Who are the real war party?

One of the best things about ‘alternative’ news sources, is that you can learn facts you wouldn’t know otherwise. ‘Tadzio308’ left this comment about the accusation that the Republicans deserve the title of the War Party.


“In the last hundred years the Democrats gave us WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. The GOP gave us two Gulf wars and Afghanistan. The casualty count has to be over 100 to 1 Democrats. The Ds gve us a draft in 1917 to 1918 and from 1941 throught the early 70s when Nixon managed its demisel. No one was drafted after 1972 and the moribund law was changed in 1979. The Rs have never been responsible for the draft of a single person during the past century.

The extent to which the MSM has tarred the Republicans with the War Party label is astounding as it is counterfactual. America for Americans is a concept natural to the base of the Republican party. A small number of Israel Lobbyists were parachuted into the GOP in the early 1970s and it can not get rid of them. The Isreal First money rents the Rs, but it owns the Ds and always has.”


About skadhitheraverner
I'm a young freelance writer from the UK, with an interest in anthropology, the outdoors and rightist politics.

7 Responses to Who are the real war party?

  1. Although a VERY different party at the time, the pre-progressive Democrats were also responsible for the American Civil War. Without the secession, Lincoln may have been able to achieve both the end of slavery, the compensation of slave-owners, and the repatriation (colonization) of the African slaves. The Southerners jumped the gun, in my opinion, by assuming that Lincoln planed to simply reverse the racial slave/master relationship in the South. History does not support this understanding, and only the impotent abolitionists promoted by modern school textbooks held anything approaching that position. The main anti-slave force in the North were not the liberal abolitionists but the race-conscious Free-Soil Movement. The primary reason they sought to end slavery was not out of shame at its practice or pity for the slaves, but because they considered it a danger to the health of the nation: the presence of the African slaves on the American landscape is what they objected to, knowing that eventually freedmen would spread beyond the South. And they hated the “Slave Power” which was seen as more concerned with profit than racial integrity. The Southern Democrats were essentially laissez-faire capitalists and libertarians who took that ideology to its logical conclusion: humans become one with with capital.

    My analysis is counter to the sentiments of most American nationalists, who identify with the Confederacy. But to me, the Slave Power then looks a lot like the Chamber of Commerce enemy of today: where once Black slaves, now it is Mexicans, East Indians, Arabs, and Filipinos who are used to undermine the country.

    • Yea, I don’t know much about 19th Century US history like the Civil War but events have been politically revaluated to suit people’s agendas since then. And though I have more respect for the South than for, say, Californians or New Yorkers, the whole thing about the Confederacy seems more sentimental and apolitical than anything serious.

      • Yes, Southerners are generally more admirable and agreeable today than the average Californian or North-Easterner (Texans are a possible exception… Rick Perry exemplifies them far too well). Their ancestors also largely fought for the right reason of protecting their families from the threat of vengeful freedmen, rather than with agreement to the arrangements of the Slave Power. The fact that slavery made Africans the majority population of the Carolinas during the 18tth and early 19th century is proof enough though for why that Power did need to be fought. President Andrew Johnson, not Lincoln, was the real devil in the end.

        Regarding New Yorkers and the majority of mid-Atlantic White Americans, we are not the same population as during the Civil War. In the area between Montauk, Long Island and Illinois, the colonial New-Amsterdam Dutch and the Yankee Anglo-Saxon population are invisible if they exist at all. I have met exactly two people (an ex-girlfriend and her father) with Dutch-period ancestry. Virtually all white people in the mid-Atlantic to Great Lake region are of late-19th century immigrant stock, to the point that seeing Anglo-Saxon surnames in a news story are a hint that an individual is black.

        I understand the emotional attachment many have to the Confederacy, but I think it’s legacy (and flag) is not the appropriate one for American White Nationalism.

  2. Regulusseradly: I’m surprised what you say about Anglo-Saxon surnames implying black ancestry. Since surnames are pretty much a proxy for haplogroups, i’m assuming Anglo-Saxn haploid DNA will have disappeared over there too. It most certainly sounds like the Anglo-Saxon stock exists over there only in solution now. I had no idea.

    • ChesterPoe says:

      The English still account for roughly 8% of the American populace but even in 1790 they only constituted 48%. You just will not find them in the areas once known for Anglo-Saxon control (New York, Michigan, Massachusetts, California). Most English Americans are found among the Mormons in Utah, those in upper New England, and across the Deep South. In the South though most Englishmen identify ethnically as “American”.

    • Remembering this issue, I should clarify that besides my ex., my Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen is also of deep colonial roots (note the archaic-Dutch in his surname). I did *not* mean to say that it normally implies Black ancestry in Whites, but that the most common black names tend to be ones associated with either famous Americans or those of previous slave-masters: “Washington”, “Jackson”, “Wright”, “Jefferson”, “Sharpton”, and even “White” etc…. All pretty rare for Whites.

      Some Anglo-Saxon/British surnames ARE associated with a degree of Black ancestry amongst outwardly White people, associated with groups known as “Melungeons” and “Redbones”. Names such as “Goins”, “Bowling”, “Powell”, and “Mullins”.

      A lot of White people with Anglo-Saxon surnames are likewise not of English background: most “Smiths” come from “Schmidt” ancestors, many “Johnsons” from “Jansen” ancestors, and the like.

      The Deep South, the Mormons, and the far-North East have the most people of genuine colonial English ancestry, although the deep South has a lot of French and the Southern highlands more Scots-background folks.

      Surnames can be very misleading as to genetic background in the US. My Irish-Norman surname (my *actual* surname) would not say a think about my 50% continental Saxon background.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: