[ Anglo-American rivalries.]
England and America will one day have a war with one another, which will be waged with the greatest hatred imaginable. One of the two countries will have to disappear.
“Why were you so ungrateful to our gods
as to desert them for the Jews?”
—Julian, addressing the Christians
Whites have been nuts for a long, long, long time. In a film or documentary about the times after Julian I listened a pagan character saying “…the new god of the Romans” in the sense that this new cult (Christianity) was a curious fad of the eccentric invaders.
Just as the Roman Christians of the first centuries were clueless about the utter craziness of adapting a new god—stealing the god from the subversive tribe only meant schizophrenizing themselves—, today’s whites are just as crazy about the uttermost toxicity of their new religion, Liberalism. And I find it a little embarrassing that it had to be a Jew, Lawrence Auster, the one who nailed the underlying principle of Liberalism.
A new god, or rather a secular incarnation of the previous one, has infected the white psyche since the French Revolution, which equalized everyone in the name of the “rights of man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.
The same at the other side of the Atlantic. I have already quoted Mark Weber but since he explains my point so clearly, his words merit re-quoting:
Americans pride themselves of not having an ideology (“We are not fooled by fascism, communism or Nazism or any other ‘isms’”). Well, in fact, America does have an ideology. It has a kind of core idea and a core narrative of itself that is widely accepted by Americans, whether they call themselves conservatives or liberals. And it is so engrained in the American mentality that it is not often expressed very openly.
The core of the American ideology is in the birth certificate, as it were, of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence. You all know that the Declaration of Independence lays out, I think, what Americans assume about what this country stands for, what it really means and in cases of doubt we turn back to it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And to this end “Governments are instituted.”
Now that’s an essential kind of belief that Americans more or less accept. Liberals emphasize much more than conservatives the equality part of that. And conservatives tend to emphasize the point of individual life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. That is a very core kind of thing and with that there is a kind of narrative of American history.
The narrative of American history is that although it’s true that we didn’t have real equality when America was founded that is what we are aiming for: that’s our goal [emphasis in Weber’s voice]. And it is true that our founding fathers did not practice it well. But we are all trying to practice it. We are trying to reach that goal, that goal of real equality.
In his speech Weber also said that in keeping with that goal in the past, Americans, the archetypal liberals in every sense of the word, decided that distinctions between Christians and non-Christians were not very important and stopped discriminating against the latter. That was not necessarily a bad step but then, an artificial equality between women and men was enforced by law. And with time the same happened with Jews and finally with the Negroes and other non-Whites, who became empowered in America in ways that even the Founders would have found unconceivable.
Presently it is turn of the fags. Quite a few white nationalists are tolerant on this behavior because, like the Aryans who abandoned Apollo for a Semitic god, they also ignore that this fad is one of the last in a downward spiral. What’s next? Tolerating pedophiles? Those who commit bestiality? Keep Alexis de Tocqueville in mind: “The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases.”
Egalitarianism, the new god of the white peoples, is the quintessence of liberalism: which was concocted by well-intentioned whites but as crazy as the Christians who demolished the pagan temples, burnt the libraries and shattered the sculptures that represented our true soul.
“As I have said many times before, the economic crisis of 2008 was only a speed bump on the way to the main event. I believe that before the end of this decade there will be an economic crisis so historic that it will eclipse the crash of 29 and the subsequent great depression. I also believe it is both unavoidable and inevitable, because it is merely the free market releasing the stored up energy from decades of economic manipulation. Yes… bad things are going to happen, but it could be the best thing that ever happened to you.”
Note: Economics is not my forte and therefore I cannot discuss the complex issues of these new series with skeptical commenters. I would recommend those who completely reject what Maloney says to go to his own site, subscribe if necessary (it’s free), and discuss it there.
by Gerald Posner
The response to the hardcover publication of this book [Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK] surprised both me and my publisher, Random House. We were initially worried that the book might be lost in the publicity surrounding the publication of other books espousing convoluted theories. But we had underestimated the extent to which, after thirty years of virtually unchallenged conspiracy conjecture, the conclusion that Oswald acted alone in assassinating JFK had evolved, ironically, into the most controversial position. While the media’s response was overwhelmingly positive, the reaction from the conspiracy community was the opposite—not simply negative, but often vitriolic. There was little effort to study my overall evidence and conclusions with anything that approached an open mind. Indeed, there was a concerted counterattack to discredit both the book and its author…
Harold Weisberg, one of the deans of the conspiracy press, found his first publisher to bring a book titled Case Open, a broadcast attack attempting to diminish the impact of my work.
Other conspiracy buffs launched personal attacks. It was, as one journalist commented, as if overnight I had become the Salmon Rushdie of the assassination world. I was accused of treason by a buff who ran a Dallas “research center,” and my wife and I were subjected to several months of harassing telephone calls and letters. At an author’s luncheon, pickets protested that I was a dupe of the CIA. Faxes and letters to the media also charged I was a CIA agent, or that the CIA had written my book…
Television and radio producers were harassed by callers attempting to have my appearances cancelled. Some reviewers who wrote favorably about the book received intimidating calls or letters. My publisher was subjected to the same treatment, and even my editor, Bob Loomis, was publicly accused of being a CIA agent.
Although I had expected that individuals who had invested their adult lives into investigating JFK conspiracies might react angrily to a book that exposed the fallacies in their arguments, the vehemence of these personal attacks surprised me. I had mistakenly expected a debate on the issues. It took little time to discover, however, the extent to which many people who believe in a JFK conspiracy do so with almost religious fervor and are not dissuaded by the facts. Case Closed was probably subjected to greater scrutiny by more “critics” than any other book published in recent years…
The updated and restored information in this edition has only strengthened the book’s original conclusion that Oswald and Ruby acted alone. Time and technology have caught up to the conspiracy critics. Some of the most important contentions have collapsed; for example: Photographic tests reveal that the backyard photos of Oswald holding his weapons, contested as fakes, are authentic; ballistics and computer studies confirm the so-called magic bullet theory…
There is more than enough evidence available on the record to draw conclusions about what happened in the JFK assassination. But apparently most Americans, despite the strength of the evidence, do not want to accept the notion that random acts of violence can change the course of history and that Lee Harvey Oswald could affect our lives in a way over which we have no control. It is unsettling to think that a sociopathic twenty-four-year-old loser in life, armed with a $12 rifle and consumed by his own warped motivation, ended Camelot. But for readers willing to approach this subject with an open mind, it is the only rational judgment.
Last year on the Occidental Observer Trainspotter said:
I can’t help having a bit of a soft spot for Buchanan. In some ways, I cut my political teeth as a teen by watching Crossfire back in the 80’s, and more importantly reading his column in my local paper. He was certainly a skilled debater and gifted writer, and while my own path soon led to the diversion of libertarianism, there is no question that Buchanan influenced me, and all things considered, for the better.
I particularly appreciated that his columns were laced with historical and literary allusions. As a teen in the pre-internet age, these references were invaluable to me and an important part of my education. It really set him apart from other columnists, as he captured the majesty of civilization in a seamless flow. Whatever one may think of Buchanan, he saw the world through rich historical eyes. For me, that was probably his greatest contribution.
Whatever punches he may have pulled, he was one of the few in the 80’s mainstream press that offered any substance at all. As time marched on, he became not merely one of the few, but the only. Now there are none.
With our “precious” freedom of the press, there is today not a single commentator in the mainstream that will advocate for whites at all. Not one.
Mainstream conservatism is unabashedly hostile to us and our worldview.
Of course, it’s possible that Buchanan will get another gig, and presumably he’ll continue his column for a time. The internet ensures that if he wants a voice, he can have at least a bit of one. But he’s no longer the vigorous firebrand of years gone by. He’s an old man now, and any comeback would simply amount to a swan song. Even if that happens, it would not alter the symbolic importance of what has transpired.
The real story, as Buchanan himself has more or less said, is not that he changed, but that America changed. Just a few decades ago, he probably represented the Silent Majority. I remember, as a kid in the 70’s and 80’s, when all white adults were politically incorrect, to put it mildly. This in a fairly prosperous, well educated and all white suburb.
But now, that world is gone. The people have been trained well, and even if they disagree with the PC orthodoxy, they know to keep it to themselves. And the all white suburbs of yore are now multiracial. Miscegenation is common, and white children few.
It’s a world in which Buchanan is irrelevant.
Now, at best, he represents a Silent Minority that shrinks by the day. I remember watching some of the Reform Party convention on C-Span back in 2000. The average age of the conventioneers appeared to be past 75. They were in pitiful condition: lots of wheelchairs and canes. If I hadn’t known better, I might have thought that I was viewing an event not merely at a retirement community, but a nursing home. It was sad, these representatives of an America that no longer existed. I couldn’t watch more than a few minutes of it at one sitting; what I saw genuinely disturbed me. What I saw when I went outside disturbed me even more.
Meanwhile, the non-whites continued to flood in, and leftist/jewish cultural levers continued to spew their poison.
It was obvious to me then that, whatever sentimental attachment that I might have had to it, Buchanan’s America was over. It had, at the very least, one foot in the grave. There was no longer any energy to it, or any real gravitas. Just the weary regret of old men who simply can’t believe that what is so obvious to them is not also obvious to everyone else. Old men with decent instincts, but who had absolutely no idea as to the nature and power of the forces arrayed against them, much less how to beat those forces. Old men who, I suspect in more than a few cases, returned from the convention to a home darkened by their mulatto grandchildren. All very, very sad. I suspect that a huge percentage of that 2000 crowd is now dead, along with their world.
The race blind mainstream conservatism that has displaced Buchanan’s more authentic flavor will itself suffer the same fate. Demographics are destiny, and the Jewish stranglehold on our key societal institutions remains unchecked.
Not to put too fine a point on it: it’s over.
To be a bit more precise, it’s over for traditional America, for Buchanan’s America. But it’s not over for us, in fact it’s only beginning.
We can still move forward, if we are able to let go of what is truly and well lost. Sad though it may be, America is one of those things.
White nationalism is all that is left, the only worldview that is capable of accurately identifying the existential crisis that we face, and the only worldview that offers a way forward… however long the odds. For all our faults and foibles, we if anything skew young, but at the very least have strong representation in all age groups. We have truth on our side, but more importantly, energy and the potential for real fanaticism. At the very least we are obsessives, and I mean that as a compliment.
There has been an ongoing debate within white nationalism between the “vanguardists” and the “mainstreamers.” I’ve always thought it was largely a false debate, but false or not, it is becoming moot. We aren’t welcome in the mainstream, and we’re not going to be welcome. There will be no long march through the institutions, as those doors are shut to us.
We’ve got to face the fact that we will not be allowed to reach the majority of the white population with our message. This, while tragic, is not fatal. Revolutionary ideas and movements are made by minorities, and we certainly can reach the more motivated, obsessive and fanatical of our people. Those are the people who, if we are to have a land of our own, will be instrumental in bringing it about. Only they, the “vanguard,” can get the ball rolling, and once they do, then the millions of our people who retain healthy racial instincts (and large numbers do) can enter into the equation. But we have to work with the tools and capabilities available to us, which means vanguardism by default. It is not a bad thing for that to become crystal clear to us. It’s a good thing.
So, despite my soft spot for Buchanan, his firing is probably a net positive. There should be no illusion that the system is anything other than hostile to us, and his firing helps drive that point home.
The focus, energy, obsession and fanaticism need to be directed toward one and only one goal: the coming White Republic. All else is mere diversion or dead end.
As Buchanan himself has more or less said, it’s not that he changed, but rather that America changed. There was in fact a culture war… and his side lost. The culture moves inexorably to the left. Once mainstream conservatism abandoned the defense of whites as a people, this march to the left was inevitable. A new people require a new narrative, new heroes, and a new worldview.
Gregory Hood’s nice article on the American left’s chutzpa about John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and the fact that in the current System “you are allowed to say that everyone killed Kennedy except the person who actually killed him (a Communist),” moves me to say something.
Most white nationalists don’t have the IQ of Magnus Carlsen and in addition to the silly 9/11 conspiracy theories, along a nation of sheeple they also swallow other theories for the retarded.
All of these people remind me a passage from Orwell’s 1984 where the proles were under the impression that they were reading forbidden porn when actually that porn together with superficial literature, movies and music was prolefeed deliberately produced by Prolesec: a section of the Ministry of Truth to keep them content and make them feel different when in fact they were mere sheep.
Dallas, Texas. Fri., Nov. 22, 1963. President John F. Kennedy died after a sniper attack on his motorcade. For many, the assassination remains a mystery. A 2003 poll revealed that 75 percent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy behind the killing of President Kennedy.
Jackie Kennedy catches a photographer’s eye while riding in the presidential limousine on Nov. 22, 1963. This picture was taken 2.5 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the bullet that killed President John F. Kennedy and wounded Gov. John Connelly, seated in the front passenger seat.
In his massive 2007 book on the murder, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi concludes that an unstable Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy, and incisively dissects every conspiracy theory: the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, Castro, the mob, LBJ, and others.
This weighty, 1600-plus page book—with a CD ROM of more than one thousand pages of endnotes—has been praised for its comprehensive narrative and its presentation of conspiracy theories, exposing selective use of evidence and flawed logic. The Los Angeles Times Book Review called Reclaiming History “a book for the ages.” Critics agree that it will be a starting point for future researchers.
Bugliosi worked from 80 too 100 hours a week for the past few years, drafting Reclaiming History by hand on legal pads. He concluded that Oswald acted alone, and said, “All of the conspiracy theories and beliefs turned out to be ‘moonshine.’ ” Bugliosi, 72, recently discussed the JFK case from his Pasadena home.
Did you agree with the Warren Commission report in 1964?
I was so immersed in trying one murder case after another that I had no opinion. I [assumed] they were decent, honorable men, and they certainly were.
You conclude that Oswald shot JFK and acted alone.
Everything pointed toward Oswald’s guilt. All the physical evidence, all the scientific evidence. Everything he said, everything he did. Fifty-three separate pieces of evidence point toward his guilt. It would not be humanly possibly for him to be innocent. Quickly, five pieces: Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination. Forty-five minutes later, he shot and killed [Dallas Police] Officer J. D. Tippit—the signature of a man in desperate flight. Thirty minutes later at a Texas theatre he resisted arrest, [and] pulled a gun on the arresting officer. During his interrogation, he told one provable lie after another, [showing] a consciousness of guilt.
And you find that Oswald was not part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.
I am convinced beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy, [and] that there was no conspiracy. There’s no credible evidence that the mob or the CIA, the KGB, the military-industrial complex, [or others] were behind the assassination. All we have is naked speculation.
There’s no evidence that Oswald had any connection with any of these groups. Even [assassination researcher Harold] Weisberg conceded that the FBI checked out every breath [Oswald] breathed from the moment he arrived back to the States from the Soviet Union on June 13, 1962 to the day of the assassination. They found no evidence after 25,000 interviews [of a] connection with any of these groups.
Assuming one of these groups wanted to kill the President, Oswald would have been one of the last people they would have gone to. He was a good shot, but not an expert. He owned only a $12, mail-order rifle. And he was notoriously unreliable, extremely unstable. He defect[ed] to the Soviet Union, tried to become a Soviet citizen, [was] turned down, [then] tried to commit suicide. Just the type of guy—I’m being sarcastic now—the CIA or mob would rely on to commit the biggest murder in American history.
What motivated Oswald to kill President Kennedy?
No one will ever know for sure why Oswald killed Kennedy. But there are pieces of circumstantial evidence from which we can draw inferences.
Oswald had delusions of grandeur. A squad mate of his in the Marines said that Oswald wanted to be something that 10,000 years from now people would be talking about. His wife, Marina, said he compared himself to the great figures of history.
Getting more specific, Oswald revered Fidel Castro [and] was an ardent supporter of the Cuban Revolution. In late September of 1963, [he] tried to get to Havana to help Castro, and was rejected at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. He got very, very angry. I agree with the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Oswald’s love for Castro played a part in the motivation to kill Kennedy, thinking that by killing an enemy of Castro he somehow was furthering the Cuban cause.
Oswald wrote that he had lived under capitalism and communism, and that, “I despise representatives of both systems.” My background in the Manson case definitely played a part in the words meaning more to me than perhaps the average person. Manson did not know the people whom he had killed, but he knew they were members of the establishment, and he hated the establishment. These were representative murders. Oswald did not hate Kennedy. He hated the United States of America. Oswald may have used Kennedy as the quintessential representative of society. When shooting at Kennedy, he was shooting at the United States of America.
Oswald failed in many pursuits. Did he kill JFK to show some effectiveness?
He had been a failure everywhere. He was a failure in the Marines, [and] was court-martialed. He was a failure at work: he would get fired, or couldn’t get a good job. He was a failure with Marina, his wife. He had been a failure all of his life, and all of a sudden he had done something successfully.
You also conclude that Jack Ruby acted alone in killing Oswald.
Some argue that Ruby silenced Oswald for the mob, and that presupposes Oswald killed Kennedy for the mob. The Warren Commission and the FBI found no evidence that Ruby was ever a member of organized crime, or had any association with them.
He would have been, like Oswald, an extremely unlikely and bad hit man. Ruby was extremely close to Dallas law enforcement. He also was a blabbermouth, [and] a snitch to the Dallas Police Department. He was not the type of guy you would [use] to commit a crime and be silent. Also, Ruby was very mentally unbalanced. He had a violent temper, fighting all the time with customers. He had organic brain damage.
People say he silenced Oswald for the mob [but] who was supposed to silence Ruby? He lived a normal life. He died in custody, but died a normal death three years later.
Why did Ruby kill Oswald?
Ruby literally idolized John F. Kennedy. His psychiatrist said Ruby loved this man. He took Kennedy’s death very, very hard. And he hated Oswald. But another reason [was that] Ruby thought that he was going to become a hero, [and] there was going to be a big book and a movie about him. He thought he would just get a slap on the wrist, and in a short time he would be back at the Carousel Club greeting people wanting to shake the hand of the man who killed the man who killed the President.
How did the single “Magic Bullet” kill JFK and wound Gov. Connelly?
In their sketches, [conspiracy theorists] place Gov. John Connelly [directly] in front of President Kennedy in the presidential limousine, and then argue that a bullet coming from the right rear, passing through Kennedy, would have to make a right turn in midair and then a left turn to hit Connelly. That is wrong. Connelly was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, but the left front in a jump seat a half-foot in. So the orientation of Connelly’s body was such that a bullet passing in a straight line through Kennedy would have nowhere to go except to hit Connelly.
A story just appeared on bullet fragments from the Dallas scene.
That’s an old story. These former FBI agents came up with this statement and people are asking about this new story. Here’s how new it is—it’s already in my book.
To put it mildly, you were displeased with Oliver Stone’s movie JFK.
This silly Oliver Stone came up with 10 groups that had a motive, and he’s got all 10 groups involved in the assassination. I present 53 separate pieces of evidence pointing irresistibly to the guilt of Oswald and poor Oliver in his three-hour-and-eight-minute movie could not put in one of those 53 pieces.
People saw [the Zapruder film] for the first time in 1975 on national television. The [president’s] head snapped to the rear [indicating a] shot from the front, the grassy knoll, not from the rear where Oswald was.
But if you look at the individual Zapruder frames—you can’t see it by looking at the film—at frame 312 the president’s head is okay. Also, a high-contrast photo of frame 313 [shows] this terrible spray of blood and tissue all to the front, indicating a shot from the rear.
At [frames] 314 to 321, you have the head snap to the rear, caused by a neuro-muscular reaction. The bullet entering the president’s brain caused the back muscles to tighten, which in turn caused the head to snap to the rear.
At more than 1,600 pages, your book is the longest yet on the assassination.
It’s the only book that settles all questions about the assassination once and for all, and the only book to take on all of these conspiracy theories.
There are two realities in this case. One, this is a very simple case. Within hours of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, virtually all of Dallas law enforcement knew that Oswald had killed Kennedy, and that he had acted alone. But the second reality and the main reason for the length of this book is the unceasing and fanatical obsession of literally thousands upon thousands of Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists who have investigated every single conceivable aspect of this case for close to 44 years. This simple case has been transformed into the most complex murder case, by far, in world history.
What’s your next project?
A series of essays on all types of things. It’s not going to be a 1,600-page book. With the Kennedy case, I learned there is absolutely no bottom to the pile. It’s a bottomless pit.
A note for those who still swallow the prolefeed manufactured by the Prolesec: Unless you have read Bugliosi’s book, don’t bother to take issue with us in the comments section of this thread. You will be shunned. (Also, you can read the whole Robin Lindley article here.)
The following paragraphs of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:
Non-white immigration into the white heartlands
The dominating theme of European history in the last quarter of the 20th Century has been the large-scale immigration of non-White peoples and races into the modern era White heartlands of Europe, Australia/New Zealand and North America. This process has taken place via two avenues: legal immigration and illegal immigration: it is difficult to formulate estimates on which has been the greater. Whatever the channel used, the reality of masses of non-Whites settling in these territories can quite rightly said to be changing the face of these continents.
According to Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities) in their publication Migration Statistics, 1996, there is not one of the fifteen countries in Western Europe which, at the beginning of 1994, did not have less than 3-10 per cent of what they euphemistically call “non-nationals resident”.
France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Scandinavia and England are all listed as having “non-nationals resident” of more than 10 per cent, with Germany in two regions registered figures of “more than 15 per cent.” An average of between ten and fifteen per cent of “non nationals resident” in Western Europe as of the mid 1990’s is therefore an accurate estimate, given that official figures are always behind actual statistics, as the number of illegal immigrants always closely shadows the number of legal immigrants.
Racial mixing has been extremely prevalent in Britain. According to the 1991 census, taken by the Office for National Statistics in London (ONS), 40 per cent of young Black men in Britain are married to, or live with, a White partner. The trend is less common on the other side of the sexual divide, where one in five young Black women has a partner who is White. Britain has, as a result of this large non-White influx, suffered a large number of Black riots, the most serious of which occurred in 1981, when countrywide riots saw large areas of many inner cities razed to the ground.
According to an article in the newspaper, USA Today of 17 June 1998, the number of mixed-race marriages in the USA was 150,000 in 1960. By 1998 it had increased to “over 1.5 million” and it estimated that the number of mixed-race children in America stood at “over 2 million.”
The 1960s will also go down in history as having introduced one of the most significant factors to affect White numbers in the entire history of the world: the development of the birth control pill, or oral contraceptive, which was first approved for use in the United States in 1965. Social demographic trends have shown that it is only in the Western, White, industrialized countries where contraception is used to any significant degree.
The reproduction rate in White countries (amongst their native populations) has, since the introduction of the pill, dropped to the point where in most White countries it is below the stable replacement rate of 2.4 children per female. In the non-White Third World however, no such restraints exist, and the population grows exponentially as fast as the White population declines in Europe and North America: this demographic time bomb will in the not to distant future have serious consequences for the entire earth.
The resultant massive overpopulation of the non-White lands of the earth provides the major driver for non-White immigration into the White heartlands of Europe, Australia and North America.
Cloaca gentium – Battery Park, New York
The following passages of one of the last chapters of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:
The forty five years following the end of the Second World War were dominated by three issues: the decolonization process; the development of the concept of Civil Rights, and the hostility between the “West” and the “East,” also known as the Cold War.
The first time that the black bloc vote played a significant role in helping to elect an American president occurred as early as 1948, when Harry Truman was elected to the office through a combination of the bloc Black vote and a minority of White votes. Truman had gained the support of Blacks by issuing an executive order that eventually desegregated the armed forces and by supporting a pro-civil rights policy for the Democratic Party over strong opposition from Southerners.
Whites in the Southern states bitterly opposed the moves to desegregate schools. In September 1957, the governor of Arkansas, Orval E. Faubus, ordered the state’s National Guard to prevent nine Black students from attending Central High School in Little Rock. On 23 September, following a number of racial clashes between Blacks and Whites in the town, Eisenhower dispatched federal troops to force White students to attend the school, frog-marching the protesting Whites at gunpoint with bayonets drawn, into the classrooms.
(Faubus speaking to a crowd protesting the integration of Little Rock schools.)
Where intentional segregation existed in the north, as in the city of Boston, the federal courts ordered redrawing of neighborhood school district lines, starting the practice of “bussing”— where children of different races were transported, sometimes 50 miles or more—across huge distances to force them to attend schools attended predominantly by other races. This bussing system caused a great many racial clashes and violence. Very little point was achieved by sending a hundred White children into a school of 2000 Black children, or vice versa, apart from increasing racial tensions dramatically. The practice of bussing then spread all over America, soon becoming a major national political issue which was debated right up to presidential level.
The 1960 election of John F. Kennedy as Democratic Party president of America—again with overwhelming Black voter support—saw a new surge in laws designed to strike down the last of the segregationist measures in America.
The long established American laws forbidding intermarriage between Whites and Blacks were also then challenged in courts and repealed: between 1942 and 1967, fourteen states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In the case known as Loving v. Virginia (1967), the US Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage and by 1968, all forms of de jure segregation had been declared unconstitutional.
Black riots started in the 1960s. The first serious disturbances broke out in Cambridge in 1963 and 1964, and the National Guard was called in to restore order. Then in 1965, a particularly severe Black riot erupted in Watts, a Black ghetto in Los Angeles. The Watts riots lasted six days, taking 34 lives and causing $40 million in property damage. Black riots then spread across more than thirty major American cities, turning almost every major center into a battle zone of White policemen trying to control mobs of Blacks rioting and burning and looting anything they could.
Baffled by the Black riots—in theory there should have been less reason to riot than ever before—president Johnson appointed a commission, headed by the former governor of Illinois, Otto Kerner, to investigate the causes of Black unrest. The report of the Kerner Commission, issued in 1968, warned of the increasing racial polarization in the United States and said that the “nation is moving toward two societies, one white, one black—separate and unequal.”
Increasing Black urbanization, coupled with its associated problems of an increased crime-rate, increased racial tensions and resultant integrated schools—which in every measured case led to fall in educational standards—created in the 1970s the phenomena of “White flight”. Entire neighborhoods of Whites started moving, lock stock and barrel, out of the major American cities into outlying suburbs. In this way many city centers became almost overnight Blacks-only areas: and this, combined with the dropping of any type of voter qualification, meant that by the mid-1970s, a number of these major cities had elected Black mayors and city councils for the first time.
Civil rights in review: a colossal failure
In real terms, the decades of civil rights programs have been a failure. Not only have average living standards for all but an elite of Blacks declined, but they have also dropped on every other social indicator.
In 1997, over one million Black American men were in prison, and homicide was the leading cause of death among Black men aged 15 to 34. Nationwide, blacks—although only 12 per cent of the population—account for 64 per cent of all violent-crime arrests and 71 per cent of all robbery arrests (Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America, Jared Taylor, Carroll & Graf, 1993).
In 1988, there were fewer than ten cases of white-on-black rape—as opposed to 9,405 cases of black-on-white rape. Taylor reports that black men appear three to four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and more than sixty times more likely to rape a white than a white is likely to rape a black. This black crisis still disproportionately hurts whites. Black criminals choose white victims in more than half of their violent crime; the average black criminal seems over 12 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa. Homicide is now the leading cause of death for black men between 15 and 44; one in four black men in their twenties is either in jail, on probation, or on parole.
All this has happened despite the USA subsidizing its Black poor, publicly and privately, to the tune of more than $2.5 trillion in federal moneys alone since the 1960s. The cities run by Black Americans—Washington DC, Detroit and others—are marked by collapse, decay, exceedingly high levels of violent crime, drugs, gang wars and economic decline.
The words of the 1968 Kerner Report have remained as valid as ever: America is a society of racially separate unequals.
The following paragraphs of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention. Together with the aftermaths of the French Revolution discussed in the previous post, the American Civil War proves once again that the white man is the deadliest enemy of the white man. Kemp wrote:
When Abraham Lincoln uttered the words “our White men are cutting one another’s throats” to a deputation of Blacks at the seat of government in Washington D.C. in 1862, not even he could have foreseen the slaughter that would take place over the next three years in his country: more Americans were to die in that Civil War than what were ever to be killed in any war before or ever since.
Once the Union had been established, it faced two critical issues: whether the United States of America should be a federation or a confederation; and whether the institution of indentured labor—in effect a lighter form of slavery—should be allowed to continue or not.
Together these two issues led to the American Civil War, which can be counted as one of the great turning points in American history: it set the new nation against itself, the South, supporting confederalism and indentured labor; against the North, who favored federalism and the abolition of slavery. Great White armies fought each other and finally decimated the South, all in an argument over the future of the Black race.
Before the Civil War, Blacks were not allowed to join state militias or the U.S. Army or Navy, and the federal government refused to give passports to free Blacks. This status had been confirmed by the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1857, when it had ruled that Blacks could never be citizens of the United States.
When the Civil War started, the Northern government initially refused to allow Blacks to be enlisted into the army. By 1862, the rules had been changed slightly: Blacks were allowed to enlist in segregated units, led by White officers. By the end of the war, more than 200,000 Blacks had served in the Northern Army and Navy.
The North and the South had differing aims in the war, which were to determine their strategies: the South only wanted to maintain its independence; while the North wanted to suppress the secession. This meant that the North would have to invade the South: this led to the North being the offensive power in the war, with the South being the defensive power.
Lincoln indeed had suspended many of the tenements of democracy: critics of the war were arrested and detained without trial for long periods. The most famous example was an anti-war congressmen from Ohio, Clement L. Vallandigham, who was arrested in May 1863 after making an anti-war speech. A military court sentenced him to prison, but Lincoln changed the penalty to banishment to the Confederacy.
Then on 1 June 1863, Lincoln suspended the principle of freedom of speech—a right guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution—by banning publication of the Chicago Times, which had become increasingly anti-Lincoln. An uproar followed, and Lincoln was forced to back down on the issue.
The march north—led again by general William Tecumseh Sherman—again left a deliberate wake of destruction in its path. Once supplies had been seized, it was the norm for houses and farms to be destroyed, and then the White population to be left to the mercies of the freed Black slaves.
As a result of this scorched earth policy, Sherman’s name came to be hated in the South, and with good reason. Fifteen towns were burned in whole or in part, but no act of destruction compared with or caused more controversy than the burning of Columbia, the state capital of South Carolina, which saw the city utterly destroyed for no military purpose at all.
On 17 April, the last Confederate forces surrendered in Durham Station, North Carolina, with the last two sizeable Confederate armies, one in Louisiana and the other in Texas, both surrendering in May 1865, realizing that the war was lost and that it was pointless to fight on. Finally the president of the Confederation, Jefferson Davis, was taken prisoner in Georgia on 10 May. The war was over.
The US Congress, now totally dominated by anti-slavery activists who wanted revenge on the South for not only the practice of slavery but also for seceding from the Union, passed a series of laws designed to bring the South firmly under control.
Then the Constitution of the Union was amended (the third section of the 14th Amendment, ratified on 9 July 1868) through which massive numbers of Southern Whites were disenfranchised because they had rebelled against the Union. At the same time full voting rights were extended to all the now emancipated slaves; the classification of Blacks as “three fifths of a person” clause in the Constitution was revoked by this amendment (although the Amerinds were still specifically excluded from the franchise).
The resulting administrations in the South provoked great resentment, and stoked the fires of racial conflict. Large numbers of Whites were barred from voting, and the legislatures of the Southern states were in many cases dominated by illiterate Black former slaves who suddenly found themselves propelled from picking cotton into running the affairs of state. They were of course incapable of running the government efficiently, and the organs of government began to deteriorate almost immediately, with orderly government breaking down in many areas.
Former Black slaves were also placed in many areas as soldiers and officers enforcing law and order over the defeated Southern Whites. This provided plenty of opportunities for revenge and abuse. In addition to the appointment of hopelessly incompetent Blacks to fill the positions of government, unscrupulous Northerners also took up positions in the Southern government, often merely to embezzle funds and enrich themselves: they became known as carpetbaggers. Northern civil war veterans were put on the official state payroll; Southern veterans were consistently denied any form of pension.
Finally in 1871, the American president of the time, Ulysses S. Grant, largely in reaction to Southern White complaints that they were disenfranchised while illiterate Blacks were granted the vote, assented to a further change to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the rights of all citizens.
By 1871, with Whites having been given back the vote, they once again formed the majority of voters in the South.
The Southern Democratic legislatures then enacted a series of segregation laws designed to separate the races in all aspects, from schools through to public places. Many of these measures were in due course to spread to the north of the country a well. In 1875, the US Congress passed a Civil Rights Act of 1875, which barred discrimination by hotels, theatres, and railways. In 1883, this act was declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered with the right of control-of-access to private property.
Racial consequences of the war. The after effects of the war on America’s White population was vast. At least 250,000 Confederate White soldiers were killed—five per cent of the South’s White population. Vast areas of farmland were devastated, and many great cities, like Atlanta, were virtually leveled to the ground.
The Civil War severely dented the White population in America: a total of 610,000 Whites were killed—compared to the 4,435 who died during the War of Independence. These figures included 360,000 on the Northern side and 250,000 on the Southern side. Although the North lost more men, that region had a greater White population of some 22 million.
The South, however, had a population of only some 8 million whites. In percentage terms then, the war was far more devastating to the South than to the North.