A Review: Reconstruction: Foner, Du Bois, Bowers
April 30, 2008
A Review
Reconstruction:
Foner, Du Bois, Bowers
by
R.E. Prindle
Bowers, Claude: The Tragic Era, 1929
Du Bois: Black Reconstruction In America: 1860-1880, 1935
Foner, Eric: Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1988
While race, or species, is the cental problem of Reconstruction none of the above writers bothers to really examine the issue.
On the one hand the United States was settled by the highest exemplars of human development at that time. The evolutionary nature of the European settlers was unfolding at a rapid rate that was to blossom in the nineteenth century although still at a relatively low stage of development.
Added to his species of Homo Sapiens was the infusion of diverse African populations fresh from the jungles of Africa. The African peoples are believed to be the first Homo Sapiens to evolve. they had been in Africa for 150,000 years and had attained no indigenous level of civilization.
Not all African peoples are the same age. For instance, the Bantu peoples who came into existence in the Sahel near Ubang-Chari are an obvious Negro-Arab hybrid. The hybrid developed about 1000AD spreading South and East across the continent. The Bantus drove the indigenous Bushmen before them eventually forcing the remnant into the Kalihari.
The West Africans may be tha stock on which the Arab was grafted. Now, the anthropologists tell us that at some point the hominid strain evolved into Homo Sapiens I, which is to say the Black African. But, they don’t tell us, nor are they capable of it, exactly what separates the Last Hominid Predecessor from Homo Sapiens. We don’t know what those indicators are. Either the Last Hominid Predecessor has disappeared without a trace or the Bushmen may be the LHP or even the West African. Certainly there are marked differences between the African and the Semite, Caucasian and Mongolid. The difference is of an intellectual character as well as a number of physical ones, which is to say, genetic.
No one will deny the physical differences, they are maintained as merely cosmetic. It is in the intellectual field we encounter resistance.
Science has given ample proof that there is a difference in mental capacity between Africans and Caucasians, Mongolids and Semites. There is an emotional problem with the Biblically oriented because the bible says God created man and The Declaration Of Independence of the United States says that: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…’
So we have the statements of men against the scientific evidence of nature. I opt for science.
The European discovered Ameica and invaded it or settled it depending on how you choose to see it. Following the scientific approach of Darwin I understand that the Europeans invaded the continent driving the earlier settlers before it in the exact same way that one species of bird, for insance, supplants another.
The Europeans had not yet developed the notion of free labor the way they would in the nineteenth century so they brought indentured White ‘servants’ over who were in fact, slaves. Shortly thereafter a sea captain unloaded a cargo of Africans as laborers who also became slaves. Over a period of decades the Africans displaced the Europeans as slaves but not before extensive interbreeding as both species were used as field hands.
In Darwinian terns then, as a competing human species Europeans displaced the Native Americans, or Indians, while at the same time introducing the African species which by the time of Reconstruction would enter into competition with the Caucasians for possession of the the continent. The difference in species was an irreconcilable difference, an either-or situation. This is the tragedy of the United States of America and the Western Hemisphere.
Africans were always a signficant portion of the population of the United States, moreso in the South but they were not inknown in the North where they were treated little differently than in the South. Edgar Allan Poe recors an instance of Negro slavery in Pennsylvania that was not all that unusual.
Prior to 1793 the ratio of Black to White was much smaller but in that year Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. This invention opened the black lands across the South from the coast through Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas to Texas to cotton cultivation. Black lands does not refer to Negroes but to the soil.
Thus from 1793 to 1860 the importation of Africans increased greatly. The African population skyrocketed. At the time of the Civil War Du Bois estimates that 10% were African born. That is one in ten. The percentage born to mothers from from Africa and first Generation Africans must therefore represent a full 25% of the African population. Thus, at the time of Emancipation at least one in four can be said to be African in culture.
Indeed, Mark Sullivan (1874-1952) in his wonderful multi-volume popular American history, Our Times, recalls the charm of the Africanisms of the Negro that had disappeared by the turn of the century.
Contrary to common belief the number of slaveholders in the South was relatively small. Non-slaveholders outnumbered slaveholder by a considerable margin. Also contrary to common belief Whites, Blacks and Indians all owned slaves. As one progressed from East to West conditions became more barbarous. Relatively benign in the East by the time one reached Louisiana where the majority of Black slave owners domiciled according to Du Bois slaves were actually worked to death, the owners then buying replacements. Although it was denied and covered up Kentucky bred Africans for sale to the Deep South.
There are those who say that slavery was a dying institution that would have disappeared on its own. Whether it would have or not I see little to indicate such a development.
The plantations could huge affairs of a hundred thousand acres or more; self-contained cotton growing duchies. Having the economic power the Planters controlled politics. The much larger non-slave owning White majority was despised by both Planters aand Blacks while being bent to the will of the Planters. It is interesting to watch Du Bois twist and turn trying to explain why it was right for the slaves to despise the ‘po’ white trash.’
The Planters built up a very pleasant situation for themselves on the backs of both Blacks and Whites. ‘Oh, Darkies, how my heart grows weary’, Br’er Rabbit, Br’er Fox and that sort of thing. Disney’s Song Of The South really cranked out the Blacks. The Planter-Black alliance against the Southern Whites has evolved today into the Liberal-Black alliance against ‘Whiteness.’
At the time the Planters had abundant opportunity to study the Blacks. They came to the conclusion, without using the term, that the Africans were a different species, since corroborated by science.
Thus, when Reconstruction began we had a two species competing for the same territory. The species were inherently unequal. Equality of intellect could only be obtained by education, if at all. In addition, as I noted, fully 25^ or, one in four, had but recently been removed from the African jungles. The remaining three quarters had been in the state of slavery for generations. They were thoroughly cowed. Any hope of freedom they had was hundreds of years old. They were in a body illiterate. Indeed, it was against the law to school them.
As Du Bois points out because of its hitorical relation to the French Caribbean Louisiana had the largest group of educated and cultured Blacks. Indeed, the early cultural history of New Orleans is worth of study. There were things going on there that weren’t going on in other places.
At one stroke then in 1863 the bonds of the community were broken apart and this Black population nearly equal in size to the Whites, in some places exceeding it, was placed on a political parity by Northern bayonets. Truly a secon Civil War in the South between Blacks and Whites was the only possible result. The first result as Eric Foner says was the Unifinished American Revolution.
2.
The argument of Du Bois depends on the character of the Negro. That it is both wrong to enslave another and that the introduction of the Negro into the Americas as the greatest error of all goes without saying. The point is that we have two Homo Sapiens species competing for the same land. The dirrerences are irreconciable and can only be solved by the elimination of one or the other. The problem as an evolutionary one is beyond reason. No amount of good will can resolve it. Tor those who haven’t thought this situation through the statement may sound strong but the current New Abolitionist movement is dedicated to the genocide of Whites. That simple fact cannot be denied.
Du Bois, who writes as a Black apologist and not an historian, has , or ast least displays absolutely no psychological understanding of the participants. He believes he is an excellent historian but I’m not prepared to allow him that without a grasp of psychology.
In his view which he shares with Liberals the Negro is by nature an inoffensive, happy-go-lucky fellow who wouldn’t harm a fly. Why, during the war didn’t he stand by the Missus and the kids while the menfolk were off shooting the Negroes who had joined the Yankee war machine and made it work? According to Du Bois the war couldn’t have been won if those Negro soldiers hadn’t joined up.
Supposing that Blacks in the heart of the South did remain quiescent? Does that mean it was because they were happy and contented or does it mean they were waiting for the results before stirring? Actually the Southern states were the only place Africans in the world were so quiescent so we have to look for other reasons than good natured loyalty.
Earlier in the century when a majority population of Africans revolted against a small minority of Whites in Haiti the Africans slaughtered the White males while retaining the White females as sex slaves.
In Jamaica where the small minority of Whites couldn’t control the large majority of Africans, Africans escaped to the hinterlands where they formed their own district and carried on guerilla warfare from there.
Their earlier African heritage had been no different than the Africans of the South. Tribal wars of extermination were the sole constant of African life. Tribal centers rose and fell. Livingstone and others discovered burnt over ruin after burnt over ruin, formerly populous lands entirely deserted.
In today’s Africa Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has completely demolished the civilization Whites had built up. One of his first acts upon taking office was to attempt the extermination of the Matabele Zulu over a hundred and fifty year old grievance.
Now that the Africans in South Africa have been granted power over the Whites they are committing genocide against them while dismantling the civilization the Whites built up. They simply cannot sustain it.
In the United States today the Blacks of New Abolitionism are calling for the disappearance of Whiteness now that the United States’ unfinished revolution, as Foner expresses it, is rushing to its conclusion. Unless the Whites of America wake up Whiteness will disappear and the unfinished revolution conclude in their destruction. In other words, in the Darwinian sense the African species of Homo Sapiens in competition with the White Homo Sapiens species will eliminate them completely. Human abilities to speak and reason mean nothing compared to the forces of nature, especially when those forces go unrecognized.
Thus the major weakness of Du Bois’ thesis is that he fails to understand, at least state, the causes of irreconcilable differences. African people are not as he discribes them. Nor are Whites.
Bowers makes it more clear that from the White point of view the battle between Whites was the great tragedy. From that point of view the whole purpose of Reconstruction was to reconcile the Whites without any reference to Africans. The Africans were an unpleasant reality that cvould be disposed of in only one way and extermination was too horrible for the Whites to contemplate while, as we have seen, it wasn’t for the Africans of Haiti and isn’t for the Africans of today not only in Zimbabwe and South africa but in the United States of America. New Abolitionism means the genocide of Whites.
Bowers wrote in 1929 with popular success so that Du Bois’ volume seems to have been conceived in answer to Bowers. Bowers takes a pessimistic view of the capabilities of Africans while Du Bois stoutly defends their abilities. One is led to believe that there was no public edcuation in the South before the war while the bulk of the Whites were as illiterate as the Africans by Du Bois. The Africans in their desire for learning then organized the entire public school system generously including Whites who promptly segregated the schools.
A.W. Tourgee in his novel Bricks Without Straw that Du Bois refers to constantly has an interesting passage in which this notion apparently began and persists to this day. Bricks Without Straw p. 127:
As they rode away the two representatives of antipodal thought discussed the scenes they had witnessed that day, which were equally new to them both, and naturally enough drew from them entirely different conclusions. The Northern man enthusiastically prophesied the rapid rise and miraculous development of the colored race under the impetus of free schools and free thought. The Southern man only saw in it a prospect of more “sassy niggers,” like Nimbus, who was “a good enough nigger, but mighty aggravating to the white folks.”
With regard to the teachers, he ventured only this comment: “Captain, it’s a mighty pity them gals are teaching a nigger school. They’re too likely for such work- too likely by half.”
The man whom he addressed only gave a low, quiet laugh at this remark, which the other found it difficult to interpret.
Over the succeeding century and a half the Africans seem to have lost their zeal for education while being less cpable of it than the Northern man thought. No miraculous development of Africans has ocurred. The facts seem to be that the average intelligence as measured by IQ testing of the African species is fifteen or twenty points below that of the Whites while being even higher in Africa where the Africans have not come into direct contact with Western Civilization.
That this fact is true can be seen by the institution of Affirmative Action. Blacks have access to equal education but in order to get ‘equalization of results’ the Liberal reactionaries have essentially given Africans a fifteen to twenty point handicap and the declared results equal.
I wonder what Tiger Wood would thing about Affirmative Action in golf where his oppoents where given a ten or fifteen point handicap?
The Liberals tacitly acknowledge the unbridgable gap in intellectual capabilites between the two species by the institution of Affirmative Action.
Thus following the defeat of the South, Northern troops were garrisoned in the South to establish equality on the point of a bayonet which was the only way it could be done.
Both Bowers and Du Bois point out the hyprocrisy of the North forcing recial equality on the South when they denied such equality to Africans in the North. The hypocrisy was stifling. While the North insisted on the enfranchisement of the Africans in the South there were very, very few places in the North where Africans were allowed to vote.
Du Bois repeatedly refers to Tourgee’s (with a soft G) Bricks Without Straw in corroboration of his view. I have since read Bricks Without Straw which I found a good novel and historically valuable but my reading of the story doesn’t produce the same results as does that of Du Bois. It seems that there is more than one way to approach the story.
Tourgee was a carpetbagger who went South to make his fortune. While I have faith that his representation is accurate he still describes two different species, as in the above quote, competing for the same space within the framework of the recent past. If he is speaking his own thoughts through the mouth of the Captain then if he were alive today he would have to admit his error.
The Africans were still a freed people with a two hundred year history of subjection. There was no way they could function in a free society. The situation was impossible. Ante-bellum laws had made it a crime to school slaves so that according to Tourgee not one African in a thousand could read or write. Du Bois in his depiction of the African’s eagerness for education places the figure much higher. It is difficult in the circumstances to understand how the millions of African in the black belt of the Cotton Kingdom could have gotten even a smidgeon of education. It was against the law. Laws are wonderful things, watch out for them.
Even freed it is impossible to believe that many adults could learn to read or write. Education requires the pliable minds of the yung. It takes real determination to learn to read and write as an adult which very few have. To be law abiding can be criminal under certain laws. Witness the lawful Naze society.
Bowers gives a feel for the conflict between the species with atrocities on either side. Du Bois takes theposition of the poor suffering amiable negro who was harassed and brutalized by the Whjites while patiently relying on the courts for justice. Remember he believes this the Negro nature.
Bowers is closer to the truth but that is irrelevant. As Foner says this was the beginning of America’s unfinished revolution. Reconstruction was the first phase followed by the counter revolution of the Jim Crow period. That period ended, to use a convenient date in 1954 with the Supreme Court decision in Brown Vs. The Board Of Education.
Thus the African revolt began into the present time. The candadicy of Barry Dunham-Obama signifies the completion of Foner’s unfinished revolution. If elected the Liberal-African combine will begin in earnest to eliminate Whiteness in America. The genocide of Whites which has already commenced and is fairly well advanced will be prosecuted in earnest.
Open your eyes and actually see what is happening.
Exhuming Bob IX: Chronicles I Pensees3
April 27, 2008
Exhuming Bob IX
Chronicles Vol. I
Pensees 3
by
R.E. Prindle
…I needed to get my own place, one with my own bed, stove and tables. It was about time. I guess it could have happened earlier, but I liked staying with others. It was a less of a hassle, easier, with little responsibility- places where i could freely come and go, sometimes even with a key, rooms with plenty of hardback books on shelves and stacks of phonograph records. When I wasn’t doing anything else, I’d thumb through the books and listen to records.
Not having a place of my own was beginning to affect my super-sensitive nature, so after being in town close to a year I rented a third floor walkup apartent…
Bob Dylan, Chronicles Vol. I
Yes. Bob’s super-sensitive nature needed his own bed. He and Suze Rotolo were an item soon after he met her in July of ’61. He had to give up the the comfort of other people’s books and records in other people’s digs. He needed his own privacy now.
Suze would be an important influence in his life. She came from a long line of Communist agitators. She was not only Red to the- but was working for- CORE there in New York City. Bob wasn’t writing much as yet since his major influences hadn’t come together. While Bob doesn’t mention all those old C&W records as a songwriting influence he nevertheless has always written within a Country and Western context. Guthrie, his first attested major influence rose from a C&W milieu.
From being an apparent pauper, one reason Suze’s mother didn’t like him, Bob suddenly had the affluence to rent an apartment while being able to furnish it, even buying a used TV. He and Suze moved in. Suze is putting out an autobiography this month (May, 2008) so we’ll see if we can see what Bob saw in the girl.
As a Communist lass working for CORE Suze must have talked up Civil Rights and other Reconstruction views a bit so we may probably accurately assume that she influenced Bob’s songwriting direction when he gets his songwriting attitude organized here in a paragraph or two.
Bob came from small town Mid-West Hibbing. I do know where that’s at. While he was interested in records there was no indication he was ever interested in any other cultural areas. He doesn’t seem to have evidenced any interest in the varied cultural life of New York City before he met Suze. He was no habitue of museums although he does tell us he haunted the library where he read newspapers- those from 1855 to 1865. No news like old news.
His mind had been little prepared for what Suze had to show him. Mid-West small towns can be stifling and that’s no joke.
As Bob says: I began to braoden my horizons, see a lot of what the world was like, especially the off-Broadway scene. Then he mentions Le Roi Jones’ (Amiri Baraka) and the Living Theatre play, The Brig. Bob may have seeen those plays with Suze but he didn’t see them within the time limits of his story so they could have had no influence on his songwriting development at this time. Dutchman and The Baptism of Jones that he mentions were first performed in 1964 as was the Living Theatre’s, The Brig. It is interesting that Jones’ The Bapstism is described as anti-religious when Jones turned Moslem and became Baraka shortly thereafter. Baptism must have been more anti-White.
Jack Gelber’s The Connection was made into a movie in ’62 so he could have seen the play within this time period. I couldn’t find any time period for the play but it ran for over two years. I didn’t come up with anything for the Comedia Del Arte.
The Brecht-Weil show drew a blank but as he seems to have been knocked out by the song Pirate Jenny that may have influenced his song When The Ship Comes In, while he gives it prime importance as an influence that formed his skills he must have seen that sometime in the Fall of ”61 or the Spring of ’62.
He and Suze did visit the artist hangouts she was familiar with while broadening Bob’s horizons by trips to MOMA and the Metropolitan. Bob probably saw Picasso’s Guernica at MOMA where it was on display at the time. Bob developed a real interest in painting during this period.
So, we have the book thumbings from his freeloading days, the records, Suze and her art influences and then when John Hammond signed him he gave Bob an acetate of the first Robert Johnson album, which didn’t sell for beans I might add. The first Robert Johnson LP was released in 1960 so I don’t understand why Bob was given an acetate unless it was just lying around and Hammond picked it up or else acetates were a sop to new signees who had just been contractually screwed. You think managers are bad, try record companies.
Johnson was a revelation for Bob. He saw something in the LP which only a few people ever have. I’ve listened to it a couple of times and I’m with Dave Van Ronk. So What? There’s nothing to the vocals and he’s obviously a beginner on guitar. It’s not that he’s inventive he just doesn’t know how to play.
The story Bob tells is that a teenage Johnson is hanging around some Blues heavies and they shoo him off. Johnson then meets a supposed guitar wizard nobody’s ever heard of who teaches this very receptive student mega volumes of guitar lore so that Johnson returns to the Blues heavies a year later to knock their socks off with his virtuosity. As Van Ronk says: ‘…oh that lick’s from here, this one’s from there; that song is a reworking of another and so on. Greil Marcus quotes Johnson’s lyrics extensively in his Mystery Train. Wow! I guess too much of nothing can be a good thing.
But anyway Bob learned three or four times as fast from Johnson as Johnson learned from the old coot who taught him. Bob was up and running within three months.
However Superbob the Songwriter wasn’t ready to step forth from the phone booth yet, there was something else lacking, what was it, something or other. That’s it, in French, l’ autre. Bob had discovered that he was someone else. I know where that’s at too; I’ve been called somethin’ else a couple times I can remember. So Bob was somewhere between Bob1 and Bob2. The transition from Bobby Zimmerman to Bob Dylan had to be completed. Bob picked up a copy of Arthur Rimbaud. The book fell open in his hands and the words ‘Je suis un autre’ floated up before his eyes and were sucked into his soul. Bob too realized that he had or was un autre. Now Bob was ready to rock and roll.
This is a pretty story and I like it. I like it a lot. It might even be true, I’m sure I don’t know and maybe Bob isn’t real positive. Anyway the songs began to roll out. John Hammond who had seen only a couple when he suspicioned there might be more in Bob’s head so he sent the underaged lad to be signed by Lou Levy. Songs were in the air I guess and Albert Grossman had his radio tuned to Bob’s brain and must have heard them. Like a vulture spotting a dying man from several thousand feet in the air the eagle eyed Albert, and that is not meant as an insult, descended on Bob and scooped him up. Wish I’d been there with the gift of gab, a shovelful of chutzpah. A dream of a life time and Albert split it in two to come up with Bob and Peter, Paul And Mary. The Fearsome Foursome.
Although Bob was to have difficulties with Albert in later years when Albert’s cut was growing larger than Bob’s he seemed to have been welcome at this time. Peter Yarrow says that without Albert Grossman there wouldn’t have been a Bob Dylan and this may be God’s own truth. So how much did Bob really owe Albert? But like The Colonel and Elvis a manager seems to inevitably believe the whole belongs to him. The manager’s cut just seems to get larger and larger while the artist he’s working over gets to lick the plate. But, those problems were in the future and as Bob’s songwriting skills matured Albert got him much more money than he could have gotten otherwise.
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 