John Robbins, High Priest of the Church of One, has mentioned Little Geneva in a publication from the Trinity Foundation called Slavery and Christianity. From page 12: "This group [conservative American Christians who defend slavery and the feudal South] includes rabid racists who post their hatred on the worldwide web, claiming all the while to be Christian. See the website http://www.littlegeneva.com and notice its heroes - John C. Calhoun, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Robert L. Dabney, Cornelius Van Til, and Rousas Rushdoony - not one of whom, despite their many errors, expressed the racial hatred that consumes the racists on the web. Racism is a forum of collectivism and racists - white, black, Jewish, Japanese, Arab, Greek - are the most primitive of collectivists. Like other forms of collectivism, racism is increasingly influential in many countries." The book is all about how Southerners and agrarians are Marxists and racists, even though the word "racist" was invented by Marxists in order to foment revolution. How easily Christians succumb to it. Every time we see a pastor try to deny the record of history and Scripture and the almost unanimous opinion of our church fathers and founding fathers, it only proves that they - not we - have left the church and abandoned the truth. We pray for their return to the faith, but until they repent we do not grant forgiveness.

Slavery is merely one of several domestic relationships sanctioned by the Bible. Galatians 4:1 compares the child to a slave, though he holds a different inheritance. The child is not free to go where he wishes, do whatever he wishes, or manage his own affairs. Yet he is to be treated with love, and most parents have no trouble fulfilling their obligations. In the same way that fathers are not to drive their children to wrath, the master is commanded in Ephesians to not abuse his slave, for he too has a Master in heaven, and his Master is impartial. Our Father and Master is impartial because we are all born in sin, and that happens to be the only way in which we are all truly equal. Ever since Lincoln’s War, lying preachers like John Robbins have focused on the excesses of a few slaveholders to condemn the entire institution. We only ask that they be consistent and condemn the institution of marriage when they discover that a few men beat their wives. If they were merely to argue that slavery - especially Negro slavery - is a dreadful mistake in the long run, they would get a sympathetic ear from Kinists. Instead, their unenviable task is to make the Bible say what it does not say.

Notice how well this quote from R.J. Rushdoony on page 338 of Institutes of Biblical Law applies to slavery. "The alternative to submission is exploitation, not freedom, because there is no true freedom in anarchy. The purpose of submission is not to degrade women in marriage, nor to degrade men in society, but to bring to them their best prosperity and peace under God’s order. In a world of authority, the submission of the wife is not in isolation, nor in a vacuum. It is set in a context of submission by men to authority; in such a world, men teach the principles of authority to their sons and daughters and work to instill in them the responsibilities of authority and obedience. In such a world, inter-dependence and service prevail. In a world of moral anarchy, there is neither submission to authority nor service, which is a form of submission. A husband and father who uses his authority and his income wisely to further the welfare of the entire family is serving the welfare of all thereby. But in a world which denies submission and authority, every man serves himself only and seeks to exploit all others. Men exploit women, and women exploit men." I’ll give you one guess as to which of these two worlds we now inhabit. It is exactly as our "racist" Christian forefathers predicted.

If you have been led to believe that William Wilberforce abolished slavery "in one of history’s great gestures of noblesse oblige," you suffer from Amazing Disgrace propaganda.



The de facto enslavement of whites began with the Elizabethan enclosure acts (privatization of formerly public grazing lands known as commons), which made paupers of the English yeomanry and created an army of homeless and unemployed citizens demonized by official history as Britain’s fabled "criminal underclass" (the criminal overclass escapes this withering scrutiny). The history of white slavery in Britain is found in the practice of "kid-nabbing" (kidnapping) and the laws and customs that permitted enslavement aboard ship of abducted farmers and laborers taken from such notorious white slave ports as Glasgow.


Malthusian scarcity paradigms were later invented out of fear of the insurrectionist potential of whites dubbed "surplus poor," who, in the seventeenth century, were shipped in chains to British America and the West Indies as slaves, to toil unto death (not seven years) on sugar and tobacco plantations as soon as colonies were established (Georgia was envisioned as a white slave dumping ground, while Virginia initially had more white slaves than black ones).


With the rise of the industrial revolution and the lethal machinery necessary to its success, white children as young as five were harnessed from before sunrise until after sunset to the machines of what William Blake called the "satanic mills." While Wilberforce and his psalm-singing "telescopic philanthropists" (as the former factory slave Charles Dickens styled them, due to their exclusive focus on the suffering of people in far-away lands, while neglecting the oppression of their own kind), rode to their abolitionist meetings, ragged white children were trudging past them in the dark, barefoot and hungry after 12 or 14 hours of slave labor in mines, beatings from overseers and the constant threat of mutilation by the dangerously unsafe machinery of the early factories.


These unlamented white factory slaves represented a vast source of new capital for the British plutocracy, permitting the latter to so "charitably" manumit the black slaves of the British commonwealth in 1807.


Furthermore, Wilberforce supported the enactment of the Combination Act, which forbade the workers of England from "combining" to form a union to reduce the hours of their toil and increase the token pittance they were infrequently paid. Wilberforce also helped pass laws making it a crime of sedition to criticize King George III and government officials…


It’s unfortunate that Christians refuse to speak the truth about slavery, in any of its aspects. As Hoffman points out, the same "Anglo-American ruling class...is still robbing workers by means of NAFTA, GATT and the WTO. It is the subconscious anger over this modern American swindle which has been mined by right wing Churchianity in the U.S. and harnessed to the goals of the neocon Republican party, channeling white Americans’ resentment at the seemingly invisible forces that have drastically diminished their future prospects and present quality of life. This Stockholm Syndrome-identification on the part of rural and blue collar whites with the very dynastic families like the Bush syndicate who offer poor whites as sacrificial lambs on the altar of ‘free trade’ is on par with the celebration by liberals and Christians of Wilberforce and his canting crew of alleged angels in human form, imbued with ‘Amazing Grace.’" The aim of most Christians is not historical accuracy but appeasing strangers. Blacks are filled with resentment over being enslaved, and so the only thing that matters is making them feel good about themselves. That’s why Wilberforce and countless other "Mrs. Jellybys" are mentioned ad nauseum.

Virginia has apologized for slavery (and so has Maryland - and next come Georgia, North Carolina, Delaware, New York, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Vermont) because iggers will be quite angry if they don’t. Actually, Virginia and Maryland have merely expressed regret for slavery. In a few weeks they’ll express regret for the Tenth Commandment too.

You might not realize this, but Southern slavery ended over 140 years ago, not last month. I just want to take this moment to apologize to my children for sending them to their room last night. And to all the people in the elevator this morning - mea culpa.

Harvard University is now, 150 years after the fact, reexamining the Dred Scott decision. They probably didn’t mention that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a re-enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, signed by none other than George Washington himself. That sort of fact has been airbrushed from the history books. The panel unanimously criticizes Taney for not rewriting the Constitution from his bench, as they themselves love to do. And this line is priceless: “Even more troubling for many, was Taney’s dismissal of the promise of the Constitution that ‘all men are created equal.’” Our readers don’t need to be told what, apparently, Supreme Court justices have yet to learn - that the Constitution says nothing about all men or races being created equal. If they are, there’s certainly no reason to withhold driver’s licenses from wetbacks.

In related news, the Cherokee Nation has revoked tribal citizenship from the descendants of the slaves they once owned. "A total of 76.6% voted to amend the tribal constitution to limit citizenship to ‘blood’ tribe members." This is precisely what Kinists advocate for White Americans. The empire illegally conferred citizenship upon Blacks after the War, and on many other non-Whites since then. We need to do what the Indians have done, because multiple nations are good for the world. God smiles on diversity. Actually, as Steve Sailer points out, this decision is largely financial. Each tribe is allowed to own one casino, and driving out the Blacks will increase shares for the Indians. As a friend of mine observed, the very same people who will criticize the Indians for denying their slaveowning past will gladly ignore the Negro’s slaveowning past, both in Africa and America.

“Long ago,” writes Aaron Wolf, “during the days of slavery and universal bigotry, when fathers were despots and everyone hated blacks and women, people talked about honor. But honor means making distinctions, paying deference due a man—which suggests that some are deserving of it, while others are not. And that implies some sort of standards, derived not from popularity contest or press release, but from tradition—in other words, a civilization. And civilization suggests a people to whom that civilization belongs, a nation, which then circumscribes that civilization in a particular place, a field of cultivation, a culture. In a civilization, we speak about us and them, mine and yours—my family, our Faith, those people and their peculiar ways. Man’s contentedness, apart from questions of sin and grace, comes from flourishing in his native soil, loving his people and his place.”