Baltimore: National Anthem Composer Francis Scott Key Monument Defaced

Lee Rogers
Daily Stormer
September 14, 2017

fsk

America’s national anthem is racist because anything relating to White people is racist and must be shut down!

Many of us were saying early on that these attacks against Confederate monuments in Southern states would lead to attacks on anything related to White historical figures. Even Donald Trump said that this was a likely scenario right after the Battle of Charlottesville. We are now seeing it start to happen.

Earlier this week, a group of domestic terrorists from anti-fascist and Black Lives Matter groups placed a tarp over a Thomas Jefferson statue. Jefferson one of the founding fathers of the United States was called a “racist rapist” by the anti-White mob.

In addition to the Jefferson statue incident, a monument dedicated to Francis Scott Key was vandalized.

Baltimore Sun:

Mayor Catherine Pugh says she has no plans to remove the Francis Scott Key monument in Bolton Hill that was vandalized before dawn Wednesday and has directed art preservation experts to determine the cost of cleaning it.

Exactly 203 years after the Maryland attorney wrote the poem that would later become the national anthem, the city awoke to find the words “Racist Anthem” spray-painted on the Eutaw Place monument and red paint splashed on it.

The third stanza of Key’s poem includes a reference accusing the British of encouraging American slaves to join the fight against their masters.

City officials said they know of no way to prevent future vandalism, short of catching the person or people responsible. Police don’t have any suspects or surveillance footage of the incident.

“Ultimately, it’s going to come down to them being caught and charged,” police spokesman T.J. Smith said.

So now the national anthem itself and the man who wrote it are racist. What is not racist at this point? They’re attacking any and all White male historical figures who played crucial roles in creating what the United States is today. It couldn’t be any more obvious that their goal is to erase White history. It doesn’t matter that the United States was founded by Whites and for Whites. Their view is that anything relating to White people is racist and that alone is justification for shutting it down.

They will not succeed with this insanity. It was one thing to attack Confederate monuments but attacking the Founding Fathers and the man who wrote the national anthem is beyond the pale. It is only going to further radicalize White people to the point where they will join us.

They’re  going way too far with this and it will be their eventual undoing. Calling every White person who ever lived a racist, White supremacist, Nazi person is not a good political strategy but I hope they keep doing it. It is becoming a great recruiting tool for our movement!

Agenda 21: The Elite Plan for Global Tyranny

If you’ve found your way to this humble outpost of truth, you might have noticed the world around you is beginning to not make any sense. Up is down, left is right, black is white. Part of the reason for the chaos is the fact George Soros and other elites are organizing camera-ready protests, then bringing two sides of extremists together to clash while pinning the blame on one side.

This agenda has been going on for years. (Ferguson, San Jose, Charlotte, et al.) So, it’s worse than what happened in Charlottesville. What’s more, almost every “news” item one sees in the mainstream media is a farce, a marvel of the Hegelian dialectic intended to accomplish goals of elites paying talking heads to read propaganda before they swoop in like vultures with “solutions.” These false flags and psyops are designed to create division and to implode the remnants of the American republic. We are entering the advanced stages of a long-term elite plan for a so-called post-democratic, post-industrial world. It is to be a world constrained by a tightly controlled, planned economy. In essence, global Communism is its aim.

The irony that the U.S. and Russia have so dramatically switched roles in the world since 1991 is all the more astounding, in that the U.S. is now making concrete steps to enforce its brand of totalitarianism on the world and Russia is making strides towards democracy, nationalism, and national identity once prized by America.

It now seems the Cold War was a fight over who would get to take over the world first, not the trite freedom vs. tyranny narrative American statesmen sold us for half a century. The U.S. used the power of the free market to take advantage of the economic weaknesses of Socialism, only to make a stunning about-face once the Soviet threat died and the world lay before the American elite as spoil.

The bleak future of American-style global Socialism (and later, Communism) is what many have dubbed The New World Order. One of the key ways global tyranny is being implemented is through Agenda 21. Not enough people know the truth of what Agenda 21 really is, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 as a “voluntary” (it’s not) agreement to create a world run by the elite in which each citizen is as interchangeable as a piston rod (to paraphrase Howard Beale) and every bit as expendable.

Most think Agenda 21 is just another crazy conspiracy theory, although in modern times, conspiracy theories are beginning to make more sense than the unending stream of lies from corporate media.

Looking back, the transition from a free society to a society run by tyrants began 100 years ago with the creation of the Federal Reserve, effectively handing over the power to create money to a private bank. As the Rothschild family knows, and Nathan Rothschild once said:

Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.

Barbary

The Barbary Slave trade culminated in 1 to 1.25 million white Christians being enslaved by black Muslims between 1500-1800

Indeed, those who control the purse strings make the rules. But, the ball really got rolling on the agenda to topple American democracy and replace it with worldwide tyranny after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the institution of mass feminism, and the scapegoating of whites for the crime of slavery (which all races participated in – the first American slave owner was a black man, and there was the Barbary slave trade in which Africans enslaved millions of Europeans between 1500-1800) as an offshoot of the Civil Rights movement. It’s no coincidence all this happened in the 1960s.

The current obsession with the slavery narrative in the brainwashed world of the corporate media is intended to start small, strategic fires around the foundation of the American republic with the removal of Confederate statues, then progress into a big, roaring flame culminating in the burning of modern Rome. The slavery narrative is the perfect Trojan Horse, since the Founding Fathers were slave owners when they formed the American republic.

The slavery narrative is intended to ultimately debase and destroy the United States Constitution.

No matter how noble the aims of the authors of the founding documents were, how they inspired the world and how rare the gifts they bestowed on the masses have been in the course of human history, the lobotomized narrative is the fruit of their labor must be discarded because it is “tainted” by their participation in an economic system that dominated the entire world at the time. Slavery, as horrible as it was, and is, was the entire world’s economic system for thousands of years. (Interestingly, only 5% of the African slave trade came to the U.S. and the rest went to Latin America! Yet another fact the Anglo-American media cartel refuse to acknowledge!)

The elite intend to enslave mankind by decrying slavery. This is just how diabolical the plan the American elites have for the world really is.

Buffer.jpg

One of the NWO blueprints, in which a central planning agency decides where people can and cannot live

Agenda 21

The supreme hypocrisy of media narratives is the fact talking heads condemn a world run by white men, but the New World Order will result in world run by rich white men once again – a 1% which is ostensibly the same 1% that owned slaves in the first place (99% of whites never owned slaves). If there plans are realized and the U.S. Constitution is dissolved, thus begins a downward slide into hell on earth. Here are key bullet points that are part of Agenda 21. It’s aims are anti-life and anti-humanity:

  • Ending national sovereignty
  • Constant surveillance of all activity
  • State planning of all land resources
  • Ensuring global equity (equal slavery)
  • Elites only defining the role of business and finance
  • Abolishing private property
  • Restructuring the family unit (i.e. destroying it)
  • The State raising children rather than moms and dads
  • The State choosing jobs for citizens
  • Restricting movement (Think TSA on steroids)
  • Creating “Human Settlement Zones”
  • Beginning mass resettlement and forced eviction
  • Dumbing down (even further) education
  • Mass global depopulation (killing billions)

All these goals are being worked on piecemeal, as the economy is inflated and then crashed in concentric rings with the noose slowly tightening around the West’s throat as living and working conditions worsen with each generation. The above goals are the antithesis of what America is supposed to stand for, and each legislator who has supported them in the past and supports them today are treasonous scum.

paul-revere-1536168_1280

We must be this generation’s Paul Reveres, alerting the masses to the danger the American government is placing them in

We Are The Resistance

If Agenda 21 realized, we will live in a world in which the individual is finished. Man nor woman will have any control over their own lives, as electronic slavery is unleashed on the world via RFID chips. The State and the henchmen who finance it in the corporate world will have total control over the populace. Indeed, Agenda 21 realized could lead to the end of the human species itself.

How do we resist? We went searching for answers. Interestingly, the Jeremiah Project proposes one of the most viable short-term solutions. It offers a three-pronged course of action for those awakened men who see what’s coming. It says the awakened man must:

  1. First, he must defend himself by protest, i.e., legal action.
  2. Second, he must flee if at all possible,
  3. Third, he may use force if necessary to defend himself.

The full treatise of the plan of action to resist the NWO is available here. As TNMM has repeatedly written, we must not let ourselves be divided any longer on matters of race, gender, sexuality, and other wedge issues designed by the planners of Agenda 21 and The New World Order to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they dissolve any remaining freedom we enjoy. From the Jeremiah Project:

We must reject the collectivist idea of “divide and conquer” and instead accept ALL men as equals. We need to consider the words of Martin Luther King and reject the racist labels put on humanity by those who want to control and dominate us. There is no black, no white, no Hispanic, or whatever when it comes to humanity. Sure, there are those ethnic differences, but those differences are only descriptors of our heritage, not differences in human value. We are all brothers and sisters on this planet and we should live our lives that demonstrate that solidarity.

We should encourage whatever talents each person has and allow them the opportunity to express those talents in a way of each person’s choosing.

The controllers of the world know that in order to dominate and control the masses, the easiest way to accomplish this goal is to keep the people divided amongst themselves. Rather than expending valuable resources to conquer a society, the controllers instead pit one another against their neighbors and let them fight amongst themselves, thus destroying their unity.

Unity is strength, always remember that. Here is more sage advice to resist the NWO as the world descends a world electronically controlled darkness, unlike any mankind has ever known:

  • Disconnect from all Establishment media and other sources of Marxist propaganda
  • Seek out like-minded men and help build each other up
  • Self-educate and think critically
  • Learn to recognize the Hegelian Dialectic: Most “problems” are created so the masters can impose preconceived solutions on the masses, stealing their liberty and autonomy
  • Learn to recognize false flags, which have been perpetrated on the public for literally thousands of years
  • Patronize small business rather than multinationals and chains
  • Get your money out of the banks – fractional reserve banking means the bank only has 10% of the sum of all customer deposits available at any one time
  • Reduce the amount of taxes you pay into the system as much as possible by any legal means necessary – this usually means learning to live on less
  • Eat non-GMO food and organics when possible

Of course, these bullet points are only a start when it comes to planning a peaceful resistance movement. The bad news is, we absolutely cannot expect our representatives to do anything except blow hot air as we’ve seen with the Establishment’s moves to maroon Trump on a political island. (Whether he is part of the ruse remains to be seen.)

Mousey-Gobbler

Mighty Mouse and The Gobbler aren’t going to save you – Ryan and McConnell are traitors to the American people

Republicans Are Complicit

If the election of Trump has proven anything, it’s the the Republicans are malware. They refuse to move on any of his agenda items despite having an overwhelming mandate as they control more of the United States government than the party has at any time since 1929. It is obvious they are complicit in impaling the heart of the American Republic as Democrat Socialists lead the way. Laurence Vance of the Lew Rockwell blog details how bad Republicans really are:

Republicans are worse than Democrats because they use libertarian rhetoric to deceive conservatives and libertarians into thinking that they actually believe their mantra of the Constitution, limited government, federalism, fiscal conservatism, personal freedom, private property, and the free market.

Just take one issue: the war on drugs. Republicans support it lock, stock, and barrel even though it is not authorized by the Constitution, it increases the size and power of government, it violates the principle of federalism, it wastes billions of dollars a year, it negates personal freedom, it infringes upon property rights, and it is contrary to the free market.

How bad are the Republicans in Congress? The few that are good are very, very good. The many that are bad are horrid.

The only thing Americans could possibly do to drain the swamp at this point is to elect an entirely new Congress, throwing every Republican and Democrat currently in office out on their asses. That simply won’t happen. Re-election rates for incumbents are high, despite the fact their approval ratings are low. The shuck and jive still works for those holding the levers of power.

plane-1712737_1280

Leaving America may just buy you some time

Go Minimalist Now, Expat if Possible

The best advice for those planning for the worst is to go minimalist now if you haven’t already. Destroy your debt. Stay out of debt. Live on less. Downsize from a McMansion to a smaller home. Don’t buy new cars. Stockpile money and diversify your investments. Plan for the worst, because the current economic bubble we are in will be imploded just as all the rest were imploded since the advent of the Federal Reserve, by design.

Future articles will expound on what men can do to safeguard their own lives and those of their loved ones.

If you haven’t made strides to expat and take the fruit of your labor with you, now might be a good time to speed up that agenda. At least it will give one breathing room and a buffer zone when the inevitable conflagration begins in the United States. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be here when Martial Law is declared and mass chipping of the public begins.

Falling back at least gives men time to regroup and come up with a new plan, since we are painfully behind the 8-ball as earnest efforts to de-legitimize the U.S. government begin. As we either try to weather the storm or fall back and regroup, when making our plans we must always remember one sage piece of wisdom. As the Founding Fathers knew: Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

 

Locus says, “the only solution is the complete and total end of all involvement in the UN and similar organizations, and the withdraw of all western nations from any and all involvement with non-white nations. All political elites and corporate leadership and their families must be liquidated, deportation of non-whites (especially non-white males), and anti-white populations within the west must be relocated to controlled zones for reeducation for those who can be, and termination of those who refuse to submit to white male rule.”

The Alt Right Means White Nationalism

They openly deride us but at the same time they don’t like it when we want nothing to do with them. They’re parasites, plain and simple. Integration is essentially bondage of the white race.

Parasites would be an understatement, but I do agree. They are entitled parasitic violent, disgusting, hateful people. All non whites that do not wish to assimilate but wish to change our nation must be dealt with. This is not their home! I had a non-white once ask me.. ‘why do you think Donald Trump is good for OUR country?’ OUR COUNTRY?!

This is a WHITE NATION that was never EVER meant to be multicultural! They are so deluded and entitled that non whites actually think they deserve a say in what changes we make to OUR country. Let’s get this straight, if you aren’t WHITE.. you DO NOT get a say!

We are demonized to the point of non whites thinking they are justified to commit violent acts upon us. We must defend ourselves and our nation. Most importantly we must defend ALL white people, even those who are brainwashed by the left.

 

The Alt Right Means White Nationalism . . . or Nothing at All

https://www.counter-currents.com/

 

ControlledDemolitionHillary Clinton’s Alt Right speech was a complete dud. It probably did not harm Trump or help Hillary, since Trump voters either don’t care about the Alt Right or look favorably upon it, while the only people susceptible to Hillary’s scare-mongering were already going to vote for her.

I had, however, hoped that Hillary’s speech would at least bring new attention to Alt Right websites like Counter-Currents. But although there was a jump in our traffic last Thursday and Friday, it had more to do with the fact that I had written an article on Hillary’s speech than with the speech itself. All my articles produce similar jumps in traffic (as do Gregory Hood’s).

At least as far as Counter-Currents is concerned, there is no evidence of a Hillary bump. And this is actually consistent with past experience. Counter-Currents has been mentioned and linked in the mainstream press. I can see exactly how many people follow those links to our site, and it is usually minuscule. In fact, based on their comment sections, when I publicize these links to our readers, the mainstream media gets more readers from Counter-Currents than vice versa.

The explanation for this is simple. The smug, middlebrow, newspaper-reading public lacks intellectual curiosity. They are content to “Wow, just wow” and then click for more prolefeed rather than venture into the great unknown. Yes, our movement and influence are still growing, but mainstream media attention has surprisingly little to do with it. Which is one more reason to simply ignore their media and keep building our own.

Nevertheless, in the wake of Hillary’s speech, there was a buzz of social media activity, in which a number of people embraced the term “Alt Right.” But they either did not know what it means, or they simply wanted to redefine it in terms of . . . surprise . . . the various currents of the mainstream Right that we saw fit to discard long ago, such as civic nationalism and libertarianism.

Naturally, many bona fide Alt Rightists are alarmed at the prospect of our movement being co-opted or hollowed out by entryists and carpet-baggers just as we are starting to get more mainstream attention. Initially, I dismissed this fear, for four reasons.

First, mainstream media attention probably matters less than we think it does.

Second, the whole point of the “Alt Right” is to be a broad umbrella term for ideological tendencies that reject mainstream American conservatism. The Alt Right is thus defined in terms of what it is not rather than in terms of what it is. It has no “essence,” so what is the point of arguing about what it “really” is?

Third, instead of defending the vacuous “Alt Right,” I prefer to defend more concrete positions: White Nationalism (including its self-evident corollary anti-Semitism) and the New Right. Defending these positions has two advantages. First, they state my actual beliefs. Second, I defy any libertarian or civic nationalist to co-opt them.

Fourth, if we actually join battle against these entryists and carpet-baggers, we will end up defending White Nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the like anyway. So why worry about the Alt Right moniker? Just focus on the substance.

However, there’s another way of looking at this. Granted, the Alt Right “brand” is largely empty, aside from the fact that it negates the conservative mainstream. But meaning, like nature, abhors a vacuum. So someone will eventually endow the Alternative Right with a positive content. So it might as well be me.

This content will, to a great extent, be socially constructed. Meaning that people can try to offer any definition they want, but unless it is widely accepted by others, it does not matter. Thus, for a proposed meaning to stick, it must either come from someone relatively authoritative, or it must be immediately compelling, or both.

My definition meets both criteria, so here goes: the Alternative Right means White Nationalism — or it means nothing at all.

The original concept of the Alternative Right emerged from paleoconservatism. (I prefer to call it “faileoconservatism,” an evaluation that is even shared by paleocon pioneer Paul Gottfried, who declared the end of paleoconservatism and called for an “Alternative Right” in the same 2008 H. L. Mencken Club speech.)

Like paleoconservatism, the Alternative Right was simply a way that timid, status-conscious conservatives could flirt with racism and even anti-Semitism while maintaining some sort of pretense of mainstream credibility.

But when Richard Spencer started the Alternative Right webzine in 2010, the principal funders and writers regarded it simply as a vehicle for White Nationalist entryism, and they would have blown it up rather than see it become anything else. Today’s White Nationalists need to take the same strongly proprietary attitude toward the Alternative Right. It is a vehicle of White Nationalism, and we will give it the Howard Roark treatment if it is hijacked from us. Full stop. (Spencer himself torched the Alt Right webzine in 2013 for very different reasons.)

But we also need to remember that the Alt Right will not serve as a tool of White Nationalist entryism and outreach if we drive out everyone who is not a White Nationalist. Converts, by definition, don’t already believe what we believe. Thus purging the Alt Right of people who are not already White Nationalists is ultimately self-defeating.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go forth into battle and make this concept of the Alternative Right the dominant one. That is all.

The Specter of White Nationalism

Greg Hood once pointed out to me that a White Nationalist Manifesto could begin with the Preamble of The Communist Manifesto, with only a few words changed:

A specter is haunting the world — the specter of White Nationalism. All the powers that rule over white nations have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this specter: church and state, Left and Right, oligarchs and rabble, high culture and low, academia and the lying press.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as “racist” by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach “they’re the real racists,” against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

1. White Nationalism is already acknowledged by all existing powers to be itself a power.

2. It is high time that White Nationalists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Specter of White Nationalism with a manifesto of the movement itself.

To this end, we present the following Manifesto.

The parallels are rather uncanny — and rather encouraging, since in a little more than a century, Communism went from being a specter of power to being an actual world power.

The standard game of political parties today is “negative legitimation”: they demand your allegiance based not on the positive ground of what they stand for, but simply on the fact that they are not the other party. This allows them to avoid standing for any specific platform, and if it gets them into power, they basically have a blank check, so long as they are sufficiently unlike the hated other party.

But all of the system’s parties quickly unite when any form of white ethnonationalism appears on the scene. White Nationalism is the other party for the whole globalist, multicultural, multiracial system. And as the system lurches from crisis to crisis and fails to deliver its promised multicultural paradise, increasingly its only legitimization is not being us. The system is so bent on stigmatizing people who stand against multiculturalism and globalization as evil, racist whites, that it will declare George Zimmerman a white man and Donald Trump a Nazi.

But in what sense was Communism a “power” in the 1840s, and in what sense could White Nationalism be a “power” today? In neither case are we speaking about real political power. Instead, White Nationalism today, like Communism back then, is simply an image of evil, a bogey man that the system uses to scare the rabble into compliance.

One feels that if we didn’t exist, the system would find it necessary to create us. Indeed, in many cases they do create us. First, the system projects images of its diabolical opposites. Of course, these are the diabolical opposites it prefers, diabolical opposites that it thinks it can defeat or control. And sometimes rebellious but uncritical minds will adopt these images and act accordingly — so-called “Hollywood Nazis,” for example. Second, the system will simply create its own false opposition groups.

Yet for all that, there is a real and growing resistance that is rooted not in the projections and machinations of the system but in the objective reality of racial differences, which make racially and ethnically diverse nations inferior to homogeneous ones. This resistance is growing up through the cracks in the system: the internet, social media, alternative media, and face-to-face groups. Our people are waking up. White Nationalists are now shaping their perceptions and changing their actions. We are showing them the failures of the system, explaining why it is happening, and offering them a workable and inspiring alternative.

But does this make us a power? Being in harmony with reality is certainly an advantage in a movement that is largely a debating society. It is also an advantage in contending for power with a system premised on lies. Moreover, being in harmony with reality will certainly serve as the basis of stable political power, if we can attain it.

But the problem is in the attainment. In itself, truth is not power. The difference between truth and power is the difference between theory and practice, between potentiality and actuality, and a theory we cannot yet practice, a potentiality we cannot yet actualize, is hardly better than a dream.

How then is a specter of power a real power? It is a power only in the psychological sense. It is the power to incite fear. The establishment uses the specter of White Nationalism to scare the normies. But, increasingly, the establishment itself is afraid of us as well. They think that we are behind Brexit, Trump, Wilders, Le Pen, Alternative for Germany, Orbán, etc. And in a way we are, since we support them, and our ideas also influence them or the people around them.

The establishment has turned White Nationalism into the embodiment of evil, the political equivalent of Satan. This is just the latest version of the ancient slave revolt in morals, in which slaves invert the values of their masters so they can feel good about themselves. Jan Assmann argues that the Jewish ritual law was created by the “normative inversion” of Egyptian religion, and Nietzsche argues that Christian values were created by the normative inversion of Greco-Roman pagan values. Today, every sentiment that preserves distinct peoples from a global homogeneous consumer society — a sense of rootedness and identity, patriotism and love of one’s own, a commitment to non-material values, and the willingness to fight and die for them — are labeled evil as well.

This is why evil is so appealing in the Judeo-Christian-liberal world: everything vital, manly, aggressive, lordly, proud, rooted, patriotic, passionate, self-transcending, and glorious is bundled together and labeled evil, whereas everything weak, meek, sniveling, shilly-shallying, rootless, and self-indulgent is labeled good. All the forces that build civilizations are called evil, whereas everything that dissolves them is deemed good.

The human forebrain can convince itself of such inverted values, particularly individuals with the powerful psychological motive to overthrow the standards by which they are judged inferior. But the values of family and tribe appeal to older parts of the brain, which the forebrain can ignore and repress but never reprogram. Which means that everything we stand for already appeals to all of our people — even the most confused and decadent among us — in a deep-seated, literally visceral way.

Everything the system labels evil is a psychologically powerful force, not because evil is good, but because biologically healthy values have been defined as evil but remain irresistibly attractive nonetheless. We have power in the imaginations of our people, the power of the dark side. We must take care not to allow the enemy to define us. We have to mock their projections, not own them. But we can exploit the demonic status and emotional power they have granted us and infuse it with our own content. They define everything vital as evil. We can own the vitality and discard their value judgments.

How do we turn psychological power into political power, the specter of White Nationalism into the real thing? We have to make ourselves leaders and get our people to follow us. (The actual history of Communism has something to teach us here.) It’s a long journey, but it begins with laying the right metapolitical foundations.

An important part of the process is deconstructing the false values that clutter our people’s forebrains. We would not have gotten into this position if our conscious moral convictions had no power to determine our behavior.

Equally important, though, is crafting our appeals to the complex of pre-rational sentiments of blood, soil, and honor that our enemies stigmatize and fear. That is not the province of philosophers, but of artists and orators. It is by seizing their passions that we goad our people into action and direct them towards our goals, turning theory into practice and truth into power.

White Nationalists are Not “White Supremacists”

The charge that White Nationalists are “White Supremacists” has two aspects. First, there is the claim that whites think of ourselves as superior to other groups. Second, there is the idea that whites want to rule over other groups.

I do think that whites are superior to some groups in some ways. I am very proud of our people, and we have a great deal to be proud of. In the areas in which we excel, we have done a lot for the world. Our superior achievements in comparison to other races are why so many non-whites are flooding into white societies. There’s no need to mince words about that or apologize in any way.

It is easy to find ways in which we are superior to other groups. But you can also find ways in which we are inferior to other groups. I just don’t think this issue matters, however, because as Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor have pointed out, even if we were the sorriest lot of people on the planet and had accomplished almost nothing, it would still be natural, normal, and right for us to love our own and to be concerned with the future of our people. And it would still be politically expedient to demand our own sovereign homelands.

As for the idea of whites reigning over other people, I don’t want that. I am a nationalist. I believe in self-determination for all peoples. The people who are actually committed to whites ruling over other people are the civic nationalists of the Alt Light. People like Gavin McInnes, for instance, claim that they are civic nationalists and Western civilizational chauvinists. But they are not ethnic or racial nationalists. They have basically conceded multiracialism to the Left. It is a victory they are not even going to question, much less try to roll back.

Chauvinism is an attitude of superiority. A Western chauvinist believes that Western civilization is superior. What is Western civilization, though? Basically, it is white civilization. The Alt Light is thus committed to the idea of white civilizational superiority, which is the first form of supremacism. They try to evade this implication with a hat trick, of course, declaring that Western civilization is a universal civilization, but it’s not.

Western civilization is a product of white people. The people who are most comfortable in Western civilizations are white people. When Blacks, Asians, and other groups come to white countries, they want to change things to suit them better. The Western chauvinist must say “no.” Non-whites have to live by white standards, including white laws, which are of course enforced by the state. In effect, this means whites must rule over non-whites. This is white supremacism in the second sense.

Now I believe that if non-whites live in white societies, we damn well better impose our values on them, or they will create a society that we do not want to live in. We really need to reflect for a moment on the absurdity of the situation in which it is now “problematic” for white values to be “supreme” in white societies, which were created and sustained by white people and white values.

But we have to be honest about the fact that it is a form of oppression to impose white standards on non-white populations and demand that they “assimilate,” that they surrender their identities, that they go around wearing the equivalent of uncomfortable shoes or seasonally inappropriate clothes. Because a civilization should be as comfortable and as becoming as a well-tailored suit. And blacks don’t find white civilization comfortable. It is like demanding they wear shoes that are two sizes too small when we impose our standards of punctuality and time preferences, demand that they follow our age-of-consent laws, or foist the bourgeois nuclear family upon them. These things don’t come naturally to Africans. White standards like walking on the sidewalk, not down the middle of the street, are oppressive to blacks. Such standards are imposed by the hated “white supremacy” system. But if we don’t impose white standards upon them, we have chaos. We have great cities like Detroit transformed into wastelands.

There’s a line from William Blake, “One law for the lion and the ox is oppression.” Because lions and oxen are different beasts, to put them under one law forces them to live contrary to their natures. White supremacism would be like lion supremacism: demanding that the ox live by the code of the lion. But the ox doesn’t eat meat. He eats grass. Eating meat doesn’t come naturally to him. The true white supremacists are the civic nationalists, who would think they are doing the ox a favor by declaring meat the “universal” diet and force-feeding it to him.

White Nationalists are not white supremacists, because it is not our preference to rule over other groups. Although if forced to live under multicultural systems, we are going to take our own side and try to make sure that our values reign supreme, our preference is to go our separate ways. We want an amicable, no-fault racial divorce so we can live in the manners that most befit us in our own separate homelands.

The Invention of Civic Nationalism Against Europeans

Languages, peoples and ethnopolitical divisions of Europe 1815-1914

 

Separation of Ethnicity from Civic Identity

Western nation-states should be based on civic values alone, individual rights, private property, and equality under the law, without any reference to ethnicity. This is one of the most powerful contemporary tenets. Europeans have been made to believe that a state that identifies its citizens in ethnic terms cannot be for liberty. Just as a liberal state is said to be one in which religious affiliations are decided by private individuals, and that the state should not “impose” any religious beliefs on its citizens, cultural Marxists have effectively imprinted on the minds of Europeans the notion that a nation-state can be true to liberal values only when the identity of its citizens are conceived without any collective reference to their ethnic identity. Ethnicity should be a matter of individual choice and the state has no business identifying the state with any ethnicity.

The only political/collective identity a liberal state can encourage among its citizens is civic, that is, the identity of being a member of a nation state where everyone regardless of race, sex, and religious orientation is afforded the same rights under the law. It is true that, since the nineteenth century, liberals have recognized civic rights for minorities already established inside the nations of Europe. What has transpired in the last few decades goes well beyond this. We are now being told that liberalism requires civic nations to be thoroughly diversified in order to fulfill the ideals of a nation that is truly civic. In other words, there is a mandate accepted by all mainstream political parties and all political theorists that Western nations must cease to be populated by citizens belonging to one race or a majority race, with a culture that reflects the history and traditions of this race. The diversification of the citizenry along both racial and cultural lines is now hailed as the liberally progressive thing to do. Those who oppose mass immigration in the name of preserving their age-old ethnocultural characterare automatically classified as illiberal. You can criticize immigration on economic grounds but never for the sake of maintaining the ethnic character of your nation.

How did we reach this position, from recognition of the individual rights of minorities to widespread consensus among current elites that liberalism demands the diversification of Western nations through mass immigration?

The Intellectual Proponents of Civic Nationalism

Be it noted that the nations states of western Europe, as will be briefly shown below, actually emerged as civic nations in conscious celebration and awareness of their millennial ethnic heritage. So why did liberal theorists come to accept the argument that Western nations, to be truly civic, cannot be based on ethnicity? It seems to me that this identification of Western nations with civic identities cannot be understood apart from the very successful theoretical efforts of Hans Kohn, Karl Deutsch, Ernest Gellner, and Eric Hobsbawm against any notion that Western nations were rooted in primordial ethnic identities. According to Azar Gat, an Israelite whose book Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism (2013) I will be examining below, these authors were

all Jewish immigrant refugees from central Europe. . . . All of them experienced changing identities and excruciating questions of self-identity at the time of the most extreme, violent and unsettling eruptions. It was only natural that they reacted against all this.[1]

In other words, feeling excluded from nation states with strong ethnic identities in central Europe, they reacted by formulating the argument that the nation states of western Europe were inherently intended to be civic only.

None of these writers denied that people in the premodern era had a sense of communal kin affinities within their respective tribes or localities. Their focus was on themodern nation states of Europe, and their argument was that these nation states, and the corresponding ideology of nationalism, were “artificial historical constructs,” “invented traditions,” designed by political elites interested in forging powerful territorial states among previously scattered and loosely related rural communities lacking a sense of national-ethnic identity. The claim that European nations contain a strong ethnic core was not factual but an ideological weapon employed by state-elites seeking to create states with mass appeal, a national infrastructure, official languages, centralized taxation, national currency and laws, through the modern era, culminating in the nineteenth century. The exhortations of nationalists in the 19th and 20th centuries about the kin-ethnic roots of their nations were mere rhetorical ploys to induce in the masses support for elite efforts at extending their power nationally over an otherwise disparate, never ethnically conscious, population consisting of multiple dialects, ancestries and local loyalties.

With the experience of World War I and II, both within liberalism and Marxism, this critique of nationalism turned into a concerted critique of ethnic nationalism, which came to be associated with German militarism in WW I and Fascism thereafter. While Marxists, such as Hobsbawm, started advocating working class internationalism, liberal theorists such as Kohn, Deutsch, and Gellner began to formulate a strictly civic form of nationalism, while discrediting ethnic nationalism as both an artificial construct and as the source, in the words of Hobsbawm, of “demotic xenophobia and chauvinism” with no basis in reality.

Obviously, there were other intellectual currents percolating through the West, Frankfurt School ideas, civil rights in the United State, feminism, postmodernism, and, not to be underestimated, the pressure from corporations for cheap immigrant labor and consumer demand, coinciding and reinforcing each other in a grand effort to produce a totally new form of Western identity against the perceived dominance of European patriarchs. Much has been written about these developments, but the writings of the progenitors of liberal or civic nationalism have been neglected. This subject deserves far more than I am offering here. Suffice it to say that in Western countries civic nationalism has become the only accepted form of national identity. The meaning of civic nationalism is neatly captured in the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry:

Civic nationalism is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.

According to Hans Kohn, Western nation-states were civic from their beginning in the late eighteenth century. “Illiberal ethnic nationalism” was a phenomenon of Eastern Europe, Russia, and Fascism, places that hyped up the ethnic character of the people while suppressing individual rights.

Civic nationalism came out of western-north European countries where a solid middle class had developed; the members of this class were inclined to a conception of the state as a voluntary association of individual wills. This was a progressive class, or so argued Kohn, in wanting a form of citizenship based on laws originating out of the free reasoning of individuals; this class did not like states that impose an ethnocultural identity on its members. Ethnic nationalism, by contrast, come out of cultures lacking a middle class, driven by regressive classes suspicious of free willing individuals, and preferring states that impose on their people an irrational sense of ethnic collective identity inspired by emotions rather than by factual historical realities.

Celebrating the Ethnicity of Others while Accusing Europeans of Ethnocentrism

These ideas resonated greatly in the aftermath of WWII. The term “ethnicity” itself came to be defined in strictly cultural terms without any reference to race or biological distinctions among different groups. Every textbook in the social sciences in the 1950s and after came to endorse this culturalist definition. Combined with this definition academics added an instrumental and/or functionalist definition, according to which ethnic identification was a superstructural phenomenon behind which stood the real interests of ruling classes consolidating their power, or the functional requirements of a national system of education, administration, war-making, and overall modernization. Here is what Jonathan Hall says about the usage of ethnicity:

In the wake of the Second World War — and more particularly the Holocaust — the motives for treating ethnic identity as a valid area of research were discredited…The anthropological response to the crisis of scholarship occasioned by the Second World War was the ‘instrumentalist’ approach to ethnicity which proclaimed that ethnic identity was a guise adopted by interest groups to conceal aims that were more properly political or economic.[2]

But Jonathan Hall then notes that this cultural-instrumental approach also came to be seen, from the 1970s on, as inadequate in not being able to account for numerous post WWII national liberation movements across the world that were self-consciously identifying themselves along blood lines and viciously fighting for their “ancestral territories.” What Hall leaves out, and should be kept in mind as we read this next passage, is that social scientists were starting to view ethno-kin identities in the non-Western world as progressive, not as fixed identities but as “negotiable” identities, in reference to “oppressed minorities” and without reference to genetic traits.

Yet the ethnic resurgences of the 1970s and 1980s presented a clear challenge to the validity of the instrumentalist approach; this prompted a renewed anthropological interest in the subject of ethnic identity. . . . Current research tends to grant at least an intersubjective reality to ethnic identity, though it differs from pre-war scholarship on a number of important points. Firstly, it stresses that the ethnic group is not a biological group but a social group, distinguished from other collectivities by its subscription to a putative myth of shared descent and kinship and by its association with a ‘primordial’ territory. Secondly, it rejects the nineteenth-century view of ethnic groups as static, monolithic categories with impermeable boundaries for a less restrictive model which recognises the dynamic, negotiable and situationally constructed nature of ethnicity. Finally, it questions the notion that ethnic identity is primarily constituted by either genetic traits, language, religion or even common cultural forms. While all of these attributes may act as important symbols of ethnic identity, they really only serve to bolster an identity that is ultimately constructed through written and spoken discourse.[3]

Clearly, this passage admits that “a putative myth of shared descent and kinship” and “primordial territory” may play a role in the self-identification of groups, but then proposes that ethnicity is never static but dynamic and “situationally constructed,” and, in the end, decides that it is “ultimately constructed” through discourses. This is actually the state of the research on ethnicity today — a postmodern mishmash seemingly playing multiple sides yet “ultimately” defining ethnicity in discursive terms very similar to Hans Kohn’s civic definition, while avoiding any substantive biological references. Hall does not reveal the political considerations underlying this renewed emphasis on ethnic kinship. He assumes it was a purely scholastic affair conducted by university professors pursuing the truth. He ignores the growing voices both for the ethnic authenticity of non-European minorities and for the inauthentic character of Western civic nations. Just as the ethnic identities of non-Europeans were being heralded as liberating and progressive, the notion that Western nations were civic since the 18th century, or earlier, was increasingly subject to criticism due to their “discriminatory” treatment of minorities inside their borders, their imperial designs, and their “white only” immigration policies, which pointed to the presence of ethnic discrimination and thus the reality of ethnicity.

Of course, this is not quite how the revival of interest in ethnicity was interpreted by its proponents. There is no denying either that the idea that Western nations were simply civic just seemed out of touch with reality, regardless of one’s political intentions. The leading critic of the concept of civic nationalism was Anthony Smith, starting with his book, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, and multiple publications since. His main contention was that modern nations were not created ex nihilo on the basis of civic values alone or because the ruling elites wanted to augment their authority through modern infrastructures; rather, nation states were created on the basis of pre-existing ancestral ties and sense of historical continuity. A sense of nationhood predated the modern era and could be traced as far back as ancient times and throughout the world. The nations of Europe were not mere “inventions” or functional requirements of modernity, but were factually rooted in the past, in common myths of descent. While the rise of modern industry and modern bureaucracies allowed for the materialization of nation-states in Europe, these nations were primordially based on a population with a collective sense of kinship.

Smith’s work was undoubtedly fruitful in challenging the notion that Western nations were inherently civic. Yet, for all this, Smith’s concept of ethnicity was more about the importance of past communities, a rough territory, a language, artistic styles, myths and symbols, states of mind, than about emphasizing any form of identity along blood lines — actual common lineage and consanguinity. To be sure, an ethnic group cannot be categorized as a race, but his concept of ethnicity followed the mandated social science prohibition against the inclusion of biological references, physical characteristics, skin color, body shape, and other features that have a racial dimension. Ethnicity was defined by Smith in terms of cultural traits, linguistic, historical and territorial traits, common mythology and folkways.

Meanwhile, as Smith was busy writing historical works, and without his full awareness, an avalanche of ethnically oriented programs, hundreds of conferences and academics were eagerly affirming the value of ethnicity, but only in relation to “oppressed” groups. Writing about this would require a separate paper. Perhaps the best way to sum up our current obsession with ethnic talk is to look at the mission statements of Ethnic Studies programs or departments. These are very vocal in claiming that race is a reality of the West that cannot be ignored because racism has been and continues to be one of the“most powerful social and cultural forces in American society and in modernity at large.”

Azar Gat’s Politically Correct Sociobiological Perspective

There is one current writer cited earlier, Azar Gat, Professor of Political Science at Tel Aviv University, who does appear to offer a strong biological conception of ethnicity, in his book Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism.

This book is said to be written from a “sociobiological perspective”. The opening chapters and the conclusion definitely state that nations “are rooted in primordial human sentiments of kin-culture affinity, solidarity, and mutual cooperation, evolutionarily engraved in human nature.”[4] Agreeing with “much” of what Smith says, he still finds wanting his lack of emphasis on human nature, evolutionary theory, and unwillingness to break away from a culture-oriented perspective. He writes that “ethnicity is by far the most important factor” in national identity and that through history nations “overwhelmingly correlate with and relate to shared kin-culture traits.”[5] Welcoming the application of evolutionary theory to explain human behavior, he says:

Its [sociobiology] relevance to our subject can be summarized as follows: people tend to prefer closer kin, who share more genes with them, to more remote kin or ‘strangers’. As a propensity, this is not necessarily conscious.[6]

But it soon becomes apparent that Gat (despite his correct recognition that humans have strong genetic dispositions and that preference for one’s kin is an evolutionary selected behavior, rather than an “irrational” “epiphenomenon of something else”) is not willing to recognize, or even say anything about the rational ethnic dispositions of Europeans, but actually takes it as given that Europeans inhabit nations dedicated to the creation of new immigrant ethnic identities under the umbrella of a common culture that cannot but be defined in civic terms. Gat is quite effective in documenting the importance of kin-ethnic attachments and common culture for premodern states, including empires, origins of modern European states and non-European states.

Yet, when it comes to the current Western nations experiencing mass immigration, it never occurs to Gat to consider the ancestral attachments and kin-relatedness of the peoples who have inhabited these lands the longest and transformed them into modern nations. He simply accepts without question the experience of mass immigration as if it were a natural occurrence consistent with the ethnic histories of Western nations. He proposes a new definition of ethnicity to deal with the reality of mass immigration, which is inconsistent with his sociobiological perspective. He proposes indeed an immigrant definition of ethnicity, by indicating that, while his definition of ethnicity is not restricted to culture, it views ethnicity “as an ongoing process” not exclusive to one ethnicity but capable of explaining the formation of “immigrant states” and how such states “habitually integrate new comers into a broad cultural and kin community.”[7]

There is no space here to go over some of the things he says about Spain, France, Britain, and Canada. Highlighting what he says about the United States and Europe generally should suffice to illustrate his rather civic-oriented and ultimately multiculturalist approach when it comes to current European ethnic identity. Although Gat insists that American nationhood is not founded on liberal propositions alone, and that “there exists a very distinct American culture, widely shared by the large majority . . . common American-English language and all-pervasive folkways . . . entertainment industry, Hollywood, and television,”[8] with a strong Anglo-Protestant lineage, he acquiesces to a cultural definition of America in viewing American ethnicity as a changing reality, not only with respect to diverse European immigrants, but with respect to post-1965 immigration policies, which he sees as a natural continuation of earlier trends.

My point is not to deny that American ethnicity is changing but to ask why he refuses say a word about “the deep human preferences toward one’s own”[9] that Europeans Americans may feel in the face of mass immigration since 1965 from non-Europeans nations. Or, if he thinks European Americans are satisfied with mass Mexican immigration, why is that the case, and does it mean, therefore, that American nationality is indeed strictly cultural? Or, could it be that Gat is unaware of the wider political realities shaping the way we think about ethnicity, and that European peoples, and only European peoples, are prohibited from affirming their ethnicity in the face of a system of mass immigration imposed across the Western world, and that social scientists such as Gat have been incentivized to go along with the program, unless they are willing to risk their careers?

Gat’s effort to argue that America is a nation with an immigrant identity carries weight when one considers the pre-1965 immigration period, which, after difficult racial tensions resulting from the high levels of immigration from diverse European nations in the 19th and early 20th century, became a well united nation by the 1950s, except for its non-European inhabitants, Africans and Natives. But he does not consider whether this immigrant identity was successfully nurtured due to the compatible ethno-European heritages of most immigrants. Instead, he takes it as given that America’s post-1965 immigration patterns are the same as before, writing that “the Latino immigration is not fundamentally different from earlier waves of immigration in its gradual acculturation.”[10] While he is aware of challenges to this argument, he thinks he can emphasize America’s ethnic immigrant identity simply by appealing to the common usage of the English language, ignoring how common Spanish is becoming in many localities across the United States and how whites exhibit implicit patterns of race separation in their choice of residential areas to raise their families and educate their children, notwithstanding their explicit claims about the benefits of diversity.

Having painted the United States as a nation with a uniquely immigrant ethnicity, he seems at a loss trying to account for the importance of ethnic identities in current European nations and Canada. “The phenomenon of mass immigration has transformed the map of identities in Western countries in recent decades.”[11] How and why are current Europeans allowing the millennial ethnic identities grounding the formation of their nations states to be radically diluted if ethnic nationalism is truly, in the words of Gat, “one of the strongest forces in history”? How did they overcame their genetic predisposition to have a preference for their own, and why is Gat taking mass immigration as if it were a natural process or somehow part and parcel of Europe’s national identity without even asking a question ? An honest sociobiological approach would have required such questions, but Gat only poses cultural Marxist questions to the effect that “not a few immigrants and their descendants are in fact integrating, culturally and socially, well enough for them to be described as ‘joining the nation.’”[12] But how are the original ethnic nationalities of Europe integrating with the new immigrants? If ethnic identity is so important why are Europeans expected to accept, in his words, a “weakening connection”[13] between their nation state and their ethnocultural heritage? In the end, Gat has no choice but to shift his take on ethnic identity in the direction of the liberal values Hans Kohn equated with Western nationalism; more than this, he has no choice but to endorse a liberal multicultural definition of Western identity.

He thinks a good indication in Europe of a common national culture is the recent “retreat” from multiculturalism “which has led to a reemphasizing in many Western countries of the official connection between (majority) culture and polity”[14] but he never brings up any shared aims between immigrants, a majority culture, and the state. The one factor he can muster in the name of a common immigrant culture, to repeat, is the fact that immigrants are learning the language of the immigrant nations. How about patriotic attachments to past European symbols, folk-songs, legendary historical figures, food, that is, shared traits that can be categorized in ethnic-kin terms? Not a word. Instead we get the usual attitude that things must be working since there is no civil war, immigrants are trying to be successful economically and educate their children. The only common culture that seems to be tying together Western immigration is cultural Marxism, an ideology imposed from above, without democratic consent, by bureaucratic elites convinced that diversity is an improvement and that Europeans are racist unless they interbreed with millions of non-whites. He regularly cites Will Kymlicka, calling him “the chief theorist of liberal multiculturalism” in a sympathetic manner, without ever bringing to attention Kymlicka’s open call for an end to any intrinsic links between the nation states of Europe and any form of ethnicity that can be called “European.” Is it not quite revealing that the same author who writes a book dedicated to a sociobiological approach on the ethnic roots of nations ends up sympathizing with the foremost advocate of multiracialism in the West?

Conclusion

The sensible response one should reach on examining the debate between civic and ethnic nationalism is that the historical research validates the idea that European nation-states were founded around a strong ethnic core even if there were minorities co-existing with majorities. The states of Western Europe developed liberal civic institutions within the framework of this ethnic core. Sociobiological research further supports the natural inclination of humans to have a preference for their own kin. This biologically based research demonstrates that humans cannot be abstracted from an ethnic collective. The claim that such a preference is an irrational disposition imposed from above by regressive elites is false. Ethnocentrism is a rationally driven disposition consistent with civic freedoms. Civic freedoms are consistent with a collective sense of kin-culture. What is not consistent with rationally based research, with individual rational decision making, and with our collective kin-dispositions, are the claims that Western nations were civic in origins and the current enforcement of mass immigration without allowance of open rational debate.

Notes

1. Azar Gat, Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism, 2013: 16
2. Jonathan Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, 1997: 1
3. Ibid. 2
4. Gat: 380
5. Ibid. 24
6. Ibid. 27
7. Ibid. 20
8. Ibid. 271
9. Ibid. 386
10. Ibid. 276
11. Ibid. 349
12. Ibid. 349
13. Ibid. 350
14. Ibid. 350

Source: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2015/07/invention-of-civic-nationalism-against-europeans.html

 

 

In a recent column entitled “The Call of the Nation,” Avnery observes, “a DARK wave is submerging democracies all over the Western world. … fascism and populism are gaining ground all around” and doing so in the name of old-fashioned ethnocentric nationalism. After all, “for most people, the need to belong to a nation is a profound psychological need. People create a national culture, often speak a national language. People are ready to die for their nation.”

In the end, Avnery concludes that “What we are witnessing now is a rebellion of nationalism against the trend towards … a globalist world.”

 

 

 

 

 

Conceived In White Nationalism – What the Founders Really Thought About Race

Thomas Jefferson
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/…
https://founders.archives.gov/documen…

James Madison:
https://founders.archives.gov/documen…

Ben Franklin:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmg21/ash300…

Charles Pickney:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founde…

David Wilmot:
https://books.google.com/books?id=iNs… that vast country, between the Rio Grande and the Pacific, shall be given up to the servile labor of the black, or be preserved for the free labor of the white man? . . . The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent; let us keep what remains for ourselves, and for our children.&f=false

Chinese Population of the United States:
http://teachingresources.atlas.illino…

Oregon Constitution:
https://books.google.com/books?id=eM0…[n]o+free+negro,+or+mulatto,+not+residing+in+this+state+at+the+time+of+the+adoption+of+this+constitution,+shall+come,+reside,+or+be+within+this+State,+or+hold+any+real+estate.”&source=bl&ots=T3pOso419R&sig=y21Mwl-9zaUVSgDM-XTpo_EA3fk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2yOeA5N3VAhVEi1QKHTrNAmYQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jared Taylor – What the Founders Really Thought About Race:
http://www.npiamerica.org/research/ca…

Naturalization actof 1790:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural…

United_States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_…

1924 Immigration act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra…

Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mi…

Race and Political Views:
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/i…

Fiscal Impact of Racial Groups:
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/i…

What the Founders Really Thought About Race

Declaration_independence.jpg

Today, the United States officially takes the position that all races are equal. Our country is also committed―legally and morally―to the view that race is not a fit criterion for decision-making of any kind, except for promoting “diversity” or for the purpose of redressing past wrongs done by Whites to non-Whites.

Many Americans cite the “all men are created equal” phrase from the Declaration of Independence to support the claim that this view of race was not only inevitable but was anticipated by the Founders. Interestingly, prominent conservatives and Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachman and Glenn Beck have taken this notion a step further and asserted that today’s racial egalitarianism was the nation’s goal from its very first days.[1]

They are badly mistaken.

Since early colonial times, and until just a few decades ago, virtually all Whites believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities, and built markedly different societies. They believed that only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live, and they strongly opposed miscegenation. For more than 300 years, therefore, American policy reflected a consensus on race that was the very opposite of what prevails today.

Those who would impute egalitarianism to the Founders should recall that in 1776, the year of the Declaration, race slavery was already more than 150 years old in North America and was practiced throughout the New World, from Canada to Chile.[2] In 1770, 40 percent of White households in Manhattan owned Black slaves, and there were more slaves in the colony of New York than in Georgia.[3] It was true that many of the Founders considered slavery a terrible injustice and hoped to abolish it, but they meant to expel the freed slaves from the United States, not to live with them in equality.

Thomas Jefferson’s views were typical of his generation. Despite what he wrote in the Declaration, he did not think Blacks were equal to Whites, noting that “in general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection.”[4] He hoped slavery would be abolished some day, but “when freed, he [the Negro] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”[5] Jefferson also expected whites eventually to displace all of the Indians of the New World. The United States, he wrote, was to be “the nest from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled,”[6] and the hemisphere was to be entirely European: “… nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”[7]

Jefferson opposed miscegenation for a number of reasons, but one was his preference for the physical traits of Whites. He wrote of their “flowing hair” and their “more elegant symmetry of form,” but emphasized the importance of color itself[8]:

Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one [whites], preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black, which covers all the emotions of the other race?

Like George Washington, Jefferson was a slave owner. In fact, nine of the first 11 Presidents owned slaves, the only exceptions being the two Adamses. Despite Jefferson’s hope for eventual abolition, he made no provision to free his slaves after his death.

James Madison agreed with Jefferson that the only solution to the race problem was to free the slaves and expel them: “To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.”[9] He proposed that the federal government buy up the entire slave population and transport it overseas. After two terms in office, he served as chief executive of the American Colonization Society, which was established to repatriate Blacks.[10]

Benjamin Franklin wrote little about race, but had a sense of racial loyalty that was typical of his time:

[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small… . I could wish their Numbers were increased…. But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Franklin therefore opposed bringing more Blacks to the United States[11]:

[W]hy increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America?”

John Dickinson was a Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention and wrote so effectively in favor of independence that he is known as the “Penman of the Revolution.” As was common in his time, he believed that homogeneity, not diversity, was the new republic’s greatest strength[12]:

Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?

Dickinson’s views were echoed in the second of The Federalist Papers, in which John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people,”[13]

a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”

After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, Americans had to decide who they would allow to become part of their new country. The very first citizenship law, passed in 1790, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized,[14] and immigration laws designed to keep the country overwhelmingly white were repealed only in 1965.

Alexander Hamilton was suspicious even of European immigrants, writing that “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”[15] John Quincy Adams explained to a German nobleman that if Europeans were to immigrate, “they must cast off the European skin, never to resume it.”[16] Neither man would have countenanced immigration of non-Whites.

Blacks, even if free, could not be citizens of the United States until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The question of their citizenship arose during the Missouri crisis of 1820 to 1821. The Missouri constitution barred the immigration of Blacks, and some northern critics said that to prevent Blacks who were citizens of other states from moving to Missouri deprived them of protection under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. The author of that clause, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, was still alive, and denied that he, or any other Framer, intended the clause to apply to Blacks: “I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it.”[17]

THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT

Today, it is common to think of the antebellum North as united in the desire to free the slaves and to establish them as the social and political equals of Whites. Again, this is a distorted view. First of all, slavery persisted in the North well into the post-Revolutionary period. It was not abolished in New York State until 1827, and it continued in Connecticut until 1848.[18]

Nor was abolitionist sentiment anything close to universal. Many Northerners opposed abolition because they feared it would lead to race mixing. The easiest way to stir up opposition to Northern abolitionists was to claim that what they were really promoting was intermarriage. Many abolitionists expressed strong disapproval of miscegenation, but the fact that speakers at abolitionist meetings addressed racially mixed audiences was sufficiently shocking to make any charge believable. There were no fewer than 165 anti-abolition riots in the North during the 1820s alone, almost all of them prompted by the fear that abolition would lead to intermarriage.[19]

The 1830s saw further violence. On July 4, 1834, the American Anti-Slavery Society read its Declaration of Sentiments to a mixed-race audience in New York City. Rioters then broke up the meeting and went on a rampage that lasted 11 days. The National Guard managed to bring peace only after the society issued a “Disclaimer,” the first point of which was: “We entirely disclaim any desire to promote or encourage intermarriages between white and colored persons.”[20]

Philadelphia suffered a serious riot in 1838 after abolitionists, who had had trouble renting space to hold their meetings, built their own building. On May 17, the last day of a three-day dedication ceremony, several thousand people—many of high social standing—gathered at the hall and burned it down while the fire department stood by and did nothing.[21]

Sentiment against Blacks was so strong that many Northern Whites supported abolition only if it was linked, as Jefferson and Madison had proposed, to plans to deport or “colonize” Blacks. Most abolitionist activism therefore reflected a deep conviction that slavery was wrong, but not a desire to establish Blacks as social and political equals. William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina and Sarah Grimké favored equal treatment for Blacks in all respects, but theirs was very much a minority view. Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: “Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them.”[22]

The American Colonization Society was only the best known of many organizations founded for the purpose of removing Blacks from North America. At its inaugural meeting in 1816, Henry Clay described its purpose: to “rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population.”[23] The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Winfield Scott, John Marshall, and Roger Taney.[24] James Monroe, another President who owned slaves, worked so tirelessly in the cause of “colonization” that the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in recognition of his efforts.

Early Americans wrote their opposition to miscegenation into law. Between 1661 and 1725, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and all the southern colonies passed laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage and, in some cases, fornication.[25] Of the 50 states, no fewer than 44 had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage at some point in their past.[26] Many Northern Whites were horrified to discover that some Southern slave owners had Black concubines. When Bostonian Josiah Quincy wrote an account of his 1773 tour of South Carolina, he professed himself shocked to learn that a “gentleman” could have relations with a “negro or mulatto woman.”[27]

Massachusetts prohibited miscegenation from 1705 to 1843, but repealed the ban only because most people thought it was unnecessary.[28] The new law noted that inter-racial relations were “evidence of vicious feeling, bad taste, and personal degradation,” so were unlikely to be so common as to become a problem.[29]

The northern “free-soil” movement of the 1840s is often described as friendly to Blacks because it opposed the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories. This is yet another misunderstanding. Pennsylvania Democrat David Wilmot started the movement when he introduced an amendment banning slavery from any territories acquired after the Mexican-American War. The “Wilmot Proviso” was certainly anti-slavery, but Wilmot was not an abolitionist. He did not object to slavery in the South; only to its spread into the Western territories. During the congressional debate, Wilmot asked:

whether that vast country, between the Rio Grande and the Pacific, shall be given up to the servile labor of the black, or be preserved for the free labor of the white man? … The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent; let us keep what remains for ourselves, and for our children.

Wilmot called his amendment the “white man’s proviso.”[30]

The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for Whites. Every state that entered the Union between 1819 and the Civil War denied Blacks the vote. In 1855, Blacks could vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the nation’s Black population. The federal government prohibited free Blacks from voting in the territories it controlled.[31]

Several states that were established before the Civil War hoped to avoid race problems by remaining all White. The people of the Oregon Territory, for example, voted not to permit slavery, but voted in even greater numbers not to permit Blacks in the state at all. In language that survived until 2002, Oregon’s 1857 constitution provided that “[n]o free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate.”[32]

Despite Charles Pinckney’s confirmation in 1821 that no Black could be an American citizen, the question was taken up in the famous Dred Scott decision of 1857. The seven-to-two decision held that although they could be citizens of states, Blacks were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Roger Taney, the chief justice who wrote the majority decision, noted that slavery arose out of an ancient American conviction about Negroes[33]:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.   Abraham Lincoln’s time was well beyond the era of the Founders, but many Americans believe it was “the Great Emancipator” who finally brought the egalitarian vision of Jefferson’s generation to fruition.

Again, they are mistaken.

Lincoln considered Blacks to be—in his words—“a troublesome presence”[34] in the United States. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates he stated[35]:

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

His opponent Stephen Douglas was even more outspoken (in what follows, audience responses are recorded by the Chicago Daily Times, a Democratic paper):

For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any form. [Cheers—Times] I believe that this government was made on the white basis. [‘Good,’—Times] I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men—men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes and Indians, and other inferior races. [‘Good for you. Douglas forever,’—Times]

Douglas, who was the more firmly anti-Black of the two candidates, won the election.[36]

Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery outside the South, but was not an abolitionist. He made war on the Confederacy only to preserve the Union, and would have accepted Southern slavery in perpetuity if that would have kept the South from seceding, as he stated explicitly.[37]

Indeed, Lincoln supported what is known as the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress shortly before he took office, which forbade any attempt by Congress to amend the Constitution to give itself the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. The amendment therefore recognized that the federal government had no power over slavery where it already existed, and the amendment would have barred any future amendment to give the government that power. Outgoing President James Buchanan took the unusual step of signing the amendment, even though the President’s signature is not necessary under the Constitution.

Lincoln referred to the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address[38], adding that he had “no objection” to its ratification, and he sent copies of the text to all state governors.[39] Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois eventually ratified the amendment. If the country had not been distracted by war, it could well have become law, making it more difficult or even impossible to pass the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln’s Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of September 22, 1862 was further proof of his priorities. It gave the Confederate states 100 days to lay down their arms, and threatened to emancipate only those slaves living in states still in “rebellion.” Lincoln always overestimated Unionist sentiment in the South, and genuinely believed that at least some of the Southern states would accept his offer of union in exchange for the preservation of slavery.[40]

As late as the Hampton Roads conference with Confederate representatives—this was in February 3, 1865, with the war almost won—Lincoln was still hinting that the South could keep its slaves if it made peace. He called emancipation strictly a war measure that would become “inoperative” if there were peace, and suggested that if the Confederate states rejoined the union, they could defeat the 13th Amendment, which had been sent to the states for ratification. Lincoln appears to have been prepared to sacrifice the most basic interests of Blacks if he thought that would stop the slaughter of white men.[41]

Throughout his presidency, Lincoln took the conventional view that if slaves were freed, they should be expatriated. Even in the midst of the war, he was making plans for colonization, and appointed Rev. James Mitchell to be Commissioner of Emigration, with instructions to find a place to which Blacks could be sent.[42]

On August 14th, 1862, Lincoln invited a group of free Black leaders to the White House to tell them, “there is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.” He urged them to lead others of their race to a colonization site in Central America.[43] Lincoln was the first president to invite a delegation of Blacks to the White House—and he did so to ask them to leave the country. Later that year, in a message to Congress, he argued not just for voluntary colonization but for the forcible removal of free Blacks.[44]

A CLEAR LEGACY

The record from colonial times through the end of the Civil War is therefore one of starkly inegalitarian views. The idea of colonizing Blacks was eventually abandoned as too costly, but until the second half of the 20th century, it would be very hard to find a prominent American who spoke about race in today’s terms.

Blacks were at the center of early American thinking about race because of the vexed question of slavery and because Blacks lived among Whites. Indians, of course, had always been present, but were of less concern. They fought rearguard actions, but generally withdrew as Whites settled the continent. When they did not withdraw, they were forced onto reservations. After the slaves were freed, Indians were legally more disadvantaged than Blacks, since they were not considered part of the United States at all. In 1884, the Supreme Court officially determined that the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians associated with tribes. They did not receive citizenship until an act of Congress in 1924.[45] The traditional American view—Mark Twain called the Indian “a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one”[46]—cannot be retroactively transformed into incipient egalitarianism and celebration of diversity.[47]

There was similar disdain for Asians. State and federal laws excluded them from citizenship, and as late as 1914 the Supreme Court ruled that the states could deny naturalization to Asians. Nor was the urge to exclude Asians limited to conservatives. At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese on the grounds that America already had problems enough with Negroes.[48]

Samuel Gompers, the most famous labor leader in American history, fought to improve the lives of working people, but Whites were his first priority[49]:

It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”

The ban on Chinese immigration and naturalization continued until 1943, when Congress established a Chinese immigration quota—of 105 people a year.[50]

Even if we restrict the field to American Presidents—a group notoriously disinclined to say anything controversial—we find that Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s thinking of race continued well into the modern era.

James Garfield wrote[51],

[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.

Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1901 that he had “not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent.”[52] As for Indians, he once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the health of the tenth.”[53]

William Howard Taft once told a group of Black college students, “Your race is adapted to be a race of farmers, first, last, and for all times.”[54]

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as President of Princeton he refused to admit Blacks. He enforced segregation in government offices[55] and favored exclusion of Asians: “We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race… . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”[56]

Warren Harding wanted the races separate: “Men of both races [Black and White] may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. This is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing a fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference. Racial amalgamation there cannot be.”[57]

In 1921, Vice President-elect Calvin Coolidge wrote in Good Housekeeping about the basis for sound immigration policy[58]:

There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend…. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

Harry Truman wrote: “I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.” He also referred to the Blacks on the White House staff as “an army of coons.”[59]

As recent a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant Blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality “or that a Negro should court my daughter.”[60] It is only with John Kennedy that we finally find a president whose conception of race begins to be acceptable by today’s standards.

Today’s egalitarians are therefore radical dissenters from traditional American thinking. A conception of America as a nation of people with common values, culture, and heritage is far more faithful to vision of the founders.


  1. Speaking at an “Iowans for Tax Relief” event in January, 2011, Rep. Bachmann claimed, “It didn’t matter the color of their skin, it didn’t matter their language, it didn’t matter their economic status. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn’t that remarkable?” Taking up the slavery issue, Bachmann continued, “We also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” She would later defend her position when questioned by journalists. Bachmann’s speech can be viewed here. Glenn Beck has been equally enamored with historical revisionism. Throughout his “Founding Fathers’ Fridays” series on his (now discontinued) television program, Beck featured speakers who theorized that “American history can be described as one long Civil Rights struggle” and who told tales of the indispensable contributions of Blacks to the Revolutionary War as well as racially mixed churches in 18th-century. Episodes can viewed here. Bachmann and Beck are representative of a broader tendency among conservatives. For instance, in 2011, Tennessee Tea Party activists demanded that public schools teach children that the Founders “brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody—not all equally instantly.” See “The Commercial Appeal,” 13 January 2011.  ↩
  2. Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 142.  ↩
  3. Ibid, p. 128.  ↩
  4. “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson.  ↩
  5. Ibid.; quoted in Nash and Weiss, The Great Fear, p. 24.  ↩
  6. Papers of Jefferson, Vol. IX, p. 218; quoted in Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, p.86.  ↩
  7. Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. X, p. 296; quoted in Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, p. 92.  ↩
  8. “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Thomas Jefferson: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1984), pp. 264–65.  ↩
  9. Letter from James Madison to Robert J. Evans, June 15, 1819, Writings 8:439–47.  ↩
  10. Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, pp. 105–107.  ↩
  11. Franklin, “Observations Concerning the Increase in Mankind,” (1751).  ↩
  12. “Observations on the Constitution Proposed by the Federal Convention,” No. 8, by “Fabius” (John Dickinson).  ↩
  13. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, p. 38.  ↩
  14. Quoted in Brimelow, Alien Nation, p. xii.  ↩
  15. Quoted Grant and Davison, The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens, p. 52.  ↩
  16. Quoted in Wattenberg and Buchanan, “Immigration.”  ↩
  17. Annals of Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. “History of Congress.” 42 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834–56. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s15.html  ↩
  18. Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 128.  ↩
  19. Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 90. This count was reported by the three leading anti-slavery newspapers of the period.  ↩
  20. Ibid., pp. 59, 83.  ↩
  21. Ibid., pp. 87–91.  ↩
  22. Quoted in Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, p. 115.  ↩
  23. Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 133.  ↩
  24. Ibid., p. 132.  ↩
  25. Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 57.  ↩
  26. Ibid., p. 2.  ↩
  27. Ibid., p. 11.  ↩
  28. Legal opposition to miscegenation lasted many years. In 1967, when the Supreme Court finally ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 16 states still had them on the books. The laws were only sporadically enforced, but state legislatures were unwilling to rescind them.  ↩
  29. Ibid., p. 139.  ↩
  30. Earle, Jacksonian Antislavery and the Politics of Free Soil, 1824–1854, pp. 138–39.  ↩
  31. Keyssar, The Right to Vote, p. 55.  ↩
  32. Peter Prengaman, “Oregon’s Racist Language Faces Vote,” Associated Press, Sept. 27, 2002.  ↩
  33. Full text of the decision is available here  ↩
  34. Ginsberg and Eichner, Troublesome Presence, p. ix.  ↩
  35. See Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, pp. 235–236.  ↩
  36. Holzer, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 54f.  ↩
  37. See, for instance, Lincoln’s 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune: “[\M]\y paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Available online here  ↩
  38. For the full text of the address is available here  ↩
  39. Holzer, Lincoln President-Elect, p. 429.  ↩
  40. Escott, What Shall We Do With the Negro?, p. 55.  ↩
  41. Ibid., pp. 206–211.  ↩
  42. Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 217.  ↩
  43. Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Colored Men,” quoted in Wilson Moses, Classical Black Nationalism, p. 211.  ↩
  44. Weyl and Marina,* American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro*, p. 227.  ↩
  45. Keyssar, The Right to Vote, p. 165.  ↩
  46. Mark Twain, “The Noble Red Man,” The Galaxy, Sept. 1870.  ↩
  47. Ichioka, The Issei, pp. 211ff.  ↩
  48. Ibid., pp. 293–6.  ↩
  49. Samuel Gompers & Heran Gutstadt, “Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism,” quoted in Joshi, Documents of American Prejudice, pp. 436–438.  ↩
  50. Lutton, The Myth of Open Borders, p. 26.  ↩
  51. Quoted in Frederickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, p. 185.  ↩
  52. Quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 317.  ↩
  53. Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West; quoted in Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” p. 142.  ↩
  54. Quoted in Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” p. 142.  ↩
  55. Letter to Oswald Garrison Villard, Nov. 11, 1913; quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 336.  ↩
  56. Quoted in Robert Fikes, “Racist Quotes From Persons of Note, Part II,” p. 1  ↩
  57. New York Times, October 27, 1921; quoted in Lewis H. Carlson & George Colburn, In Their Place, p. 94.  ↩
  58. Calvin Coolidge, “Whose Country is This?” Good Housekeeping, February 1921, p. 13.  ↩
  59. Rick Hampson, “Private Letters Reveal Truman’s Racist Attitudes,” Washington Times, Oct. 25, 1991.  ↩
  60. Quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 365.  ↩

Know Your Enemy and Kill Them

Image result for cuck

Look at this thing, his low T female voice is disgusting as he supposedly a male. These leftist are very easy to pick out in a line up when the times comes to exterminate them from the planet. They all have similar fagerty voices, they all virtue signal, they are ALL weak and pathetic, wiping them from the gene pool would be a blessing from our lord kek. The bald head with the full beard, hipster clothing, ASK him if he knows the eternal 14 words, he will not, a swift death for he and his offspring, his woman to the whore house. Cleanse the weak, exterminate the Marxist, burn the non-white world, take back what is yours by birth alone.

Image result for cuck

might makes right!

ALL ELSE IS ERROR

The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a
warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A
condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into perpetual
conflict. It is our inheritance, even as it was the heritage of previous
generations. This ‘condition of combat’ may be disguised with the
holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft deceitful doctrines of a
Kropotkin or Tolstoi, but it cannot be eventually evaded by any
human being or any tribe of human beings. It is there and it stays
there, and each man (whether he will or not) has to reckon with it.
It rules all things; it governs all things; it reigns over all things and
it decides all who imagine policemanized populations,
internationally regulated tranquillity, and State organized
industrialism so joyful, blessed and divine.

Image result for cuck

See those eyes? see where the cuck places his hand? (both are cucks) The way he positions his lips while another man whispers in his ear, the cuck betrays himself simply by his gestures, his everyday behaviors, each a tale-tale sign of his inner corruption, the lack of a human soul.

Related image

Related image

Might Makes RIGHT!

All ethics, politics and philosophies are pure assumptions,
built upon assumptions. They rest on no sure basis. They are but
shadowy castles-in-the-air erected by day-dreamers, or by rogues,
upon nursery fables. It is time they were firmly planted upon an
enduring foundation. This can never be accomplished until the
racial mind has first been thoroughly cleansed and drastically
disinfected of its depraved, alien, and demoralizing concepts of
right and wrong. In no human brain can sufficient space be found,
for the relentless logic of hard fact, until all pre-existent delusions
have been finally annihilated. Half measures are of no avail, we
must go down to the very roots and tear them out, even to the last
fibre. We must be, like nature, hard, cruel, relentless.

Too long the dead hand has been permitted to sterilize living
thought— too long, right and wrong, good and evil, have been
inverted by false prophets. In the days that are at hand, neither
creed nor code must be accepted upon authority, human,
superhuman or ‘divine.’ (Morality and conventionalism are for
subordinates.) Religions and constitutions and all arbitrary
principles, every mortal theorem, must be deliberately put to the
question. No moral dogma must be taken for granted — no standard
of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about
moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are all the
work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy.

He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of
great understanding, for belief in one false principle, is the
beginning of all. unwisdom. The chief duty of every new age is to
up-raise new men to determine its liberties, to lead it towards
material success — to rend (as it were) the rusty padlocks and chains
of dead custom that always prevent healthy expansion. Theories
and ideals and constitutions, that may have meant life and hope,
and freedom, for our ancestors, may now mean destruction, slavery
and dishonor to us. As environments change, no human ideal can
standeth sure.

Exterminate the WEAK CUCK.

Image result for cuck

There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience,
when his life, his liberty, and his property are threatened by
footpad, assassins or statesman.

:

“Society works because its members are prepared to ‘take hits for the team’. For the past 50 years, men have been expected to take all the hits while women take none. Men do all the most dangerous jobs, get shafted in no-fault divorce settlements, are arbitrarily imprisoned in pseudo-correctional rape factories, have little control over their reproductive labour, live shorter and less healthy lives, are far more prone to suicide and homelessness – yet Anglo-American society still expects them to ‘man up’ and take all the hits while giving nothing back in return.

Why is America so Receptive to Male Dissidence?

Relampago Furioso deftly describes the situation in words fit for the ages:

Traditionally, for our peaceful participation in society and going along with its schemes, men have been awarded control and decision-making status over women, family and society. This has been loosely defined as a social contract in civilized societies from Greece and Rome to present day Western society. The crucial part of this “social contract” that statists are so fond of referring to, was that for participating in society, being subjected to its legal demands, and supporting it, men received certain incentives. These incentives include:

  • Culturally and legally enforced female monogamy
  • Guaranteed paternity
  • Decision making authority as the head of the household
  • Exclusive sexual access to a wife, i.e. a virgin bride
  • As house-band (husband) culturally and legally enforced obligation for wives to remain in the relationship (i.e. no flightiness or “finding herself”)
  • Culturally and legally enforced responsibility for women to be good mothers
  • As defined in the Christian bible, the responsibility of a woman to respect and obey her husband

In exchange for these accommodations, men were expected to give their lives and their labor for the protection and benefit of their wives, families, and communities. However, since feminism the incentives for men to go along with the deal have been removed, while the demands for men to sacrifice their lives and their labor for the benefit of society have increased.

Image result for black sun

Might Makes RIGHT!

Human rights and wrongs are not determined by Justice, but
by Might. Disguise it as you may, the naked sword is still king-
maker and king-breaker, as of yore. All other theories are lies and —
lures.

Therefore! If you would conquer wealth and honor, power
and fame, you must be practical, grim, cool, and merciless. You
must ride to success (by preference) over the necks of your foemen.
Their defeat is your strength. Their downfall is your uplifting. Only
the powerful can be free, and Power is non-moral. Life is real, life
is earnest, and neither heaven nor hell its final goal. And love, and
joy, and birth, and death, and fate, and strife, shall be forever.

This earth is a vast whirl of warring atoms — a veritable
revolving cock-pit. Each molecule, each animal, fights for its life.
you must fight for yours, or surrender. Look well to it, therefore,
that your beaks and spurs, your fangs and claws are as sharp as
steel, and as effective as science can make them.

Though, the survival of the strongest is the logic of events,
yet personal cowardice is the great vice of our demoralized age.
Cowardice is corroding the brain and blood of our race, but men
have learnt to disguise this terrible infirmity, behind the canting
whine of ‘humanity’ and ‘goodness.’ Words flow instead of blood,
and terrible insults are exchanged, instead of terrible blows.

Image result for cuck

The weak, pathetic, virtue signaling, degenerate beta white male, the traitorous kin who open the gates of our civilization to the enemy, who betray their ancestors for their own emotional weakness. They must be wiped from the gene-pool for their own good. Give them what is truly in their heart, a dying wish to see their own end, for they hate themselves and their own existence, dispatch them from this world, take no pity upon these animals.

Might Makes RIght!

Is the Golden Rule a rational rule?— Is it not rather a menial
rule — a coward rule — a best-policy rule? Why is it ‘right’ for one
man to do unto others as he would have others do to him and, what
is right? If ‘others’ are unable to injure him or ‘do good’ to him,
why should he consider them at all? Why should he take any more
notice of them than of so many worms? If they are endeavoring to
injure him and able to do it, why should he refrain from returning
the compliment? Should he not combat them, does not that give
them carte-blanche to injure and destroy him? May it not be ‘doing
good’ to others, to war against them, to annihilate them? May it not,
also, be ‘good’ for them to war against others? (Again, what is
‘good?’)

Is it reasonable to ask preying animals to do unto others as
they would be done by? If they acted accordingly, would they,
could they survive? If some only accepted the Golden Rule as their
guiding moral maxim, would they not become a prey to those who
refuse to abide thereby?

Upon what reasonable and abiding sanction does this ‘Rule’
rest? — Has it ever been in actual operation among men? — Can it
ever be successfully practiced on earth— or anywhere else?

“Love one another” you say is the supreme law, but what
power made it so? — Upon what rational authority does the Gospel
of Love rest? — Is it even possible to practice, and what would
result from its universal application to active affairs? Why should I
not hate mine enemies, and hunt them down like the wild beasts
that they are? I ask again, why? If I ‘love’ them, does that not place
me at their mercy? Is it natural for enemies to ‘do good’ unto each
other and, what is ‘good?’ Can the torn and bloody victim ‘love’ the
blood-splashed jaws that rend it limb from limb? Are we not all
predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from
preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?

“Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and
despitefully use you” is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel
that rolls upon its back when kicked. Obey it, O! Reader and you
and all your posterity to the tenth generation shall be irretrievably
and literally damned.

This Weakness in the west must be eliminated, white men must be men of iron, men of courage, men of strength, men who have the will to do what MUST be done to save our race, and exterminate the enemy.

I LEAVE YOU WITH THIS:

From: http://thesavagelifestyle.com/hatred-greatest-motivator/

Fill Your Hearts With Hate

Some may say it is time to love.  To this I agree.  But what value is your love if you do not HATE also it’s antithesis?  To that which you love,  what ends would you go in protecting it?  What vast stretches of terrain would you cross and what number of menacing tormentors would you slaughter to secure your love’s safety?  How many would you kill modern male?  If I say that I love someone, would I not hate anything attempting to harm them?  If I did not furiously hate and viciously attack anything which threatens the object of my love, what value then is my love?

Love is important and it can be very powerful.  But what we need more of is not love, but HATE.  Hatred is one of the most powerful motivators that any man can ever possess.  Love may fill you with warm fuzzies and cause the sunset to seem all pretty and shit.  Yet hatred will bear you across the darkest waters, scale you over the most treacherous peaks and like a demon out of hell propel you into the farthest corners of the earth.  Just to find the last mother fucker who ever wronged you and yours.

To savor that final moment, watching helpless eyes go dead when you triumphantly choke the fucking life out of them.

Yes modern male.  Embrace your HATRED!  If you feel disgust towards the weak and you are repulsed by the crude.  Do not try and smother the flames of a beautiful hatred.  No.  You must hate so ferociously!  Hatred is like rocket fuel for motivation.  You need enemies.  Show me a man with no enemies and I will show you a weak man.  Only the strong have enemies.  Only the strong have the right to hate.

Is there blood in you that boils so hot?  Are there flames of the purest hatred kindled in your smoldering heart?  Feel it’s power my friends.  Experience the rush of anger enliven your entire body with incomprehensible energy.   A quickening that surges through your being limitless and electric.

There is a dragon in there you see.  That ancient terror your ancestors knew.

Do you know exactly what fills you up with the most powerful hate?  If not I would say that you also don’t know what it means to love deeply.

By embracing your hatred, you galvanize yourself against anything that would oppose or harm that which you love most deeply.

Give Them The World They’ve Asked For

What is going on these days in the hearts of the crass if not the abject clamor for ultimate judgement to be brought down on their deserving heads?  They know somewhere in that infected brain they only exist because of the productivity and misguided benevolence of others.  They must project their self hatred and inner loathing onto you.  Allow this to fuel your hatred for the weak.

Welcome the flames that rise in a heart longing for Beauty, Truth and Justice. 

Likewise when the repugnant and degenerate hate you it is surely a glorious victory.  When the seething masses point their piss weak fingers, do not hide.  With fury, with hatred, allow the boiling blood of your ancestors to rise like fire and rain hell on all of your fated foes.

While the Dragon sleeps, feed him slowly in boiling blood and swirling Hatred.  Never forgetting.  Dreaming deep and slumbering furious under crimson lakes.  Awaiting the day he will sleep no longer.  When terror and horror grip the feeble hearts of the doomed and stupid.  When you shall give to a pathetic world, every last fucking wish it begged for.  Indeed the modern world has asked for Savage Men.  We will give it to them!

The righteous breath of fire to incinerate for once and all entitled rats nipping away at your heels.

Yes!  May all the Sleeping Dragons rise. 

May the weak tremble and the earth shake. 

For Judgement is surely coming!

Woe Unto The Weak

The Sun has set upon the west.  The night is creeping in.  Let the howling at the moon begin.

Close your eyes and look inside.  Gaze into the dark within.  Peer into the murky mists where demons lurk and phantoms hide.

Can you, can you see?  Into the darkest side of thee?

A river of blood rushes proud through time.  Running hot inside your flesh.  Red pools surge with vitality.  Carrying on it’s wake all the sorrows and triumphs of your ancestors.  Feel their blood inside of you.  Hear them call out from the depths.  You have been terribly wronged modern male.  Hear the cries of thousands of years rage within you.  Endless tears of anguish and fretful sorrows carried through time and flesh.  The hopes and dreams of the honored dead.  Longing for a hero to rise with your blood and name.  All their desperate pleas for retribution.  Their voices rise like heat waves within your boiling rivers.  Lighting a fire so terribly hot inside.

Vengeance is yours to take!

Sense the Dragon stir so restless.  The collected rage of a thousand years and ten thousand sorrows.

Fumes are spitting through nostrils heated.

Crown yourself atop the vanquished seated.

Avenger of the blood so needed.

That blood that runs inside of you is the vigorous life of your entire line.  Never forget.

How hard is your hate? 

How deep is your love? 

How far are you wiling to go?

 

Become a Savage

Destroy weakness. Conquer everything.

 

https://infocus247.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/black-sun.jpg?w=1200

Embrace Your Destiny and Live

Look into the deepest void of your soul and you will see that I am right.

The fire rises.

 

Why We Don’t Care

Why We Don’t Care

Obama and Trayvon Martin

The saying goes that generals fight the last war. Obama, and his allies, politically are stuck in the 1960s. Everything for them, is Bull Connor setting police dogs and hoses on peaceful Black civil rights marchers, live on the three networks! But like the Nazi army in late 1942, they seem headed for failure. Not because of the brilliance of their enemies, but because of the fatal but unseen flaws in their own organization.

For the German Army, it was the lack of any real ability to logistically support a mechanized army in the field for any considerable distance. THAT was the reason Adolf Hitler ultimately failed. He inherited a magnificent military machine, whose NCOs to General Staff were superb.

Obama has seemingly fixated on the sad case of a Mestizo man, born to a Peruvian mother, and adopted by a Jewish man in Florida, who shot a 17 year old Black boy in a town near Orlando Florida, in what police ruled self-defense. Latinos are on notice, when they get into conflicts with Blacks, they are “White” (which is to say, automatically guilty). The media is in a 24/7 Trayvon Martin frenzy, with old photos of Martin from age 12-13, not his more recent Facebook photos flashing gang signs, and old photos of George Zimmerman age 20, looking like a fat thug, not a leaner guy in a suit and tie. The media frenzy is to whip up Black violence, for its own sake, to intimidate and create fear among Whites, as emotional payback, and also to create an image of 1965 and Bull Connor. A failed attempt if ever there was one. President Barack Dinkins? Crown Heights?

Yes, that event is coming, somewhere, to a city near you.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail is full of stories about brutal Black criminals. In the case of the prior link, one Tyrone Woodfork, brutally raping and beating to death 86 year old Nancy Strait, and critically injuring her 90 year old husband Bob, a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge as a member of the 101st Airborne. Then there is the case the Daily Mail also reported on, two British tourists murdered in Sarasota Florida by a Black thug named Shawn Tyson.

Floating around the internet is the 2009 case of the 15 year old White boy set on fire in Deerfield Beach Florida, and the 13 year old White boy set on fire in Kansas City several weeks ago. Both were set on fire by Black “youths” as the links make clear (photos at the link of the accused). The boy in Florida nearly died, has massive burns, and faces a life with heart and kidney problems, as well as being permanently disfigured.

There is the “I will Kill the F*** out of you” video at the Daily Mail link here.

What is notable in the video are two things, which every thoughtful observer will have flagged immediately. First, the Black students are smirking and laughing, because they agree and endorse the sentiments of the Black woman having a melt-down, threatening her White Professor and White fellow students. Secondly, the angry passivity of the White students who have FEAR. FEAR of being the one charged, if they talk back to “fighting words,” FEAR if they retaliate for being shoved. FEAR of the entire legal and social system coming down upon them if they do anything but stare off into space with stony silence.

Such social FEAR is only really sustainable when good times are rolling. If money, and the things it brings comes in, people will put up with it. If not, they won’t. FEAR eventually turns into even more FEAR. The White students are not convinced of the holy goodness of all Black people. Merely reacting in FEAR to a physical threat backed up by a social system that takes the side of the aggressor and punishes them. That is not a healthy way to build society.

Now, the Daily Mail is in the business of delivering viewers to advertisers. It is the #1 Newspaper site according to comScore, surpassing the New York Times. The online edition (there is a special US version) appeals to Blue collar White women, offering celebrity gossip that takes the celebs down a peg or two, all sorts of true crime stories, unlike the US media clearly identifying Black suspects, and lifestyle stuff. Drudge Report does much the same, often linking to Daily Mail Online. Blue collar White women like the straight scoop on crime. After all, unlike their White collar sisters, they can’t escape it. They don’t live in gated communities, or security buildings. The Mail has plenty of White criminals featured (because their readers like reading about it), but does not shy away from portraying the reality of crime (mostly Black criminals in the US). As depressing as that may be for those searching for the Bonfire of the Vanities “Great White Defendant” or Law and Order re-runs.

White people are stuck. They cannot unlike say, those living in Detroit in the 1960′s, simply move. The housing market is down, people are underwater or nearly so in their mortgages, lenders are giving mortgages to only the best credit holders, and income and wages are down as prices go up. White flight is simply not possible in today’s economic environment.

Meanwhile, the White guilt such as it is, no longer exists. Bull Connor was nearly 50 years ago. Nobody cares anymore. The Civil Rights era is as distant to us as the end of WWI (47 years) was to the Civil Rights Era. No one in 1967 was really concerned with the fallout of the end of the Great War. No one today really cares, about the Edmund Pettis Bridge either. Too many OTHER things have happened since. The media blitzkrieg to replay the 1960′s civil rights movement is as doomed as the German occupation of Stalingrad or Rommel in North Africa in 1943.

Moreover, White people are reminded every day, that they will soon be (discriminated against) minorities in their own country. That’s entirely different from the carefully orchestrated story of peaceful, respectable Civil Rights marchers being beaten by Bull Connor. A population soon to be a minority, and one that will be second or third class at best, does not have a lot of give when it comes to attempts to bully and threaten.

But the most important difference between today and 1965, is the knowledge, the more powerful because it is seen only on the Daily Mail, and the internet (often in raw video from World Star Hip Hop), that Black on White violence is extensive and threatening. THAT is the problem Obama and company face in their own Stalingrad.

Martin Luther King Jr. did not merely choose non-violence because he was filled with moral goodness as a cardboard Jesus. To suggest that takes away from the man’s political genius and legacy as a political figure with no equal in the modern era. Rather, King knew that Whites would hunker down and fight, as they had when a decent, and good man, Homer Plessy challenged Segregation in the Supreme Court three generations prior, and lost. King leveraged the divisions between wealthy and middle class Northerners and Westerners, who lived nowhere near Blacks, and those of the “wrong sort of White people” among blue collar Catholic ethnics (Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, and Hungarians mainly) and Protestant Hillbillies who did live near them. King understood the Northern, elite Whites, having rubbed shoulders with them at Boston University. Non-violence was a political ploy, as a minority population sought acceptance through adherence to non-threatening behavior. No matter how gratifying intimidation and thuggery might be on an emotional level. Had King embraced violence and intimidation, as Malcolm X argued for, even the Northern and Western Whites who loathed the “wrong sort” of White people — ethnic Catholics (think Rick Santorum and how the elite react to HIM) and “hillbillies” (think the disdain for Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears) — would have opposed Civil Rights.

King used non-violence as political judo. It does not always work. But in that case, it did. Fighting a majority population with violence rarely works out well. Ask the Tamil Tigers, they fought harder and more ruthlessly than any. They still lost.

In King’s time, rising income, a robust property market, and a need to socially distinguish one’s self from “the wrong sort of White person” led to inexorably, a larger elite system with many, many hangers-on and those aspiring to that status. King’s political Judo worked, not the least of which was the social class of “Semi-New Englanders” or Post-Puritans or Semi-Scandinavians (the Puritans nearly all came from the Danelaw, as David Hackett Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed” makes clear, and carried with them very Nordic cultural assumptions about well, everything) grew substantially. While those on the receiving end of Black violence shrunk. It was just so easy to sell out, leave historic neighborhoods, and move to the safe, NEW suburbs.

White Flight was the key component of the Civil Rights movement, as much as non-violence. White Flight not only helped create new “semi-elites” who felt “the wrong sort of White person” was the only one concerned about Black violence, it created therein a “virtuous circle” wherein more and more Whites moved to the suburbs. All predicated on cheap gas, easy credit, and booming markets in property.

However, King did not properly explain this political reality to Black leaders and more importantly, the people themselves. The ethnic cleansing of Detroit, 29% Black in 1960, 45% Black in 1970, 89% Black today, may have been satisfying and gained political control of the city, but produced no measurable increase in wealth among Blacks other than a few leaders, and permanent dependency upon the larger White population of the State and the US at large.

Black people are indeed angry. Angry that they have not attained financial success as they have embraced thuggery and ethnic cleansing of Whites out of their historic cities (Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, Gary Indiana, to name a few). Not understanding that is one thing to chase people away with violence, another to create wealth. Like the Visigoths and Vandals before them, futilely trying to emulate the Rome they destroyed, Black populations in cities they control are angry that Black control has not meant Black wealth. Other than what can be extorted in the Chicago model, from surrounding White areas.

The anger is however, counter-productive. The images on TV and newspapers of angry, threatening Black crowds angry and “out for justice” (implication violence), with Louis Farrakhan offering a bounty, and Jessie Jackson saying “Blacks are under attack” (they are, from other Blacks) It certainly is emotionally satisfying, to threaten and intimidate. That is why people do it, making people afraid of you creates the feeling of power.

Certainly, when Delrick Miller IV was shot in his home, at age 9 months, in Detroit, by AK-47 wielding attackers, no one cared. There was a fight, among the all-Black attendees at a baby shower. Two women felt offended they could not get seats:

”A woman got mad because she couldn’t find a seat, so she started knocking tables down, and it escalated from there,” Wilkins said. “My daughter and her friends left the club, but (a group of men and women) followed them to a gas station, and there was a fight with one of the guys who was at the shower with my daughter. Then, they followed them to the house.

“I think they came back the next day and shot up the house,” said Wilkins, who sobbed as she recounted the events. “They went to the shower to celebrate life; instead, a life was destroyed.”

Who kills a 9 month baby over a fight about seats at a baby shower? Who fights over seats at a baby shower anyway?

Where was Louis Farrakhan then? Or Jessie Jackson? Or Al Sharpton? No one cared. Because it was business as usual. The price of intimidating and scaring Whites, is Black on Black violence. So far, the Black community has not only tolerated it, but protected it. Since any reasonable measure to stop it: stop and frisk of Black men, imprisoning gang members, is resisted tooth and nail by Black leaders and Black voters. Obama did not comment on the murder of Delric Miller IV. Al Sharpton did not fly to Detroit to threaten the killers. Louis Farrakhan did not put out a bounty on the killers. The most innocent of all — a nine month old baby! And the reaction was … nothing.

No one among Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, and yes Barack Obama and the media really cares about Trayvon Martin. Any more than they cared about Delrick Miller IV. They just want to flex their political muscle and intimidate (mostly White) people as a reflexive response. It is so ingrained it is instinctual. The aim is to over-turn gun laws, and “stand your ground” so that there is no possibility of defense, as Whites are stuck in place, against young thuggish Black men. That is the whole purpose of the exercise, in the short term. Just as Hitler ordered Von Rundstedt to stand his ground in Stalingrad, eager to hold and destroy the city named for the man he hated the most. [Who in fact resembled him in a number of ways, and before Operation Barbarossa counted Hitler as a friend. Oddly enough.]

Long term, Obama and company want riots and violence and cities burning. This he thinks will win him votes, as this has been successful in Chicago for decades. Pay to make the mob go away. Again, with Whites in place, stuck, that just guarantees a fight. Probably as an ultimate back-up plan, Obama wants violence so he can if he loses the election, institute Martial Law and rule by decree. His recent executive order allowing him to seize basically anything including newspapers, radio, TV, and the internet is part of that ultimate back-up plan.

Unlike Bill Clinton, who stole everything that was not nailed down (particularly the corrupt deal with Haiti Teleco involving Joseph Kennedy and Bill Clinton), Obama did not steal wisely. Clinton made sure to involve not just Republicans, but Republican interest groups in corrupt deals. That’s why Bill Clinton did not spend a day in jail, and only lost his law license, not the Presidency. Unlike Bill Clinton, Obama has not kept the good times rolling either, for many in the elites and the people as a whole. As far as corrupt Presidency models go, the Arkansas version was better than the Chicago one.

Obama has made too many enemies: on Wall Street, among energy companies, among utilities, among Silicon Valley, among home builders, among mining companies, among almost everyone but a few favored cronies. That’s the downside of the Chicago Way, you make powerful enemies who know they must destroy you or be destroyed in turn. There is no easy good-time corruption ala the Arkansas model, where everyone is happy.

Ultimately, however, the idea that “evil White racists” are killing Black people is unsustainable even for the Blitzkrieg media. It just isn’t true, and people know it. David Duke lives in a trailer in Mississippi. Louis Farrakhan has a mansion bigger than Oprah’s, and with more goons too. All those threats turn off the Middle Class, White female voters who are the swing and thus the decisive votes in the 2012 elections. It is satisfying, and the default mode for Black politicians and people, to make threats and noise at the White population. For decades it has been rewarded. Going national makes pretty much every White homeowner, renter, and everyone else stuck in place, unable to flee, ready to fight.

Indeed, rising gas prices threaten the fundamental basis for American social peace: Blacks would have a free hand in self-ruled cities that they ethnically cleansed (White flight was flight because Whites FEARED Blacks not because they hated them). Meanwhile Whites would live as far away as possible from them, while refraining from mentioning Black dysfunction and economic failure and dependency (upon White wealth transfers). Being unwilling to rock the boat of rising income, later rising credit replacing income, and cheap electronic toys. Whites do not HATE Blacks, they’d hardly have endorsed decades of fictional Black Presidents on TV and in movies, made a billionaire of Oprah, every White woman’s imaginary Black Best Friend(tm Whiskey), or consumed Rap and the NBA, NFL, obsessively. Again that is why David Duke lives in a trailer in Mississippi. There is no money in White hate for Blacks. There certainly is for Black hate for Whites: look at Sharpton’s mansion, or Louis Farrakhan’s which is bigger than Oprah’s with more goons.

This is why Trayvon Martin is Obama’s Stalingrad. He’s fighting the last war, with the tools used two and a half generations ago. White people are not consumed with hatred for Black people. Rather, they FEAR them. Almost no one speaks this openly, but the taboo can be broken,and fairly rapidly. The internet, as an entry into the nation’s id, is a scary place. It is quite likely Obama will get his own Crown Heights, as Mayor Dinkins did in New York City. The result was not a coronation of his reign, but un-interrupted Republican (and semi-Republican in the case of Nanny Bloomberg) rule ever since. Even Upper East Siders finding the Black Panthers scary-fun thrills, don’t like property values crashing due to race-riots.

Ultimately Hitler failed because he failed to understand one simple truth. His magnificent military machine could not supply food, fuel, ammunition, and clothing to his men more than a few hundred miles before the supply line collapsed. When German forces got to Greece, they descended like starving locusts, because they were in fact, starving. The German army was not capable of even providing them with food!

Obama and his media allies, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and the like, enter this Trayvon Martin conflict, hampered by the lack of understanding that they cannot control the alternative media, that Whites are not bigoted but fearful (rationally so) of Black crime, and that White flight is simply impossible in today’s economy.

After all, what did Tyrone Woodfork get for raping and beating to death an elderly White woman, and (all likelihood given his age) killing her husband? A beat-up old car, 12 years old, and a few things ransacked from the house. The killer of the two British tourists got nothing — he killed them because they had no money to rob. That sort of crime is not only stupid, it is senseless. The killers were soon caught. Cold comfort to survivors and the victims.

Whitey Bulger may have been responsible, over his criminal career, for more than fifty deaths. But those sorts of White criminals, by and large don’t commit random crimes informed more by racial hatred, or sheer stupidity, than anything else. Nothing like the murder of the Straits, or Delric Miller IV, can be laid to his doorstep. No money in it, and the risk too high. He quite likely is a monster, but one society can survive, because that kind of monster does not kill 9 month old babies sleeping in their homes because there were not enough seats at a baby shower. Nor do they kill robbery victims because they had no cash. Nor set teen boys on fire for sheer racial hatred. Nor rape, rob, and murder elderly couples for a few bucks and an old car.

White swing voters cannot be made to care about Trayvon Martin, because they are scared, for the most part, even if they won’t admit it in public. Too much push and they’ll start admitting it. Too much reflexive intimidation, in the Chicago Way, and they’ll push back. Obama might plan a Self-Coup, but he’ll find if he goes that route, he’s no Fujimori.

I Didn’t Ask For It

I didn’t ask for social security. Never asked for medicare. The thought of welfare never crossed my mind even in my poorest days. I never asked for an interstate highway system. Or for air traffic controllers. Never wanted a standing army. Or the FBI. CIA. Or any of those three letter agencies that were formed before I was even born.

The Department of Energy came to be when I was a toddler. The DHS when I was a young man with babies of my own. I watched those planes crash into the twin towers on live TV, but I never thought a DHS was the logical outcome from that event. Or the “Patriot” Act. I was never consulted. Never asked for my consent. Yet the majority of Americans expect me to fork over my hard earned money for these things, and many others which I never asked for or benefited from in any big way.

Yet they will look me straight in the eye and tell me I live in the land of the free. I do not live in the land of the free, I live in the land of the FEE. Money is extorted from me for things I don’t want, need, or use. Things which I find abhorrent. Things I have absolutely no use or desire for. But I am labelled “unpatriotic” because I don’t want to fork over my money for things I don’t want or need. I can be imprisoned for “failing” to fork over that money for things I don’t want or need.

I’ve said this many times over, in different ways. None of them effective. This will no doubt be equally ineffective. I will be attacked by people telling me I “benefit” from these things and should just shut the fuck up and pay. Really? I should pay for wars which I do not support? I should pay for an interstate highway system I can’t afford to use? I should pay for strangers’ retirement and healthcare? I should pay for groceries for crack whores and their tribe of illegitimate crack babies? I should subsidize failed businesses? I should give foreign aid to people half way across the globe who would sooner kill me than spit in my face? I should pay for “minorities” to go to school to take the jobs denied me due to “affirmative action?” I should subsidize products I neither use or want? I could go on…

I never asked for any of this, yet I am expected to pay for it. I am forced to pay for it. In the land of the free fee. Well I pledge no allegiance to a batch of thieves. The flag is an abomination now. Amerika ™ bears no resemblance to the land of promise and Freedom it once was. It was long gone well before my Grandparents were born. So I’m supposed to be financially responsible for idiotic decisions made decades before my birth? I’m supposed to pass these travesties on to my children? I don’t fuckin’ think so…