The Debate that Shook the Southern Movement

Part 5

Dan Bennett vs. Dennis Wheeler

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#23. Mike Broadwell to Dan Bennett -- January 9, 1998

DB My bedrock ethical system requires that I treat everyone as my neighbour, whether Jew or Samaritan. If yours does not, then I reject it out of hand.

MB Dan, My initial comments are merely referring to your method of argument, not your content. Several examples come to mind, one being your dancing around Dennis' definitions of nation and people. Honesty should compel you to deal with such items forthrightly. Certainly you know that the English word "nation" is derived from the same root as native and natal, which relates to birth. Race and blood relation and ethnicity are interwoven concepts. Trying to deny such makes you look silly. You can argue the relative role each should play in the social structure, but not the brute facts.

DB And it that is the beginning and end of your definition of "Southern", as it is Mr. Wheeler's then "Southern" easily interchanges with any other culture where racial intermixture is frowned upon. Let's face it, if the South is simply about keeping the blacks down (I fully expect a spluttering sophistry in reply to that, so feel free), then it ain't about a helluva lot. If all out history and traditions and faith and culture can be equated to apartheid, then we aren't anybody in particular at all.

MB Dan, This response is yet another example. Where on earth do you get the idea that the above is the beginning and end of mine or Dennis' definition of Southern? Where has that been stated in any of the posts. Where has anyone said anything about "keeping the blacks down" being the defining goal of the South? This seems to be a complete "Red Herring", unless you are trying to say that forbidding intermarriage is somehow "keeping blacks down". Surely you don't mean that.

Here you have created a "sophistical" response, and then accused me a priori of being the sophist. You should apologize for such a brazen nonsense.

DB Love who you like, associate with who you like, live like you want to live, just don't batter those whose ancestors came from somewhere other than yours did with the sword of the state. That is simply unjust, and God isn't all that keen on injustice, is he?

MB Once again, you have created claims out of thin air. What have I said that merits such an unjust(ified) response? My point was that the Southern disdain for racial intermarriage wasn't a top down view imposed by the government, but a native instinct of the Southern people. The fact that it is a fairly universal instinct doesn't diminish the point at all.

DB I submit that there is no Christian political system. If you know of one, please tell us about it.

MB Dan, you were quoting Dabney's Defense of Virginia on another thread. How can you have read that book and then make such a statement? Dabney was defending the Southern political system (i.e. slavery) on the basis of biblical law. Are you unaware that Anglo-Saxon common law is based on biblical law? Have you never heard of the famous book "Lex Rex" (the Law is King), written by the great Scotsman Samuel Rutherford? It outlines the just basis for government founded on the rule of Law and not the rule of men, and is directly taken from biblical law.

In spite of all that, it should be clear that a Christian political system would embody Christian moral principles. Would not the 10 Commandments be integral to such a system? Which of these was violated in principle by the Southern people prior to the WBTS? I have heard it said that Libertarianism reduces the Commandments from 10 down to 2. (Don't kill and don't steal)

DB I'm not at all sure what "equalitarianism" is. If it means the belief everyone is equal, then it's simply absurd; as no one is equal to anyone else.

MB Irrational ideasand systems can only be imposed by force. Chesterton described religious persecution as making people accept in practice what they would never accept in theory. If "equalitarianism" had a fixed, rational meaning, it would be harder to defend. Samuel Francis has a great article entitled "Equality as a Weapon", which outlines the point quite well.

DB You cast quite a wide loop there in going from the idea of equality before the law to the notion of letting Who-Shot-John into the country.

MB Dan, what I was intending to show was that the original Abolitionist argument that slavery was the greatest evil in the world was displaced by other, more broadly based arguments not long after slavery was abolished. Soon it was "Separate but Equal", then "Colonialism", then "discrimination", then "institutional racism", etc., etc., (The order here may not be exactly right, but the point remains). These "crimes" become more heinous as they become more vague. Ending slavery didn't make everyone equal, nor did ending Jim Crow, nor did "Civil Rights", nor Affirmative Action, etc., "Racism" is such a problem that Bill Clinton is forced to keep his trousers on long enough to hold town hall meetings to solve it.

We have been so buffaloed that speaking out against immigration now gets one branded a "racist". It's not enough to "solve" the "problem" in our own country, we must remake the world. What is the standard by which we must do this, Dan? Does the bible demand it? I don't think our rulers would work so hard to keep it out of the schools if it supported their goals. If we are to have "Equality before the Law" (A Christian principle), don't we have to have a fixed law? Which of the 10 Commandments is more esteemed by the ruling class than the demand for "Equality"? Do I need to expound this point further, or are you beginning to get it?

DB Nope, that was NOT the argument in favour of civil rights. The idea of civil rights was that everyone be judged by their behaviour rather than the colour of their hide.

MB Not whose argument, Dan? Lyndon Johnson's, MLK's, the NAACP's? What standard of behavior did LBJ and MLK uphold, Dan? How do you judge someone's behaviour before you know them? It is a little late to discover that your neighbor is an axe murderer or child molester after he has moved into you neighborhood, isn't it? You have stated that the Southern society involved more close personal contact between whites and blacks than up north. Why were the Southerners so opposed to integration then? Shouldn't they have known to judge by the behaviour, not the skin color? Is it out of the realm of possibility that they were judging behaviour?

If violation of the 10 Commandments is our standard, does the much higher rate of violation by blacks before "Civil Rights" and the dramatic increase in such since that time support the Southern view, or the Integrationist one? This fact is not denied by the liberals, it is just blamed on all the evils of the past, or the Battle Flag, or whatever. Does the bible ever excuse violation of the 10 Commandments on the basis of how one is treated?

After Mike Broadwell had mentioned Soren Kierkgaard and Dan responded:

DB I couldn't agree more with those last two paragraphs. BTW, have you read "Purity of Heart" by Kierkegaard? I've just started it.

MB Yes, I have read "Purity of Heart". "Purity of heart is to will one thing", is the theme outlined, and I think of it often. Kierkegaard was a great practical thinker, largely misunderstood, IMO, by most conservatives. The "one thing" he defines as "the good in truth", and then shows that all other willing is double mindedness. It has taken me many years to begin to understand a lot of what he is saying, not because it is too complicated, but because of lacking such purity of heart.

Kierkegaard was not afraid to follow the logical conclusions of various ideas, and stood up to public derision for opposing the leveling effects of "equality", and the accompanying corruption of the church in Denmark.

You left out the quote, but I would ask if you concur that the concept of "equalitarianism" involves comparison with others, while the Christian point of view states that God's standard is our sole point of reference. It would then follow that a Christian political system is possible, and that all systems can be judged according to the degree they follow one or the other of these opposing view points.

DB No, sir, I submit that everyone *must* have equality before the law, just as they are equal before God. If God is no respecter of persons, how can we be and claim to be just? We cannot.

MB > Some >must be beaten down to keep things level

DB That is NOT equality before the law, that is simply institutionalised injustice of another form.

MB I think I have shown convincingly that "equalitarianism" is not "equality before the law", and in fact is directly opposed to it. Before we can proceed further, we should reach agreement on our use of terms.

DB I have done neither. I have stated my position in the plainest possible speech. I have done so again.

DB If the South is no different than the North, then what the devil are we talking about? Let us be Yankees and have done with it. They're white, we're white, what's the problem?

As for defining us by Yankee standards of right and wrong, good grief, sir, I have gone to wearisome length to show how very DIFFERENT we are from the Yankees. I hardly see how that can be called "judging us by their standards".

MB Dan, there are still some basic issues that need to be ironed out here. Virtually every argument you have given for your position involves the northern point of view (i.e. the victorious ideology, whether or not many of them believed it at the time.) They all follow from the requirement that the South must prove its innocence, whether by the logic that "everybody did it" or "we can't be singled out". Both of these are not justifiable any more than they were when we used them as children. You take the stereotypes of the South promoted by our enemies, and then try to show that they are just as bad or worse.

In our legal system (in theory at least), the defendant is not required to prove that he is innocent. This system is derived from British common law, which is derived from the bible. It is incumbent that the defendant be proven guilty according to well defined law, on the basis of reliable witnesses, beyond a reasonable doubt. You are attempting to prove the innocence of the South against a nebulous set of laws, against a rigged jury. It is impossible, and will only wear you out. You can never win, because the enemies of our people are not interested in justice or truth. You are granting them their due, trying to win their favor. They see what you are doing as putting one shoulder on the ground in a wrestling match. While you are trying to meet them half way, they smell an immanent pin.

Mike Broadwell


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's Note: After a two-week absence, it was time for Daniel Bennett to come back. Unfortunately, I had just gone to Vancouver and didn't know he would again take up the thread. So it was nearly a week after he posted that I got back to him. Now, back to the action.]

#24. Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler

OK, I'm back. Now, where were we?

DW. dennisw@mindspring.com allowed as how: >You wrote: "You're apparently obsessed with race, and therefore attempt >to make everything into a racial issue."

>That's not true, either.

DB <Laugh> Well, whatever you say. but you're sure doing a real good imiotation of someone who's obsessed with race. You fooled me completely. <snip>

DW >I think that any attack >on my racial views is an attack on the South and the Southern people

DB Not unless you are synonymous with the South and Southrons, which you ain't, by a very, very long shot.

But let's follow this up to see just where you believe the land lies, shall we? Let's examine those racial views you cherish which you believe to be those of Southerners as a whole.

First off, do you believe that the law should differentiate between people based on their race? If so, what legal distinctions should be made? Would we, in your economy, be dealing with an essentially bi-racial legal separation, basically white/non-white, or would there be specific laws and regulations for various races, nationalities, and ethnicities? In either case, how would your government determine with any sort of accuracy what racial or ethnic group to fling someone into?

And once you have everyone sorted into acceptable racial categories, what then? What sort of laws would you impose?

DW > and >would only be made by a person who has been reconstructed in heart and >mind.

DB By your bogus definition of "reconstriuction", yeah.

DW >You wrote: "That [linking integration to murder] has to be one of the >most imaginative bits of theology that I've ever heard. I see no >Scriptural basis for it whatsoever. It appears to be derived solely from >your own fixation on racial matters. It's the sort of creative exegesis >that characterises heretics like the Christian Identity churches, some >of whom have moved so far into their own universe as to cease to have any >connection with orthodoxy at all."

>That's more of a statement of what you don't know than what you do know.

DB Could be. There are far too many damnable heresies out there for me to keep track of all of them, especially those made up by individuals to justify their own shortcomings But the part about your religious notions having nothing whatsoever to do with orthodox Christianity stands. You can make up doctrines, but you can't make 'em true.

DW >your statement above implied that I had imagined the link between the race >issue and the sixth commandment. Not so.

DB It actually matters little to me whether you dreamed it up or someone else did. It's hogwash in either case.

DW > This only shows you haven't >read enough about the issue to have been exposed to the concept.

DB <Laugh> Oh, you'd be amazed how much of that sort of swill I've read. I must say, though, that the "Odinists" do a better job of it than you do. Of course, they've tossed aside any pretense of Christianity and admit that they're pagans, so they have an easier time of it than you do.

DW >You seem to know of no point of view except that of the Jacobins — the >architects of reconstruction.

DB No, I simply believe in speaking the truth, which is a scruple you don't seem to share.

DW > And as I've shown in my article The Mark of the Beast http://www.mindspring.com//`dennisw/articles/beast.htm >persons with your view have in some measure rejected the law of God and accepted the mark of the beast.

DB I've read that article several times, and it just keeps on getting funnier every time I read it. Believe it or not, you can make up what you believe are "laws of God" by the thousands if you're so inclined, but unless you're God (and you most definitely are not), then they're of no account.

DW >All of my theology is based on historic Christian theology.

DB Balderdash! It hasn't even a vague resemblance to historic Christian theology. It does, however, smell stringly of "Christian Identity", a diabolical perversion of Scripture that will probably cause a good number of people to spend eternity in the infernal regions. You happen to know Pete Peters?

DW > Your >reconstructed views, although widely accepted in this day and time, are >spurious heresies.

DB This from an crypto Identity-oid? Hooookay, whatever. That deserves no response. <snip>

DW >You wrote: "I'll base it on our Saviour's distillation of the Law - Love >the Lord thy God with all that is within you, and love your neighbour as >yourself. He tells us that upon these precepts rest ALL the Law and the >prophets. When asked to expand on love of neighbour, He offered the >example of an interaction between the people of two different nations - >Jews and Samaritans."

>Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.

DB You mean Jesus DIDN'T teach those things? Funny, it's in every translation I have. Are you using the NDV? (New Diabolical Version)

DW > This is a covenantal statement >showing the Jews that Gentiles were also included in the covenant, not a >Nimrodian statement showing that the abolitionists and the communists >were right all along and that all peoples of the earth should be one >based on their kind acts one toward another.

DB And that was a gibberish statement, attempting to evade what Jesus taught 'cause it makes you squirm. You're not alone, He made the people in His time squirm, too.

DW >You also wrote: "That, and the fact that the apostles went out from the >nation of Israel and took the Gospel into, all the world, just as our >Lord commanded, without regard to the race or nationality of the >recipient. Are we better than they?"

>This issue is obviously one of great confusion to you.

DB Nope, I'm untroubled by your made-up-by-hand pseudo-Christian religion. I can afford the luxury of believing that Holy Scripture means what it says, and don't find the necessity of trying to explain it away.

DW >In your >reconstructed mind, you can't see the difference between salvation and >social relationship. Your assumption is that the Christian religion >naturally tears down all barriers between peoples, or something to that >effect.

DB Well, I'll have to refer to St. Paul again, who said: "For ye are all the children of God by faoth in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ue Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:26-29 If you have a problem with that, take it up with the management. > (I'm guessing because many times, such as this one, you won't

DW >state your positions, but just give hints along the way as to what they >are.

DB No, I've made my position plain, again and again. I believe that having different laws for different people based on where their parents came from is unjust, unGodly, unChristian, and just plain old WRONG. <snip>

DW >The truth is that the gospel and salvation do not tear down God's >division of nations any more than they tear down rights of private >property, authority in church, home, and state, or a number of other >God-ordained strictures and structures.

DB Better talk to Paul, then, He doesn't seem to have gotten the word. >You wrote: "There is no such thing as a Christian people;. Only >individuals may become Christians, not groups. The Christian faith is >the basis of Southern culture, but it does not follow that Southern >culture may then be elevated to the equivalent of Christianity."

DW >I don't think this will play very well with many of your friends and >associates in the Southern movement. I'd be interested to hear how >Franklin Sanders, Dr. Hill, Rev. Wilkins, and others would respond to >such a statement.

DB Write and ask 'em. But I'll bite - how does a nation get saved? -

DW >The New Albany Declaration reads: "That we are a Christian people of >Northwest European descent, with predominately Anglo-Celtic institutions, >traditions, culture and heritage; wherever we may abide, we are bound by >blood, loyalty and sentiment to the American South...."

DB That, and a lot of other arglebargle.

DW >But the real issue is not what Southerners believe, but what does the >Bible teach?

DB Oh, spare me. You don't care a fig for what the Bible teaches, you just want to wrench some Bible verses out to justify your own prejudices. That's plain vanilla hypocrisy.

DW >I wrote: I would call to your attention Titus 1:12,13 ;One of themselves, >a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy >gluttons. This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely >that they may be sound in the faith.

>"In your view, does this qualify as racial prejudice?"

>You answered: "Yeah, I'd say so. I do note, however, that St, Paul >didn't advise other believers to separate themselves from the Cretans, >but simply to reprove them. If you'll recall, this is the man who took >the Gospel to the nations."

DB I looked at that one, and I was wrong - Paul said nothing about race, since the Cretans weren't a race (they're ethnically and linguistically Greek), theye were simply a nationality. It was an observation about Cretan culture, and, I assume, accurate. <snip>

DW >You went into a long litany of all the peoples we would have to separate >if my system was instituted. Without reprinting your list here, let me >simply respond that (1) we cannot be responsible for the actions of >peoples in the past. We can only do our best to give heed to God's >creation ordinances.

DB Malarky. There is no such "ordinance".

DW > We have a nation before us, the Southern people; >created in the way it was created, but nonetheless here.

DB And by your own standards, it can't be a "nation" because it was an amalgam of other "nations" from the beginning. <snip>

DW >You have set up a false dichotomy here between God's actions and men's >actions. Nope. You ain't God. God can order the Hebrews to off the Amorites because He MADE the Amorites, and can do as He likes. You aren't in that position. (Thank God!) <snip>

DW >You have said that making legal distinctions on the basis of a person's >ancestry is "racial prejudice." Yet you have provided no argument that >"racial prejudice" is an evil act or something to be shunned,

DB Injustice is evil and to be shunned, and to keep two sets of books, one for the whites and one for the blacks, is unjust. Simple. You know, that;'s the a sort of thing that even children can grasp, but it requires single-minded effort to misunderstand. <snip>

DW >On this point, I have thought you were being dishonest. I'll leave the dishonesty to you, as you appear to have more practise at it. <snip>

>Next comes the point about the US being founded on white separatism. I >offered the Constitution and the Dred Scott decision, etc. And you found >some errors in my offerings which led you to conclude: "That obviously >shows your assertion to be invalid since all persons born or naturalized >in the [US] would certainly include those of Indian or Asian ancestry."

DB Yep. The fact was that you made up some laws that didn't exist, and got caught at it. That's the chance you take. And it's probbaly harmless when it's just the Constitution, but I wouldn't risk it with the Bible. <snip>

DW >That's not a reasonable conclusion to my argument. It looks like a >desperate attempt to discredit me personally

DB Again. I'll leave that to you. You're doing a much better job than I could hope to do. <snip>

DW >I said: "You know that Thomas Jefferson, Dabney, and Jefferson Davis did >not desire to grant suffrage to blacks. You know they did not favor >granting citizenship to them."

>Your answer was: "And in that, I believe Davis, Dabney, and Jefferson to >have been wrong."

>I'll let that statement stand on its own.

DB As will I.

DW <snip> >You wrote: "You, sir, have failed abysmally to demonstrate that God's >division of mankind into nations has one single, solitary thing to do >with the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

>Again, you are the one who has made the linkage between the two, not me.

DB Good, then we may conclude that your "law of division" has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

Dan Bennett, Unreconstructed Southron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#25. Mike Broadwell to Dan Bennett -- January 27, 1998

To Dan Bennett,

It had appeared that you had decided to give up the thread, but you have not. However, from the standpoint of honest and open debate, you gave up a long time ago.

The kind of twisted logic and rhetoric you employ is reminiscent of Bill Clinton in his defences. The term "argument" is meant to signify the use of logic and reason to arrive at truth, not to wear down the opposition through constantly shifting definitions and obfuscating facts.

Certainly, your "appeals" to majority opinion will gain some support, because the South is hated by the majority of Americans, especially when its ideals are put forth directly. Any people which will lie down and allow everything their ancestors built for them to be taken by con men and assorted riff raff can't abide the type of principle which the South stood by. If you want to wave the flag and talk on the radio about a "new" confederacy which will implement the ideals of Martin Luther King, then go ahead. It seems that those ideals are already firmly planted in our present society, so I don't see what you hope to gain.

It is becoming more obvious that you can't or won't honestly stand up and make a case for your views based on reality. The fact that you aren't alone in this may make you feel vindicated, but it shouldn't.

Mike Broadwell


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#27. Dan Bennett to Mike Broadwell -- January 31, 1998

MB. libertee@mindspring.com allowed as how: >It had appeared that you had decided to give up the thread, but you have >not. However, from the standpoint of honest and open debate, you gave up >a long time ago.

DB. Sorry, but if circumlocution and and doublespeak are what you like, you'll take little pleasure in what I post. I intend to speak plainly and let others do the slithering. You may like that or lump it, but there it is.

MB. >The kind of twisted logic and rhetoric you employ is reminiscent of Bill >Clinton in his defences. The term "argument" is meant to signify the use >of logic and reason to arrive at truth, not to wear down the opposition >through constantly shifting definitions and obfuscating facts.

DB. Constantly shifting definitions? Ha! This in defense of a man who invents "laws of God" to justify his petty prejudices? That is far too rich. Obfuscating facts? Hogwash. I'm not the one who has to resort to feigned ignorance of meanings, or who has insists upon assigning meanings to words that no dictionary ever heard of. No, sir, if you're seeking word games and rhetorical belly-dancing, then you'll have to look elsewhere.

MB. >Certainly, your "appeals" to majority opinion will gain some support, >because the South is hated by the majority of Americans, especially when >its ideals are put forth directly.

DB. What we're discussing here has nothing whatsoever to do with the South, but merely with Mr. Wheeler's (and presumably your) racial prejudices. Once again, your attempt to use private definitions for terms is noted, and rejected. Plain English here, sir.

MB. > Any people which will lie down and >allow everything their ancestors built for them to be taken by con men >and assorted riff raff can't abide the type of principle which the South >stood by.

DB. Spealing of con men and riff raff, I can't think of a better description of those who would subvert the noble goal of preserving Southern culture into the sleazy path of racial separatism.

MB. > If you want to wave the flag and talk on the radio about a >"new" confederacy which will implement the ideals of Martin Luther King, >then go ahead.

DB. Which ideals of King do you take such strong exception to? His idea that people should be judged by their character and not the colour of their skin? I personally think that's a very Southern, very Christian viewpoint. The converse, juding by colour rather than character, is altogether unjust, unChristian, and very Yankee-like. You choose which you prefer; I already have.

MB. > It seems that those ideals are already firmly planted in >our present society, so I don't see what you hope to gain.

DB. I hope to gain the preservation of Southern culture, and Southern political independence. It appears that all you hope to gain is blacks atthe back of the bus. Which do you actually believe is the nobler goal?

MB. >It is becoming more obvious that you can't or won't honestly stand up and >make a case for your views based on reality.

DB. Translation to English: I won't play your ridiculous games. I have have no plans to in future.

MB. > The fact that you aren't >alone in this may make you feel vindicated, but it shouldn't.

DB. I feel vindicated in that I'm abl;e to speak plainly, which your sort cannot or will not do. You prefer to conceal yourselves behind a veil of rhetorical smoke and mirrors. Fare you well.

Dan Bennett, Unreconstructed Southron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#27. Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett -- January 30, 1998

Dear Dan Bennett,

It is sad to see that you have regressed since your last post. I had brought you to the point were you were beginning to put out some positions and then offer some evidence for them. You were beginning to act like an adult man with a reasonable approach. But in this post you have regressed to the hysterical antics of a seventh-grade girl.

But this is a good post to teach the readers the difference between emotional positions and rational positions; the difference between passion and logic.

For instance, when you write: "Not unless you are synonymous with the South and Southrons, which you ain't, by a very, very long shot."

Here you make an emotion-filled charge against me. You make no effort to offer any evidence in support of your charge. It is just made and left dangling. A man of honor would not do such a thing.

Another of your statements was: "Could be. There are far too many damnable heresies out there for me to keep track of all of them, especially those made up by individuals to justify their own shortcomings But the part about your religious notions having nothing whatsoever to do with orthodox Christianity stands. You can make up doctrines, but you can't make 'em true."

Here are more emotive charges. And again, no evidence is offered in support of them. In the last post, you charged that I had made up a linkage between integration and the sixth commandment. I showed your charge to be erroneous. And instead of an apology, an admission of error, or a counter-argument to my argument, you simply repeat the charge as though I have not answered it already. It is interesting that you have no defense against my counter-argument; just repetition of the charge.

A man of honor would not act in such a way.

Another of your statements: "Oh, you'd be amazed how much of that sort of swill I've read. I must say, though, that the "Odinists" do a better job of it than you do. Of course, they've tossed aside any pretense of Christianity and admit that they're pagans, so they have an easier time of it than you do."

We might be amazed at the sort of swill you read (more on that later). But what we would like to see is some evidence that you read anything at all. Here you make something of a linkage between me and the Odinists. You don't give any evidence of that linkage, nor demonstrate any understanding of the issue involved. You simply make the emotive charges and then walk away. A man with any honor would not do such a thing.

Another of your statements: "No, I simply believe in speaking the truth, which is a scruple you don't seem to share."

This is another example of making a charge with no corresponding evidence attached to it. It is not an argument. So far, you have not advanced any argument in favor of your positions. You began to do so last time, but I shot them all down and now you have returned to name-calling and childish prattling.

Here is an excellent example of emotive argumentation as opposed to logical reasoning. You stated: "I've read that article several times, and it just keeps on getting funnier every time I read it. Believe it or not, you can make up what you believe are "laws of God" by the thousands if you're so inclined, but unless you're God (and you most definitely are not), then they're of no account."

Here you offer nothing in the way of argumentation against my article The Mark of the Beast. But it's obvious you didn't agree with it. If you take issue with it, why is it that you can't put forth any argument against it? Why have you no evidence to support your perspective? A man of honor would never act in such a way.

Here's another example. You wrote: "Balderdash! It [my theology] hasn't even a vague resemblance to historic Christian theology. It does, however, smell stringly "Christian Identity", a diabolical perversion of Scripture that will probably cause a good number of people to spend eternity in the infernal regions. You happen to know Pete Peters?"

I would like you to show wherein my theology differs from Robert Dabney, much of whose teachings are still taught in conservative seminaries today, in any respect. You have charged that my theology hasn't even a vague resemblance to historic Christian theology. But you have failed to supply any evidence for that assertion. You have not been able to give one instance in which it differs. A man of honor would not act in such a manner. Seventh-grade girls act that way all the time.

Here's another example: "This from an crypto Identity-oid? Hooookay, whatever. That deserves no response."

Here you call me a crypto Identity-oid. Still, however, you offer no evidence that there is any correlation between my theology and that of the Identity theologians. If you have any, we would like to see it.

Now you're acting like a squid: squirt out a lot of fluid and try to get away in the confusion it creates.

Another example. You offered that the story of the Good Samaritan teaches something to the effect of racial integration ( with you, definitions change from post to post). I offered an argument that your conclusion of the Good Samaritan story was erroneous. And your response was: "And that was a gibberish statement, attempting to evade what Jesus taught 'cause it makes you squirm. You're not alone, He made the people in His time squirm, too."

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Do you have any argument whatsoever to offer in support of it? If so, we'd like to see it. You can make an assertion. But unless there is some demonstrable logic behind it, what good does it do except get your friends and relatives all in a lather?

This next statement is the only place in your three-part post in which you offered evidence for any position you took: You wrote: "Well, I'll have to refer to St. Paul again, who said: For ye are all the children of God by faoth in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:26-29. If you have a problem with that, take it up with management."

While it's good that you have a Bible passage to appeal to, it's not so good that you haven't drawn any conclusion as to how it applies to the topic at hand, but have resorted to childish chiding instead. I have argued that you have made a linkage between salvation and societal relationships that is unsupportable. You have offered no argument to counter my assertion. Here you quote a passage but fail to show how it applies. I would say that this passage supports my contention as much as it supports yours. But until you make some attempt to counter the arguments I've already put forward, I'll not advance any others on this topic.

Here's an instructive statement: "No, I've made my position plain, again and again. I believe that having different laws for different people based on where their parents came from is unjust, unGodly, unChristian, and just plain old WRONG."

Yes. And the evidence you have advanced in support of your perspective has been shown to be flawed in that you are interpreting one verse in the Bible to contradict another. You have offered no counter-argument to my argument. Until you do, your perspective is not supportable and you have lost the debate.

Here's another instructive statement: You offered that there are no Christian countries. I countered with two biblical passages that demonstrate the concept of a Christian country to be valid. You have offered no counter-argument here but have ignored my statements which destroyed your contention. If you have any rebuttal to my interpretation of the biblical passages, we'd like to hear it. All you've come up with so far is total denial: "But I'll bite -- how does a nation get saved?"

You also wrote: "Injustice is evil and to be shunned, and to keep two sets of books, one for the whites and one for the blacks, is unjust. Simple. You know, that;'s the a sort of thing that even children can grasp, but it requires single-minded effort to misunderstand."

Again, you've said this before. I have demonstrated with biblical evidence how your principle is flawed. You have offered no counter-argument, but just repeated the assertion. Do you have any evidence to support your claim? If so, we'd like to see it.

HOW DO YOU SPEND YOUR SPARE TIME?

Mr. Bennett,

I like to know what kind of man I'm up against. So I did a little research on you. On DejaNews, there is an "Author Profile" section that shows all of the posts you have sent to various newsgroups. Evidently, you use more than one e-mail address. And under the address nospam@all.com, there are several postings on a variety of newsgroups. Many are signed by you, Dan Bennett, and these are on legitimate newsgroups. But many are on pornographic newsgroups. These are not signed in your name, but as Mystery Man, Kyle, and others. And it's some pretty kinky stuff.

(There are no porno postings under dan@calvary.com. There are no porno postings under dennisw@mindspring.com, either.)

Would you please tell us, if you can, why is it that when an Author Profile under your nospam@all.com address, that these porno postings are on the list?

I hope this is not you; and if it's not, you should complain to Deja News for having these postings listed under your Author Profile.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#28. Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler -- January 31, 1998

DW. dennisw@mindspring.com allowed as how: >It is sad to see that you have regressed since your last post.

DB. <Laugh> "Regressed", in the same sense that politicians who sell out their constituents are "progressive", right? See, I can understand newspeak as well as anyone. I simply have no need to use it, having nothing to conceal.

DW. >I had >brought you to the point were you were beginning to put out some >positions and then offer some evidence for them.

DB. Indeed. And all I got in reply was hand-made theology, imaginary laws, and rhetorical arglebargle. My tolerance for that sort of thing is very very limited.

DW. > You were beginning to >act like an adult man with a reasonable approach. But in this post you >have regressed to the hysterical antics of a seventh-grade girl.

DB. Which is a level to which you may aspire. (We can both play the same game, you see.)

DW. >But this is a good post to teach the readers the difference between >emotional positions and rational positions; the difference between >passion and logic.

DB. And bewteen lies (yours) and the truth (mine). Let the chips fall where they may.

DW. >For instance, when you write: "Not unless you are synonymous with the >South and Southrons, which you ain't, by a very, very long shot." >Here you make an emotion-filled charge against me. You make no effort to >offer any evidence in support of your charge. It is just made and left >dangling. A man of honor would not do such a thing.

DB. Couldn't quote the whole thing, could you Dennis? Pretty dishonourable on your part, don't you think? But then again, I don't suppose that honour matters much in your economy. After all, it's all about colour in your mind, isn't? Isn't it? Hmmmm?

DW. >Another of your statements was: "Could be. There are far too many >damnable heresies out there for me to keep track of all of them, >especially those made up by individuals to justify their own shortcomings > But the part about your religious notions having nothing whatsoever to >do with orthodox Christianity stands. You can make up doctrines, but you >can't make 'em true." >Here are more emotive charges. And again, no evidence is offered in >support of them.

DB. You made up the doctrines, you support 'em. You say that "God's law" dictates that the "nations" be separated. I say that's utter and complete hogwash, supported by absolutely nothing. In short, I call. You got cards, show 'em.

DW. > In the last post, you charged that I had made up a >linkage between integration and the sixth commandment. I showed your >charge to be erroneous.

DB. That is either a lie or a delusion, you choose. It makes no difference to me.

DW. > And instead of an apology, an admission of >error, or a counter-argument to my argument, you simply repeat the >charge as though I have not answered it already.

DB. As indeed you had not.

DW. > It is interesting that >you have no defense against my counter-argument; just repetition of the >charge.

DB. Again, the defense is your problem. If you're going to keep offering up one-off ideas, you'd better have something to back 'em up otherthan "somebody said..." else you merit nothing more than a horselaugh.

DW. >A man of honor would not act in such a way. >Another of your statements: "Oh, you'd be amazed how much of that sort of >swill I've read. I must say, though, that the "Odinists" do a better job >of it than you do. Of course, they've tossed aside any pretense of >Christianity and admit that they're pagans, so they have an easier time >of it than you do." >We might be amazed at the sort of swill you read (more on that later).

DB. A goodly percebntage of the swill I read comes from you.

DW. >But what we would like to see is some evidence that you read anything at >all. Here you make something of a linkage between me and the Odinists.

DB. Same essential beliefs. Racism makes strange bedfellows, looks like.

DW. >You don't give any evidence of that linkage, nor demonstrate any >understanding of the issue involved.

DB. See above, I just did.

DW. > You simply make the emotive charges >and then walk away. A man with any honor would not do such a thing.

DB. Sorry, Mr. Wheeler, it won't wash. You';re trying to wiggle out again, and once again, it isn't working. A great many of your racialist brethren have adopted Odinism as their religion because it's "the white race's religion", just as many racialists who desire to retain some link to Christianity have contrived the damnable heresy known as "Christian Identity". They use Christian terminology, but they're no more Christian than the Odinists, and their underlying motivations are the same. As are yours.

DW. >Another of your statements: "No, I simply believe in speaking the truth, >which is a scruple you don't seem to share." >This is another example of making a charge with no corresponding evidence >attached to it. It is not an argument.

DB. No, it was an accusation. You've handled the truth with more than a little violence here, fetching laws from the Constitution that aren't there, making up "laws of God" that no theologian ever heard of, and changing the meanings of words to suit yourself. That may not presicsely be lying, but it's a long way from being honest.

DW. > So far, you have not advanced >any argument in favor of your positions. You began to do so last time, >but I shot them all down and now you have returned to name-calling and >childish prattling.

DB. "Shot down" my arguments with appeals to bogus laws and nonexistent religous tenets. easy to win that way, isn't it? <Grin>

DW. >Here is an excellent example of emotive argumentation as opposed to >logical reasoning. You stated: "I've read that article several times, >and it just keeps on getting funnier every time I read it. Believe it or >not, you can make up what you believe are "laws of God" by the thousands >if you're so inclined, but unless you're God (and you most definitely are >not), then they're of no account." >Here you offer nothing in the way of argumentation against my article >The >Mark of the Beast. But it's obvious you didn't agree with it. If you >take issue with it, why is it that you can't put forth any argument >against it? Why have you no evidence to support your perspective? A man >of honor would never act in such a way.

DB. The "article" in question is worthy of nothing more than ridicule, and that is all I have to offer on it. Post the URL for the wretched thing and let the readers decide for themselves.

DW. >Here's another example. You wrote: "Balderdash! It [my theology] hasn't >even a vague resemblance to historic Christian theology. It does, >however, smell stringly "Christian Identity", a diabolical perversion of >Scripture that will probably cause a good number of people to spend >eternity in the infernal regions. You happen to know Pete Peters?" >I would like you to show wherein my theology differs from Robert Dabney,

DB. Share with us where Dabney expounds on the "law of God" about the separation of "nations", or how it violates the 6th commandment. Take your time, we'll wait.

DW. >much of whose teachings are still taught in conservative seminaries >today, in any respect. You have charged that my theology hasn't even a >vague resemblance to historic Christian theology. But you have failed to >supply any evidence for that assertion.

DB. Again, you claim your handmade theology is orthodox, then support it. I say it's a stench in God's nostrils.

DW. > You have not been able to give >one instance in which it differs. A man of honor would not act in such a >manner. Seventh-grade girls act that way all the time.

DB. Again, I just did. (BTW, you do seem a bit preoccupied with seventh grade girls. If I were to take a page from your book... but no, I'm, above that.) <Laugh>

DW. >Here's another example: "This from an crypto Identity-oid? Hooookay, >whatever. That deserves no response." > Here you call me a crypto Identity-oid. Still, however, you >offer no evidence that there is any correlation between my theology and >that of the Identity theologians. If you have any, we would like to see >it.

DB. Where do you differ? You sure boy sound like 'em. Waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck...

DW. > Now you're acting like a squid: squirt out a lot of fluid and try >to get away in the confusion it creates.

DB. Once again, what's the difference? Let us know.

DW. >Another example. You offered that the story of the Good Samaritan >teaches something to the effect of racial integration

DB. Yep, sure did.

DW. >( with you, definitions change from post to post).

DB. That, of course, is a damned lie, as you well know. I leave the unique definitions to you, since they appearto be your stock in trade.

DW. >I offered an argument that your >conclusion of the Good Samaritan story was erroneous. And your response >was: "And that was a gibberish statement, attempting to evade what Jesus >taught 'cause it makes you squirm. You're not alone, He made the people >in His time squirm, too." >Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

DB. Your figure it out. Change the waylaid man to a white Southron, and the Samaritan to a black man, and you'll see it sort of like Jesus' Jewish audience saw it.

DW. > Do you have any >argument whatsoever to offer in support of it? If so, we'd like to see >it. You can make an assertion. But unless there is some demonstrable >logic behind it, what good does it do except get your friends and >relatives all in a lather?

DB. <Laugh> My griends and relatives are particularly exercised about that sort of thing. It's you racialist types who get your knickers in a twist about our Saviour's teaching there.

DW. >This next statement is the only place in your three-part post in which >you offered evidence for any position you took: You wrote: "Well, I'll >have to refer to St. Paul again, who said: For ye are all the children of >God by faoth in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized >into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is >neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all >one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, >and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:26-29. If you have a >problem with that, take it up with management."

>While it's good that you have a Bible passage to appeal to, it's not so >good that you haven't drawn any conclusion as to how it applies to the >topic at hand, but have resorted to childish chiding instead.

DB. In other words, you've been caught flat-footed again. You ought to be used to it by now.

DW. > I have >argued that you have made a linkage between salvation and societal >relationships that is unsupportable.

DB. The Scripture doesn't allow for any such quibble, it says what it says. But go ahead, I love watching people try and explain why it is they claim to follow the Bible but don't do as it says.

DW. > You have offered no argument to >counter my assertion. Here you quote a passage but fail to show how it >applies.

DB. <Laugh>

DW. > I would say that this passage supports my contention as much as >it supports yours.

DB. But that, of course, would be a lie.

DW.> But until you make some attempt to counter the >arguments I've already put forward, I'll not advance any others on this >topic.

DB. I.E., you have nothing to say. which was my point after all.

DW. >Here's an instructive statement: "No, I've made my position plain, again >and again. I believe that having different laws for different people >based on where their parents came from is unjust, unGodly, unChristian, >and just plain old WRONG." >Yes. And the evidence you have advanced in support of your perspective >has been shown to be flawed in that you are interpreting one verse in the >Bible to contradict another.

DB. A lie again. That's a wretched sin, Mr. Wheeler.

DW. > You have offered no counter-argument to my >argument. Until you do, your perspective is not supportable and you have >lost the debate.

DB. Ah, so we reach the point where you declare that you've won, and that the South is all about racial separatism. The only problem will be that your posirtion still isn't true.

DW. >Here's another instructive statement: You offered that there are no >Christian countries. I countered with two biblical passages that >demonstrate the concept of a Christian country to be valid. You have >offered no counter-argument here but have ignored my statements which >destroyed your contention.

DB. Which proved that your understanding of Scripture was as faulty as your understanding of history or lwa.

DW. > If you have any rebuttal to my interpretation >of the biblical passages, we'd like to hear it. All you've come up with >so far is total denial: "But I'll bite -- how does a nation get saved?"

DB. How does a nation get saved, Mr. Wheeler?

DW. >You also wrote: "Injustice is evil and to be shunned, and to keep two >sets of books, one for the whites and one for the blacks, is unjust. >Simple. You know, that;'s the a sort of thing that even children can> grasp, but it requires single-minded effort to misunderstand."

>Again, you've said this before. I have demonstrated with biblical >evidence how your principle is flawed.

DB. Nope, not even close, even when you were making up doctrines that have never existed in the Church. C'mon, Dennis. This looks more and more like you're all hat and no cattle.

DW. >I like to know what kind of man I'm up against. So I did a little >research on you. On DejaNews, there is an "Author Profile" section that >shows all of the posts you have sent to various newsgroups. Evidently, >you use more than one e-mail address. And under the address >nospam@all.com, there are several postings on a variety of newsgroups. >Many are signed by you, Dan Bennett, and these are on legitimate >newsgroups. But many are on pornographic newsgroups. These are not >signed in your name, but as Mystery Man, Kyle, and others. And it's some >pretty kinky stuff.

DB. That, sirrah, is a damned and damnable lie. And now I well and truly know what sort of man I'M dealing with.

DW. >(There are no porno postings under dan@calvary.com. There are no porno >postings under dennisw@mindspring.com, either.) >Would you please tell us, if you can, why is it that when an Autho >Profile under your nospam@all.com address, that these porno postings are >on the list?

DB. I'm calling your bluff again, MR. Wheeler. Post some of those things here, and let's see if they're mine at all. I'll tell you this straight out - I post under one name - my own. So let's see what you can contrive to attribute to me.

DW. >I hope this is not you

DB. Another pestilent lie, you know quite well it's not me, but we'll see that, won't we? Show them cards, MR. Wheeler.

Dan Bennett, Unreconstructed Southron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Part 4    To Part 6    Back to Bennett vs. Wheeler Index
 

To Mark of the Beast Article by Dennis Wheeler

The Church Must Storm the Gates of Hell