain something outside of your base. Reach out to whites is a contradiction and it means your not using words correctly.”

      Nice show of sophistry and words-smithing, but you’re dead wrong. Although pretty much all Republicans are white, not all whites are Republicans – not by a long shot. The white working class, which is overwhelmingly conservative on every social and cultural issue, still votes for Democrats because the GOP doesn’t represent their economic interests and doesn’t take advantage of their social and cultural conservatism.

      In particular, the GOP is in lockstep with the Democrats on immigration – it’s simply the extent that differs. The GOP refuses to stand for immigration restriction and for mass deportation, which would not only serve the interests of the white working class and preserve the core of America (oh yes, whites are the core of America), but would also save their own party from permanent defeat. Immigration restriction is overwhelmingly supported by white Americans, as VDARE has demonstrated at length:


      There are millions of whites who vote Democrat that could be pealed away to the GOP. Some whites who vote Democrat are die in the wool liberals, but most are not. Most simply want a middle class job where their wages keep up with inflation. Other whites became completely disillusioned with the GOP’s neoconservative foreign policy, hence the wallop at the 2006 mid terms.

      If the GOP commanded the same share of the white vote as the Democrat Party does the Hispanic vote (71%), Asian vote (73%), or ideally, the black vote (over 90%), then it would be mathematically impossible for the Democrats to win an election for the next 30 years. Within that 30 year stretch, assuming their feet are held to the fire, the GOP could implement patriotic immigration reform, which would assure their electoral majority.

      Reaching out means expanding the existing white base. That’s not a contradiction. It’s common sense.

  5. Jonathan says:

    “Malicious denigration of your history”????? Gimme a —– break. A history built on the backs of slave labor and you seem to believe that it was humanitarian and provided care and food to blacks? You’re a complete asshole. You wonder why the rest of the country thinks you’re a bunch of hillbillies? YOU”RE THE REASON, Bubba!

  6. Jim says:

    You are much more valuable to America than you realize. You are the last Neanderthal. You are the most primitive member of genus Homo alive. Anthropologists the world over would be delighted to get their hands on you. Please consider donating your body to science.

  7. Real American says:

    Here’s an idea – Move up north to a state that matters, get a real education, and then try voicing your opinion again.

    Hillbillies like you do nothing for a this country. Real American’s want a brighter future, not time travel back a few hundred years.

  8. James Bradshaw says:

    In terms of slavery, the question is whether it’s moral for humans to buy and sell other human beings *against their will* for their own profit and gain (regardless of the race of the slave in question).

    If it is, would you feel the same were you to be kidnapped as a soldier (or civilian), sold into slavery and forced to work for the financial gain of another? If you would, well … you’d at least be consistent!

    Of course, I’d acknowledge the Bible endorses slavery … but that’s but one of many reasons why I don’t consider Scripture a viable moral authority for our age.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Mr. Bradshaw,

      You see the inherent ethical difficulties in this discussion.

      Before we can talk about slavery, we have to discuss moral philosophy and determine our standard of measure. Slavery may be right or wrong, quite regardless of what Shotgun / Scott feels about the issue, wouldn’t you agree?

      Anyway, standing on the solid rock of Scripture is the best place to be, both spiritually and intellectually and I’d love to have that debate.

    • thewhitechrist says:

      Mr. Bradshaw. You presume that all hominids are humans, per the Bible’s definition. Clearly, we disagree. As did all of Europe’s ancestors, for millenniae.
      – Fr. John+

  9. Sad that there has to be name-calling here. Truth is, we’re all really racially-mixed, but can’t see past skin design. Sad.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      What’s sad, Mr. Abraham, is when people reduce something as beautiful as racial identity, to mere “skin design”.

      Before you can comment on “racial mixing” in history, you’ll have to present us with a coherent racial paradigm from which to operate for our commentary – and you’ve only assumed pop rhetoric.

      And we don’t usually take that serious round these here parts.

  10. Cracker Barrel says:

    If anyone is interested, Shotgun was misrepresented as saying he “advocated slavery.” Some of what he said can be taken that way, but my understanding is that he does not advocate slavery.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Thank you … in fact, I specifically told those Brits I was NOT advocating for slavery.

      Did they listen? Did they care? Do they honor truth and accuracy? Not at all.

      By the way … they also say that I said “a society where blacks are subservient to whites is ok with me” …

      …another complete lie. I never said anything even close to that! Where they got that from is beyond me.

      • patroklos says:

        Is a society where blacks are subservient to whites OK with you?

      • shotgunwildatheart says:

        In what way?

      • patroklos says:

        In the way that the Jews were subservient to the Egyptians as told in the King James version of the Bible.

      • shotgunwildatheart says:

        Mr. Pat,

        I’m fine with an ordered, hierarchical society. Something like in a Jane Austen novel, for example, with lords and ladies, masters and servants.

        This was the model our people have lived by for hundreds of years (until the French Revolution, anyway – then, it fell out of favor).

        There will always be a “capitalist” class and a “peasant” class – it’s the way God has designed the world to work.

        Add racial issues into this class theory, and it gets even more complicated. Best not to merge the races together to begin with then, eh? At least, it would provide for a less tumultuous social order.

  11. Mickey Henry says:

    Great post, Shotgun! There is a Biblical form of slavery, and Southern slavery, despite some errors, was far closer to the Biblical standard than anti-Christian historians would ever care to admit. There was a great deal of love between the majority of Southern slaves and their masters.

    Thank you for defending the honor of our Christian, Southern ancestors. I pray this exposure encourages and emboldens our disaffected Christian kinsmen. They are not alone.

    You’ve got guts, brother!

    • Cracker Barrel says:

      By “defending slavery as outlined in the Bible,” no one is saying he wants to own slaves or bring back slavery. Rather, it is just an effort correcting common misconceptions and untruths as you mention in your posts. Your grandparents’ grandparents were slaves. So were some of ours, but they do not count because they were white. So I am forced to subsidize “affirmative action” with my tax and business dollars to be “fair” to the never-enslaved great grandchildren of slaves. Even Mohammed Ali, when asked about his impression of Africa during a visit said, “I’m so glad my granddaddy got on that boat!”

    • Mickey Henry says:

      Jermaine, of course I do not want to be a slave to other men, because I am a slave to Christ, and no man can serve two masters. In fact, under Biblical Law, Christians are not to be slaves to men, though it could happen temporarily for debt slaves (which is one reason why Christians are not to be in debt). To be honest, I do not have immediate recall of all of the Biblical Laws governing slavery, but I can recommend R.J. Rushdoony’s “Institutes of Biblical Law” Vol. I if you’d like an excellent run-down.

      You might consider reading the “Slave Narratives” that I gave a link to above if you want to read the true story of slavery from the slaves themselves. Were there abusive slave owners? Sure. Like any institution involving human beings, there were numerous errors. But the warp and woof of Southern slavery was NOT intrinsically evil. The main problem with Negro slavery in the South is that it led to the mixing of white and black societies, which should have remained separate.

      Slavery is one of God’s punishments for perpetual warfare, and it was perpetual warfare between black African tribes that led to slavery, not manstealing by whites (though there were certainly exceptions). If you’re buying the “Roots” version of the story, you’ve been sold a bill of goods.

      Further, read Michael Hoffman’s “They Were Slaves and They Were White” if you want to dispel the myth that slavery was an exclusively Negro institution in modern history. It’s part of our history too, we just don’t have any agitators goading us to constantly whine about it.

      Finally, slavery has a legitimate place in the modern world as well. Though it completely offends modern sensibilities, Biblical slavery has a charitable design as its basis. Some people just can’t seem to take care of themselves, and slavery was designed to keep such people away from grinding poverty by placing them under the responsibility of a more provident man. Further, the basis of Biblical penology is restitution. If a thief is unable to make restitution, then he is to be sold into slavery to pay his debt. These are very practical functions for slavery that will always be with us.

  12. Liberty says:

    You’re dead Scott Terry. You’ll hang like the white monster slave owners did to the human beings who dared defy them.

  13. Thomas Payne says:

    It’s very simple: human trafficking and slavery are indefensible.
    You can spin it anyway you want, but slavery remains evil.

    No human being should be forced into slavery. You wouldn’t like it to plow the fields of your master for just shelter and some crap food, or would you?

    CPAC has further marginalised the GOP. I cannot see Democrats losing an election anytime soon with the way the other viable party is heading towards: the abyss.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Mr. Payne,

      Are you saying that what is right or wrong, depends solely on Scott Terry’s personal disposition?

      Why do you think slavery is wrong? What rational reason do you have for saying so?

    • Mickey Henry says:

      For Christians, Biblical slavery is not only defensible, but MUST be defended. Are you holier than God, Mr. Payne?

  14. James Bradshaw says:

    “Anyway, standing on the solid rock of Scripture is the best place to be, both spiritually and intellectually and I’d love to have that debate.”

    Why Scripture? Why not the Koran or the Baghavad Gita? How do you know the Bible is the word of God?

    I’m inclined to think that Scripture is the holy book – for you, personally – that appeals to the ideals and sense of values you already have. In this you would not be unusual, of course. Most people simply absorb the values of the people they grew up with and whom they respect.

    Even if the Bible IS true, though… all your work is still ahead of you. You still have to interpret it correctly and determine how God (if He or She exists) wants you to apply it to your life, and good luck to you with that. Given the lack of consensus amongst Christians throughout the centuries on either theology or morals, I’m not sure how successful you’ll be at coming to an “infallible” interpretation on all (or any) matters of importance.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      If we can’t interpret God correctly, how the heck do you think YOUR words will fare?

      Will there be a consensus on the meaning of your post, but not on God’s word?

      As for the “why Christian Scripture” question – we’ll have to have an apologetics discussion. But, before we do, the question you have to answer is: if not Scripture, then what?

  15. Adrian Nielsen says:

    A discussion of slavery cannot be undertaken without a direct discussion of the non-aggression principle.

  16. James Berry says:

    Wow, I’ve seen irrational hatred online before, but I do believe this has to be the worst case I’ve seen. I’d like to add my thanks to Mickey’s- to you and the rest of those who give voice to many of the rest of us.

  17. EnterTheGecko says:

    You and your friend in the video are awesome. I’d — both of ya’s!

  18. Marxist Hunter says:

    Do not watch this video unless you want to lose all hope. I’m seriously warning you.

    >I don’t care if my race ends, etc.

  19. aaron says:

    You’re not very educated, are you?

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      …nothing formal, no.

      But I have random strangers coming to my blog and interacting with me, so you must all have some interest in my work.

      Thanks for that, by the way :)

  20. Nebraska says:

    The irony in your charade, and it’s publicity, is that you are painting the GOP into a corner away from your wants. By advocating for such inane ideas, you are helping to inadvertently push the country towards the left. I thank you for your existence. Not because I agree with any of the disgusting things that you say, but because you’re making the GOP look like fools for even entertaining you, and will inevitably push the swing vote to the left. You’re the best player on the Democratic team!

  21. Alfred Faust says:

    Cultural marxist rule the wastelands of Post-America, and worship of their idols is required of all. Our land, birthright, and rights have been given away, all that is left for us is to fight. And we shall… God Bless.

  22. Jermaine says:

    Look, I’m no fan of this man nor his comments, but name calling and insults are not going to help the situation.

    He clearly sees history from a very narrow perspective: one that promotes the benevolence of the white slave owner and his generosity toward the Africans that he fed and clothed in compliance with the laws of the land, that is, except when he didn’t comply. (Oh, and let’s not forget that those laws and many others essentially made the white man GOD to the blackfolk.

    If the white population of the USA is being disenfranchised, please tell me what the white population are no longer able to do thanks to legislation that people of other races CAN do. I am a black man, and I’m not aware of anything that I’m legally allowed to do that my white friends are not allowed.

    • Cracker Barrel says:

      Say the “N” word without being charged with a hate crime? Benefit from “affirmative action” for college and job opportunities? (Not that I’d want to) Live with in a neighborhood and associate and rent to people of my ethnic group? Think along those lines for more examples.

      • Cracker Barrel says:

        If affirmative action is your definition of “fairness and equality,” if it does not matter to you that more qualified people are passed over because of skin color, if my not being able to start and fund a private school for my ethnic group only, using no government funds, if my private company is forced to hire people because of their skin color or “gender orientation” is your idea of “fairness and equality,” then, yes, you are right: we have nothing else to say to one another.

  23. Lynne Uher says:

    Excuse me. sorry that you feel left out. I have been working hard since 2009 to reach out and wake up America! Not all whites are receptive because they believe in socialism. I never knew how to talk to blacks and Hispanics-therefore Dr. Karnie Carl Smith has the answer.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Wake them up to what, Ms. Uher?

      I think Smith’s strategy has some merit, if he acknowledges the real differences between America’s various racial communities – and instead of trying to blend the differences into irrelevance, tries to harmonize them so everyone wins somehow.

      That would be beneficial to everyone – and should be promoted.

      Thus “free market” principles would allow the various ethnic interests to compete freely and with maximal harmony (and minimal conflict).

      Let Republicans lead the way in this! If that’s what Frederick Douglas Republicans are, then praise God for it!!

      The democrats can play around with their mon-racialist “civic-nationalism” all they want. No one’s buying it.

  24. Dan Poole says:

    I can’t help but notice that NO ONE has defended the utopia of a raceless, mocha colored people all “united” by “civic nationalism.” Is there any liberal or respectable conservative on here man enough to defend what they implicitly stand for?

    This may sound like a contradiction in terms, but “conservatism” today is right-wing jacobism.

  25. well done, Scott. I think you’ve sparked something huge! See you around at S/W/B


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s