Book Review: The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam By David M. Goldenberg Thursday, May 1 2014 

I checked out this book as a challenge to my studies done by the Southern Writers and the Puritans on the Curse of Ham. I thought being a book published at Princeton University, the author would strongly challenge my position, even partially if not fully refute it. On the contrary, the author wrote this book in ignorance of the most important issue that I have cited in my work:

The book of Jasher (Which I drew attention to in this article) interpreted Genesis 9 and gave the Southern interpretation word for word. What does Goldenberg say about Jasher? Not a single word!

Go ahead and do a word search for “Jasher” in his book: (link)

He doesn’t mention it once.

Now to highlight the embarrassment let’s take a fresh look at Jasher’s passage:

The Book of Jasher, quoted in, Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, states,

73: 30 So Moses took the city by his wisdom, and the children of Cush placed him on the throne instead of Kikianus king of Cush. 31 And they placed the royal crown upon his head, and they gave him for a wife Adoniah the Cushite queen, wife of Kikianus. 32 And Moses feared the Lord God of his fathers, so that he came not to her, nor did he turn his eyes to her.33 For Moses remembered how Abraham had made his servant Eliezer swear, saying unto him, Thou shalt not take a woman from the daughters of Canaan for my son Isaac. 34 Also what Isaac did when Jacob had fled from his brother, when he commanded him, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan, nor make alliance with any of the children of Ham. 35 For the Lord our God gave Ham the son of Noah, and his children and all his seed, as slaves to the children of Shem and to the children of Japheth, and unto their seed after them for slaves, forever.

When we examine Joshua’s and Samuel’s words we see that this book is not simply quoted by the authors. The entire work is referenced and suggested by the author to read as an authoritative history of the  Jewish people.

Now to Goldenberg’s big problem:

Referencing Jer. 13:23, a classic passage proving that the Kushite people were black, Goldenberg admits that the Kushites were black. Goldenberg states,

“Jeremiah is simply using the Kushite’s black skin as a metaphor for that which is unchangeable.” (pg. 38)

Now, if he admits that the Kushites were black, his entire work, which was written to disprove the traditional interpretation of the Hamite curse, is destroyed by Jasher.  Jasher states that the Kushites were a line of Ham, and,

“For the Lord our God gave Ham the son of Noah, and his children and all his seed, as slaves to the children of Shem and to the children of Japheth, and unto their seed after them for slaves, forever.”

To make matters even  worse for Mr. Goldenberg, in his Journal article, “It Is Permitted to Marry a Kushite”, (link) he again totally fails to mention a single word of this.

Sorry, Mr. Goldenberg, your attempt to justify the invasion, mass murder, torture, gang rape and continuing Genocide of my family fails.

I searched for a way to contact Mr. Goldenberg but found nothing.

Yankee Abolitionist Red-Republican Chickens Coming Home to Roost with Gay Rights Friday, Feb 28 2014 

The Yankee Abolitionists forced Abolition on us, forced Racial Integration on us, and now Yahowah is forcing homosexuality on them. Yankees getting exactly what they deserve. Oh how I love it!

Who Originally Kidnapped the African Slaves of the Atlantic Trade? Sunday, Dec 1 2013 

William O. Blake, The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern, pages 99-102,

“European skill and foresight assisted in giving constancy and regularity to the supply of negroes from the interior. At first the slave vessels only visited the Guinea coast, and bargained with the negroes of the villages there for what quantity of wax, or gold, or negroes they had to give. But this was a clumsy way of conducting business. The ships had to sail along a large tract of coast, picking up a few negroes at one place, and a little ivory or gold at another; sometimes even the natives of a village might have no elephants’ teeth and no negroes to give; and even under the most favorable circumstances, it took a considerable time to procure a decent cargo. No coast is so pestilential as that of Africa, and hence the service was very repulsive and very dangerous. As an improvement on this method of trading, the plan was adopted very early of planting small settlements of Europeans at intervals along the slave-coast, whose business it should be to negotiate with the negroes, stimulate them to activity in their slave-hunting expeditions, purchase the slaves brought in, and warehouse them until the arrival of the ships. These settlements were called slave factories. Factories of this kind were planted all along the western coast from Cape Verd to the equator, by English, French, Dutch, and Portuguese traders. [Not Southerners?-DS] Their appearance, the character of the men employed in them, their internal arrangements, and their mode of carrying on the traffic, are well described in the following extract from Mr. Howison’s book on “European Colonies”:

“As soon as the parties concerned had fixed upon the site of their proposed commercial establishment, they began to erect a fort of greater or less magnitude, having previously obtained permission to that effect from the natives. The most convenient situation for a building of the kind was considered to be at the confluence of a river with the sea, or upon an island lying within a few miles of the coast. In the first case, there was the advantage of inland navigation; and in the second, that of the security and defensibleness of an insular position, besides its being more cool and healthy than any other.

The walls of the fort enclosed a considerable space of ground, upon which were built the necessary magazines for the reception of merchandise, and also barracks for the soldiers and artificers, and a depot for slaves; so that, in the ‘event of external hostilities, the gates might be shut, and the persons and the property belonging to the establishment placed in security. The quarters for the officers and agents employed at the factory were in general erected upon the ramparts, or at least adjoining them; while the negroes in their service, and any others that might be attracted to the spot, placed their huts outside of the walls of the fort, but under the protection of its guns.

The command of the establishment was vested in the hands of one individual, who had various subordinates, according to the extent of the trade carried on at the place; and if the troops who garrisoned the fort exceeded twenty or thirty, a commissioned officer usually had charge of them. The most remarkable forts were St. George del Mina, erected by the Portuguese, though it subsequently fell into the hands of the Dutch; Cape Coast Castle, the principal establishment of the English; Fort Louis, at the mouth of the Senegal, generally occupied by the French; and Goree, situated upon an island of the same name, near Cape Verd. Most of these forts mounted from fifty to sixty pieces of cannon, and contained large reservoirs for water, and were not only impregnable to the negroes, but capable of standing a regular siege by a European force.

The individuals next in importance to the director or governor were the factors, who ranked according to their standing in the company’s service. The seniors generally remained at headquarters, and had the immediate management of the trade there, and the care of the supplies of European merchandise which were always kept in store. The junior factors were employed in carrying on the traffic in the interior of the country, which they did sometimes by ascending the rivers in armed vessels, and exchanging various articles for slaves, gold-dust, and ivory, with the negroes inhabiting the neighborhood; and sometimes by establishing themselves for several months in a large town or populous district, and, as it were, keeping a shop to which the natives might resort for traffic.

The European subordinates of the establishment consisted of clerks, bookkeepers, warehousemen, artificers, mechanics, gunners, and private soldiers, all of whom had particular quarters assigned for their abode, and lived under military discipline. The soldiers employed in the service of the different African companies were mostly invalids, and persons who had been dismissed from the army on account of bad conduct. Destitute of the means of subsistence at home, such men willingly engaged to go to the coast of Africa, where they knew they would be permitted to lead a life of ease, indolence, and licentiousness, and be exposed to no danger except that of a deadly climate, which was in reality the most certain and inevitable one that they could anywhere encounter. Few of the troops in any of the forts were fit for active duty, which was of the less consequence, because they were seldom or never required to fight except upon the ramparts of the place in which they might be quartered, and not often even there. Hence they spent their time in smoking, in drinking palm wine, and in gaming, and were generally carried off by fever or dissipation within two years after their arrival in the country. A stranger, on first visiting any of the African forte, felt that there was something both horrible and ludicrous in the appearance of its garrison; for the individuals composing it appeared ghastly, debilitated, and diseased, to a degree that is unknown in other climates; and their tattered and soiled uniforms, resembling each other only in meanness, and not in color, suggested the idea of the wearers being a band of drunken deserters, or of starved and maltreated prisoners of war.

Each company was in the practice of annually sending a certain number of ships to its respective establishments, freighted with European goods suitable for traffic; while its factors in Africa had in the meantime been collecting slaves, ivory, gumarabic, and other productions of the country; so that the vessels on their arrival suffered no detention, but always found a return cargo ready for them.

Though the forts were principally employed as places of safe deposit for merchandise received from Europe or collected at outposts, they were also generally the scene of a considerable trade, being resorted to for that purpose not only by the coast negroes, but often also by dealers from the interior of the country, who would bring slaves, ivory, and gold-dust for traffic. Persons of this description were always honorably, and even ceremoniously received by the governor or by the factors, and’ conciliated in every possible way, lest they might carry their goods to another market. They were invited to enter the fort, and were treated with liquors, sweetmeats, and presents, and urged to drink freely; and no sooner did they show symptoms of confusion of ideas, than the factors proposed to trade with them, and displayed the articles which they were disposed to give in exchange for their slaves, &c. The unsuspicious negro-merchant, dazzled by the variety of tempting objects placed before him, and exhilarated by wine or brandy, was easily led to conclude a bargain little advantageous to himself; and before he had fully recovered his senses, his slaves, ivory, and gold-dust were transferred to the stores of the factory, and he was obliged to be contented with what he had in his moments of inebriety agreed to accept in exchange for them.”

From this extract, it appears that not only did the managers of these factories receive all the negroes who might be brought down to the coast, but that emissaries, “junior factors,” as they were called, penetrated into the interior, as if thoroughly to infect the central tribes with the spirit of commerce. The result of this was the creation of large slave-markets in the interior, where the negro slaves were collected for sale, and where slave-merchants, whether negro, Arabic, or European, met to conclude their wholesale bargains. One of these great slave-markets was at Timbuctoo; but for the most part the slaves were brought down in droves by Slatees, or negro slave-merchants, to the European factories on the coast. At the time that Park traveled in Africa, so Completely had the negroes of the interior become possessed with the trading spirit, so much had the capture and abduction of negroes grown into a profession, that these native slave-merchants were observed to treat the slaves they were driving to the coast with considerable kindness. The negroes were, indeed, chained together to prevent their escape. Those who were refractory had a thick billet of wood fastened to their ankle; and as the poor wretches quitting their native spots became sullen and moody, their limbs at the same time swelling and breaking out in sores with the fatigue of traveling, it was often necessary to apply the whip. Still, the Slatees were not wantonly cruel; and there was nothing they liked better than to see their slaves merry. Occasionally they would halt in their march, and encourage the negroes to sing their snatches of song, or play their games of hazard, or dance under the shade of the tamarind tree. This, however, was only the case with the professional slave-driver, who was commissioned to convey the negroes to the coast; and if we wish to form a conception of the extent and intricate working of the curse inflicted upon the negroes by their contact with white men, we must set ourselves to imagine all the previous kidnapping and fighting which must have been necessary to procure every one of these droves which the Slatees carried down. What a number of processes must have conspired to bring a sufficient number of slaves together to form a drove! In one case, it would be a negro master selling a number of his spare slaves; and what an amount of suffering even in this case must there have been arising from the separation of relatives! In another case, it would be a father selling his son, or a son selling his old father, or a creditor selling his insolvent debtor. In a third, it would be a starving family voluntarily surrendering itself to slavery. When a scarcity occurred, instances used to be frequent of famishing negroes coming to the British stations in Africa and begging “to be put upon the slave-chain.” In a fourth case it would be a savage selling the boy or girl he had kidnapped a week ago on purpose. In a fifth, it would be a petty negro chief disposing of twenty or thirty negroes taken alive in a recent attack upon a village at a little distance from his own. Sometimes these forays in quest of negroes to sell are on a very large scale, and then they are called slave-hunts. The king of one negro country collects a large army, and makes an expedition into the territories of another negro king, ravaging and making prisoners as he goes. If the inhabitants make a stand against him, a battle ensues, in which the invading army is generally victorious. As many are killed as may be necessary to decide that such is the case; and the captives are driven away in thousands, to be kept on the property of the victor till he finds opportunities of selling them. In 1794, the king of the southern Foulahs, a powerful tribe in Nigritia, was known to have an army of 16,000 men constantly employed in these slave-hunting expeditions into his neighbors’ territories. The slaves they procured made the largest item in his revenue.”

The Lies of the University of Louisville Concerning the Antebellum South Tuesday, May 28 2013 

 My dear readers please forgive the extended attention given to the issue of the South and slavery over the past 6 months. I wanted to make sure I dealt with the Yankee criticisms of the South fairly and exhaustively. This will be the last installment on this issue for quite a while. Thank you for the few of you who have remained through this. These issues have cost me hundreds of readers but I could not be silent.


 “The negroes, so far as I have yet seen them, whether in domestic service or on the farms, appear very cheerful and free from care, better fed than a large part of the labouring class of Europe; and, though meanly dressed, and often in patched garments, never scantily clothed for the climate.”

Lyell’s Travels in North America by Charles Lyell[1]

Pursuant to the syllabus HIST 211: AMERICAN HISTORY I of Daniel Krebs, Ph.D., Department of History at the University of Louisville, the assigned textbook for this course was Understanding the American Promise: A Brief History of the  United States, Vol. 1: To 1877 by James L. Roark (Bedford-St. Martin’s: Boston and New York, 2011).

I have purchased this book and will now present a review of it.

According to Chapter 3 Section titled, When and why did the southern colonies move toward a slave labor system? the text states,

“Slaves had another important advantage over servants: They could be controlled politically. Bacon’s Rebellion had demonstrated how disruptive former servants could be when their expectations were not met. A slave labor system promised to avoid the political problems caused by the servants labor system.”[2]

The text is clearly trying to show that Virginia moved toward slavery to protect and consolidate their political power while supplanting and exploiting the black slaves in their move toward escalating the slavery institution in Virginia. History tells the exact opposite story. The men of Bacon’s Rebellion wanted to create the international trade from Virginia, not supplant it. Cassell’s History of the United States by Edmund Ollier records Bacon’s group,

“Now we can build ships,’ said they, ‘and trade, like New England, to any part of the world.”[3]

Virginia was not involved with the trade at this time and if Bacon’s group had succeeded our history would be stained with the blood of the slave trade. Virginia would continue to resist the slave trade through the next century.

The text admits as much on page 125 stating,

“About 85 percent of the slaves brought into the Southern colonies came directly from Africa, and almost all the ships that brought them (roughly 90 percent) belonged to British merchants.”

The rest were Yankees.

The Southerners were not the slave traders and kidnappers.

The text continues,

“poor white farmers enjoyed the privileges of free status. They could own property, get married, have families, and bequeath their property and their freedom to their descendants; they could move when and where they wanted; they could associate freely with other people; they could serve on juries, vote, and hold political office; and they could work, loaf, and sleep as they chose. These privileges of freedom-none of them possessed by slaves-made lesser white folk feel they had a genuine stake in the existence of slavery, even if they did not own a single slave.”[4]

This is curious. So let me get this straight: The South possessed over 200, 000 free blacks (260, 000 in 1860 according to the text, page 354), many of whom owned their own slaves, yet only the white free laborers had a stake in Plantation slavery due to their free status, though many blacks enjoyed free status, and could own property,  etc. though the institution of Plantation slavery constituted 3% of the Southern population? Curious.

Regarding the issue of property: The Plantation was a commune. To complain that slaves could  not own their own property is like calling a double dribbling foul on an offensive lineman in a football game. The ref is confused.

As to the issue of marriage, family and voting:

First, the text even admits on page 351,

“plantation records show that slave marriage laws were often long-lasting.”

Dabney states,

“Next, our laws did not, as many seem to represent, prohibit, or delegalize the marriage of slaves; but were simply silent about them. The meaning of this silence was, to leave the whole matter to the control of the master. It appears almost impossible for anti-slavery men to be made to apprehend the nature of the institution, as described in the words, ‘domestic slavery.’ Their minds, perverted with vain dreams of the powers and perfectibility of the State, cannot be made to apprehend that God has made other parties than the commonwealth and the civil magistrate, depositories of ruling power; [Metternich’s  Council of Vienna and Treaty of Verona is behind this no doubt.-DS] and that this arrangement is right and benevolent. Now, it is the genius of slavery, to make the family the slave’s commonwealth. The family is his State. The master is his magistrate and legislator, in all save certain of the graver ‘criminal relations, in which the commonwealth deals directly and personally with him. He is a member of municipal society only through his master, who represents him. The commonwealth knows him as only a life-long minor under the master’s tutelage. The integers of which the commonwealth aggregate is made up, are not single human beings, but single families, authoritatively represented in the father and master. And this is the fundamental difference between the theory of the Bible, and that of radical democracy. [That takes care of the voting issue. DS] The silence of our laws, then, concerning the marriage of slaves, means precisely this: that the whole subject is remitted to the master, the chief magistrate of the little integral commonwealth, the family. Obviously, therefore, the question whether our laws were defective therein, is in no sense a question between the living of the slaves in marriage or in beastly license; it is only a question whether, in the distribution’ of ruling functions, those of the master were not made too large and responsible, herein. And if error be admitted in this respect, it cannot be one which makes the relation of servitude sinful; for then the same crime must be fixed on all the patriarchs, notwithstanding their care in rightly ordering and preserving, as family heads, the marital relations of their children and slaves, because, forsooth, there happened to be no’ commonwealth law above them, as patriarchs, regulative of these marriages. This is nonsense.  Where the modern patriarch, the Southern master, rightly ordered and protected the marriage relations of his slaves, the silence of the commonwealth no more made their connexions concubinage, than were those of Isaac, and of Abraham’s steward, Eliezer of Damascus. What magistrate or legislature, other than Abraham, issued their marriage license? Who else enforced their marriage law or defined its rights? What civic agent solemnized the ceremonial for them? And this leads to another remark: that that ceremonial is wholly unessential to the validity of marriage. Of course, where the laws enjoin it for any class, every good citizen will observe it. But the absence of such ordained ceremonial does not make lawful marriage impossible. In this sense, consensus facit nuptias. It was thus that the holiest wedlock ever seen on earth was instituted, that of Adam and Eve; thus Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, were united. The fact that our laws pronounce the unions of Quakers and of Jews, legitimate marriage, although announced with different forms, and indeed almost without form, evinces this truth.

Now, then, for the facts. These facts are, that marriage in its substance was as much recognized among our servants as among any other peasantry; that the union was uniformly instituted upon a formal written license of the two masters; that it was almost always sanctioned by a religious ceremonial conducted by a minister; that the regularity of the connexion was uniformly recognized by the master’s assigning the husband and wife their own dwelling; that the moral opinion of both whites and blacks made precisely the same distinction between this connexion and the illicit ones, and between the fruits of it as legitimate, and the fruits of concubinage as illegitimate, which publick opinion establishes for white persons: and that even the criminal law recognized it as a regular connexion, by extending to the black man who slew the violator of his bed in heat of blood, the same forbearance which it extends to the outraged husband. How can it be said, in the face of these facts, that marriage did not exist among them?

But, it is asked, did not the master possess power to separate this union at his will; and was not this power often exercised? They did. The power, relatively, was not often exercised; and when the separation was not justified by the crimes of the parties, it met the steady and increasing reprobation of publick opinion. The instances of tyrannical separation were, at most, far fewer than the harsh tyranny of destitution imposes on poor whites in all other countries; and the pretended philanthropy of the Yankees has, in five years, torn asunder more families than all the slave dealers of the South did in a hundred.

But the power of separating was sometimes abused by masters; and the room for this abuse was just the defect in our laws, which nearly all Southern Christians deplored, and which they desired to repair. Justice requires the testimony, on the other hand, that the relaxed morals which prevailed among the Africans was not the result of their marital relations, as arranged among us, but the heritage of their paganism; that under our, system the evil was decreasing; and that since their emancipation and nominal subjection to the marriage law of the whites, a flood of licentiousness, vagrant concubinage, and infanticide, has broken out again among them. Clear proof this, that our abused system was better adapted to their character than the present.”[5]

Not only was marriage and family not prohibited, adultery and notions of divorce were punished by whipping.[6]

As for loafing and sleeping, I have always been struck by the record of Mississippi slavery from John A. Quitman, who was born in New York, and was raised and educated in the Yankee establishment. He then moved to Mississippi in 1820. In 1823 he wrote to Col. Brush, (And remember, this was written in 1823)

“…On public holidays they have dinners equal to an Ohio barbecue, and Christmas, for a week or ten days, is a protracted festival for the blacks…They are strongly attached to ‘old massa’ and ‘old missus,’ but their devotion to ‘young massa’ and ‘young missus’ amounts to enthusiasm…In short, these ‘niggers,’ as you call them, are the happiest people I have ever seen, and some of them, in form, features, and movement, are real sultanas.

So far from being fed on ‘salted cotton-seed,’ as we used to believe in Ohio, they are oily, sleek, bountifully fed, well clothed, well taken care of, and one hears them at all times whistling and singing cheerily at their work. They have an extraordinary facility for sleeping. A negro is a great night-walker. He will, after laboring all day in the burning sun, walk ten miles to a frolic, or to see his ‘Dinah,’ and be at home and at his work by daylight next morning. This would knock up a white man or an Indian. But a negro will sleep during the day—sleep at his work, sleep on the carriagebox, sleep standing up; and I have often seen them sitting bareheaded in the sun on a high rail-fence, sleeping as securely as though lying in bed. They never lose their equipoise, and will carry their cotton-baskets or their water-vessels, filled to the brim, poised on their heads, walking carelessly and at a rapid rate, without spilling a drop. The very weight of such burdens would crush a white man’s brains into apoplexy. Compared with the ague-smitten and suffering settlers that you and I have seen in Ohio, or the sickly and starved operators -we read of in factories and in mines, these Southern slaves are indeed to be envied. They are treated with great humanity and kindness. I have only heard of one or two exceptions. And the only drawback to their happiness is that their owners, sometimes, from extravagance or other bad management, die insolvent, and then they must be sold to the highest bidder, must leave the old homestead and the old family, and pass into the hands of strangers.”[7]

The ignorance of the Abolitionists concerning Plantation life is admitted by the text on page 372,

“Harriet Beecher Stowe…never stepped foot on a plantation”.

The text continues,

“Masters preferred black slaves to white indentured servants, not just because slaves served for life but also because colonial laws did not limit the force masters could use against slaves.”[8]

This is a total lie which I catalogued in my article against Django:

and later in the present article.

In Chapter 7 of our text we are met with the question: Why Did the Americans Declare Their Independence?  This is an important question to us Southerners who are privy to the issues involved with slavery and King George as already cited:

The text gives only a sliver of light stating,

“Jefferson had included an impassioned statement blaming the king for slavery, which delegates from Georgia and South Carolina struck out. They had no intention of denouncing their labor system as an evil practice.”[9]

This is laughable. Jefferson was not criticizing the institution of slavery but the forced slave trade that not only Jefferson but Virginian statesmen had been publicly protesting and attempting to criminalize for decades only to be overruled by England as I have documented above. But does this wicked deceitful textbook mention any of it? No.

In Chapter 13, Understanding The Slave South, we are introduced with more butchering of History by the text. The text leads the reader into believing that Slavery was the only issue that made the Southern people so different than the Northern; this was the only thing that separated their philosophies of government and society. This is laughable.

The Jesuit order was re-establishment in 1814. Immediately, Counter-Reformation conferences were held by that Papal Knight of the Holy Roman Empire,  Klemens von Metternich and his Congress of Vienna.

In 1818 the Duke of Richmond warned of the Roman Catholic plot,

“The Duke of Richmond.–The following language of the Duke of Richmond, while Governor of the Canadas, is reported by Mr. H. G. Gates, of Montreal, who was present when it was uttered:

“The Duke, a short time prior to his death, in speaking of the Government of the United States, said: ‘It was weak, inconsistent, and bad, and could not long exist. It will be destroyed; it ought not, and will not, be permitted to exist; for many and great are the evils that have originated from the existence of that Government. The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its example ; and, so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon his throne; and the sovereigns of Europe are aware of it, and they have been determined upon its destruction, and have come to an understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means to accomplish it; and they will eventually succeed, by subversion rather than conquest.’ ‘All the low and surplus population of the different nations of Europe will be carried into that country; it is, and will be, a receptacle for the bad and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted for soldiers, or to supply the navies; and the European governments will favor such a course. This will create a surplus and a majority of low population, who are so very easily excited; and they will bring with them their principles, and, in nine cases out of ten, adhere to their ancient and former governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion, and will transmit them to their posterity and in many cases propagate them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and, by the constitution and laws, will be invested with the right of suffrage. The different grades -of society will then be created by the elevation of a few, and by degrading many, and thus a heterogeneous population will be formed, speaking different languages, and of different religions and sentiments; and to make them act, think, and feel alike in political affairs, will be like mixing oil and water; hence discord, dissension, anarchy, and civil war, will ensue, and some popular individual will assume the Government and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of the natives, will sustain him.’ ‘The Church of Rome has a design upon that country, and it will, in time, be the established religion, and will aid in the destruction of that Republic’ ‘I have conversed with many of the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously expressed these opinions relative to the Government of the United States, and their determination to subvert it.” [10]

In 1822, the Treaty of Verona was produced, to regain powers that European Monarchs had lost in the centuries preceding the Treaty with the fall of The Divine Right of Kings. In the US, this movement was countered by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.[11] In 1825 the Treaty of Verona was furthered by a Jesuit session in Chieri located in Italy.[12] With this plot in place, the Jesuits began to infiltrate Protestant Universities in America through Freemasonry and the Skull and Bones organization.[13]  Luigi Desanctis said,

“The Jesuits exist in all Protestant countries under the name of missionaries, with the habit of priest, and . . . they exist there under other names. . . . Take England for example, there they do not legally exist [since 1829 until re-admitted in 1902 by King Edward VII]; nevertheless, they have not given up that country, and I assure you that they are more numerous in England than in Italy, and this because all the English, Scotch and Irish priests are pupils of the Jesuits [as was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy, Francis Cardinal Spellman], . . . There are Jesuits in Parliament, amongst the Anglican clergy, amongst the Bishops, and perhaps also in still higher circles [advisors of Queen Victoria] . . .”[14]

This is when we see the rise of Jesuit Arminianism which laid the foundation for the “Second Great Awakening”. Arminianism (Pelagianism) was essential for the North’s rejection of the South’s views of white supremacy and Negro subordination via their view of nature and grace.  The Pelagian system sees nature as arbitrary while the Calvinist sees nature as constituted. Thus Pelagianism gave the North a way to escape the South’s Calvinistic affirmation that the servitude of blacks reflected a law of nature pursuant to Gen.9-11.

Thus, with the massive Jesuit-inspired Luciferian infiltration of the Protestant Universities (Skull and Bones, etc.), the Jesuits construction of DECONSTRUCTION, was underway, paving the way for the reconstruction of the bHoly Roman Empire. The destruction of our social order was under way with the primary targets being our limited government and the idea that a government must have the consent of the governed in order to be de jure. Thus it was a revival of Monarchial powers.

Proceedings of the Nob Mountain Meeting, Held in Columbia County, PA. on the Last Three Days of August, 1865 by the Democratic Party (Columbia County, Pa.) states,


I will now read to you a very brief extract from Mr. Forney’s[15] paper in Philadelphia, about three years ago. You have heard of Mr. Forney in Pennsylvania, I believe. (Laughter.) You know he has been of the Cabinet at Washington, the kitchen member; he occupied all sorts of positions under the Lincoln administration, and is trying the same way to get into Mr. Johnson’s kitchen. Forney said in his paper, three years ago:

“Another principle must certainly be embodied in our re-organized form of government. The men who shape the legislation of this country when the war is passed, must remember that what we want is power and strength. The problem will be to combine the forms of a republican government with the powers of a monarchical government.”

There is an admission that they were about to “re-organize” the government. They, Forney, Lincoln & Co., were going to kindly give you the forms of a republican government, but to put you really under the hammer of a monarchical government. There were Republicans in Pennsylvania who read Forney’s paper and took that as a sweet morsel, and rolled it under their tongues, the traitors and scoundrels! and you, gentlemen of Pennsylvania, who believed right, made the great mistake that you did not take the thing by the throat, then and there, and strangle it and them on the very spot when they first dared enunciate such sentiments as these! How is it that the men who boldly proclaimed that they would strip you of all the principles of republican government, and would leave you only its forms, while they put you under the hammer of a monarchical government, have escaped hanging so long? How is it that they have been allowed to stain the soil of this country, that their very existence has been allowed here as a stench and a shame to a once free and brave people?

The North American, a very respectable organ of the Republican party in this State, at the same time that Mr. Forney was preaching about revolutionizing the Government, said:

“This war has already shown the absurdity of a Government of limited powers.”

Here is one of the most conservative and respectable organs of the party—a very different sheet from John W. Forney’s unscrupulous affair—saying, that the war has demonstrated the fact that a Government of limited powers is an absurdity. And it said further:—

“It has shown that the power of our Government ought to be, and must be, unlimited.”[16]

Now can we find a connection between Yankee Abolitionism and the Papal Knight Prince Klemens von Metternich and his Congress of Vienna? Yes we can. In Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Volume 2 (1893) by Edward L. Pierce, we read of Sumner’s letter to George Hillard,


Berlin, Dec. 25,1839.

Dear Hillard, — A happy Christmas to you, and all my friends! If this sheet is fortunate in reaching the steamship, you will receive it before my arrival; otherwise, it may be doubtful which will first see Boston. Your last is of Oct. 14, and gives me the afflicting intelligence of the death of Alvord.

“Dead ere his prime,

Young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer.”

The loss is great for all; but greater for us, his friends. I can hardly realize that my circle of friends is to be drawn closer by this departure; and yet this is the course of life: one by one we shall be summoned, till this circle entirely disappears. I shall break away from Berlin soon, — though, I confess, -with great reluctance. I fain would rest here all the winter, pursuing my studies, and mingling in this learned and gay world. I know everybody, and am engaged every day. All the distinguished professors I have seen familiarly, or received them at my own room. Raumer, and Ranke, the historians; of these two, Ranke pleases me the most: he has the most vivacity, humor, and, I should think, genius, and is placed before Raumer here. You doubtless know his “History of the Popes;” Mrs. Austin is translating it in England. Humboldt is very kind to me. He is placed at the head of the conversers of Germany. So far as I can compare conversation in different languages, his reminds me of Judge Story’s: it is rapid, continuous, unflagging, lively, various. He has spoken to me in the highest terms of Prescott’s book, — which I saw on his table, — as has Ranke also. In a note to me, he spoke of “l’excellent et spirituel Gouverneur Everett.” Savigny  I know well, and have had the great pleasure of discussing with him the question of codification. I was told in Paris that he had modified his views on this subject of late years; but I was sorry to find that my informants are mistaken. He is as firm as ever in his opposition to codes. He listened very kindly to my views on the subject, but seemed unshakable in his own. He is placed, by common consent, at the head of jurisprudence in Germany, and, you may say, upon the whole Continent. He had read Judge Story’s “Conflict of Laws” with admiration, and wished to know why he was not on our committee for codifying the Criminal Law. Savigny, in personal appearance and manner, resembles Webster more than any person I have ever seen. He is taller, not quite so stout; has the same dark face, hair, and eyes; and as be has been sitting by my side, when I have first caught his voice, I have thought it was our Senator’s. Savigny and Humboldt both are in what is called the society of Berlin; that is, with la haute vole’e, the court, and the diplomatic circle, — though I have not seen either there. The other professors do not enter that circle. Most of the corps diplomatique and the Ministers I know already; and I have been well received by the Crown Prince, and the Prince William, and their princesses. The Crown Prince, who seems bon garcon, inquired about our summers: he thought they must be magnificent. I told him I thought so, till I had been in Italy. He asked me if Boston were not an old city (une ville ancienne), three hundred years old. “Two hundred,” I said; “but that is antiquity with us.” I regret much that Mr. Wheaton  is not here. He is passing the winter in Paris. He is at the head of our diplomacy in Europe, and does us great honor: the Princess William spoke of him to me in the most flattering terms. This society is pleasant to enter, as I do, for a few times, and with the excitement of novelty; but I think I could not endure it a whole season. The presence of the Royal Princess is too genante; and then, all is formality and etiquette. I have seen here some very pretty women, — some of the prettiest I have ever met; two of them young princesses, the nieces of Puckler-Muskau. Bad, however, as the society is, I should prefer it before Vienna, where aristocracy has its most select home. Personally, I can bear very slight testimony on this subject, as I left Vienna the week the season commenced. I was, however, at Prince Metternich’s, where I saw the highest and proudest. Princess Metternich is thought very beautiful. I do not think so. She tosses a slight nod, if a proud prince or ambassador bends his body before her. The Austrian nobility only await the death of the Prince, her husband, to take their revanche. On my entering the salon, the Prince covered me with all those pleasant terms of French salutation: “Je suis bien enchante” de faire votre connaissance,” &c. He spoke of our country, for which he professed the greatest regard; said we were young, and Europe old: “Mais laissons nous jouir de notre vieillesse.” I disclaimed for myself and the better portion of my countrymen any vulgar propagandism. He spoke of Washington with great respect, and inquired about Sparks’s “Life and Writings,” and this new labor of Guizot. He requested me, on my return to America, to make the acquaintance of the Austrian Minister. After this reception from the Prince, I should probably have found the way easy to extending my acquaintance. But I left Vienna immediately, rode a night and a day and night over a dismal country to Prague: there passed a day; saw its bridge, its ancient towers, and the palace of the Bohemian kings…

As ever, affectionately yours,             C.S.”[17]

Sumner was the leader of the antislavery forces in Massachusetts. He was a leader of the Radical Republicans in the United States Senate during the American Civil War. He devoted his work to destroy the Confederacy. And yet, The University of Louisville would lead you to believe that only Slavery separated the North from the South. Give me a break.

This view of the North and its infiltration can also be seen in what the Jesuits did to Germany.[18] And just like the North, Germany was also to revive the Holy Roman Empire with the Third Reich; the Holy Roman Empire being the First Reich. Folks, this is all about Catholicism. Rome, Rome, Rome. When you ignore Rome you ignore History. So we have the 19th century attempt to revive the Holy Roman Empire with Metternich and the 20th century attempt with Hitler, and if you don’t think they are trying it again right now you are a fool!

The text states,

“Northern whites believe din racial superiority, too, but their dedication to white supremacy lacked the intensity and urgency increasingly felt by white Southerners who lived among millions of blacks who had every reason to hate them and to strike back.”[19]

This piece of mythology was exposed in my dealing with the Slave Narratives:

Reading through liberal attempts to discredit these Narratives only reinforce the Southern argument.

The text states,

“Proslavery spokesmen played on the fears of Northerners and Southerners alike by charging that by giving blacks equal rights would lead to the sexual mixing of the races, or miscegenation.”[20]

Which it has, and I must say that my Atheist and Communist Father, revealed the hypocrisy of the Abolitionist position when he showed his outrage at the fact that my younger sister began to date black men in college. He was humiliated and infuriated as he should have been, but seeing he is a Communist he got exactly what he deserved.

The text states,

“John C. Calhoun, an influential southern politician, declared that in the states where slavery had been abolished, ‘the condition of the African, instead of Being improved, has become worse,’ while in the slave states, the Africans ‘have improved greatly in every respect.”[21]

The shocking thing is, the text never attempts to refute Calhoun!

On page 344, the text points out that the South produced few cities and did not produce a public school. This is a great admission. This shows that the South rejected Babylonian views of society. Cities are Towers of Babel ripe for judgment and class warfare. Cities are dominated by industry and industry requires that the common man work for a handful of wealthy men instead of for themselves. The South protected themselves from this.[22]

The text complains that the Southern idea of paternalism, did not

“require that planters put aside their whips.”[23]

First, the Mosaic law did not require that planters put aside their whips. Do police guards put down their weapons when they are in the Penitentiary? No. Slavery was designed to civilize a race of people under a curse for their racially prone evils pursuant to Gen. 9-11. The text acts like this doesn’t exist, as do many American pseudo-Christians,  but the crime statistics of the United States Department of Justice tell the truth of the Bible’s tale.[24]   Secondly, the United States’ Police State has committed many more crimes against humanity than all accusations against the South as has the Yankee’s Military Industrial Complex. The Federal Government does not have a moral leg to stand on.

The text continues,

“The master’s absolute dominion sometimes led to miscegenation. As long as slavery gave white men extraordinary power, slave women were forced to submit to the sexual appetite of the men who owned them.”[25]

The rape of a woman was condemned in the Code of Virginia 1849, Chapter 191, Section 15.  R.L. Dabney says,

“…while many indictments are found against black men for rape of white women, none exist, in the history of jurisprudence, against white men for rape of black women. And this, not because there would have been any difficulty in making the indictment lie: but because, as the most experienced lawyers testify, the crime is unheard of on the part of white men amongst us.”[26]

If one wishes to investigate the men who perpetrated the most rape in the South, it was the Yankee invading Army. One such mass rape was under the 18th Ohio, Union army brigadier general, Ivan Turchaninov in Athens Alabama, April, 1862.

I have cataloged many more instances here:

Thirdly, the fact that white plantation owners had black mistresses who bore mulatto babies does not mean that a rape occurred. Men with great wealth and power rarely need to rape a woman for sex. Long-term monetary compensation usually wins over a beautiful woman of loose morals.

The text mentions on page 348,

“No feature of plantation life generated more anguish among mistresses than miscegenation.”

O really? That is fascinating because Yankee States like Ohio contained more Mulattos than blacks in the 1850 Census. The text continues,

“Mary Boykin Chestnut of Camden, South Carolina, confided in her diary, ‘Ours is a monstrous system, a wrong and iniquity. Like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines; and the mulattos one sees in every family partly resemble the white children.”[27]

First, in South Carolina, only 1 in 30 black slaves was mulatto according to the 1850 Census.   Second, her assertion that there was a Mulatto in every family also does not match the data in the 1850 Census. Third, as has already been documented, the Plantation represented 3% of the Southern Population. Even if her accusation was correct, her assertion that it was a SYSTEM is refuted by the fact that it made up only 3%  of the South’s population.

The text complains again,

“The backbreaking labor and the monotonous routines caused one ex-slave to observe that the ‘history of one day is the history of every day.”[28]

We have already seen this testimony is not generally true from the testimony of Quitman and Lyell. I added many more statements from the mouth of slaves themselves here:

But to add a bit more:

In slavery’s  modes and circumstances in the South, we see according to Robert Fogel’s Time on the Cross, “Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free negro in the South.”[29] And again, “The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers.”[30] And again, “U.S. Slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe.”[31]

I already addressed the issue of slave rebellions here:

However, the text continues,

“Despite the rarity of slave revolts, whites believed that they were surrounded by conspiracies to rebel.”[32]

This is an error. They were not afraid of slaves rebelling against their alleged cruel treatment. They were concerned about the invasion of Jesuit Abolitionist propaganda. See Code of Virginia 1849, Chapter 198, Sec. 28-33.[33]

The text complains again,

“Like slaves, they were liable to whipping. Free blacks were forbidden to strike whites, even to defend themselves.”[34]

They were forbidden to defend themselves against the whipping, not absolutely! In the Code of Virginia 1849, Chapter 191, Section 9 and Chapter 208, Section 30, criminalizes acts of violence committed by either a white man or a black man against a person. Pursuant to Chapple’s Case, 1 Va. Cases, 184 as cited in, Citations to the Code of Virginia by Abram C. Eby, page 965, Section 3671,

“decided by the General Court, it was held: This section applies to the stabbing of a slave as well as to a free person.”[35]

Moreover, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Carver. June T. 1827. 5 Rand’s Rep. 660, as recorded in A Practical Treatise on the Law of Slavery by Jacob D. Wheeler[36], this law was judged to be applicable to the victim: a black slave.

This concludes my exposure of abolition propaganda. I will not doubt be posting this in audio on my radio station sometime soon. I hope to see you there.

[1] Pg. 169

[2] Pg. 77

[4] Pg. 78

[5] Defence, 228-232

[6] Fogel, Time on the Cross, 128

[8] Pg. 126

[9] Pg. 174

[10] Footnote page 12, of Speech of Mr. L.C. Levin, of Penn., on the Proposed Mission to Rome Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, March 2, 1848 []

[11] See Samuel Morse, Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States; Thanks Eric Jon Phelps (EJP)

[12] Abate Leone, The Jesuit Conspiracy

[13] James D. Shaw & Tom C. McKenney , The Deadly Deception (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House, Inc., 1988) p. 104. ; Alexandra Robbins, Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2002) p. 119-121; Thanks EJP

[14] Maria Betts, Luigi Desanctis, Popery, Puseyism, and Jesuitism, (London: D. Catt, 1905; translated from the original Italian edition published as Roma Papale in 1865) p. 135.” Taken from EJP’s VA, 2001, pg. 118

[19] Pg. 341

[20] Pg. 342

[21] Pg. 342

[23] Pg. 346

[24] Pages 11-15; Quotation from page 7,

“From 2003 to 2009, the greatest percentage of hate crime victimizations were against white, non-Hispanic individuals”

See also Black mobs rioting all over the country…ty-mall-video/;…ry-at-wnd-com/

See also this expansive catalog:

[25] Pg. 347

[26] Defence, 233)

[27] Pg. 348

[28] Pg. 350

[29] Pg. 244

[30] Pg. 5

[31] Pg. 126

[32] Pg. 353

[34] Pg. 355

[36] Pg. 254

The Lies of the Jefferson County Public Schools Concerning the Antebellum South Thursday, May 2 2013 

Black Mob Violence In Chicago; NUTS! Wednesday, Apr 17 2013 

The Yankee abolition philosophy which rose out of the Semi-Pelagianism of the “Second Great Awakening” and perfected in the Uncivil Rights Era is fully developed in Chicago. The Blacks are utterly Savage and all hell is breaking loose.

Still think Drake is a conspiracy theorist? This will continue to happen and when it it comes full blossom, those of us who have been exposing it will be considered heroes to our white peers. Ignore all the desperate personal attacks of the white libtards my white racialist brother. In a short time, we shall be considered the Orthodox and they the heretics.



Dabney Exposes the Union and Absolute Free Labor as the Cruel Slave Master It Is Saturday, Mar 9 2013 

Dabney Backs Off of Making Filioque a Dogmatic Doctrine

The following is from Dabney’s Discussions, Vol. IV, Secular, THE LABOR UNION, THE STRIKE AND THE COMMUNE which can be viewed here and here 

The strike entails a fearful destruction of wealth. All profit on the plant of the employers is lost; while the savings of the laborers are eaten up, in unproductive consumption, and their time, which is their money, is wasted for naught. The community as a body is left
just so much the poorer.[1]

An individual instance will best prove this. We will suppose the head of a family a stockholder in the manufactory which is undergoing a strike. He is not one whit more
selfish or less charitable than any other rich man, or laboring man. The dividends on his stock constitute his family revenue. By reason of the strike those dividends will drop this year from $2,500 to $1,800. He and his wife hold a council upon the question, What is to be done? They are prudent people, who do not wish to go in debt. What will they do? Just what all other parents in the world would do, viz: They will so change their expenditures as to live on the $1,800, while imposing upon themselves and the children they love the lightest possible hardships of retrenchment and retaining as many of the solid comforts of life as possible. Their retrenchments will work after this fashion. Mother will say: “Husband, hitherto we have indulged our girls by having their finer raiment made up by a dressmaker. The girls must learn, with my help, to be their own mantua-makers; they have leisure enough.” Father adds: “Our eldest, Emily, is now quite proficient in her music. Why can she not give the piano lessons to the younger girls, so as to save the heavy cost of the music teacher?” “Just so,” says the mother: “And we can also dispense with one of the maids; for the girls can very well do the sweeping and dusting of the chambers; the exercise will be good for their health.” “And,” adds the father, “there is our boy, Tom, who is now a great, strapping fellow, passionately fond of horses. Why cannot Tom groom and harness old Haldy before and after his school hours, so we can dispense with a hired groom?” So this family adjust themselves to the reduced income, without any real loss of comfort, only, they have to be somewhat more busy and have less time for idling and loafing, which is all the better for their health and cheerfulness, but, “How
does this retrenchment work? Upon the under stratum.” This dressmaker, who thus loses the custom of a large family is Miss Bettie Jones, the daughter of a poor and sickly old widow, whom she must support along with herself, by her needle. On her this retrenchment presses as a real and probably a cruel hardship, but who can blame this gentleman and his wife for their prudent and honest measures? surely, it would be still
more cruel in them to continue employing Betsy Jones’ needle and then fail to pay her. So the professional music teacher who loses three pupils (a fifth or fourth part of her income),is Miss Lucy Hill, a poor but refined woman, who has to support herself and a paralytic father by her music fees. The discharged housemaid is Biddy Malony, the daughter of Mike Malony, and one of a family of eleven; and the father is the discharged groom, who had earned one-third of the bread and potatoes for his family by caring for old Baldy and his stable. Biddy’s wages are now gone and she comes back upon her father to be fed, while half of his means for buying food are gone. Here are four deserving poor persons who are hit hard as a consequence of this decline in the stockholder’s income. But it is the strikers who are really responsible for these cruel blows.
…Every blow which the working men are instigated to aim at their employers must prove a boomerang…But a stronger element of defeat appears. The labor union does not include all the poor men of the vicinage. Many of these need employment badly and are only too glad to accept the wages and the employment which the union men have just
disdained and rejected Thus after a few days’ suspension the wheels of the factory begin to revolve again with a new body of laborers, while the union men find themselves left out in the cold permanently.

Thus the strike system has proved an utter futility, and  worse, unless the union men proceed to further measures, which pans at once into criminality. These are always violent and illegal attempts to prevent non-union men from accepting employment, by insults, threats, blows, assaults, and even murders. The union resolves that their late employers shall not exercise their reasonable and lawful rights to form such new contracts of labor as they and the new employes see fit to approve; they decree that their fellow citizens, their lawful equals, while not union men, shall not exercise the inalienable right of every free human being to work for a living, and to make such
contract concerning employment and wages as is satisfactory to himself. Thus the union men “picket” the gates of the factory. They denounce the new laborers as “scabs,” as
traitors to the cause of the working-man. They make violent threats. In extreme cases they proceed to violent assaults, to murder, to arson, to assassination. Thus the labor union is transmitted into a criminal conspiracy. Every intelligent and just mind views these ulterior measures as most outrageous wickedness and despotism wrought under the pretense of defending the rights of the working men…Obviously, the concession to their
demands means the confiscation of the employers’ property, overthrow of law, the raising of an aristocracy of rights in the union men as against their non-union equals and fellow citizens, and the enthronement of the union in the room of the lawful commonwealth, as an absolute commune.[2]

They perceive that the labor union and the strike are expedients from which the great majority of their fellow citizens are utterly precluded by the nature of their occupations, and that is the very reason why the unionists value these expedients. They know perfectly, that if all the other forms of labor in the commonwealth found it equally feasible to protect their own occupations from the law of supply and demand by their own labor unions and strikes, the whole system would be nugatory. For instance, what the spinners in a factory gained by forcing up their wages, would be neutralized by what they would lose to the farmers when they came to buy their food; if the farmers also could have a labor union which would force up the price of their crops proportionately and equitably.

From this point of view the thoughtful reader sees, that labor unions are rather conspiracies against fellow citizens and fellow laborers, than against oppressive employers.[3]

C. D. is a weaver in a cloth factory. Mr. E. P. is an honest farmer who must buy a good deal of this cloth to clothe his family and himself. One element of the cost of the cloth to E. F. is the wage of C. D., the weaver; but C. D. has resolved that E. F., his fellow citizen and equal, shall not buy that element in the value of the cloth at that equitable rate which should be generally dictated by the law of supply and demand: C. D. will force up that price against that farmer by the artificial forces of his monopoly-ring, his threats and his
strikes. But C. D. fully expects to buy the bread and meat for his family from the farmer, E. F., under the strict operation of supply and demand. There is equity and democratic equality with a vengeance! But should any law or labor union enable the farmer to enhance the price of his food-products above market rates as determined by supply and demand, C. D. would declare himself much outraged. His labor union is a good rule
for him; but it must not “work both ways

What are their societies but labor-monopolies?[4]

Their cry is: “For the masses against the classes!” Yet they are assisting a narrow class to plunder the masses of their fellow citizens

I may digress for a moment to add, that the same insolent falsehood is obtruded whenever the tariff system claims to be protective of American labor: as though, forsooth, the factory hands working upon protected manufactures were the only people who perform deserving labor!…this “protection” is but a legalized method to enable them to take something from the unprotected earnings of their fellow citizens without value received, and to add it to their own…

but there are seven and a half millions engaged in the heavier labor of agriculture, under hotter suns and freezing winds, to whom the arts of the labor union are impossible. They must produce and sell their crops under the inexorable operation of the law of supply and demand. And if over supply or partial legislation reduces the price of their products below the cost of production, these millions must simply endure it.[5]

Yet the direct effect of the arts of the labor unions is: to raise the price of every roof which shelters, of every chimney and every pound of coal which warms, and of every yard of cloth which covers these worse paid laborers in favor of a small minority already
overpaid in comparison.[6]

Does he [the farmer] need a cottage, a chimney in it, a farm wagon, a thresher, a mower, a buggy plow, a rotary harrow? The labor union men are compelling him to pay much higher prices for each of these things, by their conspiracies. …

The British Liberals in 1845, represented by Joseph Hume and the famous Free Trade Society, announced the laissez nous Faire free trade in commodities, and free trade in labor, as the very gospel of economics and politics. [7]

Free trade in labor meant for Joseph Hume and his friends that every laborer
should be a free man with the right to make his own contracts of labor to suit himself; but to make them, like the farmer, the manufacturer and the merchant, under the common regulation of the law of supply and demand.[8]

[Dabney cites the success of this system-he also seems to favor free trade.-DS]

In this new phase and deduction of Malthusianism, there is unquestionable truth. It has been verified a hundred times in the depression, in the deficient compensation and misery of free laborers, in hireling commonwealths . Another admission must be made. No existing commonwealth organized exclusively upon the hireling labor theory has yet found a full remedy for this deplorable tendency, no matter how liberal or even democratic its constitution.[9]


When the means of subsistence increase in any society, population always tends to increase up to the new level. Then, if that new level of subsistence be not farther raised, population will proceed to press upon it and overpass it. The proletariat will accustom itself first to part with its luxuries, and then to submit to a scantier supply of comforts; and as long as their earnings are sufficient to support existence, this laboring class will continue to obey nature’s instinct to increase and multiply…

But all earthly expansions must stop somewhere. A colt may grow wonderfully when placed in a rich, fresh pasture; but after five years of age he must stop growing, no matter what his pasture. All earthly advancements must reach their limits. And the Socialists assert that when Britain reaches her limit the Malthusian principle combined with free trade in labor will at once begin to depress the laboring classes of Britain. And this must go on until they become miserable wage slaves.[10]

again, like the peasantry of France and Southern Europe before the Revolution; of the Ireland of 1840.[11]

No class of accusers have done more by false accusations, slanders, and vilification to bring upon that fair region an undeserved and remorseless deluge of revolution, war, devastation and tyranny, than these advanced socialists. But now, lo! we find them with
equal passion asserting a doctrine which leads directly back to a form of slavery far more ruthless than domestic bondage
. Every man of sense knows that when he is forbidden by force to work where he chooses, and for the wage which suits himself, even in a lawful occupation, is no longer a free man: he is a slave. The power which commands me where I shall not work is the same with the “slave-power” which commands another where he shall work. Again, when the labor union has forbidden
me, a non-union man, to do the lawful work which suits me for the support of my family, I ask them: “To whom then must I look for the subsistence of those I love?” Their answer
is: “Join the union, and draw your weekly pension from the community fund, which will be issued to you so long as it lasts, and you implicitly obey.” Here again I am enslaved; far worse enslaved than the African bondman of the South; for while the labor union may issue to me, for a time, a pittance which may prevent starvation out of a scanty fund created only by a tribute taken out of my own previous wages, the Southern bondman drew all the time his full subsistence, whether the business of the commune was profitable or not.[12]

If the labor union, that is, the commune, is to have full authority to forbid its members to work, then it must make itself responsible for the full subsistence of the laborers and their families. But if the commune is responsible for this, it must have authority to command the members where they shall work and to enforce that command. Without this power the commune could not possibly fulfill its pledges to furnish subsistence to its subjects. But the essence of slavery is the obligation of compulsory labor, and the dependence upon the will of another for subsistence. Communism is slavery. Its advocates cheat themselves by explaining: “But the members elect their own rulers, and this is liberty.”[13]

But this is giving the commune, that is the officeholders, property in this involuntary labor, except in this all important respect: that it failed to enlist any domestic feeling,
or any self-interest of the heads in the welfare of members
. In such an association what need the officeholders care if a laboring member dies, or if the infants of his family perish of destitution, he loses no property! He has just so many the fewer cares
to worry him. For instance, when the crews of the patriot British fleet which conquered the Invincible Armada at Gravelines were decimated by the spoiled beer, which their commissaries furnished, what did these care? Their private profits upon their beer contracts were safe in their pockets. If many soldiers of General Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, died in the hospitals, this was but so much to his advantage, for he could
continue their names upon the pay rolls of the army, and quietly pocket their wages and allowances. The greater the suffering and mortality, the more his riches grew. When British paupers died in the work-house, under the late poor law system, who cared; what official, what tax-payer? The United States had a brief experience in this line, under its notorious Freedman’s Bureau. We presume that when these wards of the nation dropped off, the average officeholder felt no emotion but relief. So now, when a hireling sickens or dies, his employer has lost nothing: he has but to hire another in his place. But our Southern communism, by making the labor the master’s property, awoke an all-powerful motive for taking the best care of it.[14]

Now Dabney offers his solution:

In fine, only three modes are possible for adjusting the wages of labor and interest
of capital. One is to leave the adjustment, under equitable laws, which shall hold laborer and property-holder equals, to the great law of supply and demand. The second is to have the government fix maximum and minimum prices by statute. The third is to leave these combination of laborers and employers against each other. For, if the one combine, of course the others will. The second plan is mischievous despotism. See its working in the French Revolutions. The third splits society into warring factions, and tends to barbarism.[15]

The more rapid progress of the late Confederate States, in the creation and accumulation of wealth, as demonstrated by the successive census returns of 1840, 1850 and 1860, was accounted for, in part, by the absence of strikes. The Negro laborers could not combine; the white found no motive to do so.[16]
[Can the Communists show a white strike in the south?-DS]

The other proposal is, that the quarrels of labor and capital shall be prevented, by making the National Government itself the general industrial manager. The Democratic theory is,
that the Government reflects the combined will of all the people. This, then, is the right agency to direct industrial pursuits. Let the Government be in place of the corporations and capitalists.

Here several plain thoughts give us pause:

First. If this plan will be goad, it will be because the Government direction will be better than that of the corporation or personal will. If, then, the Government is to confer this advantage on some industries, it must confer it on all. Otherwise we shall introduce inequalities and favoritisms most odious to Democratic theory. If it undertakes to operate all industries, it becomes a worse than Chinese despotism, a machine so vast as to crush out all individuality, and to break down hopelessly by its own weight.

Second. The success of the Government’s management in all these industries must depend supremely on the competency and honesty of the Government’s officials.

Third. The Government is practically represented in the person of the magistrate. But, by the nature of Government, “he beareth the sword.” His power is essentially punitive.
Transgressions against his will must be held as “crimes” and “misdemeanors.” Shall his industrial functions as the manager of numberless laborers be enforced by this species of sanction? Shall the Government hold that the employee who has not watched his power loom, or chiseled his stone aright, is to be corrected as the petty larcener is?

This suggests the fourth and hardest question of all. If Government is to be general, not to say universal, industrial agent, it must see to it that all whom it employs and subsists do
their honest share of the work. For otherwise, the idlers would be rewarded for their sin by being set up as an aristocracy above the faithful workers, to live at ease at the others’ expense. Each citizen then must be held responsible to Government for the diligent and useful employment of his time, under some efficient penalty. But the “Government” as such is an abstraction, which directly touches no man. It must act through persons clothed with official power. The meaning, then, would be that the citizens must answer to some officeholder, representing this sovereign Government, under some penalty, for doing his share of work. But this means slavery it is its exact definitions.[17]

The moment the “union” goes an inch beyond the mere withdrawal—the moment it begins to obstruct, terrorize, or beat, or murder the employers and the new employes, it has become a criminal conspiracy; the State should put it down with as prompt and firm a hand as they would put down highway/ robbery or foreign invasion.[18]


1.When the Union strikes against his employer, the employer’s costs go up, and thus prices go up and his leisure activities go down. But wait! Those leisure activities are provided by common hireling workers. Thus, in their desire to fight for the common hireling worker, the Union persecutes common hireling workers.

2. Unless a Union is willing to resort to violence, other workers are sought by the employer to fulfill the positions the striking Union refuse to take, leaving the family of this striking Union helpless and out in the cold.

3. If the Union is willing to resort to violence they, in their hypocritical desire to fight for the rights of labor refuse the rights of labor for those they call scabs.

4. This denial of others the right to work creates an aristocracy of rights, a monopoly of labor, among the Union. They become just like the people they say they hate. HYPOCRITES!

5. The backfire of Unions is if other labor forces such as agriculture could unite to strike, they could drive up the costs of food and thus negate the success the Factory Union had with their employers by raising their wages. The new wage is wasted on more expensive food.

6. But agricultural laborers do not have the ability to create a union, and thus the factory Unionists have a monopoly on the right to Unionize and Strike.

7. These Union strikes then do not affect the employers nearly as much as their fellow citizen. When a Union strikes, the demands force the Employer’s costs up, which forces him to raise costs on his products. This then raises the price of goods on the Union’s fellow common laborers outside the factory.

8. When a Union is formed it must have the authority to command its members to abstain from work and furnish subsistence to their members during a strike. What else is this subordination and dependence but slavery?

9.  If the Communist appeals to the idea of Nationalizing the employers and making the Government the employer, the inevitable result will be a representative of Government compelling everyone to perform their share of labor. What else is this but slavery?

Conclusion: The absolute free labor system is the soil from which the Union grievances have sprung. No free-labor system has of yet solved this problem of the employers’ indifference to the plight of their labor and to wide spread poverty. The South did  by instituting Biblical slavery and making labor the property of capital. Now the inevitable objection will then come:


No, no, no. There is no return to slavery. Slavery has never left us. It is an inescapable, biological reality in human affairs.  Slavery cannot be avoided in any human economic system. Why not be honest and admit we are slave-holders and administrate it properly like it was done in the South?

Communist Abolition has proven to be the most blood thirty, murderous philosophy in the history of mankind. They officially were responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th Century and they are behind the Abortion Holocaust as well. Don’t be intimated by these people my Confederate brother. They don’t have a moral leg to stand on and they have proven without a doubt that they don’t give a damn about human life.

[1] 295

[2] 296-298

[3] 299-Who then benefits? The Yankee Capitalist!

[4] 300

[5] 301

[6] 302

[7] 303

[8] 304

[9] 305-306

[10] 306

[11] 307

[12] 307

[13] 308

[14] 310-311

[15] 314

[16] 315

[17] 317-319

[18] 320

The Yankees Exposed in the Corwin Amendment! Thursday, Mar 7 2013 

From Wikipedia:

“The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress, 2nd Session, on March 2, 1861, in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 13. It would forbid subsequent attempts to amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to “abolish or interfere” with the “domestic institutions” of the states, including “persons held to labor or service” (a reference to slavery).

Ohio Republican Representative Thomas Corwin offered the amendment in an attempt to forestall the secession of Southern states. Corwin’s resolution emerged as the House of Representatives’s version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by New York Republican Senator William H. Seward. However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was committed to independence and so it ignored the Corwin Amendment.

This proposed amendment is still pending before the state legislatures for ratification, because Congress submitted it to the state legislatures without a deadline. Since the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was adopted in 1865, the Corwin Amendment lost whatever momentum it had.


No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

You see, the Yankees had made provisions for the South to remain in the Union as perpetual slave holding states. The abolishment of slavery was not their concern. Slavery was used as an excuse to invade the South after the South refused this Yankee ploy.

The Truth About Genesis 9 and Race Relations; Can You Handle The Truth? Wednesday, Mar 6 2013 

It has been a popular diversion of late to dismiss my life’s work against the Triune innovation by appealing to my supposed racist views. I have been told that my view of Genesis 9 and the black race is an innovation that arose in the Antebellum South to justify slavery and the subjugation of blacks. I reply.

In the 17th Century in England, there lived an English Puritan named Matthew Poole. From the great Multi-Biography Meet the Puritans:

“His first major work was Synopsis Criticorum aliorumque Sacrae Scripturae Interpretum (1669-1676), a five volume work that compiled and abridged the work of biblical commentators from all ages and nations…This work, though famous in its day, was never translated from Latin to English.

Poole began compiling Synopsis Criticorum in 1666 and worked on it every day for ten years. His plan was to study from 4 a.m. until supper, stopping only to eat a raw egg at 8:30 a.m. and another egg at noon. In the evening he visited friends.” (pg. 486)

Well a gentleman living today, a Dr. Dilday, has begun a translation of this work and I have purchased the first Volume. This may be the most authoritative Commentary in Christian History.  Now what does this Commentary say about the infamous passages in Genesis 9? Poole says,

“Of the sons of Noah, Ham was sent away into Africa, where he was worshipped under the name of Jupiter Ham, or Hammon, as Herodatus and Plutarch testify. And, in Jeremiah 46:25,Amon of No, that is, the god Amon, whose temple was in the city of No. (For that reason, Egyptian Thebes was called dio/spolij, a city of the god, by the Greeks; Amon of No by the Hebrews, or No of Amon, Ezekiel 30:15;Nahum 3:8.) That the name of Ammon was known in all Africa and Arabia, the Ammon river and the Ammonite people of Arabia show, Pliny’s Natural History 6:28. The Ammonite headland, Ptolemy’s Geography 6:7. A city of Ammon, Ptolemy’s Geography 4:3; and another Ammonite city, Strabo’s Geography 17; and the temple of Ammon on the island of Meroë, and the Ammonite country, Ptolemy’s Geography 4:5, where is the most famous oracle of Ammon; and all Africa is called Ammonite, Stephanus out of Alexander Polyhistor, who lived in Egypt under Ptolemy Lathyrus. From Chamo/Ham Egypt was called Chemia (Plutarch’s The Worship of Isis and Osiris), or Chamia, and by the Copts (who hold fast most pertinaciously the ancient names), Chemi at the present time.

Hence also the counties or cities (or districts [Bochart’s Sacred Geography “Phaleg” 4:1:230] are called, Chemmis, Psochemmis, Psittachemmis. Moreover, these things demonstrate that Ham is the Jupiter of the Poets: 1. The name Hammon is given to Jupiter. 2. As Mxa signifies fervid, so also Zeu…Zeus is from seething. 3. As Ham was the youngest son of Noah, Genesis 9:24, so also Jupiter was to Saturn. 4. It is imagined that he was the lord of heaven, because Africa fell to him, which is between the Tropics and is thought to be nearest to heaven. 5. Jupiter castrated his father; from Genesis 9:22…, and he told, which, when the points were absent, could have been read…,and he cut away. And they say that this was done by Jupiter on Corcyra,an island of the Phæacians: Lycophronin Cassandra 76. Thus the Poets were deceived by the equivocation of the name.”


Ok, the first premise has been established. Yes, the Hamite line is the Black peoples of Africa. Yes, if you are wondering, I have had people challenge this premise.[Steve Hays] Poole has well established it. Continuing,

“The outcome of matters confirmed this prophecy concerning the sons of Noah. Ham cut off the families of his son from all dignity, which was threefold: the priesthood (which Shem obtained), the double portion (which was to Japheth), and the supremacy (Fuller) [Are we paying attention?-DS]. Shem subjugated Japheth, and Japheth subjugated Shem: but Ham subjugated neither; neither has any of the sons of Ham yet ruled over Japheth (Mede’s Diatribe “Discourse 48”). The supremacy of Nimrod is not at all to be compared with the empires of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Greeks, and Romans, neither with respect to multitudes, nor extent, nor duration. [Steve Hays refuted again.-DS] God is the God of Shem…To Japheth was allotted the whole of Europe and the greater (namely, the more northern) part of Asia, and even America, which, it is probable, was first occupied by him.[Crickets-DS] Ham, so called from …heat, received a sweltering region. The whole of Africa was once called ‘Ammonis or ‘Ammonia, [My English rendition from the Greek.-DS] says Stephanus, from Ammon. This Ammon was Jupiter, namely, Sol … And if it is likely that the Assyrians deified Nimrod, a foreigner, by the name of Jupiter Belus, why would not the Libyans also consecrate Ham, the progenitor of their own race, by the name Jupiter Hammon? Egypt was formerly called Xehmia [My English rendition from the Greek.-DS]/Chemia (as Plutarch testifies in The Worship of Isis and Osiris) by the most experienced of the priests (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 2:4)…

[Buckle up, here it comes! -DS] Canaan shall be his servant. This was eminently accomplished; for though Shem and Japheth, in their posterity, did successively conquer and rule one over the other, yet none of Ham’s posterity did ever bear rule over Japheth; but Ham, though for a time he bore sway in his son Nimrod, yet that dominion soon expired, and the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Grecians, and Romans ruled the world for a succession of many ages, and Ham’s people were constantly their servants and subjects.”


Here we have all of the fundamental points which have formed the basis of the  accusations that I am a crazed racist. Well, that is really easy to say and not so easy to prove.  Could it be that most Lincolnist Christians are really just very ignorant and weak minded people? Could it be that the reason most Lincolnist Christians demonize me is because they are afraid of what will happen to them if they stand with the truth? Yes, I have been contacted by the Southern Poverty Law Center and those people have a reputation for absolutely ruining the lives of people like me. Could that be why I am shunned?  You know, sometimes, the truth hurts and many people can’t handle the truth.

The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies Part 9; Why Did We Lose the War? Friday, Mar 1 2013 

After examining the events of the “American Civil War” one may wonder, “why would God allow this to happen? Why did he let the Yankees win that war and do the things they did to his people?”  In brief, I maintain that the Yankee Invasion was a judgment for breaking The Solemn League and Covenant and compromising with Thomas Jefferson’s Jacobin ideas of pluralism. The Covenant reads,

“Assembly at EDINBURGH, August 17, 1643.  Sess. 14.

The General Assembly’s Approbation of the SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.

THE Assembly having recommended unto a Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of the Honourable Convention of Estates, and the Commissioners of the Honourable Houses of the Parliament of England, for bringing the kingdoms to a more near conjunction and union, received from the foresaid Committees the Covenant after mentioned, as the result of their consultations: and having taken the same, as a matter of so publick concernment and so deep importance doth require, unto their gravest consideration, did, with all their hearts, and with the beginnings of the feelings of that joy, which they did find in so great measure upon the renovation of the National Covenant of this kirk and kingdom, All with one voice approve ad embrace the same, as the most powerful mean, by the blessing of GOD, for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty’s dominions, and propagating the same to other nations, and for establishing his majesty’s throne to all ages and generations.  And therefore, with their best affections, recommend the same to the Honourable Convention of Estates, that, being examined and approved by them, it may be sent with all diligence to the kingdom of England, that, being received and approven there the same may be, with publick humiliation, and all religious and answerable solemnity, sworn and subscribed by all true professors of the reformed religion, an all his Majesty’s good subjects in both kingdoms.”


Thomas Jefferson had every opportunity to sustain the Covenant here in America and he deliberately led our people into rebellion.

Glasgow says in Alexander Craighead’s Renewal of the Covenants, National and Solemn League; A Confession of Sins; An Engagement to Duties; and a Testimony; as they were Carried on at Middle Octorara in Pennsylvania, November 11, 1743 (1748),

“John Knox asserts in his first Confession of Faith “the right and duty of the people to resist the tyranny of their rulers.” The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in 1649, declared: “1st. That as Magistrates and their power are ordained of God, so are they in the exercise thereof, not to walk after their own will, but according to the law of equity and righteousness. * * * A boundless and unlimited power is to be acknowledged in no king or magistrate. 2nd. That there is a mutual obligation betwixt the king and his people. As both of them are tied to God, so each of them is tied the one to the other for the per     formance of mutual and reciprocal duties. 3rd. That arbitrary government and unlimited power are the foundations of all the corruptions in Church and State.”…In November, 1743, one hundred years after the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant, Mr. Craighead gathered together all the Covenanters in Eastern Pennsylvania, at Middle Octorara, LancasterCounty, and, after the dispensation of the Lord’s Supper, led them in the renewing of the Covenants. Here they declared, with uplifted swords, their independence of an ecclesiastical body that strangely upheld Erastian prelacy; and also declared their separation from the Crown which had so impiously violated Covenant engagements on both sides of the Atlantic. The proceedings of this interesting occasion are given in the following pages by those who participated in the transactions. The proceedings were first printed in Philadelphia, in 1744, and re-printed in 1748, evidently by Benjamin Franklin, who editorially, in the Pennsylvania Gazette, refers to the matter…For seven years Mr. Craighead labored among the Covenanter societies; but, failing to receive assistance from Scotland, he removed, in 1749, to Virginia, thence to Mecklenberg County, North Carolina. There he became identified with the Presbytery in connection with the Presbyterian Church. Being thoroughly imbued, however, with the principles of the Scotch Covenanters, Mr. Craighead taught them to his people around Charlotte. They in turn formulated them into the First Declaration of Independence, emitted at Charlotte, N.C., May, 1775. According to a reliable author, [Wheeler’s Reminiscences, p. 278-DS] Thomas Jefferson says in his autobiography that when he was engaged in preparing the National Declaration of Independence, that he and his colleagues searched everywhere for formulas, and that the printed proceedings of Octorara, as {4} well as the Mecklenberg Declaration, were before him, and that he freely used ideas therein contained… In July, 1777, according to an order, and after an appropriate sermon by Rev. Cuthbertson, the Covenanters in Eastern Pennsylvania swore fidelity to the cause of the Colonists. They considered it right and duty to resist the tyrannical authority of an unscrupulous king and oppressive government, and especially so when that authority had persecuted their fathers and martyred their ancestry in the maintenance of the truth which the same authority had solemnly sworn to uphold.”


The Centennial Celebration of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in The United States of America By Princeton Theological Seminary 1912, pages 521-522,

“I should like, before I close, to indicate another service which our people rendered to this Republic. George Canning, one of the most brilliant of British foreign secretaries, clasped hands with Thomas Jefferson across the Atlantic in the bonds of international peace, convinced that Britain and America could stand against the possible coalitions of the world, and declaring as premier, “I called a new world into existence to redress the balance of the old”. George Canning only recognised the existence of the new world and induced George IV to do likewise in the King’s Speech of 1825; but the Ulster Presbyterians did their part in calling that new world into existence. The National League of Scotland and Ulster prepared the way for the Declaration of Independence. A century after the adoption of the Solemn League and Covenant by Scotland and Ireland, the Rev. Thomas Craighead led in its renewal by his people, who, with uplifted hands, declared their separation from the Crown which had violated the Covenant. The Mecklenburg Convention, which was the outgrowth and embodiment of Craighead’s spirit, and which consisted of Ulster men, announced in 1775 the principles of the Declaration of Independence before Jefferson stamped its words with the impress of his genius, or Charles Thompson of Belfast committed it to the handwriting in which it is preserved; before another Ulster man read it to the people, or a third gave to it the wings of the press. In that period of a nation’s birthpang’s, the Ulster Presbyterians were American; and in their stand they had the sympathy and the powerful moral support of that illustrious Irish statesman, Edmund Burke.”

In the early years of our English Colonies, we understood the fundamental problem with pluralism: Rome. In a law passed March 2, 1643 in Jamestown we read,

“Whereas it was enacted at an Asembly in January 1641, that according to a statute made in the third year of the reigne of our sovereign Lord King James of blessed memory, and that no popish recusants should at any time hereafter exercize the place or p laces of secret councellors, register or comiss: surveyors or sheriffe, or any other publique place, but be vtterly disabled for the same….And it is further enacted by the authoritie aforesaid that the statute in force against the popish recusants be duel y executed in this government, And that it should not be lawfull vnder the penaltie aforesaid for any popish priest that shall hereafter arrive to remaine above five days after warning given for his departure by the Governour or comander of the place wher e he or they shall bee, if wind and weather hinder not his departure….”[1]


In a New York law passed, August 9, 1700 we read,


WHEREAS divers Jesuits preists and popish missionaries have of late, come and for Some time have had their residence in the remote parts of this Province and other his ma’tys adjacent Colonies, who by their wicked and Subtle Insinuations Industriously Labour to Debauch Seduce and w’thdraw the Indians from their due obedience unto his most Sacred ma’ty and to Excite and Stir 17OO them up to Sedition Rebellion and open Hostility against his ma’tys Goverm’t for prevention whereof Bee it Enacted by his Excel the Gov’r Council and Representatives Convened in Generall Assembly and it is hereby Enacted by the Authority of the Same, That all and every Jesuit and Seminary Preist missionary or other Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall person made or ordained by any Authority power or Jurisdicon derived Challenged or p’tended from the Pope or See of Rome now resideing w’th in this province or any part thereof shall depart from and out of the Same at or before the first day of November next in this present year Seaventeen hundred.”[2]

You see reader, Drake is not introducing conspiracy theories that he thought up in his basement. My Jesuit conspiracy is THE Conspiracy of Western Civilization. The Jesuits have been busy creating dis-info conspiracy theories over the past couple centuries and we are now off track. I am trying to bring us back to Civilization.  Thomas Jefferson’s innovations would leave our lands defenseless against future Roman invasions.

We read in Section II of The Solemn League and Covenant,

“That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissioners, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in other men’s sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his mane one, in the three kingdoms.”

Our lawful covenant was designed to protect us against Roman Catholics and Prelacy, A.K.A. Episcopalianism.

As we have seen the Roman Religion has played the fundamental role in the downfall of this Country. We shall see that Episcopalianism has also played a key role.

 Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

 Num 32:23 But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the LORD, and be sure your sin will find you out.

 Some readers may wonder why a defender of the Confederacy has not already spoken to the issue of Secession. I am not going to talk about this issue.  I do not have a dog in this fight though I believe they had the right to secede. My reason is quite different than most Southerners. I believe that the Union never had a right to exist in the first place.  The South was free to secede from an unlawful union. Thus, I also have no opinion about the Dred Scott case.

The reason why our Constitution is unlawful is because of its rejection of God the Father and his mediatorial King, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose royal prerogative (Phil. 2:9-11, Dan. 2: 44-45, Dan. 7: 13-14, Rev. 1:5, Ps. 89:27, 1 Cor. 15:25, Luk. 22:29-30, Acts 5:29-31, Heb. 1:13, Acts 2: 29-35, Heb. 1: 8-9) was treasonously rejected by our Constitution’s Preamble (Which contradict Romans 13:1), Article 6 (Contradicts Exodus 18:21 ) and the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights (A disestablishment principle utterly incompatible with the Bible and Christian History)

This made religious pluralism the established religion and opened the door for racial and cultural Genocide: America’s version of Prima Nocte. Thomas Jefferson said in Notes on the State of Virginia,

 “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion.  The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum of each other.”[3]

The Dictates of Conscience: The Debate Over Religious Liberty In Revolutionary Virginia by Deborah O’Malley says in footnote 143 on page 26,

“Does this mean that Jefferson would allow any religion in civil society, even ones which have principles contrary to American principles?  In his Autobiography, he discusses why he disagreed with the proposed amendment to the Bill which said that it should read “Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” rather than just “the holy author of our religion.”  He says that this  amendment was rejected by a great majority, proving that “they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination”[4]

Jefferson knew Adam Weishaupt (Jesuit trained himself) and defended him in his letter to Madison in the year 1800. He also defended the Jesuits here in America after their suppression.[5]

Now for a clear example on how God judged the South and really all of America with Episcopalianism.


Stonewall Jackson and the South Betrayed


To prove the point, a few specifics will be cited.  This is exemplified in Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis’ treatment of Stonewall Jackson. EJP points out[6] that at Bull Run, Jefferson Davis would not allow “Stonewall” Jackson to capture Washington D.C. after the Yankees fled there after having been defeated. And yes I firmly admit that Davis was connected with Pope Pius IX.[7] But this connection was not for the benefit of the South but to its detriment, especially the Protestant states, while Catholic states like Louisiana and Florida hardly felt any of the devastation that the Protestant States did. The Vatican and its Jesuit Order controlled those Crypto-Catholic Episcopalians Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis (just like they did with William Laud) pursuant unto the South’s destruction.

Many Southerners are surprised to find out that Robert E. Lee was Court Marshaled for his behavior in the war.[8] Bevin Alexander states,

 “The evidence suggests that, on the Confederate side, Stonewall Jackson,  not Lee, possessed the strategic vision necessary to win key battles and possibly, entire campaigns.  Instead Robert E. Lee blocked the more daring and opportunistic Jackson, while pursuing a destructive strategy that permitted the North to wear down the South. . . . The full statement on Jackson’s battle philosophy comes from Brig. Gen. John D. Imboden, who quotes Jackson as saying there are two things never to lose sight of by a commander:  ‘Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy, if possible; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit so long as your men have strength to follow, for an army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken and can then be destroyed by half their number.  The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible maneuvering you can hurl your own force on only a part, and thus the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it.  Such tactics will win every time and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail and repeated victory will make it invincible.’ . . .

Three times since mid-August [1862] Jackson had proposed a plan to annihilate the Northern army.  Lee had delayed implementing his first proposal, to crush John Pope against the Rapidan, until it was too late.  At Second Manassas he had driven Pope into attacking with inadequate routes of retreat and an undefended flank, but Lee again had waited until it was too late.  In the Maryland campaign he wanted to place McClellan on the horns of a dilemma:  to attack the Confederate army and lose or to give up Philadelphia and possibly Baltimore and still lose.  Lee instead followed his own plan [Antietam, in spite of the fact that Lee knew McClellan was in possession of his secret battle plan, Special Orders 191], which was to convince the Northern people to accept peace.  Now for the fourth time, Lee rejected Jackson’s strategy to win the war in a swift campaign by eradicating the Northern army.  Lee decided to stay at Fredericksburg.  His reason was to deny the enemy the territory between the North Anna and Rappahannock.  Jackson protested, but to no avail, and resignedly moved his corps to Fredericksburg . . .

Four times previously Lee had rejected Jackson’s proposal to annihilate a Federal army.  Now [at Chancellorsville] Jackson saw a fifth opportunity, and this time he pressed hard for it. . . . Though Lee had rejected past opportunities, this time, knowing that his army was in desperate straits and recognizing that Jackson had seen a chance to transform the situation, Lee answered calmly [and reluctantly], ‘Well, go on [instead of exclaiming, “Praise God and Glory Hallelujah!”].’ . . . One of the most spectacular marches in the history of warfare had begun.”[9]

Jackson had 5 different opportunities to destroy the Yankees and Lee betrayed us every time! This treatment of Stonewall would continue when he was shot by one of his own men and then finished off by  Freemason (And thus Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor according to Johann Bode) Dr. Hunter Holmes McGuire, M.D., L.L.D., with the poison cup of The Order. Red-Republican Yankee Deformed Apologists will object:  “The Catholics were getting back at Lincoln for the Civil war, which was why those Papal Knights John Wilkes Booth and John Surratt killed him.” No, they killed Lincoln because he was going to revive the Southern Economy and remunerate us for our lost slave property. This could not happen. They were keeping him from re-establishing the South as a world power again. He had discussed remuneration, and reviving the Southern economy in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and that was not to happen. We were to be impoverished, gang raped, and pillaged by the Red-Republican Yankee, Irish Catholic Bummers, Tories and Carpet Baggers. We were to be placed under the Military Industrial Complex pursuant unto the re-establishment of the Holy Roman Empire via the economic power of North America. His friendship with Charles Chiniquy probably played a role in his assassination as well.

And by the way, FDR was also an Episcopalian.

Thomas Jefferson’s pluralism was sought because of its supposed practicality. Pluralism was supposed to lower divisions between people and provide an easy way to further commerce. It was just the common sense thing to do right? Wrong! Do we see now why we must present God’s Revelation as the only truth? God knows all the outcomes of actions and he is smarter than us. What may seem wise to us according to our sensations may betray our initial purpose as our actions extend into time.

1 Cor 1: 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

 My solution to our problems is found in a Petition that I have written here.

[8]  Douglas Savage, The Court Marshall of Robert E. Lee: A Historical Novel (1993)

[9] Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson by Bevin Alexander, pp. xii, 60, 265, 394, 395; Taken from EJP, VA, 2011, 562-563

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: