Learning from Donald Trump

1,676 words

Having a Mencken-like disdain for America’s ruling class, I would like to put forward what I have entitled Quintilian’s Postulate 1: conservatives are stupid and lack courage; liberals are stupid and lack self-awareness. Donald Trump is a unique politician, I believe, because he possesses both courage and self-awareness.

This is a most heterodox view, and I can already hear the fluid-gendered leftists swooning on their Victorian fainting couches while Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio leave the foam party at the South Beach Disco long enough to go on MSNBC to denounce my lack of “core conservative principles” —or should I say (((core conservative principles))).

Furthermore, contrary to popular view, I believe that the 2016 presidential election was easy to prognosticate, and this could have been accomplished by anyone if they had taken the time to look at the data and analyze it in an objective and dispassionate frame of mind. Back when our country had a functioning educational system, objective analysis of data was commonplace. I remember a favorite history professor of mine—a committed socialist who was a delegate to the 1948 Progressive Party convention that nominated Henry Wallace as its candidate—told me in late 1975 that he thought Ronald Reagan would be the Republican Party nominee in 1980 and win in a landslide, and he laid out a scenario of events that largely came true. Now, this professor was no fan of Ronald Reagan, but he was a gifted historian who never forgot Leopold von Ranke’s admonition that history should be an objective narrative of things wie es eigentlich gewesen (as it actually happened).

Since universities have long abandoned the search for truth as their mission, and historians have long abandoned objectivity and rigorous historiography for the fill-in-the-blank laziness of ideology and theory, it is not surprising that Democrats were unable to see the coming populist tsunami and establishment Republicans were too stupid (and continue to be too stupid) to take advantage of it. In July of 2016, journalist Salena Zito remarked that when she traveled outside of her home town of Pittsburgh, she could travel 100 miles in any direction and see hundreds of Trump signs and not one Clinton sign. She said that something is going on that is not being reported. I decided to repeat the same experiment in my state and I got the same results. In fact, in one notoriously godless-pinko college town, dozens of Jill Stein signs and a few fading Bernie signs could be seen but not one Clinton sign.

In early August, the first statewide poll for my state appeared showing Trump with a 5-point lead. This poll was conducted by a fairly reputable firm and the internals of the poll showed a fairly fair distribution of respondents (although there was still a not insignificant oversampling of Democrats). Within 12 hours, a new poll appeared showing Clinton with an 11-point lead. Curious as to the discrepancy, I noticed that the new poll was 50% composed of women over the age of 65 who had never been married. Of course, one would expect a sampling population consisting mostly of bitter, barren harridans, i.e., Hillary clones, to be favorable to Clinton. Clearly, the polls were being manipulated to produce a desired result. This is not different from ideologically-driven academic historians producing historical narratives to fit their ideologies rather than the facts.

Then a month before the election, the Podesta emails were released by Wikileaks. While much has been made of the revelations that many of Clinton’s staffers do not care for her as a person, the bizarre spirit cooking sessions, and the dubious allegations about a pizzeria-based pedophilia ring, it was astonishing of how little attention was given to the emails as a primary historical document. Here we have almost real-time documents in which Clinton’s closest aides were engaging in the rarest political activity of all: telling the truth. Many of the emails discuss polls, and it is clear that the public bravado of Clinton spokesmen was glossing over private doubts. For example, in an email dated 3/8/2016, Elan Kriegel all but admitted the cooking of the “public polls”: “Public Polls: Many people have asked about the recent public polls. The biggest difference between our surveys and the public polls is composition of the universe. Generally, the public polls assume more people of color and fewer young people will vote than we do. If this is the case, we will obviously do better, but given the recent polling we are not as confident.”

This is not difficult to figure out. The Clinton campaign knew that there were problems, but we now know that this information could not be presented to the candidate herself for fear of setting off the famous wrath of Hillary. It was not that Hillary did not understand what was going on in her campaign. It was that she refused to understand what was going on. The difference between the two modes of understanding can be boiled down to a lack of self-awareness.

From Day One of the campaign, Donald Trump was derided as an ignorant, self-indulgent political novice with a short attention span. This type of negative boilerplate is something that political consultants and pundits use to make their cosmopolitan clients happy, but it also does a disservice to the very clients they are supposed to be helping because obscuring the truth makes it impossible to win victories. This is as true in politics as it is in war.

Let’s examine the mainstream cosmopolitan critique of Trump. Trump is certainly not ignorant. Stupid people cannot create business empires nor can they sustain them. I do not like George Soros, but he is obviously intelligent. And Trump did earn several Ivy League degrees, which must stick in the craws of the pundits who are endlessly telling everyone about how over-educated they are. Likewise, Trump is hardly a political novice. You cannot have created an international real estate empire without having been intimately involved in politics. Getting a zoning change in New York City is probably a more difficult political feat than repealing and replacing Obamacare. This brings us to the canard of Trump’s alleged short attention span. This is such a ridiculous allegation that I cannot believe that it has not been challenged until now. Trump has achieved phenomenal success in a field that requires an enormous amount of long-term thinking. Planning, securing financing and zoning variances, advertising, maintenance, and determining future viability of real estate is something that requires enormous amounts of long-term thinking. The construction of buildings also requires a logical and orderly mind that must adhere to architectural protocols and rigorous scheduling. It is Trump’s cosmopolitan critics in the financial sector—who are only concerned with split-second stock sales and who have no concern for the well-being of companies beyond the current quarter—who have the short attention spans.

Why has Trump not done anything to counter the mainstream cosmopolitan critique of him as only being a political idiot savant? The answer, I believe, lies in his tremendous ability as a performer. It is not just Trump’s ease speaking before the public, his ability to move thousands with his words, that is indicative of his ability as a performer. It is his understanding that great performers make their performances appear to be effortless. Winston Churchill wrote out his extemporaneous speeches and memorized them before he delivered them in Parliament. The paper that he always clutched in his hand as a performance prop contained the text of his “improvised” speech to be glanced at if he got lost. Russian-American author Vladimir Nabokov was famous for writing out conversational banter he would use if he were invited to a party. No matter what mode of performance, great performers always make it look easy. The audience doesn’t see the technique being used, nor are they aware of the years of practice endured by great performers.

It is always a good thing to be underestimated. Your opponents become complacent and fail to take necessary precautions. Since the election of 2016, we now know that Trump had a very disciplined campaign. The small IT firm that he employed ran rings around the Google and Facebook sycophants who refused to take Trump seriously. We now know that Trump decided shortly after the 2012 election to run in 2016 and that he registered “Make America Great Again” years before it became a slogan as easily recognized as “You Deserve a Break Today.” And we also know now that Trump’s ground game was extraordinary—but the Clintonites couldn’t see what was happening because the work was being done by unpaid volunteers working in offices that were out of sight of the cosmopolitan pundits who never set foot outside of the five-star hotels in which they were staying.

In a recent rally, President Trump was remarking about the collapse of the Russian collusion narrative when he stated that the Left always overplays its hand because it “lacks subtlety.” Now it might seem a case of the pot calling the kettle black for Donald Trump to accuse the Left of lacking subtlety, but this throwaway line is the key to Trump’s political genius. Trump understands that the best way to destroy his enemies is to get them to destroy themselves. This includes both the Left and the cuckservative Right. The technique that Trump employs is consistent, simple, and effective. President Trump will goad his opponents into hysteria. The pundits decry, the Left riots, and the cuckservatives cuck. It looks bad for a news cycle or two. Then reality sets in and the cosmopolitan narrative explodes, leaving Trump stronger, his opponents weakened, and cuckservatives with testosterone levels in the negative. This happened with pussygate, it is happening with the Russian collusion fantasy, and it will happen with Charlottesville. Liberals always double down and lose, conservatives never miss a chance to act like battered wives who take back their abusive husbands, and the Alt Right should remember that we’re in the struggle for the long haul. Donald Trump isn’t the perfect politician, but we have a lot to learn from his political acumen, self-awareness, and courage.

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the “Add special instructions to seller” box at Paypal.)

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

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison:

Ben Franklin:

Charles Pickney:

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:

Oregon Constitution:

Jared Taylor – What the Founders Really Thought About Race:

Naturalization actof 1790:

United_States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923):

1924 Immigration act:

Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States:

Race and Political Views:

Fiscal Impact of Racial Groups:

What the Founders Really Thought About Race


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]


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]


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.  ↩

Multicult Insanity

Apes Rape and Murder Super Cute White SA Girl

By Phillip Marlowe

Last Friday night in South Africa, Cheslin Marsh and Hannah Cornelius were sitting in a car when 4 black males carjacked and beat them with bricks. They threw him into the car trunk and her into the backseat. After getting beaten to a pulp, suffering a broken arm and concussion, he managed to escape. The beautiful young girl was found dead the next morning several miles away — gang-raped, strangled and stabbed to death. Hannah (above) was 21 years-old and a student at the University of Stellenbosch.

Just last Tuesday, an ugly ape female worker was caught on surveillance video at a Baltimore daycare “torturing” to death, Reese Bowman, a beautiful 8 month-old White baby girl.

These blacks truly are animals. Hannah’s uncle even said: “It’s inexplicable; flippin’ animals…”

This kind of thing doesn’t just happen in SA, but everywhere these two-legged animals live near us Whites — including the USA. I don’t always write about the kinds of things that happen to Whites in foreign lands (which happens a lot). It’s not that I don’t care, just that it’s impossible when it also happens in the US on a constant basis — like the evil black crime on the right. But this SA murder really struck me because of the girl’s beauty.

This reminded me of big time blond Hollywood actress, Charleze Theron, who is also from South Africa and a major league multicult liberal (photo montage of her below). The chef at a restaurant in SA she once made a big deal about being her favorite, was brutally murdered by a black crime gang. Did she say anything? Like, hell no. None of these two-faced hypocrites dare say anything about real black behavior. What’s worse is that they try to say us Whites do this all the time. My ass. Whites are the most fair-minded and law-abiding people on the planet. That’s probably our biggest weakness.

Let me just point out the fact that blacks have zero problems committing crimes against us White people. They’ve been killing us from day-one. That’s why the term “black lives matter” is such an infuriating joke. Police know any interaction with blacks is fraught with dangers. Hell, police are killed all the time by these animals.

As America becomes more and more “niggerized” expect crimes like this to happen at an ever increasing frequency. It’s already bad enough. Just go to my WHITE VICTIMS page and scroll down for a minute or two.

Call me racist if you want, but it’s an obvious fact blacks are murderous criminals.

Notice how the mainstream media in our lands doesn’t cover such crimes. Only if a White did it. Remember when Oscar Pistorius shot his good-looking blond girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in the toilet? They covered the crap out of that trial in the US. They went on and on and on. Hell, “legal expert” Jew media boy, Dan Abrams, even went down there to cover the trial for ABC using CGI visuals to wow American audiences (he’s actually all over Jew TV since it’s all the same team).

But don’t expect the US media to breath a word about the murder of poor beautiful Hannah — blond or not. They don’t want us Whites to get it about these black animals.

I remember this ex pat lady from South Africa I once used to visit for business. She knew I was wise to the deal about the “Kafirs.” Making small talk one day, I asked her if she saw that CNN Anthony Bourdain’s show where he visited SA to sample the food. She told me she wouldn’t watch Bourdain. Although she didn’t say so out loud, I got the distinct impression she knew Bourdain was a big fat Jew boy. BTW, Bourdain openly promotes White genocide.

Lots of folks are now getting wise to the dirty Jews and their violent, ugly pets.

In fact, Marxist South African Jews and international Jew media were the primary instigators in the upending of the country and turning it over to the worthless Kafirs. The place is basically a pile of crap now, just like the rest of Africa. The place used to be the bread basket of Africa but now has to import food. Black outs and brown-outs are commonplace since the power infrastructure is so poorly maintained.

Hmmm, just like what the Jews are doing to the USA, come to think.

There is ONLY one solution…..

Its us or them. Make your choice.

Figuring Out The Big Scam Against Whites

Related image

By Phillip Marlowe

Years ago, my father was big into the new desktop computer “revolution.” They had this piece of software called “VisiCalc” — a spreadsheet program that allowed him to do this one complicated math problem for his business quickly. One day he went to a sales conference for “Revelation,” a big time SQL relational database program. Happily, he won a multi-user core copy of the very expensive (at the time) software package as the big door prize for attending.

He was stoked and put it to good use in his business. One of the things the software allowed was writing extensions, sometimes called “applets,” that attached themselves to the main core to let him run specialized reporting for his clients. Now you might not think a lot about this kind of thing these days, but at the time this was really, really big for a small business. It basically brought expensive IT power down to small operations.

I used to help dad out on a few things, but wasn’t any kind of code wizard. Sure, I could write primitive basic programs and help with a few complicated math equations for the cells in his spreadsheets. I could also install hardware and software and figure out “what went wrong.” Over the years, I met a few blacks who did piddly crap like this and they always acted like they were such big African geniuses of technology. I just smiled. All they really did was click on a few buttons on the screen and follow instructions. Like little children, blacks are so full of themselves.

To write applets my dad hired this big nerdsky White guy to write the code. One day, we were just sitting around shooting the breeze and he tells me about writing an applet for the State Police. They (including local police departments) were using the same relational database as my father for keeping track of crimes and criminals. You kind of, sort of, have to have race description fields so the “thin blue line” knows who to look for. Liberal “PC” nonsense just doesn’t cut the mustard when the rubber meets the road.

This was at a time when 20 MEGAbyte hard drives cost a small fortune and communication was via primitive “dial-up” 3600 baud modems, with basic AOL email functions (I had the second address using my common name). It was only a few years or so after the hit movie “WarGames” with cutesy Jews, Mathew Broderick and Ally Sheedy (she’s Jewish on her mother’s side just like Mathew, making them both Jewish).

He told me that the state police had to upload special raw data files to the Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) on a yearly basis. As I recall, the variables had to be “tab-deliminated” so their programs in DC could import it. So he wrote the state’s applet to export the data. Not only that, but the DOJ asked them to merge certain data points with others that didn’t make a whole lot of sense to him. Or me, after he told me about it.

I can’t remember all the things he told me, but one thing about it immediately stuck in my craw and made me do some serious checking around. The DOJ in DC wanted Hispanic murder perps merged in with White murder perps, but didn’t stipulate anything special to do with Hispanic victims of crimes. I asked him why would the DOJ want it in that particular way? He said he didn’t know, but would ask around.

I also knew a few people in the State police and asked around myself, including emailing or calling up long distance other people in various states. Yep, the DOJ was making them to do the exact same thing. Weird. I distinctly remember talking over the phone with a guy in a western state and he got a little huffy with me for some reason simply because I asked him why the feds would make them do it that way. But he did verify that was in fact what was going down.

After hearing from many people I came to the conclusion there could be no other logical explanation other than the Fed wanted to lessen the disparity between White and black crime rates for their annual reports — often cited by liberals as the end-all and be-all of facts. You might try to explain to a libtard about data jury-rigging, but they would just look at you with a blank face. “PC” liberals are programmed a lot like a “PC” computer.

It was quite obvious: The federal government wanted to bulk up White perp numbers.

This bull crap was actually happening. I had a long conversation a few years back with the author of the book “The Color of Crime” (I think there’s a PC correct book now out there using the same name to confuse people — look for the AMREN version). I found out the author’s phone number (I have my ways) and called him up long distance about something or other. He seemed OK with gabbing for awhile, so I told him about the data manipulation I had discovered going on with the DOJ annual crime reports. He already knew exactly what I was talking about.

Also, my father’s programmer guy believed the same thing after asking around. He agreed it was way more than just a case of GIGO (garbage in/garbage out) as nerds might explain it. There had to be hidden motives since it was so specific. He told me the request went high up. How high, he couldn’t say. I could tell the whole subject made him nervous.

That only motive could be keeping us Whites stupid before it was too late.

A fairly recent Texas most wanted list. Look closely under each photo for the race of the perp. Except for the Indian and one Hispanic, all of them are listed as “White males.”

The federal crime stats not only included Hispanics of White Spanish heritage, but also “Mestizos” which are a lower class mixed race of Indian and Spanish Whites, including blacks. The former slave population (few in number) eventually mated off with the riff-raff and were subsumed into the Indian populations. You can see the Negroid like hair in the Mexican revolutionary, Emil Zapata. Your Central Americans are mostly Indians (Amerindian as they are called for PC purposes), meaning descendents of Incans and Mayans, etc., etc.

These folks suffer from some seriously wacked superstitions. Weird crap. Plus, they kill each other with machetes at the drop of a sombrero.

And it wasn’t that I had anything at all against White Hispanic people (Spain is Caucasian White). But these lower class Mestizos were definitely crime prone. Think MS-13 and the murderous drug cartels. Bundling in crime stats from these types in with Whites brought up the over-all numbers closer to blacks (but still well beneath black criminality, which has always been off the charts).

Now, you have to understand something: I’ve never been involved in any “White power” or “Neo-Nazi” business. Hell, about the only thing I was interested in was babes. But I did a fair amount of reading for a party animal; even going to libraries regularly, including your larger, older libraries (not neighborhood satellites) to find out-of-date books from the time periods in question. I would get interested in an obscure part of history and research it like crazy before something else came along to catch my intellectual fancy.

I would sometimes come across dusty little books way back in the stacks that had stuff in it completely at odds for what “they” wanted you to believe. Usually, such information was deep inside the book and the only way to find it was reading it or at least skimming all the way through. These nuggets of truth remained hidden simply because the book’s title seemed innocuous enough to the outside world. Later observations proved to me local forces were busy policing the stacks. I noted that sometimes books “disappeared.”

At this point I was having serious suspicions to what “the real deal” was. Maybe my world view was askew. And on purpose by someone. Dots were connecting. Gears were turning.

Eventually, I came to the conclusion Jewish forces were working to subsume the White race into the others — turning us into some sort of dumbed-down mud Mestizo — easily herded, indoctrinated and surveilled by future commie authorities. A slow motion genocide of White people. When I realized this was the over-all long term agenda, everything fit together perfectly.

No, it wasn’t any shadowy myth like the “ILLUMINATI” or some weird, impossible BS. Such a giant effort required numerous policing agents and provocateurs embedded all through-out society, media and big government — all actively working quite on their own without any secret communications from any supposed central headquarters.*

Us Whites represented the only real potential danger to their long-term racial/Talmudic/Marxist goal of controlling the planet. They believed they were the superior ones and “so blessed by God,” even though many Jews I personally knew were greedy little bastards and/or scumbags and homos.

A brainwashing, psyops war was being waged against the White race by a completely self-absorbed and trouble-making bunch — the dirty rotten, backstabbing Jews.


*Speaking of which, I was privy during the early, much more hackable days of the world wide web to some of these people’s Internet communications. They are indeed devious creeps. That story may come — or not.

Figuring Out The Big Scam Against Whites II

By Phillip Marlowe (continued from “Figuring Out The Big Scam…“)

Let me state right off the bat: This is a real life “existential” matter for the White race. What they are doing is stealing our lands right out from under us, while at the same time silently winnowing our numbers down by promoting race mixing, immigration of Third Worlders, abortion, immorality of various sorts to destroy the family unit — all of which happens to distracts us from them as they continue on with the rest.

For decades, they have been steadily working to turn Whites into some ugly as sin, dumbed-down, moronic mud race. A race far less dangerous to Jewry’s ambitions of World control — more easily managed and policed once the “Chosen Ones” finally gain “full spectrum” globalism. Call it “just in time” racial engineering, if you like.

Unfortunately, way too many White people hide their heads to this now glaringly obvious agenda, simply because they can’t believe how anyone could get away with all this. Somehow they think there must be people out there who can put a stop to such lefty brainwashing and lying (like the holocaust) in the public sphere. Guess what? There isn’t any.

We really don’t have any big, well-funded organizations who can speak out publicly in defense of the White race without being vehemently slandered and infiltrated by the FBI and self-elected Jew thought police like the SPLC and ADL. And once the media was bought out by big international Jew money and staffed through-out with lefty Jews, they could put a stop to any worrisome modes of thinking among the Goyim. Meanwhile, other Jews in the educational arena worked steadily with the young to install “PC” social taboos so we would soon fear even talking about it with each other. Hell, everyone knows just how insanely psycho liberals have become.

Because they can, that’s why.

The Jew is getting away with all this crap, simply because they can. Yep, there’s nothing out there to expose their lying BS. They can’t allow White people to say anything and for other Whites to hear those things unfiltered by Jew word-twisting and editing. Say JACK about the subversive, Marxist Jews, Zionist Israel or the violent day-to-day criminality of the homies, and everyone is programmed to scream bloody murder about racism and anti-Semitism.

They got the game fully-rigged to keep America snowed and us Whites cowed.

Pay attention: They are now ramping up the brainwashing over black males “unjustly incarcerated because of evil old White man’s War on Drugs.” Black criminal behavior is skyrocketing these days, so they need to start releasing as many as possible back on the street — increasing crime or not.

You can pick out this liberal PC bias easily just by watching mainstream news and all their cable channels. Fortunately, people are starting to see it. If you pay attention, you can pick out the head games they use all the time. On the surface, FOX news might seem to cater to the White conservative, but still adheres to the DIVERSITY BS destroying our race, once you extrapolate from the way things are going. They, too, are part of the scam — merely different window dressing to keep us confused.

These people were clearly using the “herd instinct” against us. You can see it today. Notice how they use the least attractive, goofiest White who might say the wrong things politically for “man on the street” interviews. The news media has worked for decades to plant the black victimhood “narrative” and guilt over evil Whitey “oppression and racism” in our brains.

I soon realized something as a young man fresh out of college: Most people believed everything printed in a book must be true. This stupidity could also be seen when it came to mass media. If the TV news anchor said something, then it had to be true. The talking head’s demeanor and delivery were just as important, if not more so.

Around this time, I went to work for a relatively small book publisher. A Jewish owned publisher. Yep, sure did. At least for a few years.

I remember once when we were going to publish a book on “ghost photography.” It was written by an Austrian Jew named Hans Holzer (German Ashkanazi Jewish last name). Holzer was the Jew actually behind the big “Amityville Horror” supposedly real story that so many people believed back in the ’80’s. Jew written word lying goes hand-in-hand with Jew film-making lying in Hollywood. His daughter Alexandra is now carrying on with daddykins paranormal scams.

When the typewritten copy for Holzer’s ghost photography book came in, it was along with photos keyed in with captions to use as illustrations. These were large 8″ x 10″ continuous tone darkroom prints. This was the time long before digital photography. When you see a photo in a book or magazine, they were “half-toned” and reduced, so one could never see the details you could pick out from the larger original. Actually, photos in printed materials are still halftoned today, albeit during the plate making stage.

These were shots of “paranormal researchers” and “spiritual mediums.” They had smoke coming out of their mouths that was supposed to be a “Ectoplasm” or some such ridiculous BS. In the originals, you could easily see it was crudely-staged using cotton balls and tape, or the more sophisticated double exposure work in the darkroom using cigarette smoke. Hell, I knew exactly how to do it all myself.

It’s the family business…

I distinctly remember this one shot where they showed a séance medium, deep in a trance, as the supposed ghost of Abraham Lincoln looked down upon her from out of the dark. Yet you could see a big halftone dot pattern in Lincoln’s face — sure evidence the shot was stolen from a printed book or magazine, since they had no access to the original negative (a portrait by the famous early photog, Matthew Brady). It was so obvious. But once reduced to fit in the book, one would hardly see the halftone dots without careful examination and knowledge of such matters.

I saw this obviously fake holocaust shot shown as real in yet another anti-Hitler documentary on the AH channel just the other day. It was exposed as a communist East German fake decades ago.

Later in life, I discovered similar techniques were being used in the “holocaust industry.” Crude Soviet WWII propaganda fakery was being recycled by the Zionist Jews in the West to brainwash White America into supporting Israel. I still see these fake shots used in current WWII TV documentaries, even though many have long been debunked.

I was floored. Why were we publishing such lying crap as true? You could easily see it was all a big fat lie. I remember other peons in my department were also noticeably confused and wondering the same thing, but kept their mouths shut just like myself — sorry to admit. Paychecks are just like little bribes when it comes to Jew media. For real.

Unfortunately, it took me awhile to connect the dots as to who and why. That, I will admit. And to think the answer was always right in front of my nose.

Nevertheless, I am hoping and praying that I reach whatever Whites out there who read my words to spread the news to other Whites. Each of us must do our part to alert other Whites to this insidious, diabolical plot against our race.

These dirty rats sense us “waking up” too fast (it was bound to happen sooner or later) and have dialed up the brainwashing and social upheavals in the attempt to “get it done.” You can see this now happening in real time. Once you get “the big picture” on who-what-why, everything fits together perfectly. All the Israel-loving, all the pro-immigration of Third Worlders, all the black militancy, all the non-White criminal behavior protection, all the homo-loving and faggoty transgenderism, all the “Whitey be bad” crap promoted everywhere in the media.

The PC BS on TV and in the movies suddenly becomes quite obvious and understandable — it’s all been a big continuous lefty Jew scam meant to brainwash the White race.*

The saying “the truth will set you free” is indeed true. You will feel much less daily angst and confusion and know exactly who are the real culprits most responsible.

Now get out there and spread the news!

*National Geographic has been running this big multi-part series called “Genius,” about Albert Einstein (Jews act like he’s a God). The thing was bursting at the seams with PC brainwashing: Hyped-up, evil Nazis running amok, feminism, red baiting right-wingers, angry closet homo J. Edger Hoover breaking the law to harass innocent minorities — all the usual PC narratives — plus the long-running Jew cover-up of Einstein’s theft of David Hilbert’s equations to make General Relativity work. Jews have tens of millions to finance such propaganda efforts — you can tell by all the high-priced actors, sets, locations, extras and period costumes. Folks, this is big time International Jew programing for the small screen. Even the advertising is now geared to brainwash our White race with multiculturalism.

Locus says, “it’s clear that absolutely nothing will make them stop and drop their supremacist beliefs and agenda of global enslavement under a Jewish Communist government. A century ago people in the first world were discussing the seeming solution to the Jewish question, giving them their own ethnostate. This they got, and it has only emboldened their greed and thirst. There can only be two outcomes, either humanity fights back, or it is enslaved and destroyed. The fight would have to come from whites, no other race has it in them.”

Kai Murros: Here Comes the Revolution


by Ricardo Duchesne

Kai Murros
Kai Murros

I learned recently about Kai Murros as I was searching for some ideas on the possibility of a revolution from a New Right perspective. I came across his aphoristic book, Revolution and How to Do It in a Modern Society. The book, published in 2001, is described as a “hands on manual for young revolutionaries”. Murros was born in 1969 in Helsinki, Finland. He spent the years 1990-1999 at the University of Helsinki studying history and oriental languages. His Master of Arts Thesis was about the gradual change of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army from a guerilla army to a modern professional army.

It is said that in his numerous TV and Radio appearances Murros scandalized the public with his radical nationalist views and appetite for ruthless measures against the traitorous elites who favor mass immigration. In one of the links in his website, or about him, is found the following passage about “national revolution”:

The war for the national liberation of Europe requires training elite troops for combat in urban conditions. This army of young militant nationalists will be raised from the ranks of the working class in every population center in Europe, starting from neighborhoods and communities these troops will eventually reach the national level. The Party will use this military force to ruthlessly exterminate all enemies of the European Nation and to purge the societies from elements corrupting the European ethnic identity.

Apparently, today, Murros leads a quiet life tending his garden, while giving occasional, energizing lectures in various European cities, and some interviews. His video lectures are rousing and invigorating in their Nietzschean affirmation of European life and keen appreciation of the atavistic instincts and primordial drives indispensable to revolutionary action, as well as their keen sense of the necessity of decline and decadence for the emergence of European ethnic nationalism, a future-oriented form of pan-European nationalism, not one that eradicates European differences, but that seeks common goals in the face of internationally driven capitalist crises, by traitorous and decadent elites, environmental limits, demographic and migratory pressures from the Third World.

Murros emphasizes the eventual breaking out of the “beast” within European man, the “dark side, the good side,” the source of energy and creativity, how liberals are doomed to failure since this side of human nature cannot be suppressed and males cannot be emasculated forever,  how revolutions are driven by powerful emotions rather than “sterile intellectual debates,” the importance of forward-looking images, resoluteness and certainty in one’s ability to produce miracles.

What Murros lacks in analysis and rational sobriety, one might say, he makes up in rhetorical effect and keen knowledge of the basic passions and hate-love drives that have always characterized human conflict and revolution, but Europeans in particular as the most energizing and agonistic people on the planet, soon to be revived with an unremitting sense of peoplehood in ways beyond the comprehension of the delusional liberals with their pet projects for a new world order based on racial harmony and deracinated whites.

Rather than continuing in my exposition of Murros ideas, I will offer a link to most of the lectures I have found, including one interview, letting readers decide what is their relevance for European ethnic nationalism. Hopefully there will be some comments.

I. Hate is Good, pure Energy, provided by Nature itself

II. Moscow Speech 2010, the Concept — Part One

III. Moscow Speech 2010, the Concept — Part Two

IV. “That which does not kill us only makes us stronger.”

V. America, Middle Class and the End of Growth

VI. The Inevitability of Revolutionary Civil War In Europe

VII. National Revolution — turn on, tune in, take over!

VIII. We are going to Fight Back

IX. Red Ice Radio Interview, Hour 1: Pan European Revolution