Another Myth Dies: American Indians Were Not Given Smallpox-Infected Blankets

As part of the construction of the New American Identity in the years following WW2, it was decided to demonize the Western European population and praise the Siberian immigrants who had come before them. As a means to this end, the noble savage myth was created, along with the notion that the poor Amerinds were victims of genocide when Europeans gave them smallpox-infected blankets.

This too turns out to be false because no documented evidence of smallpox blanket distribution exists except for a suggestion in a letter, but we know they got smallpox after attacking a hospital:

But the chain of events behind the one authentic case of deliberate smallpox contamination began in 1757 at the siege of Fort William Henry (in present-day upstate New York), when Indians allied with the French ignored the terms of a surrender worked out between the British and the French, broke into the garrison hospital and killed and scalped a number of patients, some of them suffering from smallpox. The blankets and clothing the Indians looted from the patients in the hospital and corpses in the cemetery, carried back to their villages, reportedly touched off a smallpox epidemic.

The French lost the war and left their Indian allies holding the bag, and in 1763 Chief Pontiac and his colleagues sparked an uprising against English settlers in the Great Lakes region that had Lord Jeffery Amherst and the British forces close to despair. The Indians destroyed several of the smaller British forts, but Fort Pitt (present-day Pittsburgh, Pa.) held out under the command of Captain Simeon Ecuyer, a 22-year veteran Swiss mercenary in the British service. Ecuyer, whose native language was French, also spoke German, the predominant language of his native Switzerland; the British had retained him because many settlers in Pennsylvania also spoke German. Smallpox had broken out among the British garrison, and during a parley on June 24, 1763, Ecuyer gave besieging Lenape warriors several items taken from smallpox patients. “We gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital,” Captain William Trent of the garrison militia wrote in his journal. “I hope it will have the desired effect.”

Smallpox did break out among the Indian tribes whose warriors were besieging the fort—19th-century historian Francis Parkman estimated that 60 to 80 Indians in the Ohio Valley died in a localized epidemic. But no one is sure whether the smallpox was carried by Ecuyer’s infected blankets or by the clothing Indian warriors had stolen from the estimated 2,000 outlying settlers they had killed or abducted.

On one hand, we have evidence that they acquired smallpox from their own war crimes; on the other, only the usual conjecture based on casual and possibly non-serious conversation. As always, never trust the Leftist version of history because it is far more Leftist than history.

“Native Americans” Do Not Exist

When Christopher Columbus came to the New World, your teacher says in hushed and disapproving tones, he encountered the equal people there and called them “Indians” because he thought he had reached India. She rolls her eyes to show you how Columbus was stupid, and he was stupid because he was evil, not realizing that these people were equal to him in every way.

In reality, Columbus called the inhabitants of these places “Indians” because he correctly noted two aspects of their physiognomy: they were at least predominantly Asian in descent, and they were brown and not “yellow,” which by the calculus of human races meant that they were ethnically something like Indians.

As it turns out, they were a different type of Asian entirely and lacked the paternal European line that runs through India, but they were Asian immigrants just the same, only ones who had arrived over ten thousand years earlier via a Bering land-bridge along with other groups who subsequently were absorbed or exterminated.

In fact, Asian immigration to the new world took place in several waves, with caste variations intact. The leaders of the Inca, Aztec and Maya did not resemble the 90% of their population who were essentially serfs, but were taller, thinner and more intelligent. In the same way, whoever built the ancient civilization of Cahokia was likely more intelligent than their servants, but the servants lived on after that civilization collapsed, just like how Mexico today is mostly populated by the descendants of the serfs of the Maya, whose civilization was in decline before Europeans arrived, and Aztec, whose empire had surrounded itself with enemies who welcomed the Spanish conquest as a chance for revenge. Although the groups which arrived from Siberia were mixed in caste, they shared a similar origin and spread out across the Americas, differentiating themselves in the process.

We can see this through an analysis of the genetic origin of Amerinds (full paper)

These data suggest that Native American male lineages were derived from two major Siberian migrations. The first migration originated in southern Middle Siberia with the founding haplotype M45a (10-11-11-10). In Beringia, this gave rise to the predominant Native American lineage, M3 (10-11-11-10), which crossed into the New World. A later migration came from the Lower Amur/Sea of Okhkotsk region, bringing haplogroup RPS4Y-T and subhaplogroup M45b, with its associated M173 variant. This migration event contributed to the modern genetic pool of the Na-Dene and Amerinds of North and Central America.

All sources agree that the majority of Amerind genetics comes from a group that was at least living in Siberia, Mongolia or Manchuria which then moved into Siberia and across the Bering Strait, which at that time was either a land bridge or small continent called “Beringia.” This group may have acted like a genetic snowball, picking up other groups along the way, suggesting that the Amerind migration consisted of multiple groups crossing the Bering Strait:

They concluded that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now-drowned land of Beringia. After up to 8000 years in Beringia—a slightly shorter stop than some researchers have suggested (Science, 28 February 2014, p. 961)—they spread in a single wave into the Americas and then split into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago.

…But the Science team also found a surprising dash of Australo-Melanesian DNA in some living Native Americans, including those of the Aleutian Islands and the Surui people of Amazonian Brazil. Some anthropologists had previously suggested an Australo-Melanesian link. They noted that certain populations of extinct Native Americans had long, narrow skulls, resembling those of some Australo-Melanesians, and distinct from the round, broad skulls of most Native Americans.

They picked up some additional groups along the way, although these were a minority of the genetic material:

Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome.

…DNA from the remains revealed genes found today in western Eurasians in the Middle East and Europe, as well as other aspects unique to Native Americans, but no evidence of any relation to modern East Asians.

…While the land bridge still formed the gateway to America, the study now portrays Native Americans as a group derived from the meeting of two different populations, one ancestral to East Asians and the other related to western Eurasians.

This makes for a changing summary of the genetic data which stays true to its roots — a Bering Strait migration by Asiatic people — but adds depth as a good history would have:

On the other hand, genetic data have demonstrated a close resemblance between the aboriginal Siberian tribes living east of the Yenisey River and northern Mongoloid populations, and similarities among populations dwelling to the west of the Yenisey River and European populations.

…Although there is general agreement among scholars that the first human inhabitants of the Americas came from Asia, the exact geographic source, number of migrations, and timing of these population movements remain controversial. The evidence in support of an Asian origin of New World populations is based on anatomical resemblance in contemporary populations, craniometric affinities, cultural similarities, and genetic similarities.

…In contrast, studies of maternally-inherited mtDNA have presented a variety of competing scenarios ranging from one to six separate waves of Asian migrants starting as long ago as 30,000 BP. Furthermore, there are different proposals for which “source” populations in Asia gave rise to New World populations: Viral distribution data implicate Mongolia/Manchuria and/or extreme southeastern Siberia as the ancestral homeland of the Amerinds; whereas, mtDNA data point to Mongolia, North China, Tibet, and/or Korea as the candidate source regions in Asia.

This includes the possibility of multiple migrations from multiple sources, potentially by boat as well as by land, over the course of ten thousand years:

There is also a controversial variant of the coastal migration model, put forward by archaeologists Dennis Stanford at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC and Bruce Bradley at the University of Exeter, UK. Called the Solutrean hypothesis, it suggests that coastal migration from Asia could have been supplemented by parallel migrations across the Atlantic, bringing stone-tool technologies from present-day Spain and southern Europe to eastern North America.

The Asiatic appearance with some additional details suggests ancient admixture into the mostly-Siberian group:

Before 24,000 years ago, the ancestors of Native Americans and the ancestors of today’s East Asians split into distinct groups. The Mal’ta child represents a population of Native American ancestors who moved into Siberia, probably from Europe or west Asia. Then, sometime after the Mal’ta boy died, this population mixed with East Asians. The new, admixed population eventually made its way to the Americas. Exactly when and where the admixture happened is not clear, Willerslev said. But the deep roots in Europe or west Asia could help explain features of some Paleoamerican skeletons and of Native American DNA today. “The west Eurasian [genetic] signatures that we very often find in today’s Native Americans don’t all come from postcolonial admixture,” Willerslev said in his talk. “Some of them are ancient.”

In other words, Amerinds are Siberian immigrants, and in addition to making local species extinct, they likely absorbed other tribes and created a new culture out of this racially-mixed group, which in part explains the relatively few successes of the New World, mainly because admixed populations lose the strengths of the original groups because traits are created by many genes, and not all of these are passed on, causing mixed-race people to have partial versions of the traits that were fully expressed in the unmixed group.

Kai Murros: Here Comes the Revolution

https://whitelocust.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/a87d1-new.png?w=824

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

The Myth of the Rule of Law and the Future of Repression

The Myth of the Rule of Law and the Future of Repression

Richard’s post, “Obama’s Ennabling Act,” raises some interesting questions regarding the significance of the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, and its probable impact, that I believe merit further discussion. The editorial issued on December 17 by the editors of Taki’s Magazine, “The Government v. Everyone,” represents fairly well the shared consensus of critics of the NDAA whose ranks include conservative constitutionalists and left-wing civil libertarians alike. While I share the opposition to the Act voiced by these critics, I also believe that Richard is correct to point out the questionable presumptions regarding legal and constitutional theory and alarmist rhetoric that have dominated the critics’ arguments.

Wholesale abrogation of core provisions of the U.S. Constitution is hardly rare in American history. The literature of leftist or libertarian historians of American politics is filled with references to the Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s assumption of dictatorial powers during the Civil War, the repression of the labor movement during WWI, the internment of the Japanese during WW2 and so forth. Mainstream liberal critics of these aspects of American history will lament the manner by which America supposedly strays so frequently from her high-minded ideals, whereas more radical leftist critics will insist such episodes illustrate what a rotten society America always was right from the beginning.

Meanwhile, conservatives will lament how the noble, almost god-like efforts of the revered “Founding Fathers” have been perverted and destroyed by subsequent generations of evil or misguided liberals, socialists, atheists, or whomever, thereby plunging the nation into the present dark era of big government and moral decadence. These systems of political mythology not withstanding, a more realist-driven analysis of the history of the actual practice of American statecraft might conclude that such instances of the state stepping outside of its own proclaimed ideals or breaking its own rules transpire because, well, that’s what states do.

Carl Schmitt considered the essence of politics to be the existence of organized collectives with the potential to engage in lethal conflict with one another. Max Weber defined the state as an entity claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Schmitt’s dictum, “Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception,” indicates there must be some ultimate rule-making authority that decides what constitutes “legitimacy” and what does not, and that this sovereign entity is consequently not bound by its own rules. This principle is descriptive rather than prescriptive or normative in nature. Schmitt’s conception of the political is simply an analysis of “how things work” as opposed to “what ought to be.”

Like all other political collectives, the United States possesses a body of political mythology whose function is to convey legitimacy upon its own state. For Americans, this mythology takes on the form of what Robert Bellah identified as the “civil religion.” The tenets of this civil religion grant Americans a unique and exceptional place in history as the Promethean purveyors of “freedom,” “democracy,” “equality,” “opportunity,” or some other supposedly noble ideal. According to this mythology, America takes on the role of a providential nation that is in some way particularly favored by either a vague, deist-like divine force (Jefferson’s “nature’s god”) in the mainstream politico-religious culture, or the biblical god in the case of the evangelicals, or the progressive forces of history for left-wing secularists. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the sacred writings of the American civil religion. It is no coincidence that constitutional fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists are often the same people. Prominent “founding fathers” such as Washington or Madison assume the role of prophets or patriarchs akin to Moses and Abraham.

In American political and legal culture, this civil religion and body of political mythology becomes intertwined with the liberal myth of the “rule of law.” According to this conception, “law” takes on an almost mystical quality and the Constitution becomes a kind of magical artifact (like the genie’s lantern) whose invocation will ostensibly ward off tyrants. This legal mythology is often expressed through slogans such as “We should be a nation of laws and not men” (as though laws are somehow codified by forces or entities other than mere mortal humans) and public officials caught acting outside strict adherence to legal boundaries are sometimes vilified for violation of “the rule of law.” (I recall comical pieties of this type being expressed during the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s.) Ultimately, of course, there is no such thing as “the rule of law.” There is only the rule of the “sovereign.” The law is always subordinate to the sovereign rather than vice versa. Schmitt’s conception of the political indicates that the world is comprised first and foremost of brawling collectives struggling on behalf of each of their existential prerogatives. The practice of politics amounts to street-gang warfare writ large where the overriding principle becomes “protect one’s turf!” rather than “rule of law.”

As an aside, I am sometimes asked how my general adherence to Schmittian political theory can be reconciled with my anarchist beliefs. However, it was my own anarchism that initially attracted me to the thought of Schmitt. His recognition of the essence of the political as organized collectives with the potential to engage in lethal conflict and his understanding of sovereignty as exemption from the rule-making authority of the state have the ironic effect of stripping away and destroying the systems of mythology on which states are built. Schmitt’s analysis of the nature of the state is so penetrating that it gives the game away. Politics is simply about maintaining power. Period.

Another irony is that Schmitt helped to clarify my anarchist beliefs considerably. I adhere to the dictionary definition of anarchism as the goal of replacing the state with a confederation or agglomeration of voluntary communities (while recognizing a certain degree of subjectivity to the question of what is “voluntary” and what is not). Theoretically, anarchist communities could certainly reflect the values of ideological anarchists like Kropotkin, Rothbard, or Dorothy Day. But such communities could also be organized on the model of South Africa’s Orania, or traditionalist communities like the Hasidim or Amish, or fringe cultural elements like UFO true-believers. Paradoxically, such communities could otherwise reflect the “normal” values of Middle America (minus the state).

The concept of fourth generation warfare provides a key insight as to how political anarchism can be reconciled with the political theory of Carl Schmitt. According to fourth generation theory as it has been outlined by Martin Van Creveld and William S. Lind, the state is in the process of receding as the loyalties of populations are being transferred to other entities such as religions, tribes, ideological movements, gangs, cults, paramilitaries, or whatever. Scenarios are emerging with increasing frequency where such non-state actors engage in warfare with states or in the place of states. Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which has essentially replaced the Lebanese state as both the defender of the nation and as the provider of necessary services on which the broader population depends, is a standard model of a fourth generation entity. In other words, Hezbollah has replaced the state as the sovereign entity in Lebanese society.

Another example is Columbia’s FARC, which has likewise dislodged the Colombian state as the sovereign in FARC-controlled territorial regions. The implication of this for political anarchism is that for the anarchist goal of autonomous, voluntary communities to succeed, a non-state entity (or collection of entities) must emerge that is capable of protecting the communities from conquest or subversion and possesses the will to do so. In other words, for anarchism to work there must be in place the equivalent of an anarchist version of Hezbollah  that replaces the state as the sovereign in the wider society, probably in the form of a decentralized militia confederation similar to that organized by the Anarchists of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War…in case anyone was wondering.

 

The Future of Repression

Dealing with more immediate questions, the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act raises the issue of to what level repression carried out by the American state in the future will be taken, and of what particular form this repression will assume. I agree with Richard that it is improbable that NDAA represents any significant change of direction or dramatic acceleration in these areas. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that American political dissidents (the readers of AlternativeRight.Com, for instance) will be subject to mass arrests and indefinite detention without trial. Such tactics are likely to be reserved for individuals, primarily foreigners, genuinely involved or believed to be involved in the planning of acts of actual terrorism against American targets. There is at present very little of that within the context of domestic American society.

However, the unwarranted nature of Alex Jones-style alarmism does not mean there is no danger on the horizon. What is needed is a healthy medium between panic and complacency. Richard has argued that our present systems of soft totalitarianism that we find in the contemporary Western world may well give way to hard totalitarianism as Cultural Marxism/Totalitarian Humanism continues to tighten its grip. While this is a concern that I share and a prophecy that I regrettably think has a considerable chance of fulfillment, the question arises of what form “hard” totalitarianism might take in the future of the West.

It is unlikely we will ever develop states in the West that are organized on the classical totalitarian model complete with over the top pageantry and heads of states with strange uniforms and facial hair, given the way in which these are inimical to the universalist ideology, globalist ambitions, commercial interests, and aesthetic values of Western elites. Rather, I suspect the future of Western repression will take on either one of two forms (or perhaps a combination of both).

One of these is a model where repression rarely involves long term imprisonment or state-sponsored lethal action against dissidents. Instead, such repression might take on the form of persistent and arbitrary harassment, or the ongoing escalation of the use of professional and economic sanctions, targeting the families and associates of dissidents, or the petty criminalization of those who speak or act in defiance of establishment ideology. Richard has discussed the recent events involving Emma West and David Duke, and well as his own treatment at the hands of the Canadian authorities, and I suspect it is state action of this type that will largely define Western repression in the foreseeable future.

The state may not murder you or put you in prison for decades without trial, but you may lose your job, have your professional licensees revoked or the social service authorities threaten to remove your children from your home, or be subject to significant but brief harassment by legal authorities. You man find yourself brought up on minor criminal charges (akin to those that might be levied against a shoplifter or a pot smoker) if you utter the wrong words. Likewise, the state will increasingly look the other way as the use of extra-legal violence by leftist and other pro-system thugs is employed against dissenters. Indeed, much of what I have outlined here is already taking place and it can be expected that such incidents will become much more frequent and severe in the years and decades ahead. What I have outlined in this paragraph largely defines the practice of political repression as it currently exists in the West, particularly outside the United States, where traditions upholding free speech do not run quite as deeply.

However, this by no means indicates that Americans are off the hook. An even greater issue of concern, particularly for the United States, involves the convergence of four factors within contemporary American society and statecraft. These are the decline of the American empire in spite of the continuation of America’s massive military-industrial complex, mass immigration and radical demographic transformation, rapid economic deterioration and the disappearance of the conventional American middle class, and the growth of the general apparatus of state repression over the last four decades (the prison-industrial complex frequently criticized by the Left, for instance).

The combination of mass Third World immigration and ongoing economic decline, if continued uninterrupted, will have the effect of replicating the traditional Third World model class system in the U.S. (and perhaps much of the West over time). A class system organized on the basis of an opulent few at the top and impoverished many among the masses (the Brasillian model, for instance) will likely be accompanied by escalating social unrest and political instability. Such trends will be ever more greatly exacerbated by growing social, cultural, and ethnic conflict brought about by demographic change.

The American state has at its disposal an enormous military industrial complex that, frankly, wants to remain in business even as foreign military adventures continue to become less politically and economically viable. Likewise, the ongoing domestic wars waged by the American state against drugs, crime, gangs, guns, et. al. have generated a rather large “police industrial complex” with American borders. Libertarian writers such as William Norman Grigg have diligently documented the ongoing process of the militarization of American law enforcement and the continued blurring of distinctions between the rules of engagement involving soldiers on the battlefield on one hand and policemen dealing with civilians on the other. The literature of libertarian critics is filled with horror stories of, for instance, small town mayors having their household pets blown away by SWAT team members during the course of bungled drug raids.

The point is that as economic and social unrest, along with increasingly intense demographic conflict, continues to arise as it likely will in the foreseeable American future, the state will have at its disposal a significant apparatus for the carrying out of genuinely brutal repression of the kind normally associated with Latin American or Middle Eastern countries. Recall, for example, the “disappeared” of Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s. It is not improbable that we dissidents in the totalitarian humanist states of the postmodern West will face a dangerous brush with such circumstances at some point in the future.

The Coming Amerikan Civil War

Do You Understand Yet?


True believers in constitutional restoration should read this post and consider all of its implications.

Me?

I’ll just ponder old Mr. Spooner:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Locust: The Coming Amerikan Civil War, its simple as that, what we want in not compatible with what those on the left desire, and only one can rule.

Kagan’s non-recusal and what it means

James N.writes:

 

It is remarkable that Elena Kagan apparently plans to hear and judge the Obamacare lawsuits, although there is a documentary record of her acting as an advocate within the administration for strategies to get the bill through Congress.Of course, many Republicans are calling for her recusal, which is absolutely required by the appropriate rules for judges.

It’s interesting that no Democrats agree. That they do not agree tells us much about who and what they are.

They don’t agree because they believe it would be wrong of her to follow the rules. They think it would be wrong because, for them, the purpose of Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation is to overthrow the republican system of a government with limited powers.

For the Democrats in Congress, it would make no more sense for Kagan to recuse herself that it would for her to appear in purple underwear and deliver her opinions in Norwegian.

The electoral system only works when both parties are playing the same game. That is, in our country, no longer the case.

 

LA replies:

 

Well put. The two parties are not playing the same game. They play different games, under different rules. What are these different rules? The Republicans more or less follow the laws and constitutional procedures, the Democrats deliberately and consciously break them. But the Republicans, while they complain incessantly about the Democrats, never identify this underlying fact. Why? Because that would show that the system is no longer legitimate. And the function of the Republicans, as “patriotic, conservative Americans,” is to uphold the goodness and legitimacy of the system, a legitimacy which rests on the belief that everyone in American politics shares the same basic principles and loyalties. So the Republicans, as defenders of the system and its presumed basic unity, cannot expose what the Democrats are. If they exposed it, politics would be replaced by open war between two radically incompatible parties and America as we know it would come to an end. 

– end of initial entry –
Tim W. writes:

 

You are correct. The Republicans can’t bring themselves to admit that the Democrats are trying to destroy our nation. This reminds me of a funny story. In Mexico, both the good guy and bad guy pro wrestlers get cheered. The good guys are cheered for following the rules. The bad guys are cheered for cheating. Each side gets cheered for doing what they’re supposed to do to make the event entertaining. The fans only boo if a good guy, frustrated by the cheating of his opponent, starts cheating as well. In that case someone is cheating who isn’t supposed to cheat, so he gets booed. Staged pro wrestling thus becomes a perfect analogy to our two party system.

This is also why Republicans, and mainstream conservatives in general, can’t properly respond to the never ceasing charge that they’re “racist.” The only response is to frantically deny the charge, and possibly to point out that the Democrats were racist back in the old days. This latter is a favorite at Free Republic and among commentators such as Sean Hannity. I wish I had a dollar for every time the phrase “Robert ‘KKK’ Byrd” has been invoked at Free Republic or on Hannity’s show. I could retire today.

The correct response to the liberal charge that the GOP is racist is to point out that the Democrats currently are racist against white people. VDare reports that Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post writer) has accused Rick Perry of racism for saying that Obama grew up privileged and therefore doesn’t understand what many people today are going through. According to Capehart, Perry was alleging that Obama got into Harvard via affirmative action and that a more qualified white was thus excluded from admission. Now, obviously, Perry wasn’t saying that, but it brings up a great opportunity for a Republican with guts to note that Obama did indeed benefit from AA at Harvard, and that by definition every AA benefit doled out to a minority does come at the expense of a more qualified white. The gutsy Republican could then note that such AA programs are racist and discriminatory against whites.

But that won’t happen. That would require admitting that white people have rights and interests worth protecting, and the GOP will never admit that, just as they won’t admit that the Democrats are playing by different (underhanded) rules. So if there’s any response to Capehart, it will be for Perry to deny, deny, deny, and then deny again that he meant anything racial, while Hannity and Free Republic remind us that segregationist Pitchfork Ben Tillman ran for office as a Democrat in 1896.

Democracy: The Problem

Democracy: The Problem

Alain de Benoist’s The Problem of Democracy, now in English

 

Alain de Benoist is a name readers are likely to have come across in these circles, being a founder and leading figure of the Nouvelle Droite—the European New Right—as well as head of the French think tank GRECE. Sadly. This French philosopher’s vast output—50 books, 2,000 essays—has remained largely unavailable in the Anglosphere, due to a lack of English translations. This is something that Arktos has begun to rectify. The Problem of Democracy (originally, Démocratie: Le Problème, first published 26 years ago) is the first book-length political work to appear in English, and the first of a series of volumes to appear on the aforementioned imprint.

De Benoist is an astonishingly erudite and penetrating thinker, yet, like many brilliant minds, and quite unlike his pretentious and intellectually bankrupt counterparts on the Left, he is able to write with singular clarity and economy. This tome offers an eloquent example: De Benoist examines the theory and practice of democracy, analysing it from every angle you ever thought and never thought of and would have never imagined, demystifying and getting right down to the core of the matter, and illuminating the reader with surprising insights, all in a slender volume of just over 100 pages. How many authors do you know who can do that with profundity and academic rigour in such a compressed space and without producing incomprehensibly compacted prose? Homi K. Bhabha could learn a thing or two from this edition.

De_Benoist_Alain_-_The_Problem_of_Democracy

The fact is that this book is a lot better that it looks. With democracy not being exactly the height of fashion around these parts, and with the cover being rather opaque and impersonal, one imagines that this is going to be a slow and boring read. Yet the opposite is the case: Yes, De Benoist tells the reader much that he already knew or suspected about modern Western democracies; but he also uncovers a mass of otherwise obscure yet crucial realities that shows exactly how much of a charade our governments are, and how modern citizens have been reduced to idiocy—in the classical sense of the word. The sections dealing with the deficiencies of modern liberal democracies are truly fascinating, even for readers who think they know everything there is to know on the topic.

De Benoist begins by problematising this taken-for-granted term, democracy, and by showing that it is, and has been, used very loosely, cynically, imprecisely, disingenuously, and outright deceptively, to describe just about any system of government, from direct democracies to totalitarian communist regimes. To his mind, only the democracy of Athens in ancient Greece can be genuinely referred to as a democracy: after all, those who invented it best know what it was about.

Judged against this standard, modern democracies fail to meet the required definition—they are something else, but not democracies.

De Benoist also demonstrates that democracy is not synonymous with liberalism, elections, or even freedom. In fact, often the opposite is the case: modern elections are effectively a delegation—and therefore an abdication—of sovereignty, the anointment of a self-perpetuating class of professional politicians who then do whatever they like, with complete impunity.

De Benoist’s main thesis is that genuine democracy can only exist in a community with shared values and common historical ties. A secondary thesis is that the larger the political unit, the stronger the type of government needed to hold it together. The liberal democracies of the West, governing over vast multicultural multitudes, are necessarily repressive and tend increasingly towards totalitarianism. As it happens, this is a point I made in a certain novel I wrote:

a homogeneous society [is] easier to legislate for because people shared a concrete set of values; a highly heterogeneous society require[s] mountains of legislation, regulating every aspect of the individual’s life, as well as a bloated and highly complex bureaucracy, designed to invent it, record it, expand it, refine it, and enforce it, alongside an omniscient surveillance apparatus, to constantly monitor behaviour and report non-conformity.

Such conditions, I argued, make it preferable to have

strict controls on who was allowed to come and settle in Europe, rather than strict controls on what people who lived in Europe were allowed to say, write, read, watch, think, or publish, what organisations they were allowed to belong to, what political parties they were allowed to vote for, what music they were allowed to listen to, and what personal associations they were allowed to maintain, in order to keep the chanko stew in the social pressure cooker from exploding.

Surprisingly, De Benoist also posits that a genuine democracy is elitist, not egalitarian. Equality exists among citizens before the law, and in such a system, citizens are given equal opportunities to be unequal. Democracy does not assume natural equality. What is more, a genuine democracy, according to De Benoist, is designed to offer elite turnover, the idea being that if citizens are given equal opportunities to be unequal, the each gets what he deserves, and the best elements rise to the top while the worst sink to the bottom.

Thus De Benoist argues for a fundamentalist understanding of democracy, and a return to the model of Antiquity, albeit adapted to modern times (he offers some suggestions as to how this may be done). This exemplifies perfectly how one can be radical while being traditional.

In sum, this slender volume can be read very profitably and is worth recommending to anybody, irrespective on their love or hatred for democracy—because they are, in fact, so similar in their criticisms, De Benoist has something here for supporters and detractors alike. The Problem of Democracy offers plenty of ammunition for anybody wanting to engage conventionally thinking citizens in thought-provoking debate.

A book like this should be in standard political science reading lists in all Western universities.

Black people according to Thomas Jefferson

Black people according to ThomasJefferson


American slaves circa 1790

Thomas Jefferson in ?Notes on the State of Virginia? (1787) made the same two arguments against freeing the slaves that whites would later make against ending Jim Crow:
1. Race war:
will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.
2. Race mixing:
He compares blacks to whites . Here is some of it: Blacks are ugly:

Whites have ?flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form?.
Even black men prefer white women over their own, just as orangutans prefer black women over their own.

Blacks smell bad:
They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour.
Blacks like sex more but love less deeply:
They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.
Blacks suffer less deeply:
Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them.
Blacks are better at music, but :
Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved.
Blacks are brave, but :
this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.
Black intelligence:
in memory they are equal to the whites;
in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid;
and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
Jefferson compares them to the white slaves of Rome who, despite living under crueler conditions, have produced great thinkers and writers ? like Terence, Epictetus and Phaedrus. Unlike blacks.
Blacks have good moral character. Yes. Apart from their lack of respect for property laws, which is understandable, there are:
numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity.
In conclusion he says more study is required, so:
I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. ? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.
other racists Lincoln ? ?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.?