The 400th anniversary of Jamestown this year is being officially called a commemoration, not a celebration, because the founding of that settlement by Whites is called by colored people an "invasion." So there can’t be too much revelry, even though colored people are being included in the festivities - I mean, the solemnities. In fact, words like "founding" and "founders" are avoided as well. I kid you not that over the radio I heard the pioneers of Virginia called "the first visitors to Virginia." A word like "visitor" gives us common cause with wetbacks - I mean illegal aliens - I mean undocumented immigrants! Words are apparently less offensive as they grow in length, except in the case of "African-American." I’m greatly offended by this term and demand reparations. Referring only to continents is discrimination against bodies of water. Henceforth negroids shall be called Mid-Atlantic Natives. (All joking aside, this is actually what many of them wish to be called now.) About every ten years we’re expected to change our vocabulary. Here’s hoping that someday soon "African-American" will be treated with the same disdain as "nigger." Like the Jew at Time magazine said, we need to keep arguing and re-arguing and drawing lines and erasing them and drawing them again, because that’s what democracy is all about.
Before we get to to the point of this post, and I’m pretty sure there is a point, allow me to atone for something. I’ve made some negative comments about mixed marriages in the last few days, and I’ve had a change of heart. I want to apologize to everyone, and I hope you’ll accept my apology. I was way out of line, but after prayerfully studying the Scriptures I’ve come to the conclusion that blue-eyed Whites can marry brown-eyed Whites. I feel a wave of compassion rushing over me. Can you feel it?
Okay, enough of that.
Speeches at the Jamestown Whatever will include "The Ecology of Jamestown – Origin of Environmental Injustice in America." The White settlers are declared to be guilty of a "holocaust," "lynchings," and cannibalism. That last one is particularly interesting. As Rushdoony said, the word cannibal comes originally from caribal, as in Caribbean. In other words, the American Indians were the first cannibals that the American pioneers had ever encountered. But I’m sure they were smoking peace pipes and painting with the colors of the wind when they weren’t roasting opposing tribesmen.
Dapper Doug Phillips exults: "Jamestown is the spot of America’s first ‘interracial’ marriage based on the Christian faith. In his eloquent letter to the governor of Jamestown, John Rolfe would argue for the legitimacy of marriage, regardless of skin color or national origin, where the couple was united by faith in Christ. His theological argument won the day and established a legal precedent that endured for more than half a century." Phillips elevates this act of miscegenation to the level of other building blocks of Western civilization, including "introducing the Christian common law to North America, establishing the first experiment in republican representative government, [and] conducting America’s first Protestant Christian worship services and baptisms." More on "cosmopolitan" Jamestown in a moment.
This is a fascinating account of Jamestown. I’ve always wondered why so many know the names Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria, and also Mayflower, but so few know the names Susan Constant, Godspeed, and Discovery. (And wouldn’t Susan Constant be a lovely name for a precious little White girl? So would Virginia Dare, the first White child born in the New World.) The Susan Constant was the flagship that bore the great John Smith to the Virginia shore. Read about how he went from death sentence to ruling council overnight. "The American Indians, the English believed, would quit being savages—their usual word for Indians—once they learned English manners." Four hundred years later, Whites still haven’t learned their lesson. "But Smith was convinced that Englishmen, too, had a lot to learn: The natives, he wrote, were ‘our enemies, whom we neither knew nor understood.’ The English even thought Indians were born white, with skin darkened by paints and dyes." That explains the marriage between Rolfe and Pocahontas that Jew Doug Phillips now praises as a triumph of Western civilization. "In one instance, seven settlers in a boat spotted several native women on a riverbank. When the squaws returned their smiles, the men scrambled onto land, only to be confronted by warriors who had been hiding. Six of the seven managed to rush back to the boat. The straggler was stripped naked and tied to a stake, around which a fire was set. His tormentors used mussel shells to saw off his fingers and toes and skin him. He died as they danced around the flames." My belief is that, just in case the legend of the intervention of Pocahontas to spare Smith’s life is true, she deserves every accolade that she has received. Without Smith, Jamestown would have been another Lost Colony, and the history of the English in the New World might have been quite different. "And kindness, Smith believed, was not to be wasted on savages. After his men beat back a waterborne ambush, he ordered the attackers’ canoes destroyed. He relented when the Indians agreed to deliver 400 baskets of corn at harvest time. When they failed to keep their word, Smith started burning their houses. The natives quickly complied." And that’s not all. Smith also seized Powhatan’s half-brother Opechancanougb by the hair, shoved a pistol to his chest, and walked him among the Indians, shouting, "If you shoot but one arrow to shed but one drop of blood of any of my men, I will not cease revenge (if once I begin) so long as I can hear where to find one of your nation." Dear God in high heaven, give us just one man of justice like this today. We could solve the problem of violence very quickly in this country. If John Smith were alive today, Channon Christian would not have died. "’He that will not worke shall not eate,’ Smith declared as he set the indolent to cutting timber and sawing boards for shelters that would help the colony endure the hard winter."
Smith spent his childhood dreaming of "doings with the sword" and left home at age 15 to seek his fortune. After serving in the Dutch wars and as a mercenary in England, he joined the Habsburgs in their war against the Turks. At age 21, he was partly responsible for repelling the Muslim advance in the Balkans. He devised a successful plan for the capture of the Turkish-held fortress of Alba Regalis in Hungary by bombarding it with “fiery dragons,” which were clay vessels filled with powder and shot and covered with pitch. He wrote, "The lamentable noise of the miserable slaughtered Turks was most wonderful to hear." At the siege of Regall he defeated Lord Turbishaw, the champion of the Turks, in single combat. Many years later, the great Southern poet William Gilmore Simms wrote this of Smith’s amazing victory:
So admirably true was the aim, so firm the nerves of the Christian champion, and so well-trained his steed, that the lance of Smith penetrated the beaver of the Turk, and passing through his eye into the brain, he fell dead to the ground at the first thrust, without so much as grazing the person of his conqueror. Smith leapt to the ground, unbraced the helmet of his enemy, and finding him lifeless, smote off his head, which he bore away in triumph to the Christian host.
Smith also defeated the Turks Grualgo and Mulgro in combat, taking their heads as trophies. As a reward, the Prince of Transylvania conferred nobility on Smith and gave him a coat of arms bearing three Turkish heads with the motto Vincere est Vivere (”To conquer is to live”). He did all this prior to his voyage to Virginia. He should have been a king. At the very least, every one of our children should revere his name and scorn all Jew-lies about him.
We’re afflicted by Jew-lies in the churches as well. The aforementioned Jew, Doug Phillips of Vision Forum, has sold plenty of subtle lies to homeschooling moms, along with overpriced slingshots and a lot of rubbish about "justice" and "honor." Little Geneva hassled him for years about possibly skirting the law to create an all-White company in San Antonio, which is only about one-fourth White, and hosting all-White conferences to discuss White history under the guise of World history. This negative publicity became such a problem for Doug that he has been forced to abandon many of his long-time racist associations and try to form his own rainbow coalition so he can continue selling overpriced books to foolish women. Doug knows that the convention centers where he hosts his conferences are not going to look kindly upon his many racist statements, actions, and friends. This is precisely why articles like this have been written.
"Religious and cultural differences, not melanin count, divided peoples inhabiting the Virginia of 1607." Wait, it gets better: "It is faith, not skin color or ethnic background, that ultimately unifies or divides men." Ask youself whether a single one of our Christian forefathers would ever have written such words. "Where man and woman are truly united in Jesus Christ, there must be no legal impediments to their marriage." It takes a special kind of historical ignorance - or deceit of Jewish proportions - to write such words.
Since we’re discussing Doug Phillips, I would argue strongly for the latter. He’s not stupid. He knows history very well, but he chooses to paint a caricature of history to serve his own ends as a Jew who married an Anglo woman (or as Doug calls her, a goyim girl). What he fails to mention is that Whites in the early 1600s, seeing Indians for the first time, believed them to be fellow Caucasians. The same was believed to be true of Mongolians, Malays, and Hindus - all of whom were called "white." Whatever the origin of the natives, White men learned eventually that Indians were very different people. But to honor the "First Families of Virginia" (including names such as Jefferson, Lee, Randolph, and Marshall), the "Pocahontas Exception" legally allowed for persons with "one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and hav[ing] no other non-Caucasic blood" to intermarry with Whites. The clause "no other non-Caucasic blood" was necessary because of the routine willingness of Indians to copulate with Negroes. Pulpits were filled with honest men in those days, and they railed against the standing disgrace of the mixed offspring that were rarely (!) produced. Unlike Whites, Indians and Negroes had no qualms about whom they mated with. Unfortunately, too many Whites, who were diligent to keep the bloodlines of their animals pure, were less careful for the heritage of their own children. But by 1691, Virginia law prevented the birth of "abominable mixture and spurious issue" (a long way of saying “ugly freaks”) by prohibiting marriages between Whites and “negroes,” “mulattoes,” and Indians.
This is not to say that there was always unanimity of opinion. Some notable politicians viewed intermarriage with Indians as a pragmatic way of solving the "Indian problem," just as Whites today who say that race does not exist contradictorily advocate racial intermarriage to heal racial tensions. In 1784, Patrick Henry sent up legislation "for the encouragement of marriages with the Indians." It was derided, even though Henry himself was elected governor. Later, Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, wrote: “Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions in color in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers the emotions of the other race?" As you can see, pure pragmatism. Jefferson even spoke of a new race and new national identity, much as the lying, neo-Babelist preachers of the 21st century do: "We shall all be Americans," he said. "You will mix with us by marriage, your blood will run in our veins, and will spread over this great island." Thus did a great man encourage what was even then illegal. This was the same man who, a few years earlier in the Declaration of Independence, called Indians "Savages" bent on "an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." Sounds to me like good son-in-law material! Again, the proposal went nowhere because it was denounced by Christian men, in the pulpit, the home, the school, and the state; by men very unlike Doug Phillips, though he pretends to follow in their footsteps. Not until the godless twentieth century did we lose our way. Now lying pastors are able to take advantage of widespread historical ignorance to deceive the goyim into believing that their fathers were evil racists, and not until this enlightened age have we understood the truth about race. Those who listen to such men reap exactly what they deserve.
Actually, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas was itself quite pragmatic. It’s hardly unusual for two nations at war to offer up princes or princesses to marry each other for the good of their people. This explains Rolfe’s evaluation of his future wife as having "rude education, manners barbarious and cursed generation." It seems that only pragmatism and the hope of Indian salvation could coax him to do what he did. He entreats the governor of the colony that it is not the "unbridled desire of Carnall affection," nor "hungrye appetite to gorge my selfe with incontinencye" but evangelistic zeal that compels him to marry Pocahontas. Despite her "savagery," Rolfe vows to "gyve [her] breade" and "cover" her.
Public policy for hundreds of years after Pocahontas was based on three basic and incontrovertible precepts, according to Ernest Sevier Cox in his book White America:
1. The White race has founded all civilizations
2. The White race remaining White has not lost civilization
3. The White race become hybrid has not retained civilization
Read them and weep. Doug Phillips is trying to pull a fast one on Christians when he says, "The political correctness police do not like the marriage of Pocahontas and John Rolfe." He conveniently omits the fact that Christendom, for all of its history, has condemned the race-mixing that he and his fellow Babelists are selling (bundled free with an overpriced whittling knife). But what did those Christians know? They’re all dead, anyway.
The cooperation required for founding Jamestown, even though sparse at times, was immeasurably greater than what we still see in colored countries. The recent movie Blood Diamond is very interesting because it shows that the good men in such societies who value work and education and family are too few to secure order. What might have been simply poverty turns into abject squalor because of the lust for riches. White men are certainly not immune to such lust, yet even the pagans among us tolerate economic inequalities without reverting to anarchy. (This is mainly due to Christian piety, the benefits of which are experienced by pagans as well. It is said that England was on the verge of its own "French Revolution" until Wesley and Whitefield reformed it.) In Blood Diamond, one old Black man sighs that he hopes no one discovers oil in Sierra Leone, or things will get really bad. The only hope for the hero and his family is to escape to London where they may enjoy the security of what is, for the time being, a very White though pagan society. Thus does popular entertainment confirm what we have always said: There is very little hope that the rule of law will survive the White race.
Leave a Reply