Way Beyond the Blue

The Genovese say that paternalism (from whites, directed at blacks) in the old south was a “fatal self-deception.”

I disagree. God grows people like farmers grow crops. And in the south, more particularly, He’s brought together two highly contrasting races, thereby creating a uniquely beautiful people and society. A creation that, if not superior, is at least just as good as, any in the civilized world. Our cavaliers are as chivalrous as any Norman knight.

It’s not the presence of blacks in the south that is the problem for Southerners, even though many see it that way. Rather, it’s the destruction of old European propriety. At base, it’s the abandonment of the very paternalism that was supposedly fatal. The godless Wendell Phillips (a radical abolitionist) realized this and declared war on it. “The whole social system of the gulf states is to be taken to pieces, every bit of it.”

They destroyed any beneficial paternal relations between the races, replacing them with loathing and vicious competition for resources. Phillips’ utopian dream created an artificial will-to-power civilization where nightmares walk the streets of Atlanta and every good thing is brought low.

Granting black people some measure of dignity and attributing to them some measure of the beauty of the south, however, is taboo in the contemporary white nationalist community. It’s almost treason, isn’t it?  To find the small bits of good in the negro when, everyday he’s raping and killing our people?

I’d agree it is treason and might even accuse someone of it if they harped on the theme too often.  If someone were to bring it up whenever the “r” word (racism) is thrown around, presenting it in a way as to make it as palatable to the liberals as possible, as if to win accolade or a place at Satan’s table, then it’s all the more damning to them. Cowards and traitors placate the devil.

I can’t sympathize with that form of cowardice: in the early part of last year when my face was plastered all over the national media, I felt like I was standing naked in the school’s gym in front of the entire student body.  In an effort to mitigate the pressure, someone suggested I write articles stating my views on negros to try and salvage public dignity.  They wanted me to back-peddle, paint a friendly “egalitarian” picture, or somehow avoid being accused of the ultimate sin (racism).

Even if I had complied and written something like this post back then, where I noted the important role blacks have played in forming a uniquely beautiful society and culture in Dixie, it wouldn’t have helped. The media would have still hated me. Worse, I’d have abandoned all my racially self-conscious friends. They’d have rightfully seen me as a coward.

But I understand why some in the alternative right might not like what I’m saying in this post. We are being systematically replaced, publicly dishonored, and our most innocent being raped by the negro; and, here I am suggesting he has some merit?

As a Christian, much of the pagan white-nationalist rhetoric is not only unsatisfying to me, but revolting.  The way they talk about other humans; the way they support abortion, support homosexual unions, support all manner of sick sexual fetishes; the way they advocate godless philosophies? It’s hard for me to find camaraderie with them about the negro, or sympathize with their mindless hated of him.

I do have a burning hatred for liberals, intellectuals, the captains of industry, and any who openly pledge allegiance to Satan by engaging in the ritualistic slaughter; a hatred for anyone actively deconstructing our heritage, our laws, and even our very souls.  Those are the people whom I hate, and with a blinding passion, just as I hate the one whom they serve (whether they know they serve him or not).

It’s because I hate them so much that I don’t harp on my paternalist theme or make much of the culture in the south that was created by the clash of the two races. We have the hope of a return to that blessed paternalism, where the best of our race is informed and gratified by the best in theirs. A combination that once created an agrarian, sensible folk who, white and black together, found their spirit, and will one day find it again….way beyond the blue …

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

16 Responses to Way Beyond the Blue

  1. ToeKnee BelowKnee says:

    I’m reading it . . . I was just thinking that there *must be a point where Christ differs that would upset others & right then mention from that position was made.
    I see Kinist thought as being God given & hedonistic raycism & it’s participants as begging to be cursed by the very God that gave them an amount of light they are willfully misinterpreting.
    -tkbk-

  2. I am in favour of a paternalist sciety as well. The entire Golden Circle civilisation was based on a paternalistic order – and it worked, unlike the present egalitarian order.

    A side note, I dont get why you and some others online continue to use the term negro when we have an English word that means the same thing and is almost universally accepted and used. I dont see the benefits of using the term negro. Oh well, a minor point.

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      I don’t have it in me to submit to those who are upset by the term.

      • Who said anything about submitting to anyone? I use the term ‘Black’ for a few reasons. One, it’s consistent with the term ‘White’ (whereas using ‘White’ and ‘African-American’ is not consistent at all). Two, it’s almost universally accepted. It’s the used by most normal people and also in the media (whereas most normal people don’t say ‘African-American’). Three, it’s in English (whereas ‘Negro’ is Spanish). Black and Negro mean precisely the same thing. Four, it doesn’t turn off most normal people. If I were writing only for those already convinced of my views then I might use different terms. However, I’m trying to convince others who may be sympathetic but not yet in agreement with me on key issues. If I use language which turns them off then they likely won’t give what I’m saying a chance. It would be different if the use of the term were a compromise or submission, as you say. But it’s not. As I’ve noted, the two terms mean exactly the same thing.

      • shotgunwildatheart says:

        Good luck with that.

  3. Matt Parrott says:

    It’s perhaps a shame that cultural and historical baggage precludes wealthy White Southerners from hiring impoverished Blacks as nannies, housekeepers, and such. We bring in Mexicans and Filipinos for that, opening entirely new cans of worms for future generations to deal with.

    The Northern industrialists didn’t merely “emancipate” the situation, they actively poisoned the complete cultural context on both sides of the racial divide, creating an atmosphere of resentment and suspicion between Southern Whites and Blacks which precludes even perfectly voluntary relationships of mutual benefit.

    I belong to a different cultural tradition, one which precludes relying on maids or servants in the first place, regardless of the terms. In the Great American Debate over whether we should own or marry the Blacks, the Copperhead has always been inclined to opt out.

    I don’t know how to avoid coming off like a vapid enforcer of political correctness, but I’m also disgusted by the vitriol spewed at Blacks in our circles.

    [1]: I’m not taking sides in the semantic debate over the appropriate term. “Black” is the natural term I’m comfortable with, so that’s what I use.

  4. rogerunited says:

    So, Shotgun, does that make you a “rainbow confederate”?

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    It’s supremacism to keep an underclass of a different race… But, then again, you’ve already announced yourself, have ‘t you, “Shotgun”?

  6. thewhitechrist says:

    “Still, as a Christian, much of the pagan white-nationalist rhetoric is not only unsatisfying to me, but revolting. The way they talk about other humans; the way they support abortion, support homosexual unions, support all manner of sick sexual fetishes; the way they advocate godless philosophies … It’s hard for me to find camaraderie with them about the negro, or sympathize with their mindless hated of him.”

    I agree with you on this, and your other comments made me think:

    “To whom much is given, much shall be required.”

    I believe Whites are those to whom ‘much has been given.’ I also believe that Blacks are not to be considered the ontological equivalent of Whites- the inherent fallacy that idiots (yes, IDIOTS) such as Perrick and ToeKnee clearly hold as ‘gospel.’ [Gal. 1:18]

    And those ‘neo-pseduo-pagans’ you mentioned (think, Stormfront et al.) are those to whom much has been given, who have thrown away their birthright as with a mess of potage. But at least they knew they HAVE a birthright. Schmucks suck as Perrick, the Looney Left, Glenn Beck, and the rest of the Obamanation are as utterly devoid of the grace of God as the darkest Darkie in Botswanaland- or Detroit. And therein lies the difference.

    As usual, Cambria put it all into proper perspective, this last week:
    http://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/we-few-2/
    The Genoveses, (being both academics and wops with no connection to the Celtic soul) don’t ‘get that’ – and never will.

    You do. It truly is ‘the White Man’s Burden.’ Therein lies the difference, sir. – Fr. John+

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Yes! I think the whole “white man’s burden” is a great way of putting what I’m feeling.

      If we are God’s standard-bearing people, then we have an obligation to let our light shine into the darkness.

      I do prefer the “city on a hill” model, rather than the, scattered candles throughout a sea of darkness model, certainly.

  7. Joel P. says:

    I empathize with your feelings concerning the pagan white nationalists. As important as race is, both to our personal and collective identities as well as the to the God who created and ordains it, it is not the be-all, end-all. But so many in white nationalist circles have made an idol out of race and ethnicity; rather than worship Christ, in their rejection of him they worship themselves. Some have gone so far as to return to the pre-Christianized pagan gods of their European ancestors. They will find nothing but death down that road.

    I don’t like some of what I see from Kinist circles, either, namely its rather pervasive ecumenical tendencies. There’s a natural desire for any outcast group of ideological dissidents to form bonds with each other, ignoring other differences between them for sake of finding fellowship in this one thing. In some ways this can be good, but when it threatens the gospel itself then it is no longer something to be tolerated.

    I speak from a reformed, Calvinist perspective. Though we may all be white and thus share in a common ancestry according to the flesh, what Christian fellowship can there be between those who believe in the sufficiency of Christ and Scripture, grace alone, faith alone and those (such as the Roman Catholics) who would add fallen works of man to them? Tolerating damnable heresy for the sake of racial camaraderie is a path to destruction.

    Even good things can be turned into idols if solid, doctrinal foundations are not kept and biblical order and perspective are not maintained. For what does it profit a man to save his people and heritage if the gospel itself is lost or damaged in ecumenical union along the way?

    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Well, I hate airing dirty laundry on the web, but it’s my view that “Kinism” is a name for something more like a club, than a specific doctrinal position…although the word certainly can (and is often) formulated in such a way as to present itself as a specific set of propositions. At the end of the day, there’s some amount of ambiguity there, among Kinists.

      So, I’ve stopped being concerned with debates over what the word “Kinism” means (is it a group of friends, is it a doctrinal position, is it a worldview, etc. etc.)

      I’m more concerned with whether certain racial, political, and anthropological models are (or are not) compatible with Reformed theology (and by extension: the Scriptural data itself).

      So, in this way, we can distinguish between Kinists who make friends with deviants (as I’ve done … all my friends are scoundrels, lol) … and actual theological compromises, (I mean: the acceptance of some propositions as true, that are not compatible with Reformed theology).

    • rogerunited says:

      Joel P,
      Regarding white nationalists making an idol of race:

      Caring for your people is an extension of family values, prioritised from your immediate family expanding outward like concentric rings even to the entire world. We’re all decended from Noah after all. What white nationalists do, in my opinion, is to make race itself the value which is at odds with the fractal like structure of the true value. They are too too fixated on one aspect at the expense of the whole. Its intellectually lazy.

      I think human society was intended to function as a fractal. The individual acts as individual and as part of a family, the family acts as an individual unit and as part of a community, the nation acts…, etc. To ignore the whole in favor of any single part perverts the purpose. This is related to the idea of subsidiarity.

      Subsidiarism?
      Subsidiaritism?

      Just my two cents, only worth about a ha’ penny.

Comments:

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