Brad Griffin on the Yankee question

Below, an abridged version of one of Brad Griffin’s recent articles of the “Amurrica Series: Constructive Solutions” at Occidental Dissent (OD), with some explanatory Wikipedia links added:

To my knowledge, OD is the only racialist site in existence that has defined the problem in painstaking detail (see the many discussions about this in our archives) and consistently hammers away at the only solution to the problem.

  • Is the problem simply that Jews are using the blacks to destroy Whites?

Historically speaking, the coalition between DWLs [Disingenuous White Liberals] and blacks goes back to the prewar abolitionist movement, when Northern reformers like William Lloyd Garrison forged the original alliance with free negroes like Frederick Douglass.

Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1843. Starting in 1865, Massachusetts began to lead the nation at the state level by passing comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, or civil rights laws. Blacks were already voters in Massachusetts before the War Between the States.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was vetoed by Andrew Johnson, who was subsequently impeached by Black Republicans in Congress, was the first stab at federal civil rights legislation in American history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases in 1883, attempted to accomplish most of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to do in the twentieth century. The Federal Elections Bill of 1890, which was defeated in the U.S. Senate, was the precursor of the Voting Rights Act.

In the twentieth century, Jewish influence had the effect of exacerbating a preexisting problem: Jews didn’t create the coalition between DWLs and blacks or even set its long term utopian goals of integration and eradicating racial prejudice.

In the late nineteenth century, the Jews came along like Hispanics and Asians would later do after the Immigration Act of 1965. They augmented the leftwing coalition with their wealth and media influence.

Jewish influence was more like, say, a necessary condition of the national triumph of the Left. Just like the rise of the mass media, the GI Bill and higher education, or Allied propaganda in the Second World War.

  • Is the problem the demise of restrictive covenants? Is the problem, say, the entirety of the Civil Rights Movement?

No, restrictive covenants was just one of many “discriminatory barriers” to the advancement of black freedom and equality. The poll tax and the white primary were similarly struck down by the Supreme Court in order to advance Americanism, which is to say, the identification of America (and ultimately the whole world, as it is progressively infected by the disease) with liberalism and democracy.

What was the intention of outlawing restrictive covenants? The intended effect was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Voting Rights Act was to advance black freedom and equality by giving them the right to bloc vote in democratic legislatures.

In the North, restrictive covenants coexisted with a society that had been committed at the state and federal level to the larger project of integration ever since Massachusetts passed the first civil rights law in 1865. Minnesota barred school segregation in 1877. Michigan banned public accommodations segregation in 1885. New York banned public school segregation in 1894.

The demise of restrictive covenants was just the fall of one more domino at the hands of the same constituency of liberal utopian reformers (like the progression of cancer, spreading throughout the body) that had already succeeded in abolishing slavery and repealing anti-miscegenation laws and banning every other form of segregation.

The move into prohibiting “housing discrimination” was natural and consistent with a society already on a trajectory toward supporting affirmative action and banning “disparate impact.” Just like the abolition of slavery, it was one more reform that was consciously implemented to advance the positive ideal of black freedom and equality.

BradThe bottom line here is that there is a constituency in America with a peculiar vision of “Americanism,” which they define as the never-ending ideological expansion of liberty, equality, and democracy, and the eradication of all barriers to these holy utopian ideals (racial, cultural, religious), whether foreign (Nazi Germany) or domestic (Confederacy), which has been driving America’s racial and culture decline ever since the abolitionist movement began in the 1830s, if not since the American Revolution began in the 1770s.

Who is this foe?

There is a long historical arc of racial and cultural decline that stretches from 1776 to 2012. It leapfrogs from one utopian reform to another without missing a beat: revolution to abolition to civil rights to women’s suffrage to world peace to feminism to gay marriage. The same people are usually involved in multiple liberal reform causes.

The instinctive goal of the revolutionary spirit is always to chew up and tear down traditions and established hierarchies, to “liberate” everything in its path, to “level” everything it finds, based on the assumption that nihilistic destruction of the existing social order is inherently good.

For some strange reason, each new utopian reform, each new degenerate movement to destroy the existing social order (whether it be revolution, abolition, civil rights, feminism, or fagging the military), is invariably launched into cultural orbit from the Northeast, and imposed on the holdouts in the rest of the country through the centralization of power in the federal government.

The Northeast never actually wins these cultural debates. Instead, it triumphs through imposing its ideal of Americanism on the rest of the country, usually through control of the centralized government in Washington. Then resistance collapses, submission and demoralization sets in, and we “move forward” to whatever beckons as the cutting edge of degeneracy.

OD is the only racialist website which observes this broad historical pattern, recognizes its importance, draws attention to its existence, and recommends disrupting it through the dissolution of the Union.

If an international border was drawn across the Mason-Dixon line, the cycle would accelerate in the rump of the Union, as it once did during the War Between the States and Reconstruction, because the force that is driving the whole process is and always has been based in the Northeast, and the secession of the South would increase its relative power in Washington.

The dissolution of the Union would fatally weaken the influence of “Americanism” worldwide. It would change the whole international order by fatally undermining Washington in its own backyard.

Alternatively, the preservation of the Union will exacerbate the problem by flooding the recalcitrant areas in the South and West with non-White immigrants dependent on the welfare state, who will politically align themselves with the cultural arsonists in the Northeast, thereby weakening the already diminished and retreating forces of conservatism in the United States.

Dissolving the Union and repudiating Americanism along with its demographic base is the only way to put an end to these never-ending cycles of liberal reform. Nothing else will suffice to arrest and reverse our decline.

Disunion is the solution.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/on-the-yankee-q/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

12 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Is the problem simply that Jews are using the blacks to destroy Whites?

    No one can tell if the annihilation by miscegenation of the Whites is really in the minds of the Jewish elites, but I would tend to reject this affirmation because it is too simplistic.

    The bottom line here is that there is a constituency in America with a peculiar vision of “Americanism,” which they define as the never-ending ideological expansion of liberty, equality, and democracy, and the eradication of all barriers to these holy utopian ideals (racial, cultural, religious)

    You have well made to add holy here, since these values (equality in rights between all humans, liberty for the slaves, and political power for all humans with democracy) are the essence of Christianity.

    The usual defenders of this religion will say that there is nothing in the Holy Texts which directly supports egalitarianism or democracy. They would just ridicule themselves by admitting that the concepts of influence and indirect action are beyond their comprehension.

    Savitri Devi thought that Christianity was created by the Jews (notably Saul/”Saint Paul”) to poison the Romans[1]. If she is right, then they were extraordinarily successful. Just think about the interdiction of usury, which has allowed the Jews to obtain a monopoly[2] in the banking and financial sectors during the Industrial Revolution, monopoly which is at the basis of their current power.

    The dissolution of the Union would fatally weaken the influence of “Americanism” worldwide. It would change the whole international order by fatally undermining Washington in its own backyard.

    No need to dissolve the Union via politics (which is impossible, by the way). One just has to wait for it to crash economically, and for a stronger power to take its place.

    What will that be? The contest is open between China and Russia, but China is the most likely candidate. The Jews are currently trying to infiltrate it, which is not reassuring, but the ruling Han Politburo seems to be for now uncorrupted.

    _______

    [1]http://library.flawlesslogic.com/tarsus.htm
    [2]The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, G. Edward Griffin.

    • Behind Yankee liberalism may lie Christian axiology, and behind Christian axiology may lie altruistic punishment, which is a racial trait in the white psyche. What a mess…

      • All questions in the racial problem have been solved, except one, which has hitherto eluded the understanding of the best thinkers: what is at the root of Aryan suicidal impulses?

        What is to blame for the altruism, charity, absence of ethnocentrism, susceptibility to idealistic theories, and lack of pragmatism of Aryans?

        Where does the idea that, for example, you must “send your donations to feed poor African children” come from? Or the idea killing people and invading countries is wrong?

        Is it genetic, does it come from Christianity, or is it modern and was manufactured by mass medias like television, cinematography and popular music?

        Evidence discredits the idea that it is modern. Very clear altruist, xenophile and romanticist traits have been present in the psyche of Aryan intellectual elites since at least the XVIIth century (with John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as epitomes). Concern for the miserable, the handicapped, the deformed and the weak, which have given rise to ideas like welfare and wealth redistribution, goes further back in time.

        Which leaves us with two suspects: deoxyribonucleic acid and Christianity. Did Christianity simply feed on our genes, or does Christianity create a culture we are immersed in since our birth and which influences us?

        If the first hypothesis is valid, we must ask ourselves why pagan Europeans did not have our problem. They killed, raped, pillaged, invaded, tortured, and practiced eugenics without fainting or experiencing remorse. And their genes were globally the same as ours, 2000 years is too short a time to witness important cerebral and neurological changes.

      • Indeed. My personal view is that there’s a Monster from the Id that is messing the white psyche along with the other factors. It’s recondite. It is paradoxical because empathy is an emergent quality of the Mind that is being developed gradually in the last decades—but, alas, as out-group altruism trumping in-group altruism. I’ve tried to write a little about this “Monster from the Id” in the fourth section of my book.

  2. Devi was correct. If only our “christian” religious leaders were as intelligent as her, the white race could get somewhere.

    Christianity plays on our collective weaknesses, not our collective strengths.

    Christianity is the problem and weight on us, not DNA.
    Devi is an excellent source to understand the present day situation the white race finds itself.

    • It is paradoxical because empathy is an emergent quality of the Mind that is being developed gradually in the last decades—but, alas, as out-group altruism trumping in-group altruism.

      Empathy has indeed nothing to do with what I denounce. Empathy is a quality, positively correlated with intelligence, and attaching importance to the well-being of your siblings is a necessary step toward civilization.

      I don’t either denounce the concepts of good and evil, nor those who want to improve the condition of humanity as a whole (humanism).

      What I denounce is the misunderstanding of these concepts: suicidal out-group altruism, counter-productive solidarity, and tendency to think there is nothing worse in the world than death and eugenics — in sum, things that Friedrich Nietzsche and Alfred Rosenberg have already denounced before me. Things that have the stated goal of reducing evil and suffering and actually multiply them by a hundred.

      This misunderstanding, this hijacking of empathy, redirected toward false ideas, is undoubtedly the product of the Jesus cult.

      • The “empathy” subject and the pathological transference of it onto substitute “children”—non-whites—in need of our love is stuff of my book, not of this thread.

        Btw, I’ve tried to illustrate what this evil transference is with my most recent entry (here).

  3. How do you support your hypothesis that killing it is not wrong?. I mean, it´d be normal if a guy goes to a supermarket and kill the cashier to run out with something stolen according to your beliefs?

    • What do you mean? Who are you addressing?

      • Sorry, it was about what deviance said!

      • He is likely a Hispanic who doesn’t want to be killed. Like Agnapostate.

  4. You are wrong, I´m of italian descent born in a south american country, thats why I have a hispanic name, but I hate the fact that my grandparents left europe after WWII to come to this hellhole where I live.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: