Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 20th, 2012 #41
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
None of my eight Confederate soldier ancestors owned any slaves, so I don't think their motivation for volunteering for service in the Confederate army was to risk their lives so some rich Plantation owner like the Jews Judah P. Benjamin and David Levy Yulee could keep their slaves. They were fighting against a federal government that was overstepping its rights and interfering with the rights of the states to determine their own destiny.
Same for mine. Those motivations and the even more important one of preserving White control of a White-created country.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #42
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Oh yadda, yadda, yadda already --when all's said and done, just remember this...

Never before in 6,000 years of recorded history has a people fought those of their own race, their own kin even, in order to free those of another race as when happened in 1860s America; never, period. But have you ever, in any avenue of the media, or in the classroom, heard mention of this historical fact of astounding sacrifice on the part of one people to save another? Of course not. It cost close to 700,000 White lives to free blacks from slavery and yet instead of one word, "thanks", from the mumbo lips of these ingrates, what do we hear instead? "Reparations." This is the thanks we get for ridding blacks of a burden imposed on them by their fellow African "brothers", who in turn sold them to the jews, who then brought them to the Americas to be sold on the auction blocks.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs

Last edited by Matthaus Hetzenauer; September 22nd, 2012 at 12:47 PM.
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #43
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthaus Hetzenauer View Post
Oh yadda, yadda, yadda already --when all's said and done, just remember this...

Never before in 6,000 years of recorded history has a people fought those of their own race, their own kin even, in order to free those of another race as when happened in 1860s America; never, period. But have you ever, in any avenue of the media, or in the classroom, heard mention of this historical fact of astounding sacrifice on the part of one people to save another? Of course not. It cost close to 700,000 White lives to free blacks from slavery and yet instead of one word, "thanks", from the mumbo lips of these ingrates, what do we hear instead? "Reparations." This is the thanks we get for ridding blacks of a burden imposed on them by their fellow African "brothers", who in turn sold them to the jews, who then brought them to the Americas to be sold on the auction blocks.
The American Civil War was not a battle fought between abolitionists and slaver-owners; it was a battle fought between those in the South who felt that the federal government had overstepped its authority against those in the North who felt that the secessionists in the South had no right to secede from the Union.
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #44
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
The American Civil War was not a battle fought between abolitionists and slaver-owners; it was a battle fought between those in the South who felt that the federal government had overstepped its authority against those in the North who felt that the secessionists in the South had no right to secede from the Union.
Hey -- what result did the war have on the institution of slavery? Its abolition...correct? I never did say that states' rights weren't the primary issue; I did say that close to 700,000 White men and boys lost their lives with the end result being the freeing of black slaves. I also thought it worth mentioning that a war of its nature had never been fought before, even though slavery has existed almost since the beginning of time. If slaves hadn't been freed as a direct result of this war being fought we wouldn't be in the situation we are today. Don't try to pull that "I'm a Southerner; I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the War for States Rights" with me pal...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #45
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthaus Hetzenauer View Post
Hey -- what result did the war have on the institution of slavery? Its abolition...correct? I never did say that states' rights weren't the primary issue; I did say that close to 700,000 White men and boys lost their lives with the end result being the freeing of black slaves. I also thought it worth mentioning that a war of its nature had never been fought before, even though slavery has existed almost since the beginning of time. If slaves hadn't been freed as a direct result of this war being fought we wouldn't be in the situation we are today. Don't try to pull that "I'm a Southerner; I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the War for States Rights" with me pal...
Abolition was a duplicitous tactic that Lincoln used half way through the war, when things weren't going well for the Union. He was trying to find something that might turn the tide, so he produces the Emancipation Proclaimation which only frees those slaves held in capitivity in those parts of the Confederacy still under Confederate control, but leaves all the slaves in those parts of the South not in rebellion still in bondage. He was trying to call the South's bluff. It really had no effect on the events of the war itself; just on what happened afterwards.
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #46
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
Abolition was a duplicitous tactic that Lincoln used half way through the war, when things weren't going well for the Union. He was trying to find something that might turn the tide, so he produces the Emancipation Proclaimation which only frees those slaves held in capitivity in those parts of the Confederacy still under Confederate control, but leaves all the slaves in those parts of the South not in rebellion still in bondage. He was trying to call the South's bluff. It really had no effect on the events of the war itself; just on what happened afterwards.
Well, gee, Steve...I don't know what I would've done without that aha! moment of enlightenment; really. I had no idea that "Honest Abe" was a racist at heart and, as he swore up and down and crossed his heart and hoped to die in his debates with Douglas, he had absolutely no intention of freeing the slaves; or that, once he had indeed treacherously decided to do so, he planned on shipping the motherfuckers off to Liberia or Central America. Tell me, is there anything else I'm missing -- that you can clue me into that is?

In other words: no shit, Sherlock. Still all your yadda yadda does nothing to dispel the fact that the war had the effect of ending slavery in the US -- and that's the point (along with the fact that it took a White-on-White war to free those of another race) I've trying to put across all along; so drop it.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #47
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthaus Hetzenauer View Post
Well, gee, Steve...I don't know what I would've done without that aha! moment of enlightenment; really. I had no idea that "Honest Abe" was a racist at heart and, as he swore up and down and crossed his heart and hoped to die in his debates with Douglas, he had absolutely no intention of freeing the slaves; or that, once he had indeed treacherously decided to do so, he planned on shipping the motherfuckers off to Liberia or Central America. Tell me, is there anything else I'm missing -- that you can clue me into that is?

In other words: no shit, Sherlock. Still all your yadda yadda does nothing to dispel the fact that the war had the effect of ending slavery in the US -- and that's the point (along with the fact that it took a White-on-White war to free those of another race) I've trying to put across all along; so drop it.
The legal ownership of negro slaves by private citizens may have been outlawed as a result of measures taken by politicians during the Civil War; however that was about all that changed for nearly a hundred years.
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #48
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
The legal ownership of negro slaves by private citizens may have been outlawed as a result of measures taken by politicians during the Civil War; however that was about all that changed for nearly a hundred years.
Fuck you, I made my point -- too bad you're not man enough to fess up to your being wrong.

I'm an easy enough guy to get along with, I just hate people who can't concede a point is all; which, as anyone can see, is exactly what your'e doing here.

later...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #49
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthaus Hetzenauer View Post
Fuck you, I made my point -- too bad you're not man enough to fess up to your being wrong.

I'm an easy enough guy to get along with, I just hate people who can't concede a point is all; which, as anyone can see, is exactly what your'e doing here.

later...
Yankees....
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #50
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
Yankees....
Copperheads, motherfucker...

__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old September 22nd, 2012 #51
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,678
Jimmy Marr
Default

Quote:
Never before in 6,000 years of recorded history has a people fought those of their own race, their own kin even, in order to free those of another race as when happened in 1860s America; never, period. But have you ever, in any avenue of the media, or in the classroom, heard mention of this historical fact of astounding sacrifice on the part of one people to save another? Of course not. It cost close to 700,000 White lives to free blacks from slavery and yet instead of one word, "thanks", from the mumbo lips of these ingrates, what do we hear instead? "Reparations." This is the thanks we get for ridding blacks of a burden imposed on them by their fellow African "brothers", who in turn sold them to the jews, who then brought them to the Americas to be sold on the auction blocks.
Regardless of other causes, there's enough truth in this point of view to make it an extremely useful propaganda weapon, and that's what matters most to me.

I intend to commit it memory, and try it out when Anti-Whites attack me with the slavery card.

Like verbal Aikido, it converts the momentum of a libelous attack based on White oppression into a eulogy on the nobility of White sacrifice.

I can't wait.
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #52
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Except...the happiest people I have observed are German farmers. They run their own land. They are rich, but not because they love money (more than others do), rather they are materially successful because they are sober, careful managers and cautious investors/speculators. And they love what they are doing, and they do it with complete commitment of body, soul and mind. The richest Southern plantation owner ever heard of STILL had to have niggers around to make his money! That meant he had to hear niggers. To smell niggers. To look at niggers. To think about niggers. No matter how rich, he still had to fill his mind and senses with niggers. Only a Southerner could stand that, because he's got that British snob in him, and he loves lording it over others. That's my read, anyway.

Is not the German bauer/peasant/famer way better? Is it not self-evident that it is more desirable? Is it not stabler and healthier for all parties over the long term?
I hope you're not hinting that Germans would not enslave either people or negroes. I won't go into ancient history. As to their not being engaged in the new world slave trade, it might have something to do with their lack of a nation, let alone a navy to explore with, until after slavery had been abolished. They certainly took African colonies once they had the means to do so. Other than bringing home a few trophies none of the exploring powers imported slaves to work their fields or to do anything else. They did consider Africans better suited than white men to working the tropical and semi-tropical fields of their new world colonies.

Quote:
Aren't these bring-back-slavery types doing the same thing they find fault with in the north - putting money ahead of every other consideration?
There are more benefits from turning a ghetto into a prosperous place than making money. You're the one whose suspicion leaps to money as the single motivation, which sort of confirms their claim, doesn't it?
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #53
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Btw, my apologies to any Dutchmen reading this for not mentioning them. They are Germanic, aren't they?
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #54
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohgolly View Post
I hope you're not hinting that Germans would not enslave either people or negroes.I won't go into ancient history. As to their not being engaged in the new world slave trade, it might have something to do with their lack of a nation, let alone a navy to explore with, until after slavery had been abolished. They certainly took African colonies once they had the means to do so. Other than bringing home a few trophies none of the exploring powers imported slaves to work their fields or to do anything else. They did consider Africans better suited than white men to working the tropical and semi-tropical fields of their new world colonies.
I wasn't discussing any of that. I'm talking about what works today.

The only ethnic play-in I see is that Germans lack the Southern need to feel superior to niggers, which I think is a lingering psychological driver. Why would anyone who truly hates niggers live in the South? He wouldn't. It's one thing to make intellectual arguments for slavery, that's worth doing for a number of reasons, but it is clear that some at OD wouldn't mind seeing slavery come back. I just want it made clear that regardless of the economic benefits of slavery, the social value of having no niggers around at all is infinitely more valuable. I don't think many really disagree with that, but there really is, if you're looking for an ethnic aspect, inherently more desire for slavery among those of British cultural legacy because it is so class and status driven and riven, and slavery gives the lowest whites -- who are the ones who came to America from Britain, for the most part, a class to look down on. Germans don't have the pscyhological neediness the low-end Anglo Saxons and ever-bragging Scots-Irish do, as it never rose to doubt in their mind that if anything they came from an actual Kultur the British can't really match. Which history has borne out. Our country is failing, to the extent it's not due to jewish actions, thanks to our Anglo-Christian legacy, the defects of which I have outlined many times. I'm not arguing that German society is all that much better or different, just that it's somewhat better and different.

Quote:
There are more benefits from turning a ghetto into a prosperous place than making money. You're the one whose suspicion leaps to money as the single motivation, which sort of confirms their claim, doesn't it?
Um...no.

I'm responding to what I read at OD. The proprietor has relentlessly pushed the view that slavery was extremely economically efficient and wealth-making. And that the Caribbean and South where it was practiced, the Golden Circle, was richer and more valuable to Britain than the northern colonies and lands. As far as I can tell, he's right. I don't have a problem with that, or any historical facts. My problem is that he seems to be coming close, and maybe it's just playing devil's advocate on his part, to saying that we ought to reinstitute slavery because it is profitable.

THAT is what I'm guarding against. We want NO niggers. And I pointed out the irony that it is Southerners hot to tell us of their bravery etc. who love, love, love to make the point that the South was the last (only?) non-materialist culture, driven by honor rather than money and guilt, as the north. Yet OD has not taken this point into account. It hasn't really argued much, as Calhoun certainly did, that slavery was good for niggers. If slavery was the most economically viable and profitable and wealth-making endeavor, then it must be defended as an honorable institution or else the South could be said to have been driven by money, so far that it risked gigantic social problem by importing or buying imported niggers, who could hardly be expected to like slavery or not to free themselves by any means if it looked possible. OD has gone to great lengths to defend slavery as an inherently stable and time-honored institution. He claims the only successful revolt was in Haiti, and that slavery in the American South was never in particular danger of exploding into nigger revolution. I just don't see it that way. You're riding a tiger, even back then. Today, with global communications - not even remotely possible in White lands.

I don't care about Southerners' need to feel superior to others. That can go begging. If they want to feel superior to others, they need to actually BECOME superior to others. Or they can content themselves with the universally held (south of the M-D line) myth that they are tougher than others. I couldn't care less. All I care about is when we Whites do take power again, the nigger be removed entirely from the space we control. No neo-slavery. No illiberals social programs. No niggers period. I want to make sure everyone is on the same page on this, I don't care who can get rich off nigger slaves, any more than I care today who can get rich off shitskin illegals.

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 23rd, 2012 at 05:39 PM.
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #55
Bardamu
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohgolly View Post
Btw, my apologies to any Dutchmen reading this for not mentioning them. They are Germanic, aren't they?
Very. Dutch = Deutsche.
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #56
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Mud races are inferior and should be enslaved or have their numbers drastically reduced until the remainder beg for unpaid service to our race. Fuck the kikes, two can play that game.
 
Old September 24th, 2012 #57
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The only ethnic play-in I see is that Germans lack the Southern need to feel superior to niggers, which I think is a lingering psychological driver. Why would anyone who truly hates niggers live in the South? He wouldn't.
I think you're projecting, because you hate niggers. Southerners don't hate them, they just recognize the danger and discomfort they present to society. Nor do Southerners have any desire to feel superior to them. They merely realize it as a fact. It is the 'progressive' whites who have the need to feel superior to everybody else, not just niggers, and they are concentrated in the north. Aren't Germans the largest Euro ethnic group in the US? Aren't most of them in the north? I wouldn't accuse you of being a "progressive", in the slanderous sense, but isn't it you who frets over the inferiority/superiority of Anglos/Germans, Southerners/Northerners, etc?

Quote:
It's one thing to make intellectual arguments for slavery, that's worth doing for a number of reasons, but it is clear that some at OD wouldn't mind seeing slavery come back. I just want it made clear that regardless of the economic benefits of slavery, the social value of having no niggers around at all is infinitely more valuable.
Slavery would certainly be preferable to what we have today, wouldn't you agree? Like segregation was a stop gap alternative to free roaming niggers, what's going on at OD is an investigation into alternatives to the current disaster. Sure, removing them completely is the most desired thing but it isn't Anglo-Saxon and Scots-Irish Southerners standing in the way of that. As ever, it's those wonderful people in the blue states. And who, again, is their white majority?

Quote:
if you're looking for an ethnic aspect, inherently more desire for slavery among those of British cultural legacy because it is so class and status driven and riven, and slavery gives the lowest whites -- who are the ones who came to America from Britain, for the most part, a class to look down on. Germans don't have the pscyhological neediness the low-end Anglo Saxons and ever-bragging Scots-Irish do, as it never rose to doubt in their mind that if anything they came from an actual Kultur the British can't really match. Which history has borne out. Our country is failing, to the extent it's not due to jewish actions, thanks to our Anglo-Christian legacy, the defects of which I have outlined many times.
Again, if Germany had existed as a maritime power during the age of exploration and the slave trade, you don't think they would have been as full bore into it as the rest? Ah, but they did, they were called Dutch!

Today, who exhibits this "psychological neediness" to look down on others, the racially aware Anglo-Saxon Southerner who continues to resent and resist the present setup, or the disingenuous white liberal 'progressives' in the blue state north where the majority of whites happen to be Germanic? Which group is it whose big shtick is 'providing' for 'the needy' and the 'helpless'? It ain't your average white Southerner who can't understand why this unsustainable program is imposed on him.

Quote:
I'm responding to what I read at OD........
I'm not here to defend everything published at OD but to point out your own even bigger bias. As far as I know there's no hand wringing over the inferiority of Germans going on there. But you have spent plenty of type deriding non-Germanic Euros as inferior, since before OD took up the Southern cause. To what end? Why the obsession over which Euro nation is superior/inferior?

I think you're overemphasizing Southern bragging too. What there is of it, today, is mainly Southerners throwing their hands up at the mess we're all in and trying to reclaim their identity as a prerequisite to separating from the beast. As someone who recognizes that there are ethnic differences between whites, shouldn't you want your Norsemen to be doing the same thing? IMO the recognition of and respect for historical and regional differences among American whites and for their desire to govern themselves separately would be more likely to induce respect, appreciation and cooperation across the divides. IOW, get out of my house and we'll be able to work together.

Quote:
All I care about is when we Whites do take power again,....
OK, on one hand you spend years pointing at what you consider to be the inferiority of whites you don't relate to and at the same time you expect whites, as a race, to "take power". You must see the contradiction.

Just as Anglos and Germans, minus the jew problem, would appreciate their ethnic differences rather than resentfully harp on them, so do Southerners vis-a-vis other Americans. But the sooner those other Americans discover or develop their own, separate identity, the sooner we can each "take power" in our respective regions. Waiting for them to all unite in racial brotherhood is like waiting for the EU to bind European nations in brotherhood. It ain't gonna happen because, as you recognize, there are differences in nations. They want their respective identities preserved. That's what the whole fight is about.

And hey, wouldn't you like to sell your niggers to a separate nation? Wouldn't that rid you of what you hate whilst turning a profit?
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old September 24th, 2012 #58
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

What Alex correctly perceives as a distinguishable difference in character between Southerners and non-Southerners is what has long been referred to as the "culture of honor" that exists in the American South, and which evolved out of our unique origins as Southerners:

Quote:
The prevailing culture of the Southern United States is said to be a "culture of honor", that is a culture where people avoid unintentional offense to others and maintain a reputation for not accepting improper conduct by others.

One theory to explain why the American South has this culture is that a willingness to resort to retribution to enforce one's rights is important for a man in any region where gaining resources and keeping them depends on the community’s belief that the man can protect those resources against predators. Toughness is a strong value in such a culture because of its effect on the deterrence of such predators from one’s family, home and possessions.

The "culture of honor" in the Southern United States is believed by some social scientists to have its roots in the qualities of the early settlers who first inhabited the region. Unlike the farmers and workers (mainly from the densely populated South East England and East Anglia) who settled in New England, the Southern United States was settled by herders from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Northern England and the West Country. Herds, unlike crops, were vulnerable to theft because they were mobile and there was little in the way of a government with the practical ability to enforce property rights in the animals. Developing a reputation for retribution against those who stole herd animals was one way to discourage theft.

According to Todd K. Shackelford in "An Evolutionary Psychological Perspective on Cultures of Honor," "such cultures are particularly likely to develop where (1) a man’s resource holdings can be thieved in full by other men and (2) the governing body is weak or nonexistent and thus cannot prevent or punish theft."[3] These two qualities are consistent with past Southern culture. In order to be successful in an environment such as Southern United States, a man had to reduce the chances of theft or attack from thieves and criminals by building their reputations for strength and toughness. The only way to accomplish this was to show willingness to resort to violence.

These social scientists compare the culture of honor found in the Southern United States to similar cultural values found in other subsistence economies dependent upon herding and places with weak governments.

This thesis is limited, however, by modern evidence that a culture of honor in the American South is strongest not in the hill country, where this thesis suggests it has its cultural origins, but in Southern lowlands. These observers argue that religion, which has been distinctive in the American South since the Second Great Awakening in the 18th century, may be a more important source of this cultural phenomenon.

The Southern culture of honor is associated with such distinctive elements of the American political culture as dueling (particularly in the American South and involving Southerners) and the concept of a gentleman, as espoused by individuals such as Robert E. Lee, which remains a part of United States military law (although the Uniform Code of Military Justice now expressly bans dueling). It is also associated with the idea of a blood feud, a characterization given to many deadly conflicts between families in Appalachia.
 
Old September 24th, 2012 #59
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohgolly View Post
I think you're projecting, because you hate niggers. Southerners don't hate them, they just recognize the danger and discomfort they present to society. Nor do Southerners have any desire to feel superior to them. They merely realize it as a fact. It is the 'progressive' whites who have the need to feel superior to everybody else, not just niggers, and they are concentrated in the north. Aren't Germans the largest Euro ethnic group in the US? Aren't most of them in the north? I wouldn't accuse you of being a "progressive", in the slanderous sense, but isn't it you who frets over the inferiority/superiority of Anglos/Germans, Southerners/Northerners, etc?
Anglo-Saxons are Germanic, the Angles and Saxons having immigrated to Britain from what was then part of Germany (the provinces of Anglia and Saxony) around the year 447 AD.

The true Britons are the Celtic tribes that inhabited Britain long before the later Anglo-Saxon migration that occurred in the mid 5th century.
 
Old September 24th, 2012 #60
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
Anglo-Saxons are Germanic, the Angles and Saxons having immigrated to Britain from what was then part of Germany (the provinces of Anglia and Saxony) around the year 447 AD.

The true Britons are the Celtic tribes that inhabited Britain long before the later Anglo-Saxon migration that occurred in the mid 5th century.
Of course, but Linder apparently perceives an evolved difference, as do I and most modern 'Anglos' and Germans.
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Reply

Tags
brad griffin, new world, occidental dissent, slavery

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.
Page generated in 0.14165 seconds.