A Review: Foreign Affairs Jan.-Feb. 2018
December 23, 2017
A Review: Foreign Affairs Magazine
Jan.-Feb. 2018 Issue
The Undead Past: How Nations
Confront The Evils Of History
by
R.E. Prindle
Part I
In this issue of the official gazette of the CFR (Council On Foreign Relations) the Editors examine the moanings of those citizens of the world who believe the past still lives and of those who feel no obligation to mourn the doings of previous centuries but yet must suffer the torments of hell forever for what are deemed the sins of their fathers. May heaven deliver the latter from the former.
Perhaps the model for those who live their lives in hatred for the dead past whose deeds have never affected them are the Jews who even today bemoan, and make for a narrative for their lives, the deeds of a long forgotten king named Haman who existed some twenty-five hundred years ago in a society that ceased to exist at about the same time. Haman’s descendants have disappeared in the ceaseless flow of time, yet his memory is deplored in the Haman shrieks in synagogues across the world today.
The CFR seems possessed, I believe possessed is the right word, by events that can have no other than a ghostly effect on them. In this issue of Foreign Affairs the Editors examine the feelings of the walking dead suffering from the Undead Past that haunts the corridors of their minds.
How do nations handle the sins of their fathers and mothers? Take genocide, or slavery, or political mass murder. After such knowledge what forgiveness—and what way forward?
Are the Editors deranged? Nations don’t handle anything, the people do. And once you’re dealing with citizens, you can examine their psychology to put matters into a correct perspective. They believe their angst is universal throughout the population, or should be. Nothing can be further from the truth. A very large proportion of the people have no such qualms as these. Legions of us do not share the Editors’ sense of guilt or shame.
Any rational person is well aware that human passions can be inscrutable while there are no innocents. Let the dead past bury its dead. Have done with them. Life is for the living. Those sayings do not require quotes, they live throughout history as well as today. The Editors continue:
The Germans have a word for it, of course: Vergungenheitsbewaltigung, or “coming to terms with the past.” But the concept is applicable far beyond the Nazis—as Americans belatedly recognized when Robert E. Lee shot to the front of the culture wars last August after the riots in Charlottesville, Virginia.
To acknowledge ‘culture wars’ means that the Editors do recognize that by the term Americans, they mean that there is no monolithic America. Not all Americans think as the Editors do. The others, the Deplorables, to use Hillary Clintons term of abuse are misguided animals who don’t count and, moreover, shouldn’t, must never count. They are people who shame this great democracy of theirs. The Hillbillies, the Rednecks, the unwashed, knuckle dragging ignorami, the off scourings of humanity.
The Editors ignore not only their own faulty bigoted psychology but project it onto others.
Not surprisingly the Editors’ lead article is entitled ‘America’s Original Sin’. Even less surprising they have chosen as their advocate the dread locked Negro female, Harvard’s so=called historian, Annette Gordon-Reed.
Miss Reed is unmistakably an Affirmative Action hire from the African-American studies department. Her article takes the form of a complaint as one might expect. Her understandings reflect her grievances: America has never lived up to its high flown rhetoric of the Constitution while she believes that slavery lives on in White Supremacists’ hearts as it does in her’s and her Negro fellows. White Supremacists do not want to re-enslave the Negro, they want to send them back to Africa. A subtle difference. Miss Gordon-Reed continues:
Consider, by contrast, what might have happened had there been Irish chattel slavery in North America. Irish suffered pervasive discrimination and were subjected to crude and cruel stereotypes about their alleged inferiority, but they were never kept as slaves. Had they been freed, there is every reason to believe they would have had an easier time assimilating into American culture than have African-Americans. Their enslavement would be a major historical fact, but it would likely not have created a legacy so firmly tying the past to the present as did African Chattel slavery. Indeed, the descendants of white indentured servants [slaves] blended into society, and today suffer no stigma because of their ancestors’ social condition.
Let us examine the above quote. Miss Gordon-Reed obviously believes that Whites look down on Negroes because the race was once enslaved in America. I have never heard any White demean Negroes because the race had once been slaves.
In fact, as Miss Gordon-Reed admits, and as I have maintained elsewhere, that the real issue is that masters were White. As she points out slavery before had always been of the same race so there was no racial inferiority contrast. Thus, when Lincoln emancipated the Negroes they ceased being slaves but remained Negroes. The issue was not former servitude but race. Of course in any society a former slave would take about three generations to live down the stigma, but Negroes were outside that convention because, she says, of race.
Nor, was it a simple matter of ceasing to be slaves that was the problem. In ancient Rome the Romans enslaved the culturally superior Greeks. The Greeks were advanced thinkers compared to the Romans, thus they became the instructors of the Romans even though slaves. One must compare that situation with Negro slaves who had nothing to offer Whites except their labor. As the Greeks were superiors to the Romans, the Whites were far and away superior to the Negroes. And therein lies the problem.
While Negroes were relatively few in numbers before 1800 they represented about 20% of the population. Then in 1794 Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin making cotton growing on a mass scale viable. This created the need for increased importation of Negroes. This coincided with the ban on the importation of Negroes in 1808 but the importation went on illegally. Thus there was a phenomenal increase of the number of Negroes until 1860. When Lincoln emancipated the slaves, then, perhaps a majority of Negroes were fresh from the jungle being totally unacquainted with civilization. These were some rude dudes, raw recruits, as it were.
Lincoln perhaps took this into account but the abolitionists didn’t. Hence when the real invasion of the South by the North took place during Reconstruction (that is one terrifying word) and the Negroes were placed over the Whites the juxtaposition of qualities was unnatural, intolerable to the Whites, it could not be allowed to go on.
If the Greeks had revolted against the Romans and the roles were reversed that would have still been two very capable peoples. The horror of being placed under the governance of such a motley crew was palpable. Thus from 1865 to 1877 deprived of all rights by Northern bigots while suffering under Negroes who in nearly all cases could neither read nor write while being linguistically inarticulate. There is small wonder that Jim Crow succeeded slavery.
The situation is, perhaps, an unpleasant reality, but something that Miss Gordon-Reed as a historian should have taken into some account. As a polemicist she is free to speak as wildly as she likes but being a Negro does not excuse her as an historian. Certainly, the Editors of Foreign Affairs could see this. She is not an historian and not up to what people believe are the standards of America’s foremost university.
Her handling of the Irish situation also betrays a near complete lack of understanding. She has no grasp of the racial problems of the Irish and English, that is, the Celts and the Germans. Those racial problems far anteceded any Negro-White relations. While the Irish may not have been chattel slaves on the North American continent they surely were in the New World. The English Puritan Cromwell having overrun Ireland rounded up tens of thousands of Irish and sold them into chattel slavery in the Caribbean Islands where they worked the fields until death alongside Negro chattel slaves.
Further, something that Miss Gordon-Reed should take into account is that Negroes in Africa were sold by the Chiefs to the Whites. Nobody beat the bush for them to drag them from the jungles. In contrast, Cromwell, as it were, stole the Irish in much the same way that the Nazis rounded up the Jews. There was no compensation paid to anyone for the Irish.
Now, while Miss Gordon-Reed claims some sort of solidarity with the Negroes of the US, I also claim solidarity with my fellow Whites now so meanly treated. If she can claim an injury done to them as an injury done to her, I claim the same with the White slaves of the Caribbean. And that doesn’t exclude now non-Irish White indentured slaves on the North American continent.
Still further, English waifs and unprotected children as well as any unwary adults were taken from the streets of England’s cities, transported to the colonies and sold lock, stock and barrel in the colonies.
If she has read R.L. Stevenson’s Kidnapped she will see that the protagonist was intended to be sold in the colonies, saved only by a shipwreck. I hope that Miss Gordon-Reed can empathize with me as I do with her. Our pain is mutual.
Over all Miss Gordon-Reed has a thick headed inability to place matters in context which distorts and invalidates her analysis,
One thing she fails to understand is that the South was not responsible for chattel slavery. Southerners never went looking for Negro slaves. That was done by New England sea captains. In the early years the trafficking was between Africa, South America and the Caribbean islands. Only when the American colonies had been settled, as an afterthought unsold Africans were taken to North America seeking to make a new market and palmed off on the Whites. Originally Negro slavery was legal and practiced in all the English colonies. Only gradually was it rejected colony by colony while still being practiced under one legal pretext or another in several Northern States at the time of the Civil War.
Miss Gordon-Reed quotes Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederate States thusly:
The prevailing ideas entertained by (Jefferson) and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old (US) constitution (not the Confederate one) were that enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically….Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They relied upon the assumption of the equality of the races. This was in error.
And so, there we get to the crux of the problem Miss Gordon-Reed admitted when she complained that never before had one race enslaved another race. Mr. Stephens thought that the great truth was that the Negro was not equal to the White man. Now, this remains the issue today. Is there a fundamental difference between the two races?
It may be true that the two races are fungible but is that the true quality that unites the races or does it just mean that evolution has not reached the point negating fungibility?
The Southern observation seems to have been proven by science although for social and political reasons those scientific facts are being suppressed. Indeed, any expression of them is severely and criminally punished. The very scientist who discovered DNA, James Watson, at 90 years of age, had his life and career destroyed and his achievements wiped from the books when he mildly responded to a question about racial differences between Whites and Blacks that the news coming out of Africa was not good.
Is it possible to denounce a scientist of preeminent achievements based solely on a few innocuous words like ‘it doesn’t look good? Not by any people revering the Constitution such as Miss Gordon-Reed claims to be here. The crime against Mr. Watson was committed out of sheer bigotry.
So, while I understand fully the motivations of the Editors of the CFR magazine, Foreign Affairs, and while I think Miss Gordon-Reed is undoubtedly a wonderful person the CFR should have chosen a more qualified historian to express their opinion which is all Miss Gordon-Reed has done. It has been done before; it wasn’t necessary to do it again. We all know the story.
Part I Take 2: The Sixties And The Negro Revolution
January 23, 2014
Sixties And The Negro Revolution
by
R.E. Prindle
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceed the horizons of their own experience, knowledge and capability. Yet, because they are in charge of this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something.
–Fletcher Prouty: JFK, The CIA and Vietnam
Society chooses not to see the most obvious things. Living back in the fifties any idea of a Negro revolt or race war was carefully hidden even if any White person even suspected what was going on in the Negro mind. Writing here in 2014 many things about the Negro revolt that were unrecognized or supposedly debatable have become clear. In my account then I will relate to the past, the present of the Sixties and the future being realized today.
The Negroes have always claimed that racism is endemic to White Americans. This attitude misses that the point of the actual differences between Homo Sapiens and Homo Africanus species. If the species were undifferentiated then ‘racism’ could be claimed but where the two different species have obvious different capabilities then the problem is shifted to another plane.
We are told that the African was the first edition, Homo 1.0, of Homo Sapiens which implies that the Last Homonid Predecessor to the Negro was sub-human. Unfortunately the record of all the immediate predecessors to Homo Africanus have disappeared from the Earth without a trace. We have a multi-million year gap between ancient homonids and Africanus, so we really don’t know when the supposedly sub-human and the human begins. We are told that only 2% of our genes differentiate ourselves from the Chimps which is all very well and good but what was the genetic difference between the LHP and Africanus? A gene or two? And if a gene or two can make a difference between sub-human and human who is to say that Africanus is not the LHP?
But I digress a little but meaningfully. From the Negro point of view then endemic ‘racism’ is true and if not, it should be. As White mental capabilities are of a higher order than that of the Negro the disparate impact of White Supremacy is unavoidable. There is a biological difference in mental capabilities that cannot be eliminated. What differentiated the LHP and Africanus cannot possibly be any more than that. If both were stood side by side one must assume that there would have been no noticeable difference. Perhaps skin tone.
The fact was made even more apparent during the Sixties when violent and criminal programs were enacted by Liberal Whites for the benefit of Africanus or in another word, the Negro. These programs were expanded over the subsequent decades until the Negro ideal of the first being last and the last being first is being realized through the manipulation of political and legal mechanisms today. Thus the least capable is subordinating the most capable.
This program was being effected by the efforts of such people as the president of the Ford Foundation in 1966, McGeorge Bundy. He, the former military advisor of Kennedy and Johnson, knew nothing of military matters, and knew even less of the Negro having known none and quite possibly never having spoken to one determined to ‘lift’ the Negro to White standards. The concept of disparate impact had not yet been invented. One can quite easily see that Liberals considered the Negro inferior else how could they be ‘lifted’ to White standards. That’s the inherent ‘racism’ Negroes complain of.
McGeorge Bundy neither knew nor made any attempt to understand the Negro psychology which he presumed was exactly like White psychology but less so. It was readily admitted and unchallenged that Negroes had an inferior education and hence less well prepared than Whites for the challenges of modern society. The reason was advanced that Negroes were behind because the amount of money spent on their schooling was less than that spent on Whites. Never mind that the money spent on education for anybody in the nineteenth century was infinitesimal whether White or Negro yet the nineteenth century still made incredible scientific advances.
It was decided that the more spent the sooner the gap would be closed but in an absent minded way the gap was always admitted and denied by no one. In that context of White Supremacy the Sixties began with Kennedy’s creation of the pet Liberal idea of the Peace Corps in which White youths recently graduated from college with no worldly experience were sent to ‘underdeveloped’ peoples to lift them up and bring them into the White way of doing things. There seemed to be no attempt to understand how the Uplift Gospel was perceived by the poor colored peoples of the world.
In this way the Negroes were seen as a sort of domestic Peace Corps project in which Whites would teach the Negro to do things the White way. In the eyes of the Negro this was White Supremacy run amuck, an attempt to strip them of their Negritude, which it was. At the same time they could not compete on an equal basis so that the attempted entitlements granted Negroes to remedy the situation enraged the Whites.
Yes, both sides admitted the inability of the Negro to compete in a White technological world where standards were set to ensure the highest standard of public benefit. Negroes rejected he meritocracy in favor of a Negro spoils system. Thus to ensure Negro placement not only were Negroes given an IQ handicap of 20 points or so but standards were lowered to ensure inclusion thus decreasing public benefit for all. The downward spiral had begun.
The downward spiral was much forwarded by the Civil Rights Movement of the post-Brown decision in the fifties and sixties. While the movement was largely the work of New York Jews there was little dissent among Whites who considered the Movement as just as WWII. I never met anyone who, publicly, at least, disagreed with it. For myself I viewed it with much foreboding as I had Brown vs. The Board Of Education. There was too much ill will in Negro grievances for the issue to be settled amicably as events in these years surrounding 2014 are showing.
2.
While Negroes speak of the legacy of slavery, slavery is not the real issue. Negroes were always slaves, slavery was the norm in Africa. One of the first White explorers to penetrate West Africa the incredibly naïve Mungo Park, speaking of eighteenth century West Africa of the Bulge noted that seventy-five percent of the sub-Saharan Africans were slaves to other Africans and were disposable as their owners wished.
Nor were modern contacts with Whites the first that had been made with Africans. Roman roads led through the Sahara from the Med coast into the southern jungles. Even earlier the Carthaginians made long voyages of discovery down the coast of Africa even circumnavigating the continent. These were voyages that took years to make. It was the ancient custom when stores ran low to stop to sow and reap crops so as to continue while water replacement was probably necessary every few days. In addition there were numerous shipwrecks.
Several tribes on the coast of the Bulge have legends of White lawgivers arriving who gave them the rudiments of social and political organization. Apparently previous to these White visitors the Negroes were merely savages huddling around fires.
Thus to some extent the Africans had been semi-civilized learning many Mediterranean legends and religious ideas which accounts for the remarkable similarity between Med and African legends while such legends may have formed the basis of the Yoruba people of Nigeria’s religion that forms the basis of the New World Negro religions going by the name of Voo Doo, Santeria etc.. Whites must have always played a major role in the development of Africans.
When the Semitic people began enslaving Africans isn’t clear but with the coming of Moslemism in the seventh century AD and their sweep across North Africa and the Sahara brought them into contact with the West African tribes. The Moslems, or Arabs, then began a slave trade leading from the jungles and Sahel across the Sahara that existed for a thousand years. Not being particularly tender the slavers either couldn’t tend to their cargo because of the extreme desert conditions or they didn’t care so that the track was littered with a thousand years of bleaching bones.
In the East very early the Arabs worked their way down the coast until they established their southern post on Kilwa Island at the southern end of what is now Tanzania. In whatever manner the East African Arabs turned black so that being an Arab became a cultural matter rather than a racial one. The Arabs then nearly depopulated the Sudan by their centuries long raids. They generally took the women and children leaving the men behind.
It was in this area that the African as opposed to Arab tribes took to extending female lips by inserting plates and elongating necks with copper rings in the hope of making their women ugly enough to dissuade the slavers from taking them.
Further South having depopulated the coasts the Arabs moved into the interior across then Tanganyika, now Tanzania, then into the Congo basin where they met the incoming Europeans from the West.
The explorers described the long trains of captured Africans linked by neck yokes making the long thousand mile trek from the Congo to the coast opposite the slave entrepot of the fable island of Zanzibar.
For those who survived the trek there awaited the sweltering ‘tween decks voyage across the Indian ocean on small Arab dhows to be sold in Arabia, the Middle East, Iran and for many India.
The slave trade of Europeans began as a workforce for Brazil and the Caribbean islands including Haiti. Those not sold in the Caribbean were carried to the US North and South. The Negroes who went West were the favored ones occupying the virtual paradise of the Antilles or the fabulous fleshpots of the then British American colonies soon to be the US. No better thing ever happened to Negroes.
Nor is it to be supposed that slavery was confined to the South or limited to Negroes. Not long after New World slavery began Oliver Cromwell invaded Ireland where he rounded up tens of thousands of male and female Irishers selling them into slavery in the Antilles where they labored in the fields cheek by jowl with the Negroes. There are apparently settlements of these ex-Irish slaves in the islands today.
Negro slavery existed in all the colonies North and South in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as well as into the nineteenth century. The repeal of slavery began in the Rhode Island colony in 1652, Massachusetts and New Hamphire in 1783, Connecticut in 1784, Pennsylvania in 1847 and New York in 1848.
In 1808 the Federal government made it illegal to import slaves. Canada outlawed slavery only in 1819.
Indentured servants who we were taught were kitchen help or like service were in very many instances actual slaves. Originally used in the fields they died in large numbers from exposure. Negroes used to torrid temperatures while walking around naked were brought in to replace them but both races worked the fields cheek by jowl where much miscegenation undoubtedly took place.
The date of the passage of laws banning slavery does not mean slavery in those places ended on that date as clauses extended existing bondage for several years. It is more than likely that some slaves existed in all or most states in 1863 the date of the Emancipation proclamation. That proclamation did not outlaw slavery per se merely emancipating the slaves in the seceded States.
The key event in US slavery took place in the French colony of Haiti culminating in the massacre or enslavement of the Whites in 1804.
The Haitian slaves had originally revolted in 1791. A cadre of revolutionaries had arisen in France sometime in the 1780s who made it a point to agitate the Antillean slaves including Haiti. The Haitian revolution was successful as the Jacobins in France outlawed slavery in the French empire in 1794. The agitators then turned their eyes toward the slavery in the new United States of 1793.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 if not directed at these Jacobin agitators were used against them. The Acts expired in 1801 during Jefferson’s term so agitators were then able to function freely. Thus the Abolitionist movement began in the North especially among the East Anglian descendants of New England.
In this air of anti-slavery agitation the seven year old republic was alarmed at the news of the San Domingo Moment of 1804 in Haiti when the Negroes rose up and slaughtered the White men of the island. The White women were given the choice of death or becoming sex slaves to the Haitian men. Most chose life under this condition. Those who didn’t were gang raped and tortured to death. The horrors true and imagined caused a frisson of fear to run up the backs of Americans North and South. As noted slavery was still legal is many Northern States at the time.
While the Jacobins had outlawed slavery in 1794 Napoleon reinstated it in 1802. In the resultant reaction the Negro revolutionary Toussaint L’Ouverture led the slaves to victory over large French armies. Toussaint then became as or more famous than his contemporary George Washington. He was celebrated in poems and stories by such worthies as William Wordsworth of England and John Greenleaf Whittier of the United States.
As the noted historian Matthew J. Clavin details in his wonderful history Toussaint Louverture and the American Civil War: The Promise and Peril of a Second Haitian Revolution the Abolitionists kept Toussaint’s reputation alive while exciting the country into what might well have been a revolution forcing the Southern States into secession to protect not only their interests but their lives.
With the success of the first Haitian slave revolt Napoleon may well have thought New Orleans was next so rather lose it all for expense chose to sell the Louisiana territory to the US for some recompense. Either the US was uber confident in its ability to manage the situation or they weren’t yet well informed on the Haitian situation. In any event the choice was between the devil and the deep blue sea. Imagine an alternate history in which Negroes revolted from French rule in New Orleans forming a Negro empire opposed to the US.
It should be remembered that New Orleans was the northern anchor of the French Antillean empire that stretched from there down through Haiti and the islands to South America. In the event then Whites and possibly Negroes with their retinues of slaves fled to New Orleans causing irruptions in what was then the United States. And of course many Whites fled to cities of the East Coast carrying their stories with them north of the Mason-Dixon line.
With the results of Haiti in mind Jacobins or Abolitionists entered the South between then and 1860 to agitate the Negroes to murder the men and possess their women as they had done in Haiti. This was a very serious problem in the South undoubtedly influencing the desire for Secession.
There was small difference between the acts of the Abolitionists and Robespierre’s Jacobins in France. Their attitude was to motivate Liberals from their day to this. If the Abolitionists hadn’t been restrained post-war by leveler Northern heads it is not impossible that they wouldn’t have taken the guillotine to every Southern head. That would have meant the genocide of millions. Believe me those guys were savage and insane, possessed by an irrevocable idee fixe that continues to this day.
The Southerners realizing their peril organized the first Klan waging a guerilla war against Northern carpet baggers and Negroes to assure their own survival. They fought hard while their Northern allies restrained the looneys in Washington. One of their kind, a current professor at UColumbia in NYC named Eric Foner, has labeled the Civil War/Reconstruction as America’s Unfinished Revolution which he is working to complete today.
Thus one can say the hostilities begun in 1860 are continuing into the present. The Southerners succeeding in their counterrevolution established the period of Jim Crow to contain the Abolitionists and Negroes. The net result of both Haitian Revolutions then was the near total suppression of Negroes for a mere seventy-seven years. The Negro counter reaction has been waged now for sixty some years.
Toussaint L’Ouverture then could be seen as the Che Guevara of his time. If T-shirts had been the mode his countenance would have been seen everywhere, at least North of the Mason-Dixon line. As it was, in the mode of the time, Wordsworth and Whittier composed poems in his honor. The Abolitionists roamed the South promoting another San Domingo Moment.
The radical wish was proven in the Reconstruction period after the war. Reconstruction was perhaps the most shameful period in world history, dwarfing the Jewish holocaust of more recent memory. The Abolitionists of the North were absolutely barbaric in their treatment of the Whites and their adoration of Negroes who were but little removed from savagery. There was a small difference between the acts of the Abolitionists and Robespierre’s Jacobins in France.
The genocidal mindset of the Haitian Negroes in 1804 has been carried forward from then until today when Negroes aided by their Jewish allies are calling for the total extermination of one billion Whites. What is the psychology behind that?
3.
I think the answer is contained in the term White Supremacy.
As I have said the Arab slavers in Africa became black so that one had black Arabs enslaving black Africans. The Arabs were thus on the same intellectual level as the Negroes while the Negroes had been enslaving and eating each in much the same way for hundreds if not thousands of years.
What the world learned to its chagrin during the colonial period in Africa is that Whites are more capable than the coloreds. The fear that motivates Negroes, Jews and the rest of the coloreds is that they are actually less mentally capable than the Whites, hence in personal terms, inferior.
The term White Supremacy is actually self explanatory. The fact was that and is that Whites- Aryans- are intellectually superior. This is totally obvious to the naked eye although the scientific evidence of genetics indicates the same thing. Whites then, whether they wished to or not, looked down on Negroes as inferior while holding themselves aloof forbidding White women to even look at Negroes. This attitude especially concerning women angered Negroes more than can be said.
So much of White culture and inventive ability must have seemed like magic to the Negroes. Physically there wasn’t much difference. One on one without guns the White man and Negro were more or less equals. Thus when the explorer Stanley with his gun held before him was admonishing a group of Negroes, one out of sheer frustration of this runt speaking to him as he did, snatched the gun from Stanley’s hands. At that point Stanley’s power would have vanished had not his Negro gun bearer snatched the gun back handing it to Stanley restoring his power.
Thus the difference in the Negro mind was technological or intellectual superiority which he disregards as a trick or magic. The mental disparity make the two species unequal hence the insistent demand for equality at any cost. So far the appearance of equality has only been obtained by tilting the field in favor of the Negro.
Imagine the Negro fresh from the jungle stepping into a civilization he couldn’t possibly have imagined as he landed in the colonies. He must have been overwhelmed and shamed. The Jews certainly were when they were transported to Babylon where the scope of that civilization and its architecture made Israel and its comparatively shabby temple that they were so proud of appear insignificant.
Consider the country rube’s first look at New York City. I had seen big cities like SF, LA, Chicago and Philly but I mean to tell I was overawed by the endless streets of skyscrapers and the intense hustle and bustle.
As far as Magic goes just consider that little hand held device the Smart Phone. Not only can you call anywhere in the world, carry an entire encyclopedia in the your pocket, send letters by email and unbelievably take photographs and transmit them instantaneously anywhere in the world and if you’ve forgotten where you’ve parked your car the Smart Phone will locate it for you and show you where it is. Magic don’t you think?
Who invented such a device? White people. Who can use it? Anyone, even if you’re fresh from the jungle. It’s operation is that simplified. That’s what White people can do and others can’t.
Like it or not Negroes can’t. We know it; they know it too. So as much as they rail against White Supremacy its there and all they can do is eradicate it by exterminating Whites.
So the hatred is not really rooted in slavery; they have always known slavery but in fact that they can never be equal so, if you follow, the lack of equality is the real and only issue. It cannot be resolved in the Negro’s favor.
4.
By 1877 the Southern Whites had re-established White Supremacy placing the Negro back under control for seventy-seven years until Brown vs. The Board of Education released them to murder and plunder once again.
Along the way the war always simmered along sometimes bursting into a boil. The war years of 1914-18 and the early twenties were especially volatile. On the one hand Marcus Garvey established his Universal Negro Improvement Association and on the other with White men off fighting in Europe industrialists encouraged Negroes to move North to replace Whites in the factories. What has been called the Great Migration began.
While Marcus Garvey was trying to organize global Negroes and actually succeeded in establishing branches in forty some countries the migration of Negroes North was instrumental in strengthening his hand.
In the UNIA battle Whites succeeded in stopping Garvey although Garveyism had a lasting effect worldwide. The Northern invasion was stoutly resisted by Whites in the twenties as battles erupted in sites such as Chicago, Oklahoma City and especially East St. Louis, Illinois. When the smoke cleared and the dust settled in East St. Louis Negroes occupied the town. It was theirs and has remained so.
Warfare cooled down after the battles of the early twenties. The next big eruption occurred in Detroit during WWII when there was a massive battle.
As usual Negroes returning from WWII came back with different notions of race relations. They were reluctant to observe Jim Crow. Their Liberal allies had their back. In 1954. Jim Crow was defeated by the Brown vs. Board Of Education Supreme Court decision and actually implemented by Pres. Eisenhower which he didn’t have to do.
The Court determined that it could make laws without the aid of the legislatures. Henceforth the courts became social arbiters rather than legal interpreters. Fairly low level judges could on their own initiative and according to their own prejudices declare any law or the voter’s will null and void by their simple say so. The White side of the war had been legally emasculated. Why anyone would observe one man’s opinion has always been beyond me.
Thus as the war turned into the period of the Civil Rights Movement of the struggle White warriors were not only taking on the White Liberals and Negroes but the whole legal and political order. The federal government in almost a repeat of the post-Civil War Reconstruction sent armored divisions of the Army into the South to impose the illegal Supreme Court decision on Southern White school children.
At the same time emboldened by the Supreme Court decision Negroes in the South arose in an assault on White Jim Crow rule most especially in Alabama.
Virtually unnoticed at the time the racial balance in the war’s most important battlefield, NYC was quietly shifting. After the war Whites began moving out of New York City while hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans were being airlifted into the city along with other hundreds of thousands of West Indian Negroes. By late century there were more West Indians than their were US born Negroes in NYC.
Thus by 1965 while the population of the city was unchanged a million and a half Whites had left and a million and a half Puerto Ricans and West Indians had replaced them. Gigantic ghettos sprang up in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens.
Thus by 1960 the situation had become quite combustible.
Part One: The Sixties And The Negro Revolution
December 23, 2013
The Sixties And The Negro Revolution
Part One
by
R.E. Prindle
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge and capability. Yet, because they are in charge of this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something.
–Fletcher Prouty, JFK, The CIA And Vietnam
Writing here in 2014 many things about the Negro revolt in the Sixties that were unrecognized or supposedly debatable at the time have become clear. In my account then I will relate to the past, the present of the Sixties and the future being realized today.
The Negroes have always claimed endemic White racism. From their perspective this is true as the disparate impact of White supremacy is unavoidable. The attempt to deny this superiority through Affirmative Action which gives Negroes a handicap of 20 IQ points or so to make them equal admits the fact of the disparity between the two species.
This fact is also apparent by the efforts of people like McGeorge Bundy who assumed the reins of the Ford Foundation in 1966 to ‘lift’ the Negro up to White standards. Bundy neither knew nor made any attempt to understand Negro psychology which he presumed was exactly like White psychology but less developed. In that context the Sixties began with Kennedy’s creation of the Peace Corps in which White youths with no worldly experience were sent to ‘underdeveloped’ peoples too lift them up and show them how to do things the White way. There seemed to be no understanding of how the rhetoric of ‘uplift’ was perceived by the poor coloreds.
The Negroes were seen in much the same way as a sort of domestic Peace Corps in which Whites would teach Negroes manners, so to speak. In Negro eyes this was racism, White supremacy, and destested.
Yet, both sides admitted the inability of the Negro to compete in a White world when standards of ability had been created to ensure the highest standards of public benefit. Thus to ensure Negro placement not only were Negroes given a handicap of 20 points or so but standards were lowered thus decreasing public benefit of all.
While Negroes always speak of the legacy of slavery, slavery is not the issue. Negroes were always slaves, slavery was the norm in Africa. The traveler Mungo Park speaking in the eighteenth century West Africa thought that seventy-five percent of the sub-Saharan Africans were slaves disposable as their owners wished.
It might also be appropriate to point out here that the African social structure such as it was had been given to them by White men. Along the coast of the Bulge several African tribes have legends of White men coming and instructing them in the rudiments of social order. This implies that African society before that was on a hunter gatherer basis.
These legends of White law givers were undoubtedly derived from ship wrecked sailors probably from many different historical periods probably beginning with the Phoenicians or Carthaginians who made many forays down the African coast while they are thought to have circumnavigated Africa. It is not improbable that a crew or crews spent several months in the areas as the voyages took years to complete so that crews had to stop, sow crops and harvest them, replenishing their stores before continuing. Thus Whites must always have played a major role in the development of Africans.
The Arabs had been making slave raids since at least the eighth century in both West and East Africa. At the least tens of thousands of African slaves died on the long trek from the Sahel across the Sahara to the Mediterranean shores. The whole of the Sudan was thought to have been depopulated by 75% by the slavers. It was there that women had plates put in their lips, had their necks stretched using copper rings, to make them ugly so as to discourage slavers.
Further South in Kenya, Tanganyika and the Congo, Arab slavers sent long lines of slaves in neck yokes and chains on the thousand mile walk to the coast opposite the island of Zanzibar which was the trading bazaar. A very large percentage died on the trek and a still larger number amongst the midships passage to India and the Persian Gulf.
Yet the Negroes make no complaint about their savage treatment by the Arabs. Why? Quite simple. The Arabs were White to start but from the eighth century Arabs in Africa bred with the Africans becoming Negroes themselves but retaining the Arab identity. Negroes could understand enslavement by fellow Blacks which was normal; it had always been that way. In many ways the Arabs were on the same intellectual level or only slightly higher than the Africans but better organized than the non-Arab Negroes so there was no real conflict on the racial level.
Even the Ugandan chief Mtese speaking in the second half of the nineteenth century remarked that he noticed that the finer Arab trading goods came from White Europeans. There was an intellectual difference between Europeans and Arab/Negroes. It was a marked difference in intelligence. Nor did the difference pass unnoticed by the Whites. Thus there was a racial divide the Whites refused to regress to and which the Negroes couldn’t cross.
Whites rather consciously or not considered the Negroes a lower form of evolution somewhere between apes and Homo Sapiens. While Liberals of the Sixties decade would never have admitted to this attitude they nevertheless had it. Thus the tried to ‘raise’ the Negro ‘up’ to their level. The Negroes resented the attitude.
The Negroes always hated and resented the Whites for their attitude as they were treated like so many farm animals on the plantations everywhere in the world. Slavery would never have ended except for the English conscience. White people trafficked in Africans for a couple hundred years before the British ended the practice voluntarily at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Of course, not everyone, including the Americans, recognized British law so that the English spent millions and large human resources in the attempt to enforce their edict.
Slaves continued to pour into America until in a disgraceful war White Americans slaughtered each other while expending most of the wealth they had accumulated in the previous two centuries. The beneficiaries of the internecine slaughter were the Negroes. Then the Northerners attempted to enslave the Southerners to their Negro ex-slaves.
The British passed an anti-Slavery act in India in 1843. How long it took the practice to die out, if it has, is not clear.
In Brazil slavery was abolished only in 1888, twelve years from the twentieth century.
Slavery has never been abolished in Arab lands, discretely carried on today while they have slyly re-imported the practice into Europe and America.
The Negro revolution began in Haiti just after the turn of the nineteenth century. Haiti was part of the French colonial Caribbean stretching down from New Orleans on the North American continent through Haiti and the numerous islands leading down to South America.
The Negroes rose up and slaughtered every White male. As a sign of their resentment at White superiority that put White women out of reach of the Negro they allowed the White women to live so long as they gave up their pretensions of superiority and bedded Negroes. Most did. But those that didn’t were raped and tortured to death.
The French have always loved the Negro more than other Europeans. In their colonies there was a large mulatto population created by White men impregnating slaves that also owned slaves while there were numerous free Negro slave owners. Thus it was that the majority of Negro slave owners in the US after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 were in New Orleans. It may be a coincidence that the French sold Louisiana shortly after the Haitian rebellion or perhaps they read the writing on the wall.
While slavery was relatively benign in the Eastern states where owners did not have the right of life and death over their slaves in New Orleans the Negro slave owners were in the habit of working their slaves to death finding it cheaper to buy more. What good is an old useless slave anyway, hey?
Indeed, breeding farms arose in Kentucky, the site of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. When the Negroes were of an age they were sold down river to New Orleans which gave rise to that American expression.
Nor were all slaves Black. Free labor is free labor black or white. A large proportion of eighteenth century slaves were White, called indentured servants, who were treated as slaves working in the fields cheek by jowl with the Negroes. Nor were they necessarily released after their term of indenture. Excuses for expenses incurred could always be invented.
In the seventeenth century in Ireland Oliver Cromwell rounded up tens of thousands of Irish and sold them into slavery in the Caribbean where they remained slaves unto death. Children and others were abducted from English streets to be sold into slavery. The hero of Stevenson’s kidnapped was given as a reward to the ship’s captain to sell in America.
To return to the main narrative. The Negro rebellion began in Haiti and spread from there to Negro revolts on the US mainland. The Negro revolts were interrupted by the War Between the Whites. The revolt in a sense succeeded during Reconstruction abetted by the Northerners. The White counter-revolution threw off the Northern/Negro yoke in 1877 thus actually ending slavery in the US while beginning the counter suppression known as Jim Crow. The species were strictly segregated.
The racial war has never ceased although assuming different manifestations for differing circumstances. The Negro has always been aided by Northern Liberals and after 1900 by the Jews who had immigrated in their millions. WWI gave many opportunities to Negroes who were not used as troops. The war was fought by Whites against Whites thus allowing Negroes to replace their manpower in the Northern factories. The great internal migration from South to North had begun. Of course it was attended by ferocious racial warfare, usually referred to as riots. Abetted again by WWII the internal Negro migration proceeded turning into a flood during the fifties and sixties.
The Negro revolt has been characterized as America’s Unfinished Revolution referring to the failure of Reconstruction, or the supremacy of the Negro. In 2014 we are near another civil war to complete the revolution. The key event in this phase of the revolution was the Brown vs. The Board of Education Supreme Court Decision of 1954 that is said to have effectively ended the Jim Crow period.
If we consider the reality of the situation, the Negro view and the Liberal view the Supreme Court decision was a disaster. I can’t even characterize it as well meaning. It completely failed to take into consideration the realities of the situation.
Any historical perspective beginning only with the Northern imposition of Reconstruction on the South a mere eighty-nine years previously and the end of Reconstruction just seventy-seven years previously would surely alert you to the fact that the wires you were holding were live at both ends. To have ignored that was foolish. Couple that with the fact that most of the Africans had arrived after 1820 and had never been acclimated from the jungle to civilization. Mark Sullivan in his wonderful ‘Our Times’ states that in his early years ‘charming’ Africanisms such as wearing feathers was still in existence. That means that the Africans of 1954 had been excluded from the mainstream by Jim Crow for seventy-seven years. They had little concept of how the majority lived or acted or even the nature of government.
Also, by the Liberals own reckoning since they thought the Negroes’ schools and hence education was woefully substandard, they were several years behind comparable White education. They believed the Negro couldn’t get a quality education unless they were admitted to White schools. It is difficult to understand how they thought they could integrate the two class level to class level. At best they would have had to start with five years olds and begin with that generation. As it is, several generations later the educational gap is still in existence.
On a realistic scientific basis it is not possible to close the gap. Like it or not the Negro, at the very least the First Born of Homo Sapiens, is the evolutionary beginning point of Homo Sapiens while as a more probable situation they may be the Last Hominid Predecessor, or Homo Africanus, hence entirely incapable of advancing intellectually.
The Africans themselves resent being treated as the Liberals’ pets or being thought to need to be elevated to White levels which was precisely the Liberal goal then and now. The back lash at the Negro level had to be. Reaction to the Brown decision would surface ten years later in, for our purposes here, NYC when Community Control of the schools surfaced. Negroes wanted all Negro schools with all Negro teachers while setting their own curriculum. This position effectively negated the Brown decision rendering all the socially destructive hub bub of militarily enforcing the decision on Whites completely unnecessary. By the Sixties the racial animosity was unstoppable.
Part II follows.
Reconstruction- Phase Two
April 3, 2013
Reconstruction- Phase Two
by
R.E. Prindle
Reconstruction is America’s unfinished revolution….
-Eric Foner
Reconstruction was not just something that happened after the Civil War; it was and is a program, a policy, a desideratum of the Left. Now that we are well into Barry Obama’s second term impersonation of a president of the United States we have to ask ourselves, is the increased social unrest of Negro on Aryan crime and inexplicable increasing frequency of crazy Whites shooting up schoolrooms and movie theaters coincidental? Or is it evidence of a second phase of Reconstruction. The changing of America from White to Black?
It should be obvious that the American Civil War only used Negro slavery as a pretext to continue the English Civil War of the seventeenth century. The participants were the same- the Roundheads of New Anglia and the Cavaliers of Wessex.
The Roundheads had never shown an aversion to slavery at any other time in their history. Indeed, during the East Anglian interregnum the Anglian leader, Oliver Cromwell, rounded up tens of thousands of Irish and sent them to the West Indies to live and perish as slaves cheek by jowl with the Negroes from West Africa. Irish slaves were especially profitable as they cost nothing while the purchase of Negroes from their African chiefs was a costly enterprise limiting profitability.
From the other side of the Atlantic it was those enterprising New Anglian Yankee traders who bought from the African chiefs and foisted their surplus cargo on the American colonies. Let us never forget that Negro slaves were bought and sold in the Anglian colonies of New Anglia while White slaves, politely called Indentured Servants as they hadn’t been purchased were prominent in all the colonies.
So slavery was not all that repugnant to the Roundheads of New Anglia; what was anathema to them was their old Cavalier enemy from England in the South.
By 1865 the Anglians ranging across the entire Northern tier of States had been become sanctimonious.
It was not to end slavery they fought but to exterminate their Southern Aryan adversaries. Thus the draconian measures taken in Reconstruction to make the Negro supreme over the Aryans. Thus Thomas Dixons post-Reconstruction plea to the Anglians to remember that the Southern and Northern Whites were Aryans and to pledge never to slaughter each other again for the benefit of Negroes. The Anglians took every possible means to subordinate Whites to Negroes. True savagery rather than an attempt to actually reconstruct society on an equitable basis- whatever equitable could mean in the circumstances.
The majority of American Negroes were imported after 1800. A great many from say 1820 to 1860. That means they were fresh from the jungle, mere savages, with no familiarity with civilized procedures and conditions, such as for instance, freedom. They had always been slaves, always. Freedom was a strange White condition so foreign to them that they didn’t actually know what it meant. They had no idea what freedom meant except that Whites appeared to have it. Enfranchising such people on a basis of equality with civilized people then was an egregious crime.
Indeed, while enfranchisement was being forced on Sourthern Whites, States of the Anglian North such as Michigan and Ohio and most others legally excluded Negro enfranchisement by new laws. Ever the hypocrites, Liberals.
From 1866 to 1877 then, Southern Whites fought a continuation of the Civil War to preserve their freedom from Negro-Anglian domination. With help from Northern sympathizers they were successful in this as official Reconstruction was terminated in 1877 while Jim Crow was established to preserve Aryan supremacy.
Oh, I know, Negroes, Anglians and some others find the notion of White Supremacy as repulsive. But, there are others who find Negro Supremacy, Jewish Supremacy and what have you just as repulsive, perhaps Judaeo-Negro Supremacy even moreso.
The point is: there will always be the Top Dog. There is no reason that the Top Dog shouldn’t be White rather than Black or Jewish piebald.
Now, the Civil War did not end in 1865 nor did Reconstruction actually end in 1877. As Eric Foner expresses it they were unfinished revolutions, still in progress today. Both efforts just went underground.
The Negroes still long to be Top Dog which the Anglians, now Liberals, long that they should be. The Southern White has been replaced by the Aryan as the adversary that is to be destroyed. If one accepts that Jim Crow was fully operative by 1900 then the Negro-Jewish-Liberal counteroffensive began in earnest at that time.
During the next fifty years from 1900 to 1950 the effort was to erode and destroy Jim Crow. This effort effectively succeeded in 1954 with the Supreme Court Brown vs. The Board Of Education decision. The decision of the Court was the opening shot of the Second Civil War of Jews, Liberals, and Negroes against the Aryans; hence the Anti-Aryan Hate Laws to disenfranchise the Aryan male.
These laws are unconstitutional as they violate the right to equal protection of the law. As it now stands all other races and classes are protected against the apparently all powerful White male but the Aryan male is legally unprotected on a basis of inferiority in direct violation of equity and the Constitution.
Thus the Aryan male is deprived of the right of self-defense much as was the Negro Slave. So far the Aryan male has chosen to suffer the indignities rather than right the wrong. This was not always the case. In a situation perhaps more dire than today the Aryan males of Louisiana chose to protect themselves and theirs. As William A. Dunning in his Reconstruction, Political and Economic of 1907 relates the story, pp. 248-49:
Quote:
The conservatives (Renamed Domestic Terrorists by 2011) of (Louisiana), large numbers of whom were organized in semi-secret and military societies known as White Leagues, had been quiescent since Grant’s formal recognition of Kellogg in the spring of 1873. The radical government maintained a formal existence, but with no moral and little material support from the White population. In September of 1874, Kellogg undertook to seize a lot of arms which the White Leagues of New Orleans had purchased. The result was a pitched battle between the league and the police, mostly Negroes, who were organized and equipped as soldiers. The police were totally defeated and dispersed, and the radical governor took refuge in the custom house and protection of the Federal troops.
Unquote.
That appears to be the situation we’re headed into now as the Negro government of the United States has bought and distributed billions of rounds of ammunition and millions of automatic weapons with the apparent intent of subduing the legally unprotected Aryan males while beginning the attempt to disarm them.
If the Negro government expects less from current Aryan men than the response of the men of New Orleans he may wish to re-examine his intentions. Let history be the guide. History has shown the futility of force to achieve social goals. One deplores the possibility of armed defense by the Aryans but one is guilty of weakness of mind to suppose they will docilely submit to being enslaved which is the next step down from disenfranchisement.
I advocate nothing, no massa I just be speakin’ trut’ to power, humbly, massa, ever so humbly, o’ cose, but due caution in provoking what history shows to be the inevitable result should be considered. Not even the Soviet Union with all its brutal power could maintain itself against the justified will of its subject peoples. Remember Mussolini and his lamp post, Hitler and his bunker. Vengeance is mine says de lawd.
A Review: Bound Away: Virginia And The Westward Movement
August 29, 2008
A Review
Bound Away:
Virginia And The Westward Movement
by
David Hackett Fischer and James C. Kelly
Review by R.E. Prindle
Texts:
Grant, Madison, Conquest Of A Continent, Liberty Bell Publications, 2004, reprint 1933 original.
Fischer, David Hackett and Kelly, James C., Bound Away: Virginia And The Westward Movement, U. Virginia Press, 2000
The Middle Aged Scholar
For the student of settlement patterns in the US David Hackett Fischer is indispensable. Of the many books he’s written his 1992 Albion’s Seed is absolutely necessary. In that book he involves himself in the settlement patterns of all four strains from Great Britain. In this volume he interests himself only in the colony of Virginia. He considers immigration into Virginia, migration within Virginia and emigration from Virginia.
As Madison Grant points out in his work Virginia was the mother of States. Fischer points out the whys and hows. His work might be considered and extension of Grant’s.
The founding of Virginia was much more different and tumultuous than our school books relate. The Indians came close to expelling the Virginia colonists while the English had a very difficult time adapting to the climate. The death rate was worse than on the slave ships.
Black slavery was slow to develop in Virginia as the Aristocracy preferred White slaves, politely known as
Maturity Approaches
indentured servants. It was only when the White supply dried up that the Aristocracy turned to Africans. More than in the States of the Deep South slavery defeated the Commonwealth.
Where Whites had a difficult time surviving in the rich soils of the Tidal area Africans prospered soon significantly outnumbering the Whites.
The characteristic Virginia polity of an upper cast White Aristocracy, a small middle class, and the White and Black impoverished proletariats came into existence under Governor Berkeley in 1650 being perpetuated until the Civil War.
Between the strong White caste system and slavery the White proletariat was driven to escape by emigration. Virginia gradually became depopulated over the two hundred years before the Civil War. At that time East and West Virginia were one. A look at the map, of which the book has several, will show Virginia abutting both Kentucky and Ohio. Thus the Western exodus to those two States formed the character of one and shaped the character of the other. From Kentucky and Ohio the Virginians carried through southern Indiana and Illinois while populating several counties in Missouri that were known as Little Dixie.
With the opening of Alabama and Mississippi many Virginians chose to take their slaves and migrate in that direction.
The net effect of the migrations was that Virginia lost several representatives in Congress while losing intellectual vitality. The issue of slavery caused groups like the Quakers to leave the State and it became correspondingly hazardous to one’s health to criticize slavery.
Of course after th Civil War the descendants of the Virginians continued West into California and Oregon. Thus Virginian customs and styles found their way across country.
The Scholar At Play
After the War national immigration began in earnest with Southern and Eastern Europeans forming the bulk of it. Grant laments the diminishing of the Nordic cultural influence while Fischer wisely makes no comment even ignoring the issue concerning himself only with the movement of Virginians.
Even then there is an honesty in his work that makes one wonder how he survives in the anti-truth Liberal university system. I suppose it’s a matter of not what you say but how you say it. Knowing what to leave in and what to leave out.
At any rate for those interested in US settlement patterns I heartily recommend Madison Grant’s Conquest Of A Continent and both David Hackett Fischer’s Albions’ Seed and Outward Bound. If one then overlaps something like Carl Wittke’s We Who Built America that gives some idea of how post-1871 immigration patterns shaped twentieth century America one has a pretty fair idea of how the US developed up to the 1965 revision of the Immigration Act. After that revision a whole new pattern develops.
The Deconstruction Of
Edgar Rice Burroughs’ America
Part II
Organizing The Unorganizable
Don’t you leave me here,
No, don’t you leave me here.
If you must go, Sweet Pollyanne,
Well, leave a dime for beer.
Trad.
There has at present been no good history of America written. All histories have been written by partisan Liberals with no real attempt to deal with multi-culturalism in an objective manner. While I offer no comprehensive history here I do attempt to get at some underlying cultural motives of what was and is actually being attemped by the various cultures and the ends they pursue.
The key problem for American history is why the Civil War was fought. Contrary to propaganda it wasn’t over the issue of Black slavery. None of the cultures involved had ever been opposed to slavery historically or on principle, although the moral issue did evolve in Europe and the United States leading to the abolition of the slave trade at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
The cultural roots of the conflict do not being in the US but go back to the conquest of England by the Norman, William The Conquerer, in 1066. Nor do either of the cultures involved talk about the real issue; they project a false or surrogate issue. The issue is not the issue and seldom is. Underline that: The issue is not the issue.
The conflict began when the conquering Normans enslaved the Anglo-Saxons, especially those of East Anglia. The issue then is that like the biblical Hebrews the Anglo-Saxons objected to their ill treatment only. None of the cultures objected to slavery per se. The Hebrews not only held slave but in order to finance the building of Solomon’s Temple Solomon sold his countrymen into slavery. The Normans held English slaves until within a hundred years of the regicide of Charles I. The East Anglians themselves under Cromwell expatriated tens of thousand of Irish to the Caribbean Ilands as slaves to work cheek by jowl with the Negro slaves, no distinctions because of race or species. In addition, the South took no part in the procurement of Negro slaves. The slave trade was run in part by New England Puritan seamen who took the profits from the trade. Thus both the Puritans of New England and the Cavaliers of Virginia had no particular aversion in principle to slavery. The true issue was not whether but who.
page 1.
The scepter of the chosen people had been literally transferred from the Hebrews to their successors the inhabitants of England in the years following the conquest of 1066. This is a fact. The substance of the story of how the transfer was made can be found in the Lancelot-Grail. The complete Lancelot-Grail. The monarch of England are annointed according to the Jewish rites of David as administered by the high priest Zadok.
When printing made inexpensive bibles possible the East Anglians immediately associated themselves with the Israelites who according to the bible had been slaves in Egypt. Already of the new chosen people of England the East Anglians identified completely with the Hebrews of the bible becoming, if not in fact, at least as a mental projection the same. They adopted Hebrew customs, or attempted to, to the letter.
As stiff-necked as the originals they made themselves as unpopular among the other colonials who despised them and even ran them out of their communities from time to time. Their arch enemies the Norman Cavaliers of the southern counties of England followed the East Anglians to the New World when Charles I was beheaded and Cromwell and the Puritans seized power. They established themselves in Virginia and the South. The East Anglians glared at them over the barrier of the Middle Colonies. And then at some point they found a casus bellus in Negro slavery.
Negro slaves were not the issue- they were the good reason; the former enslavement of the East Anglians was the real issue. Othrs might fight for the former reason but not the latter.
I doubt if few Westerners can be found to defend slavery yet slavery was the natural order of things. If you are a Liberal your view of slavery will be very narrow concentrating on the Atlantic trade. Facts don’t matter the religious mind and Liberalism is a religion but they do to the Scientific mind. Thus slavery was endemic to Africa. Every African was a slave and possession of their king who could and did dispose of their bodies in any way he chose. It was also just as natural for the African to enslave any other people who came in his way who were not strong enough to maintain their freedom. Thus while African slaves poured out of Africa, having been sold by their chiefs, into the Atlantic trade other millions if not tens of millions gushed from Africa to the Semitic East destined for Arabia, Iran and India. The Semites paid for nothing; they merely shot up the tribes and took what they wanted.
While Africans were leaving Africa, Africans raided the shores of Europe abducting Europeans to endure worse treatment than Africans ever did in the South. Needless to say the Africans paid for nothing. If any reparations are due they are due from Africa to Europe.
Yes, slavery is wrong, is bad, but there are absolutely no innocents. All, all are guilty of the same crime against humanity. Now that we’ve got that straight we can deal with the attitude of the East Angians toward the Cavaliers of the South during the period called Reconstruction that ran in its first form from 1865 to 1877. Edgar Rice Burroughs was two years old when Reconstruction ended.
The term chosen for this period is instructive. What changes were to be made? How was the South to be reconstructed and according to whose vision? Why, according to the whims and fancies of the South’s arch enemy the East Anglians of New England- read New East Anglia. If 1865 these people had been souring their intellects on the Hebrew writings for four hundred years or so. Let that fact sink in. For four hundred years- that’s a long time- these people had been chanting refrains like- the Lord shall deliver mine enemy to me and I shall smite him hip and thigh. Take a moment to dwell on this bitter, dare I say evil, doctrine of the hateful Anglians. I grew up with this horrid doctrine and maybe you did too. Well, the Cavaliers could expect no mercy from these deep dyed bigots and they didn’t get any.
At the same time the Anglians were self-righteous, that is to say, dis-honest. They considered themselves the most virtuous of men and women just as did their fellow biblicals, the Hebrew Children. You have to remember that nearly everyone believed that God literally rescued the Hebrew Children from the fiery furnace. The Puritan was a justified sinner, wrong in their hands became right by virtue of their sanctity. They had united the will of God with their own. What they chose to believe was just; there could be no other oinion, no reasonable objection. The essence of bigotry.
page 2.
At this precise psychological moment American Liberalism came into existence. Liberalism was equated with virtue; opposition to as evil. It is that simple. In the classic mode: If you’re not with ’em, you’re against ’em. If you’re against ’em then you have to be destroyed. In order for Liberals to believe this false religion no one can be allowed to call them on it, so opinion must be strictly controlled; no dissenting allowed. Anyone thinking other wise must be demonized. Thus the conflict that will run throughout American history.
The Anglians had their enemy where they wanted them. Left to their own untrammeled desires I have no doubt that they would have annihilated every White person, that is to say, Norman Cavalier, in the South. Genocide runs like a red thread through the Liberal left from La Vendee throught the European aftermath of the Great War through the Hitler/Stalin genocidal programs to Mao, Pol Pot and beyond. It must be remembered that members of theFDR administration pressed for the genocide of German after WWII. Genocide is part of the Liberal mentality.
But the more placid people of the Middle Colonies limited Anglian hopes for a genuine holocaust. If the Anglians had been able to succeed in their ‘reconstruction’ plans the crime against humanity would have exceeded anything that happened up to 1950, or after, even exceeding the Liberal atrocities of Chairman Mao.
The reconstructed society would have reversed the pre-war situation dispossessing the Southern Whites while making them the virtual slaves of the Blacks. You see, if slavery was the issue it wasn’t Black slavery but how to impose slavery on the descendants of the Normans of the latter had imposed slavery on the Anglians hundreds of year before.
As with all Leftists the Anglians were unscrupulous disregarding all conventions and rules. That they didn’t disregard the Law was only because they were able to make the laws to serve their purposes. Hitler who had studied the period fairly closely probably learned a lot from them. Quite simply, right was equated with their desires, wrong with anything that refused to follow them. You can see the making of the Old Testament Hebrew based reliigion slowly displacing that of the Founding Fathers. As I have said before, religion equals bigotry, which is what religion must be.
The Anglian program was so unjust and transparent that reasonable men in the country instinctively opposed it while the men of the South who were directly affected took up cover armed resistance as they ought to have and must have. Just as we will have to soon.
Liberal denial of their program began with their defeat while the true horrors of this genocidal holocaust have been sswept under the rug and never discussed historically. Quite similar to the Armenian Holocaust and the Hungarian Holocaust. The Liberals, however, did not give up the war because they lost this battle. They continued to vilify the South and Southerners. One has only to look at how the South has been portrayed in movies of the last eighty years or so to understand the slander. Much of the trouble in the South today is the result of the implacable hatred of the Anglians now converted to the arrogant hatred known as Liberalism. The Second Reconstruction goes on today under the Leftist understanding of multi-culturalism. You can read Left Multi-Culturalism as the Second Reconstruction. This program calls for the abolitionof the entire ‘white race.’
The enemy of the Liberal religion became, just as with the Hebrew bible, anyone who refused to endorse and follow the program.
Prominent among these was a man of the generation of the 1850s who was revered by the people of his and the next couple generations. The tumultuous times of the twentieth century took their toll on this man who attempted to live the ‘strenuous life,’ Theodore Roosevelt. Too close to the men and the times to see it clearly, this man led such a full life, inreflected in his too short autobiography, to remember to tell all that much about it.
page 3.
Born in 1859 TR had seen America during Reconstruction and before the vast influx of immigration that began in the 1870s. He had seen the America of legend and even took part in it. He had been a rancher in the Dakotas when the West was still unwon. He had been the Police Commissioner of New York City at the height of its corruption in that most wide open town where anything went and did. I tis only by some strange myopia that untrammeled vice in the major cities of the United Sates is not recognized for far exceeding whatever vice has gone on before. Very peculiar. De Sade could have learned something from Hollywood. TR had been President of the United States from 1900 through 1908 riding in on the coattails of the assassinated President McKinley whose VP he was.
These were tumultuous times, sure, when weren’t they, as America sought to adjust to rapid changes, assimilating the Western conquests of the nineteenth century, trying to absorb scientific, technological and economic changes occurring with bewildering rapidity, while trying to reconcile differences in a rapidly growing immigration of diverse cultures.
Everyone who came to America seemed to be nursing a centuries or millennia old grudge they couldn’t give up against someone and possibly everyone. They call it multi-culturalism. The East Anglians had a half millennium old grudge against the Norman Cavaliers. The Irish had an even longer grudge against all the English. The Sicilians had a grudge that went on no one knows howlong against whomever. Perhaps the grudge was antediluvian going backt to when the sunny Mediterranean was unflooded. Probably even before the Sicels were known as Sicels. And then there was the paragon of grudge holders going back four millennia against all mankind, the Jews. Not to mention the Negroes who had only begun to to nurse their grudge against the Whites of America. The United States became a seething cauldron of hate with all these haters joining forces with the Liberals to form a coalition to Reconstruct anyone who disagreed with any of their programs out of existence. The coalition was coming together during TR’s presidency.
While Tr might have run for president in 1908 he instead ‘appointed’ a successor he believed ould continue his policies then went off to shoot lions and tigers in Africa. (Oops, did I say tigers? Everyone knows there are no tigers in Africa.) By the time he came back and realized his error he wanted to be President again. Rejected by the Republican Party he foolishly decided to run on a third party Progressive, or Bull Moose, ticket. Disastrously splitting the Republican vote he allowed the ineffably destruction Woodrow Wilson to become the first Liberal or, even Red President. At this point democracy in America began to deconstruct.
He threw himself into ineffective oppostion although too late. When the War began in 1914 he was for immediate intervention on the side of England and France in a European struggle that could have no real influence on the United States. The status quo would have assumed a different temporary form, that is all. If the Soviets couldn’t impose their will on subject Europeans for more than a very few decades how then could have the Germans? The consequences of the War would have had to have been dealt with one way or another, that’s all. When the US did enter how effective was the Liberal Wilson’s intervention? The next twenty-five years tell the story. More tens of millions of deaths. Furious with Wilson for staying out TR vociferously berated him. Quite violent language.
When war came to America, inflaming the American population, so diverse and multi-cultural, questions of loyalty arose. TR, who like so many had never examined the motives of the immigrants but expected them to embrace ‘American’ iceals, asked whether America was no more than an international boarding house. And he might have added, nothing more than something to be merely plundered.
And then in 1919 he died.
Backing TR all the way was that writer in Chicago. He’d been writing away furiously. His best selling Tarzan Of The Apes was followed by numerous other books as well as a steady stream of Tarzan sequels. In 1919 when TR pulled up stakes and left the planet Edgar Rice Burroughs pulled up his Chicago roots heading for LA to begin his second or was it his third, lifeteem. He was riding a crest of popularity as his creation, Tarzan had become a household word.
Burroughs had always been an admirer of TR. He had even tried to join the Rough Riders during the Spanish American War. Growing up in the eighties and nineties as he did, TR and his generation made an impact on his own development. The Wild West was real to him. The memory of the Wild West was a major influence on America through my youth until Hollywood began to demythologize American culture in favor of Post-WWII Jewish influences drifting away from the moral and heroic model to cringing guilt and angst.
During Burroughs’ early Hollywood years real Western badmen and lawmen, real cowboys men who had been there when it was happening, so rapidly the West came and went, served as advisors and consultants for Western movies. An important fact too easily glossed over is that Edgar Rice Burroughs experienced that West. He had seen it first hand. First in the midst of the Johnson County War in 1891 and in 1896-7 during his brief stint in Arizona when he took part in suppressing the Apache raids.
I don’t know if Burroughs scholars have yet related his first stay in Idaho with the Johnson County War going on in Wyoming. There is a good chance that the murderer Burroughs talks of having known at that time was a fugitive from Wyoming’s Johnson County.
Burroughs was a great admirer of Owen Wister reading his Virginian six or seven times. That book was about the Johnson County War in which the big ranchers tried to squeeze the little ranchers out. It was a shooting war. In Wister’s book the big ranchers purseued a member of the small ranchers into Idaho and lynched him as a ‘murderer’. Of course Wister and TR were great friends.
Then too, Burroughs would have been familiar with the fabulous career of Buffalo Bill. What a live Buffalo Bill led. A showman capitalizing on his career in the West before Little Big Horn in 1876, he returned to the West the next year to serve in the punitive campaign engaging and killing a Dioux cheif by the name of Yellow Hand in hand to hand combat then displaying the fancy clothes he had worn in the fight in his show. Mind blowing. Bill reenacted the Little Big Horn with the real Sitting Bull as an actor. How mindblowing must that have been to a seventeen year old Edgar Rice Burroughs watching the show at the Columbian Expo in 1893 with all the intenseness of youth. One imagines Burroughs hanging around the show hoping to get a glimpse of the hero up close and personal, perhaps even brushing past him with a shy, “Hello, Bill.”
So this vision of what Greil Marcus is pleased to call Bad Old America was deeply graven on the character of Edgar Rice Burroughs, nor did he consider it Bad Old America. That was the immigrant experience surfacing in Marcus.
At the same time, as a cross current, while he lived in Chicago he was to witness the tremendous immigrant invasion that took place from 1870 until the Great War did what no agitation could. It stopped immigration. Burroughs witnessed the beginnings of the conflict between Marcus’ Bad Old America and the American Cesspool since created by the culture that Marcus apprently believes is the Good New America. He may be surprised that there are dissenters to his opinion.
As a young boy at the time of the Haymarket Riot Burroughs watched immigrants, German in memory, marching throught the Chicago streets waving red flags and shouting: Down with America. He visited the tremendous Jewish community of Halsted and Maxwell streets in which people were piled on top of people to create the most densely populated location on the face of the earth in an attempt to prevent the dilution of their culture.
One need only read Upton Sinclair’s novel of the stockyards, The Jungle, to get an idea of what sights, sounds and smells seared the consciousness of a young man growing up in what was then considered the freest and and greatest nation in the world; and it was regardless of what a legion of Greil Marcuses might think. It was the Bad Old America that Greil Marcus ancestors considered The Promised Land. How attitudes change with circumstances.
page 5.
It was the freest but these immigrant cultures who were to make the United States the most polyglot nation in the world were chronically dissatisfied. They brought their clotted politics with them projecting them on their new home before they even discovered what it was.
A conflict between the Western dream of TR, Wister and Burroughs and the immigrant projection of America took shape. There was still that conflict within in the ranks of oldtime Americans however.
After Reconstruction was terminated, Liberals, who still projected the destruction of their Southern enemies, began to align themselves with the incoming discontented and hateful cultures to form a strange vision of utopia. A fantastic dream that disregarded all reality. The Liberals asked: What if apples were oranges? And then decided they could be.
Perhaps H.G. Wells writing his 1921 effort The Salvaging Of Civilization, the title displays his own personal angst, expressed the essence of the fantasy. P. 14.
Quote:
It is, if people will but think steadfastly, inconceivable that there should be any world control without the a merger of sovereignty, but the framers of these early tentatives toward world unity have lacked the courage of frankness in this respect. They have been afraid of bawling outbreaks of patriotism, and they had tried to believe, that they contemplate nothing more than a league of nations, when in reality they contemplate a subordination of nations and administration to one common rule and law.
Unquote.
Wells here presents a masterly example of the studied disingenuous of the Liberal or in Orwellian terms, doublethink. Wells doesn’t explain to which one common rule of law we are all to submit ourselves. In point of fact the nationality the Liberals claim to despise did not disappear. They merely changed the name to multi-culturalism. Thus each culture is trying to impose its law on all the others. Thus the Jews, thus the Moslems, thus the Africans. But there is and will be no actual synthesis.
The Liberal always denies his real intent preferring subterfuge to honest discussion. In point of fact no Liberal objective will stand up to examination so, convinced of their rightness, or rather preferring their pleasant daydream of their vision of a utopia they feel the need to mislead and deny.
In this quote Wells is actuall admitting that Liberals are lieing about their objectives, further it is perfectly obvious they are lieing. As Wells admits here it is inconceivable that there should be any world control without a merger of sovereignty. But what does he mean by a merger of sovereignty. That the rest of the world shall submit to Jewish or Moslem rule? Is that a merger? Disbelievers have called the Liberals on this issue. Liberals have been lieing says Wells. Why? Because they have been afraid of ‘bawling outbreaks of patriotism.’
Here, with consummate skill Wells defames those who disagree with him as irrational dissenters mired in a ‘superstition’ of the past. Their objections are not reasonable nor presented in a rational manner but are ‘bawling outbreaks’, hysterical, shrieking objections, one might say, of ‘patriotism.’ Patriotism we have all been informed elsewhere is ‘the last refuge of the scoundrel.’ Samuel Johnson, if I remember correctly. Thus Wells characterizes any dissenters as irrational hysterical scoundrels. When you can’t convice, defame. The old ad hominem. Wells might as have come right out and called the dissenters ‘anti-Semites’ and gotten it over with.
Wells and his ilk, and I know he didn’t honestly believe this, assume not only that all people are equal but that they are at the same level of civilization and psychology. What is clear to anyone with a grain of sense is that they aren’t. The Asia psychology is incompatibleto the Western and the African. The Africans first made contact with more than a stone age culture, come into real contact with higher civilization only about one hundred fifty years ago. They still have no concept of civilization as is evidenced by Zimbabwe and the congeries of tribes in South Africa who when they have committed genocide against the Whites will renew the old tribal conflicts.
The only way to merge cultures is to the lowest denominator and that is the African.
Wells assumes that all people see the problem as he and his Euroamerican Liberals see it. They don’t. China has always considered itself the Middle Kingdom- that is the country around which all others revolve. And it always has been except for the last couple hundred years. Currently it is using economic means to reestablish that position. I’ll put it before you as plainly as I can. People with that attitude don’t merge with anybody; they assume overlordship of subservients.
page 6.
The same is true of the Semites who believe they have a mandate from god to rule mankind. These are facts no one can dispute, you just have to apply them.
On top of that each bears grudges against the others that they are unwilling to either forgive or forget. Do the Liberals really believe the Africans don’t want to avenge the ignominy of subjection to White, and White is the key problem, Euroamericans? Five hundred years of resentment against the Normans by the Anglians led to the bloodiest war of all time and it isn’t over yet. Are the Liberals really so naive as to believe that Africans are going to forgive or forget a mere hundred years after the fact? They are mad, obtuse, crazy projectors.
And then there’s the question of the Law. Wells and Liberals apparently assume that Western Law will prevail. Well, they forgot to ask the Moslems abut that, who since their declaration of war against the world in the seventh century will accept nothing less than their barbaric Sharia code. How smart do you have to be to figure that one out? Lothrop Stoddard had no difficulty.
The Jews work quietly to overturn Western Law in favor of the Talmudic. The Chinese certainly favor authoritarian rule and African notions of Law are real howlers.
Is the recognition of these problems an outbreak of ‘bawling patriotism’? I don’t think so. Unless Wells and his Liberals are will to defame intelligence itself. Bad enough to defame another simply because they disagree with your blather.
Immigration was a mistake from the beginning. By what mode of reasoning men like Theodore Roosevelt believed that dozens of cultures could be mingled with their own without conflict is a mystery. There was and is no possibility that such cultures with no attempt to define and understand them or even with it can be introduced without changing the dominant culture. When TR asks is America just an international boarding house one has to regard him with some surprise. Why, of course, how could it be otherwise?
Even a population monster like China which discourages immigration for obvious reasons is finding it must give way to militant Moslemism. Even while ti seeks to destroy a number of other relitions it is accommodating Moslems. Strange isn’t it? Must be some kind of consanguinity in outlook.
Thus Americans really surrendered their country when Red President Wilson assumed the presidency. That was when the Liberal Coalition took over. A settlement house mentality of government where the superior Liberals looked after the not inferior but permanently less capable Negroes and immigrants. The Libereals didn’t yet think in terms of multi-culturalism, ne nationalism, that was an immigrant Jewish invention, but they gave preference to Negroes and immigrants over Bad Old Americans who couldn’t quite agree with them. All who disagreed were equivalent to the Southern Cavaliers.
In future years Liberals would pervert the Law, to isolate those not of their merry band and submerge them beneath the rest just as they attempted to do during Reconstruction: Affirmative Action = Reconstruction.
In latter days they constructed a ladder of minorities which included even a majority like women and sexual psychotics like homosexuals while isolating the non-Liberal heterosexual White male. These madmen poured out their hatred and scorn on these surrogates of the Norman invaders of 1066.
Little of this was clear at the time, however it suddenly dawned on some of the ‘advanced’ thinkers like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard that there was indeed a new direction to America that they didn’t like. A brief flurry of anti-immigration literature appeared from 1915 into the twenties but that was vigorously opposed by the Judaeo-Communist propagandists.
We can see how Wells and his Open Conspiracy functioned fairly clearly. Let us tuen now the more obscure Revolution
Go to Part III. Organizing The Revolution
I, Dynamo 