The Crappy Race Of Failures

The Crappy Race Of Failures (An open letter to niggers)

Caution: Not recommended for some readers. For some, to read this letter may be hazardous to your health, if symptoms of shock followed by chest pain occur, discontinue use and contact emergency services. Not recommended for liberals, progressives, democrats, or even conservatives.

Face the facts, NIGGERS, your race are a failed race because you’re a feckless, unruly, uncivilized horde of feral proto-humans. You never figured out how to live in a society bigger than one or two squabbling families. Starting thousands of years ago, everyone else on this planet without exception did – they invented religion, the idea of law, and the ideas of property and respect for the value of human life. This enabled tribes to coalesce into bigger groups and become organized. The rest is history, or rather civilization.

But your lot never did this, did they? Abstract thought and problem- solving have never been the black man’s strengths, have they? Did they invent a long-lived and intellectually coherent religion? Nope. Did they ever build a city? Nope. Did they even invent bricks? Nope (the reason there’s no Stonehenge in Africa is because it took more than 20 people to move the slabs of rock – clearly a non-starter in Africa, where assembling more than 20 niggers normally results in a war). Did they till the land? Nope. Did they domesticate an animal for their use? Nope. Did they invent a written language? Nope. Did they invent the wheel? Mainly, nope. Were they curious enough about what lay out across the sea to sail upon it? Nope.

And blacks are the only “humans” on this planet of which all this is true. Eskimos are more technically advanced than blacks were, despite the handicap of having no raw materials to work with other than dead fish and snow. Indians managed to domesticate the elephant. Why couldn’t niggers?

So why do you fail everywhere even today? Let me offer you jigaboos a hypothesis. It’s because feral behavior – innate savagery, murderous violence if annoyed, predisposition to rape many women and thus fecklessly father many children – conferred valuable survival advantages on individuals in the backward, Paleolithic milieu of Africa. But they don’t help your kind in a civilized society. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the last few hundred years have not been long enough for these behaviors to have been domesticated out of you all. So you’re all still at it.

Let me illustrate this for you by analogy. Technically, an American pit bull terrier and an English golden retriever are exactly the same species. They can produce offspring, if crossbred.

The former was bred to exhibit certain characteristics – wanton aggression, propensity to fight, physical strength, powerful bite, and so on. The latter was bred to retrieve birds shot and killed by its masters, and to do this, it has to have a docile, placid, non-aggressive nature; otherwise it would treat what it found as its own kill and refuse to hand it over.

Now imagine that your small children, aged maybe two or three years old, are going to be locked in a room with five or six of those dogs, and the dogs haven’t been fed for a week.

Which breed would you rather lock in there with *your* children? Hungry pit bulls, or hungry golden retrievers? Or do you figure that, even though they *look* differently, they’re all the same species really, so of course the pit bulls certainly won’t act any differently?


All this PC crap we hear spouted in the media about how “there’s no such thing as race” is just that – crap. A dog has four legs and a tail; a cat also has four legs and a tail, but that doesn’t make it a dog. The superficial similarity between cats and dogs and between whites and blacks is just that – superficial. If there really were no genetic difference between niggers and humans, then presumably my white woman and I could very easily produce a black baby between us at any time, and any nigger and his ho a white one.

But we know what we’d say to them if that ever happened, don’t we? 🙂

Whenever blacks achieve a certain critical mass numerically in a pre-existing non-black society, they start to exhibit their natural feral behavior and to turn their environment back into a recognizably African, essentially Stone Age one. Thus, Africa has the jungle; black enclaves have “da ‘hood.” Native Africans were small wandering herds of marginal animals, one famine away from extinction, and which therefore fought each other savagely for pieces of territory. Large groups of “African-Americans” at liberty in the west actually deliberately break themselves down into *smaller*, tribal hordes, because they feel uneasy in and unaccustomed to a larger society. Negro gangs of twenty to fifty individuals assert their rights to “tag” other people’s property through gang violence, but fail to co-operate otherwise.

For instance, a 15- or 20-strong horde of negroes was recently filmed by a security camera inside a London bank they were robbing. Once they had terrified the cashiers into handing over the money, they then fought *each other* for it, in the middle of the cashier’s hall, like hyenas fighting over an antelope. Having stolen from the bank, they instantly started to steal from each other. The idea of escaping first, then sharing the swag, was just too complex for them to understand, never mind implement.

And so it goes on. You *cannot* fuse blacks into existing large societies or standalone nations because they are just plain not adapted to it. I’m sorry for you niggers and for your savagery, and I’m sorry you were born a violent black aboriginal savage in a civilized society, but I’m more sorry for the white societies that are having to tolerate all your crime while we try to absorb you.

This is why all black nations fail economically and sink into corruption, civil war, and permanent dependence on the white man’s generosity.

And presumably this is also why you pathetically allowed yourselves to be enslaved: you’re savage enough still to be angry about it long after it ended, but you were too backward to stop it at the time. No black Spartacus, is there, niggers? Why no slave uprisings among blacks? Slaves repeatedly rose against the Romans even they knew they’d be crucified for it, when captured.

*White* slaves, that is. They cared enough about their stolen liberty that they were prepared to risk even that. So what’s different about the negro? Why did you all sit there, enslaving each other even in America, and still enslaving each other even today in Africa, until a kindly but misguided white benefactor set you free? Is it because, as slaves, you were fed, watered, and housed, and that you as a race had no ambition beyond that if it entailed doing any work or taking any risks? What are you – lazy, cowardly, stupid, or all of the above?

And you’re *still* bleating about slavery now. If slavery is the root of all your problems, why did Australia prosper? England used Australia as a dumping ground when her prisons overflowed. Within a hundred years, a nation manufactured from convicts in irons had its own autonomous elected government, and barely a hundred years on from then, Australia is now a major economic power in the Pacific. And at no time have *they* niggerwhined for handouts from the mother country – in fact, if anything, it’s mostly been the other way around.

You know what? It’s because Australia is *white*. Oh yes it is. Just imagine if there had been a Black Australia. Look how few aborigines were able to live in Australia’s climate, and now look at how many whites can. If President Monroe had sent his niggers there, they’d be niggerwhining about how Bwana dumped de po’ black folks on a desert island in the middle of nowhere, so they never had a chance. Every week there’d be news of a new famine or civil war in Australia. The Africoons would be slaughtering the Aborigines, or the other way around, or whatever. The collecting tin would come out regularly, but the money would be stolen and spent on Kalashnikov s, and Black Australia would still owe Whitey billions which we’d be expected to just forget. If all those unfortunate convicts we sent out there had been black, Australia today would just be yet another Liberia – a crappy failed nation of murderous warring niggers, with one hand held permanently out for money in the general direction of Bwana. And you know it.

So quit whining and thank the white man you live in America, not in Africa.

Jared Taylor smokes a nigger in a debate on Racial Profiling on BET

Jared causes a category 4 chimpout right on television.

Cities Start to Go Bankrupt in California

Cities Start to Go Bankrupt in California

by Jeff Davis

The financial rock slide that will eventually bury the state of California has begun.

A Reuters article reports “Two years after Vallejo, California, filed for bankruptcy protection, officials in nearby Antioch are also tossing around the ‘B’ word. Antioch’s leaders earlier this month said bankruptcy could be an option for the cash-strapped city of roughly 100,000 on the eastern fringe of the San Francisco Bay area. Antioch’s fiscal woes are standard issue for local governments in California: weak revenue from retail sales and property taxes is forcing spending cuts, layoffs and furloughs. But cost-cutting measures may not be enough to keep Antioch’s books balanced, so its city council is openly discussing bankruptcy. ‘We just want to alert people to the possibility,’ Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Mary Helen Rocha said.”

California is rapidly changing from a White state to a Third World state. Illegal aliens cost California $13.1 billion dollars per year. The highly productive and creative White people who made California the wealthiest state in the nation, are being driven out by ever increasing taxes and being replaced by Mexicans, Asians, Hindus and Pakis. The resulting heavily multi-racial state is not stronger due to its diversity. It is weaker and teetering on bankruptcy.

The article notes “Orange County Treasurer Chriss Street would not be surprised if more local governments across the Golden State sound a similar alarm. Street expects more talk of municipal bankruptcy across California because local government finances are in such dire shape — a situation underscored on Wednesday when a top finance officer for Sacramento County projected a worse-than-expected shortfall for the county of $181 million, which could force more than 1,000 layoffs from the county’s payroll.”

Municipalities all across the country are facing destitution due to an almost complete collapse in some places of the traditional sources of revenue, namely property taxes and retail sales taxes. When millions of people have been foreclosed and evicted from their homes, there is no one to pay property taxes. Technically speaking, the banks who have foreclosed and repossessed the homes should be liable to pay, but lots of luck to a town like Antioch in collecting taxes from some bank that has itself just been seized by the FDIC.

And in regards to retail sales, when people are unemployed and broke, they’re not exactly swarming into the shopping malls and buying up lots of nonessential stuff.

So where do municipalities get money for garbage collection, police and other government services when they fall short? Usually the state or sometimes the federal government bails them out. In view of the fact that the state of California itself is on the verge of bankruptcy there’s no chance of a state bail out.

If you live in Antioch, California, better hope you don’t get robbed or your house doesn’t catch on fire. You may call 911 and get sent to voice mail.

Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers

Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers

A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed.

Greg Johnson has asked me to address one of the thorniest issues in White Nationalism: the quarrel between the older, “vanguardist” wing of the movement and the newer, “mainstreamer” wing. In recent weeks, Arthur Kemp has thrown gasoline on the fire and a debate has raged here and at other sites. Leonard Zeskind and Carol Swain have published books about White Nationalism that revolve around this division.

Origins and Beliefs

The lineage of the “vanguardists” can be traced back to a number of twentieth century neo-fascist fringe groups. The most prominent are William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts, Gerald L.K. Smith’s Christian Nationalist Crusade, George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party, William Pierce’s National Alliance, Glenn Miller’s White Patriot Party, Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations, Ben Klassen’s World Church of the Creator and Cliff Herrington’s National Socialist Movement. Let’s be sure not to forget the oldest, most storied vanguardist group of them all, the Ku Klux Klan. A constellation of pro-White vanguardist organizations has existed on the far right since the Roaring Twenties.

The vanguardist wing has a few distinguishing characteristics: a willingness to advocate or resort to physical violence, esoteric rituals, symbols and dress, a strong or exclusive emphasis on the Jewish Question, a skeptical or hostile attitude towards democratic politics, a rigid attitude on doctrinal purity, a total rejection of incrementalism, and above all else, a belief that only a minority of Whites can be swayed to our political views, always combined with a focus on creating small organizations of the elect few. Insofar as they have a strategy, vanguardists dream of seizing power in the aftermath of their long anticipated “collapse” of the federal government.

In a certain sense, the “mainstreamers” have always existed. America was explicitly founded as a “white man’s country.” Racialists dominated American politics from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Usually Southerners, these people were ordinary, respectable middle class businessmen, doctors, and lawyers, the traditional elites of the small towns, who found their racial beliefs under attack by a hostile liberal elite and the black underclass. They are not the sort of people who naturally gravitate towards the political fringe. The mainstreamers were pushed to the margins after America’s WASP ruling class was overthrown by monied, urban Jews in the mid-twentieth century.

The split between the “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists” can be traced back to the aftermath of the Brown decision. Whereas the Klan resorted to violence and intimidation, the traditional Southern elite, the incipient “mainstreamers,” created the White Citizens’ Council. They litigated integration, protested in the streets, created sovereignty commissions, hoisted the banner of states’ rights, invoked interposition, engaged in economic boycotts, outright refused to comply with federal court orders, defunded or closed the integrated public schools, created private academies, and voted for George Wallace in his presidential campaigns. They promised and delivered “massive resistance” to integration.

In the final days of Jim Crow, the “mainstreamers” kept the “vanguardists” at arm’s length. They generally wanted nothing to do with them. Outside of the liberal imagination, there was no cognizance of belonging to a shared political movement. The mainstreamers were not the type of people who went around firebombing churches and lynching negroes. Typically, they hated fascism and took pride in America’s role in the Second World War. Many of them had actually fought in Europe. These people were FDR’s voters and the base of the Democratic Party. In every way, they considered themselves normal, decent, patriotic Americans who combined their racialism with a strong belief in liberty, federalism and Protestant Christianity.

Unlike the “vanguardists,” the “mainstreamers” are defined by their belief in engaging in democratic politics. They believe a majority of White Americans can be persuaded to share our views. They advocate an electoral path to victory. The “mainstreamers” reject violence, strongly disapprove of vanguardist esoterica, reject or downplay the Jewish Question, advocate moderation, incrementalism, and mass membership organizations. They reject the vanguardist myth of social collapse and attack fringe groups for their lack of a practical strategy.

Since the late 1980’s, the “mainstreamer” wing has enjoyed a resurgence in the pro-White movement. According to Leonard Zeskind, Willis Carto was the trailblazer with Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party. David Duke is the most notable racialist to make the transition from vanguardist to mainstreamer. He took off the Klan robes, moderated his message, and successfully ran for elected office in Louisiana. The White Citizens’ Council evolved into the Council of Conservative Citizens. Jared Taylor, the most prominent mainstreamer, launched American Renaissance. Peter Brimelow launched VDARE. There are a number of other websites and bloggers pushing the “mainstreamer” point of view.

In the 1990’s and 2000’s, largely due to the spread of the internet and the death of “vanguardist” leaders, the “mainstreamers” wrestled back control of the pro-White movement from the “vanguardists,” who had dominated the scene in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The typical White Nationalist is now a middle class, White male professional unaffiliated with any organization. These people are usually non-violent, college educated and internet savvy. The majority of them have been recruited online and participate in the movement exclusively in cyberspace.

The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, I

Ever since the resurgence of the “mainstreamers,” a destructive myth has begun to circulate and gain traction, namely, that the “vanguardists” are responsible for the marginalization of racialists. If only the costume clowns would disappear, the Kluxers and the Nutzis, media access and respectability will follow, or so the theory goes. Hence, the triumphant mainstreamers can often be found advocating a massive purge of the vanguardists from the White Nationalist movement.

This theory rests on a severe case of historical amnesia. The “mainstreamers” once dominated the entire American nation, but they progressively lost control of it over two centuries and ruled only in the Jim Crow South by 1964. This historical process had been going on for over a century before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before the crusade against fascism in the Second World War, and long before the emergence of any of the vanguardist organizations.

The Northeast was the first region of the country to succumb to anti-racism. The American Revolution was quickly followed by the abolition of slavery in the area. Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey never passed anti-miscegenation laws. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law before joining the Union. In Massachusetts, the state anti-miscegenation law succumbed to abolitionist pressure in the 1830’s. In the name of “liberty” and “equality,” the remaining anti-miscegenation laws and the few segregation statutes in the region were repealed in the wake of the Civil War.

The Midwest was strongly racialist in the Antebellum Era. Several Midwestern states imposed stiff fines on black settlers. Jim Crow was pioneered in the region. In the Midwest, anti-slavery was often synonymous with anti-black sentiment. As in the Northeast, racial attitudes weakened in the aftermath of the Civil War, and most of the anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes came tumbling down in the late nineteenth century.

The West held out the longest. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that it was sparsely settled. In this region, the Indian Wars were still fresh in the historical memory. Chinese and Japanese immigration represented a potent threat to White labor. A weaker version of Jim Crow prevailed in the West until the aftermath of the Second World War. From 1945 to 1964, the Western states voluntarily repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes.

In the South, racial attitudes hardened after the Second World War. White liberals like Claude “Red” Pepper and Franklin Graham were thrown out of office. Southerners dug in their heels and defiantly resisted the national consensus on race. Jim Crow was overthrown by force: Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans united in Congress to defeat Southern filibusters and ratify the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The latter piece of legislation revolutionized Southern politics and destroyed White voting power in the socially conservative Black Belt counties.

In 1945, White racialists controlled the Jim Crow South. We controlled parts of the Jim Crow West. There were explicit laws that mandated segregation and outlawed miscegenation in these regions. An informal system of segregation existed in the Northeast and Midwest, but White racial attitudes had dramatically weakened there. By 1964, they had collapsed in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.

In 1964, Jim Crow was overthrown in the South. The Southern anti-miscegenation laws were struck down a few years later in Loving v. Virginia. From 1964 to 1991, White racial attitudes collapsed in the South and steadily began to approach the national norm. Simply put, the South was Americanized as the national television, radio, and print media penetrated the region and changed its culture. Hitherto, the South had remained an outlier because Southerners had always gotten their news from local newspapers controlled by segregationist editors.

The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, II

At this critical junture, the “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophe from which they never recovered, one that had nothing to do with the “vanguardists.” The bulk of racially conscious Southern Whites responded to the defeat of Jim Crow by getting involved in conservative politics. They bought into the moderate argument that the way forward was to fight the Civil Rights Movement through non-racial arguments against “big government.” Instead of fighting the racial battle, they would focus instead on defending their culture. They would engage in “practical politics,” strategically retreat, and extract revenge on the hated liberals who had usurped control over the Democratic Party.

The first tentative steps in this direction were taken in the 1964 presidential election when Barry Goldwater carried several of the Deep South states. In 1968, the liberal integrationist Hubert Humphrey was defeated by Richard Nixon, Wallace carried the Deep South, and the Democrats lost every Southern state but Texas. In 1972, Nixon defeated McGovern in a landslide and Wallace won several Democratic primaries. In 1976, the South was lured back into the fold by Jimmy Carter, a Southern candidate. In 1980, Reagan wiped the floor with Carter, who had been discredited as an enfeebled liberal, and again with Mondale in 1986.

In the 1990’s, the Bush/Clinton years, American politics settled into its familar pattern. A socially liberal New England and West Coast became the base of the Democratic Party. A socially conservative South became the base of the Republican Party. The sectionalism of the two parties hardened under George W. Bush into the famous “Red State” vs. “Blue State” divide. The Obama/McCain electoral map masks the fact that Obama barely won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

To cut a long story short, the ex-segregationists became conservatives, got into the habit of voting for the Republicans, focused on “practical politics,” and became steadily deracialized over the next forty years. This is where their descendants are still at today: checking the box for every fraud with an (R) beside his name.

Vanguardists Triumphant

The “vanguardists” who gained hegemony over the pro-White movement in the late 1960’s, 1970’s, and early 1980’s didn’t win through superior arguments. They inherited the mantle of White leadership by default. The “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophic loss of their base and most of them quit the field to get involved in conservative politics. The fringe groups left behind moved into the vacuum and recreated the pro-White scene in their own image. The media happily played along.

In the late 1980’s, the “mainstreamers” began to stir again, but found themselves up against the backdrop of the previous twenty years, when the pro-White scene had sunk to an all time low in the United States. They found themselves branded Neo-Nazis and Klansmen in the press. The fringe group image stuck and lots of “mainstreamers” began to draw the erroneous conclusion that it was the cause of their predicament … which brings us to where we are today.

Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers

There is a lot of merit to both sides of this argument. In the “mainstreamers” favor, the “vanguardists” have attracted the dysfunctional, kooky, sociopathic types that are always found in fringe politics. They have been unable to create viable or stable organizations. The “vanguardists” have no strategy aside from waiting on a mythic social collapse. The costume scene is ridiculous, stagnant and brings White Nationalism into disrepute.

In the “vanguardists” favor, it is easy to talk about winning elections, but in reality it is a near impossible mountain to climb. The racial situation is so far gone that victory at present looks like a pipe dream. The “mainstreamers” might be able to achieve some political success, say, a few city councilmen or state legislators, but will never possess the majority required to enact necessary constitutional changes. The “mainstreamers” are following in the footsteps of the conservatives, but will never be as successful, and with all their electoral success the conservatives have nothing to show for it. They retort by pointing out that mass membership organizations are flypaper for the dregs of society. If that were not enough, the “mainstreamers” are accused of dishonesty and dishonorable conduct on the Jewish Question.


In my view, the critiques of both sides are more impressive than either of their platforms. I come down somewhere in the center of this debate. I can see a need for “practical politics,” but I am convinced that it shouldn’t be our primary emphasis. We should spend roughly 80% of our time and resources trying to change the culture; 20% on building momentum and attracting new recruits through political campaigns. Without a stable cultural foundation, which I define as pulling the national discourse on race in our direction, political victories will only prove costly and temporary.

There is a residual level of racial consciousness in the Deep South. We should take advantage of that and try to build a real world base in the area. If we can’t win in Mississippi and Alabama (winning is changing attitudes), we are doomed. It is conceivable that we could win a few state legislature seats and get on some city councils in this region. That will require a moderate platform: pro-identity, pro-immigration restriction, anti-affirmative action, anti-multiculturalism, anti-political correctness. For good measure, throw in some economic nationalism and cultural conservatism. This is not unlike what Kemp suggests.

The Jewish Question and White Nationalism are too radical for voters to digest. However, I don’t think they should be ignored. Along with racial differences, they should be the focus of educational campaigns. There will always be websites that focus on these matters and we could use more of them. These issues will have to be introduced incrementally into the national mainstream. Once again, “incrementalism” is forcing the mainstream right to become more like us, not the other way around.

The esoterica/costumes are weird, unnecessary, and off putting. Neo-Nazism and Third Reich fetishism are losers. Holocaust revisionism is an irrelevant waste of time. Better quality control is a no-brainer. A private, invitation only “vanguardist” organization could work; every social movement needs a capable leadership. I’m not opposed to creating pro-White political action committees. As Kemp says, it is too late to create a third party. It just won’t work in the American context.

After ten years, I have given up on waiting for “the collapse.” It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it. The recent economic crisis has shown that White Nationalists are unable to capitalize on fortuitious current events. We should hope for the best; prepare for the worst. If nothing else, that means keeping the pro-White flame alive like St. Benedict in the Dark Ages.

The Fringe

In dealing with the fringe, we should follow the example of the Left with the anarchists. We should keep a respectful distance and ignore them in public. Instead of slamming Neo-Nazis, we dismiss them as mostly harmless kooks and patiently explain why pro-Whites are driven to such extremes. Whenever possible, I think we should try to romanticize and rehabilitate our extremists. There should be an element of prestige to being uncompromising. The Left has done this with any number of figures: Malcolm X, Che Guevera, Stokely Carmichael, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.

Look at it this way: If a gangster like Omar from The Wire can be a sympathetic figure, President Obama’s favorite television character, why not Bob Matthews or David Lane? Murderers like Jesse James and Billy the Kid have been folk heroes before. The Klan was rescued from disrepute by a single film and went on to dominate Northern states like Oregon, Colorado, and Indiana. The Birth of a Nation was wildly successful. Unfortunately, it is one of the few examples of the Right successfully using film to change the culture.

Via the Overton Window, extremists can play a useful role in pushing the margins of our national discourse. Next to a William Pierce or Alex Linder, who are unthinkable, a Jared Taylor can appear merely radical, next to a Jared Taylor, a Pat Buchanan can look “acceptable,” next to a Pat Buchanan, a Lou Dobbs can appear sensible. The Left has mastered the Overton Window and has steadily pushed the cultural envelope in their direction by staking out ever more extreme positions and then running a “moderates” that appease them.

The best example of this is gay marriage. It runs completely against the grain of traditional Christian mores. It is a political albatross for the Left. It has gone down in flames in over thirty states. A few decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. Now the debate is over whether it is radical or acceptable. The same was once true of abortion, feminism, and civil rights. Gay marriage is starting to garner the momentum of inevitability.

Next to Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. was seen as an acceptable moderate. FDR was seen as “moderate” compared to Huey Long nipping at his heels. The argument was successfully made that we had to enact civil rights reform, affirmative action, or the minimum wage/social security to stop radicals from swooping in and taking over. The fringe has been exploited and put to good use by more capable men in the past.

Final Thoughts

I will let this stand as my decisive statement on the issue. A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed: one that incorporates “vanguardist” insights, one that doesn’t scapegoat the “vanguardists” for every setback, one that recognizes the fringe will always be around and has a role to play, and finally one that doesn’t slip into fantasism at our chances of political success.

‘Civil Rights’ and Total War

‘Civil Rights’ and Total War

by William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg

Recently by William Norman Grigg: ‘Kill Them All, for God Will Know His Own’

“The Vendee is no more, my republican comrades…. The streets are littered with corpses which sometimes are stacked in pyramids. Mass shootings are taking place in Savenay because there brigands keep turning up to surrender…. [P]ity is incompatible with the spirit of revolution.”

~ General François-Joseph Westermann, commander of the “infernal column” that slaughtered tens of thousands of Vendean secessionists during the French Revolution

“[F]or five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire…. Meridian no longer exists.”

~ Union General William T. Sherman, reporting on the federal destruction of Meridian, Mississippi in 1862

“We must kill three hundred thousand [as] I have told you so often, and the further they run the harder for us to get them….”

“I was satisfied, and have been all the time, that the problem of war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory….”

~ William T. Sherman, the Union Army’s General Westermann, in separate letters to his wife Ellen and to General Philip Sheridan, as quoted in The Soul of Battle by Victor Davis Hanson

William Sherman’s march to the sea, writes Victor Davis Hanson approvingly, was a war of “terror” intended to destroy an aristocratic Southern culture he hated because of its impudence in resisting the central government’s authority.

Although rarely acknowledged as such, Sherman could be considered America’s first “civil rights” crusader. This isn’t an endorsement of Sherman; it’s an indictment of contemporary “civil rights” ideology.

While it’s true that Sherman never descended to the depths of mass-murdering depravity plumbed by Westermann and his army of berserkers, he was prepared, by his own repeated admissions, to annihilate civilians by the hundreds of thousands in order to vindicate Washington’s supposed authority.

Those who didn’t render immediate and unqualified submission, he warned, would be “crushed like flies on a wheel.”

Following Appomattox, Sherman’s genocidal skill-set proved useful to the corporatist federal railroad combine, which required the removal of the Plains Indians from land that it coveted but couldn’t be troubled to purchase on honest terms. In carrying out that task Sherman abandoned what little restraint he had exercised in dealing with white southerners. In the meantime, the war of federal consolidation and cultural liquidation against the South continued by way of what was euphemistically called “Reconstruction.”

In theory, “Reconstruction” was the process of re-integrating the rebellious states into the One Holy Eternal Union. In practice, it was a reign of terror and plunder swaddled in the rhetoric of righteousness and carried out through the apparatus of military dictatorship.

“After the Civil War, radical Republicans sought to drastically alter the social and political structures of the states of the former Confederacy,” notes historian Benjamin Ginsberg of Johns Hopkins University in his book The Fatal Embrace. “They sought to establish a regime that would break the political power of the planter class that had ruled the region prior to the war.”

The “radical Republicans” to whom Ginsberg refers were Jacobins, not Jeffersonians. The most powerful figure in that cohort was the detestable Thaddeus Stevens, a Pennsylvania Congressman who, in the words of historian Paul Leland Haworth, “possessed much of the sternness of the old Puritans, without their morality.”

Rep. Stevens hated the pre-Lincoln Constitution with a passion eclipsed only by that he nurtured toward the South; the document produced by the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, Stevens once told an associate, was nothing but “a worthless bit of old parchment.”

As co-chairman, with Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, of the Joint Committee for Reconstruction, Stevens adapted Cromwell’s schematic for military dictatorship in England for use in administering the conquered Confederacy.

“Where Cromwell had divided England up into eleven military districts, each governed by a major general with wide-ranging powers, [Stevens and the radical Republicans] divided the South into five districts, each ruled by a military governor under the overall direction of General Grant,” explains Daniel Lazare in his book The Frozen Republic:

“The military authorities banned veterans’ organizations and other groups deemed threatening to the new order, fired thousands of local officials and half a dozen governors, and purged state legislatures of pro-Confederate elements as well. A twenty-thousand-strong army of occupation, aided by a black militia, enforced order…. Political rights were withdrawn from thousands of Confederates who had been granted executive clemency by the President, and all told some one hundred thousand white voters were stricken from the rolls.”

As Dr. Haworth observed in his 1912 study Reconstruction and Union, military governors on the occupied South “proceeded to create a new electorate and through it new civil governments.” Those “civil governments,” predictably, used patronage and officially sanctioned plunder to entrench themselves.

When federal subsidies and confiscation of private wealth proved inadequate, the Reconstruction governments turned to deficit financing, driving the states they misruled into even deeper economic misery.

The Reconstruction regime, writes Haworth, was built on a “sinister alliance” between military governors, their political satraps, and state-allied secret societies within the “Union League” (also known as the “Loyalty League”). Those criminal cabals were used to enforce political discipline and carry out covert acts of terrorism against dissenters. For example, notes Haworth, League members “resorted to whipping or otherwise maltreating Negroes who became Democrats.”

In South Carolina governor Franklin Moses, a “scalawag” (that is, southern Quisling) sold tens of millions of dollars’ worth of junk state securities while he and his cronies pilfered everything of value.

Moses, who became known as the “Robber Governor,” enforced his will through a 14,000-man militia “composed mainly of black troops … led by white officers,” recounts Dr. Ginsberg. That Praetorian Guard protected Moses against enforcement of legal judgments and was deployed to harass, intimidate, and threaten potential political rivals in the 1870 election.

Similar conditions prevailed elsewhere in the prostrate South. In Louisiana, for instance, “wholesale corruption, intimidation of new voters by the thousands and tens of thousands, political assassinations, riots, revolutions – all of these were the order of the day,” records Dr. Haworth.

State-sponsored terrorism in the occupied South precipitated the creation of the Ku Klux Klan – a development that could be considered the first recorded example of “blowback.”

In both its ritualized, oath-bound organizational structure and the terrorist tactics it employed, the KKK was morally indistinguishable from the terrorists whose depredations inspired the Klan’s creation. Unlike the Union League-aligned terrorists, however, the Klan operated without federal sanction. Thus in 1870 and 1871, Congress passed two Enforcement Acts (the second commonly called the “Ku Klux Klan Act”) under which President Grant deployed troops to suppress “rebellion” in the occupied South.

The use of active-duty federal troops as a post-war domestic “peacekeeping” force “represented, from a military standpoint, the darkest days in the history of the Army,” writes Professor James J. Schneider of the Army Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth. “The Reconstruction activities of Army units were unprecedented in their time, and they sound remarkably familiar today.”

The occupied South was where Washington field-tested methods later used to “liberate” and “pacify” the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries through mass slaughter and military dictatorship.

By January 1877, embattled southerners had managed to gain sufficient political traction to extract an end to the military occupation as the price of supporting a compromise awarding Rutherford B. Hayes the electoral votes he needed to prevail over Samuel Tilden (whose popular vote tally exceeded that of Hayes by roughly 164,000 votes).

Two months after Hayes was inaugurated, federal troops were withdrawn, and the Reconstruction plunderbund dissolved. A little more than a year later, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act forbidding the use of the Army as a domestic law enforcement body.

Jim Crow could be considered – at least to some extent – another example of “blowback” from Reconstruction, which did much more to exacerbate than alleviate racial hostilities in the South. Like all measures intended to restrain the Regime’s powers, the Posse Comitatus measure is ignored at the whim of our rulers. Thus on more than one occasion since 1878, troops have been deployed to the South to enforce federal decrees intended to break down systems of government-imposed segregation at the state and local level.

Although the post-war military dictatorship in the South ended in 1877, the 1964 “civil rights” act is a continuation – and expansion – of Reconstruction. That act was designed and intended to make every private institution, transaction, and relationship subject to federal scrutiny in the name of abolishing “discrimination.”

In principle, and sometimes in practice, the federal “civil rights” apparatus is literally making war upon Americans whose hiring policies, business practices, and private associations don’t find favor with the exalted beings who have made themselves the arbiters of acceptable attitudes and social outcomes.

Those numinous creatures – as wise as the overseers of Plato’s ideal Republic, as omniscient as the Guardians of Oa – are somehow exempt from the prejudices and unworthy passions to which we lesser beings are heir. They are thus suited to the task of micro-managing social affairs and compelling the rest of us to live according to their decrees, lest we be crushed “like flies on a wheel,” as their predecessor “Uncle Billy” Sherman put it.

The most candid and compelling summary of this perspective doesn’t come from a right-wing revisionist, but rather from Columbia Law School Professor George P. Fletcher, an establishment academic of an unabashedly Marxist bent.

In his valuable book The Secret Constitution, Fletcher acknowledges that the war waged by Abraham the Annihilator was not an effort to “preserve the Union,” much less to restore the pre-war constitutional order. Instead, that war was intended to consolidate the united States into a unitary state governed by what Fletcher calls a “New Constitutional Order.” In the New Order, writes Fletcher, the founding premise is that “the federal government, victorious in warfare, must continue its aggressive intervention in the lives of its citizens.” (Emphasis added.)

There is nothing hypothetical about the federal aggression Fletcher correctly identifies as the central feature of the post-Lincoln Soyuz (the term “union” is inapposite here). Since, from the perspective Fletcher represents, Lincoln’s war supposedly settled the question of the central government’s “authority” to kill Americans in any quantity necessary to reconfigure society, there are no limits to what it can do in the interest of establishing “social justice.”

“Civil rights,” as the term is used today, has nothing to do with the rights of individuals apart from the role played by some members of designated classes as a pretext for federal violations of the property rights of others not granted such protected status. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, an associate professor at Princeton and self-appointed watchdog of the “radical right,” makes that point with the eager earnestness of someone who assumes that her political opponents aren’t listening.

According to Harris-Lacewell, the 1960s civil rights movement was valuable because it was a tool to expand and consolidate federal power.

Because of southern resistance to Washington’s demands, the “legitimacy of the central state was challenged,” she writes in The Nation. “[This] is why the Civil Rights Movement was so powerful. The overt abuse of state power evidenced by the violence of Southern police called into question their foundational legitimacy. The federal government had to act or risk losing its authority as a state altogether.”

This is to say that the chief accomplishment of the civil rights movement was not the validation of the individual rights of those victimized by government-imposed discrimination, but rather the validation and enhancement of federal power.

For Harris-Lacewell and other acolytes of the unitary totalitarian state, Reconstruction continues to this day. The genuine outrage is not that the South was ruled for a decade by a military kleptocracy, but rather that the military dictatorship was brought to an end through what she calls “the unholy Hayes-Tilden compromise of 1877.” And the chief task for the forces of “tolerance” today, she insists, is to “guard against the end of our new Reconstruction” – a system Ronn Neff perceptively describes as “polite totalitarianism,” in which the 1964 Civil Rights Act is an indispensable pillar.

That measure, it should be remembered, was enacted by a government that was in the early stages of its war of aggression against Vietnam – a conflict in which, as Stokely Carmichael aptly put it, “white people [drafted] black people to make war on yellow people [supposedly] to defend land stolen from red people.” The government in charge of enforcing that Act today is slaughtering “people of color” in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and (lest we forget) Detroit, and looking for an excuse to inflict its lethal humanitarianism on Iran and North Korea.

And yet, as we see in the contrived controversy over Rand Paul’s views of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it is a grave civic blasphemy even to suggest that the Regime responsible for such murder and mayhem shouldn’t have the power to scrutinize and regulate every aspect of private life.

May 29, 2010

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

Copyright © 2010 William Norman Grigg

What is Freedom?

What is Freedom?

May 29, 2010

by James P. Harvey

The word “Freedom,” applied to the interaction of human beings, is a misnomer. There can be no absolute individual freedom to do things that hurt other people and expect peaceful interaction. Even if groups separate into clans of like-minded people, there is no peaceful freedom if one clan adopts a practice amongst themselves that incites hatred from their neighbors. Retribution is sure to follow if my neighbor decides he is free to injure, kill or rape any person that crosses his property. This is only one example out of many hundreds of reasonable demands that society must consider if peaceful co-existence is the goal. If my neighbor claims the right to do anything he pleases, let him never be without the means to kill me. For when his actions hurt my loved ones, or make it impossible for me to live with my conscience, I will surely kill him.

These are the things that humanity has had to deal with from the beginning, and I see no end in sight. If human beings are going to live together, or even in close proximity to one another, they must conform to an agreed set of principals. Certain geographical boundaries that are designated as States have the same responsibilities to other States, as they are nothing more than groups of people.

Remove this requirement and pandemonium will result. Make no mistake about it. I will not let my neighbor be a monster, and I will not live among people who will. One does not have to be a tyrant to co-exist, but one must respect his neighbor.

These are the reasons governments disintegrate, and why the most powerful try to control everyone else. Differing opinions on what is and is not acceptable behavior will never end as long as humans live in THIS life. Since human beings will not accept God as their sovereign, they will be subjected to this calamity. That statement identifies me in most peoples mind as one who believes the Christian Bible is the only acceptable standard for humans to co-exist; not so. Humans will never co-exist in peace in THIS life, but we are required to try.

If God’s requirements are not acceptable to any man, then let him consider the problem of trying to survive in a society where no restrictions exist.

Now let us consider the ever present problem at hand. How do we, who mistakenly assume we are in agreement with the majority of other humans in America, get control of our future? Do we continue to participate in the present system of government that has left us with over a hundred years of evidence that it is not following the wishes of the majority of citizens? Do you still believe the election process is legitimately working? That is the first set of propositions to consider. If you believe it works as designed in the Constitution, please prove it! The absence of that possibility is enough proof for me.

Next, let us consider the possibility of getting the attention of our government, and elucidating our concerns and solutions. Is anyone reading this that naïve? How about getting the majority of voters to agree on changes that need to be made…do you think that will work? I’m beginning to think we’re too many to agree!

Does anyone agree with that? If not, do you have a better solution than separating from the central government, and retracting into smaller State governments that assume the responsibility of negotiating a working agreement among each other?

Seriously folks, consider the possibility of every State agreeing on just one thing for starters, and that being that every State has the authority to secede without recourse from the federal government. A show of unity to the monster in DC is a sure way to discover if I’m right. I believe that they would rather kill us than part with their power.

How much more evidence do you need than seeing one seceding State attacked by the feds? And may I remind you of the civil war? How much more proof does one need, than to recall the atrocities committed by Lincoln and his supporters? Do you believe that every State was intended to be a permanent part of the whole? If so, you are ignorant of the history of our country. The perpetuity of the States union was dependent on the States legislatures. And, if you believe all we need is for Congress to follow the Constitution, then tell me why the highest law of the land cannot be enforced.

“Just throw the bums out,” you say! Please tell me how that’s possible. And how would we manufacture that much unity in the first place?

The tea party folks are trying to resurrect the dead. They still hold a fool’s dream that the Federal Government is fixable.

If this article, the history of lost rights, and the present state of the Union does not convince you we need to do something drastic before it’s too late, I fear you desperately need to become more informed about the future existence of anything resembling a republic, or even a democracy, surreptitiously called the UNITED States of America.

By placing a requirement on men of higher intellect to write a dissertation on how to reconstruct a homogeneous system of governance, we could begin to form separate States that agreed on the necessary principals to co-exist in peace. In the intervening period we could all study the history of man’s attempt to co-exist in peace by a system of governance, and a plebiscite of our future attempt could be organized.

James P. Harvey