Lincoln

by Jack Frost

lncoln-1858

“But [abolitionism] certainly was not a factor in the decision to wage the war, and was not the primary motivation for most Northern soldiers.”

It would be interesting to see some evidence for that assertion. Lincoln was raised in an anti-slavery Baptist church, and was morally opposed to slavery all his life. As early as 1855, in a letter to Jonathan Speed, he revealed himself as a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian:

As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

We’ve already talked about the difficulties inherent in determining motivations. If even self-reporting, as in the song lyrics I referred you to, isn’t reliable, then how can you claim to know what the motivations were for “most Northern soldiers”? If it wasn’t a popular cause, then how do you explain the immense success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? In any event, it’s inarguable that the setting of the negro on equal footing with whites was a catastrophe for the white race in N. America, and that was indisputably the result of the war. Are you trying to claim that the result was unintentional? What kind of idiots do you think whites of that era were? “Whoops! We freed the slaves, and even made citizens and voters out of them. Gosh darn it anyway, we sure didn’t mean to!” That would be a hard case to make.

“There is just no evidence to support the notion that the war was fought over slavery and we have numerous explicit statements from Lincoln that the war had nothing to do with slavery. If you don’t find that compelling, I’m not sure what else would make any difference.”

I suggest you pay more attention to what Lincoln actually did than what he said. Lincoln is more responsible than any other single man for the racial disaster whites face today. [emphasis added] It’s not for nothing that Obama was sworn in on Lincoln’s Bible; not for nothing that he’s a personal hero of his.

Now that I’ve answered your question, I’d have to ask you this one: Do you seriously think the American people would have endured another draft and 600,000 dead in a cause that lacked clear moral justification? It’s ridiculous to think so. Also, since you seem to want to believe everything Lincoln ever said, what about his reputed statement upon meeting Uncle Tom’s Cabin author Harriette Beecher Stowe in 1862, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!” Even the fact he met with her at all is a significant indication of the powerful abolitionist influence.

“So it seems clear enough that even absent slavery, these economic issues would have still existed, would have still come to a head and still left Lincoln facing the same problems and the same choices.”

You think that the soldiers and the people would have endured all the destruction and 600,000 killed for the sake of some lost coins. I don’t. That’s the substance of our difference.

Why don’t you just answer the question instead of dancing around it? Do you seriously believe that freeing the slaves was accidental, or was it intentional? What about giving the negro citizenship and extending them the vote? Were those accidents too? I hope you don’t believe that, because that has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard. However, lacking Jews to blame I suppose you have no alternative but to depict it as an accident. There is a tendency in our circles to try to exonerate white people of any wrongdoing or culpability [emphasis added], and I think you’re falling into it again here. You ought to face that fact that a vast number of white people, possibly even the majority, are unsalvageable race traitors.

“I suppose one could argue that freeing the slaves was the first step in integrating them into White society, but it would be a pretty feeble argument. There was no integration of Blacks into White society or culture following the war.”

You’re ignoring a little thing called Reconstruction. Hundreds of negroes were elected to public office all over the South. Worse, making them citizens and the legal equals of whites once and for all abolished any hope of a nation based on race. Lincoln was the true founder of the modern American state, a “proposition nation”, anti-racist and hence inevitably anti-white by creed and public policy.

Another problem with the conventional thinking on the right, which you exemplify here, is not seeing the big picture. The legal equality of blacks, placing them on parity with whites, was resisted and slowed down by custom and tradition, but not stopped by it. Racial segregation was a hypocritical compromise that was doomed to fail from the outset. It was only a question of time.

It’s Christian axiology, stupid!

Once more, Jack Frost hits the nail in his endeavors to educate pro-whites who ignore that Christian morality has been more a primary causative factor of white decline than Jewish subversion. At The Occidental Observer Frost has responded to a commenter:

____________________

“Well, I think that if nothing else, the Jewish infrastructure ensures that there are lots of jobs and financial incentives to going along with their program. Non-Whites will not be immune to that.”

Non-whites don’t need incentives to hate whites. This is the same error that Christian conspiracy theorist Alex Jones makes. Jones’ constant refrain is that, but for the instigation of the globalists (who promote racial antagonism in a sinister “divide and conquer” strategy, of course), the races would naturally exist in a state of harmony and universal brotherhood. Because his almost all white audience has been steeped in Christian BS their whole lives, they already “know” this to be true and so they buy it.

Beyond this though, it seems to me the whole “incentive model” is taken from animal studies and is really an explanation that explains nothing when it comes to human behavior, which is made much more complex by an ability to foresee consequences that is vastly more advanced than in other animals.

Example 1: One incentivizes a rat to run a maze by rewarding him with a food pellet. Over time, you train the rat to do this, so in a sense, it’s fair to say your incentive is the cause of his maze-running behavior.

Example 2: You are walking down the street, see an attractive woman, and you incentivize her to have sex with you by offering her $50. At this point, she has a choice. She can either take you up on it or slap your face and walk away. Clearly, if she takes the money in exchange for her services, she’s a whore. But she might have done it for free, in which case she’d be only a slut. On the other hand, maybe she’d have done it anyway, but decided to take the $50 just because you offered it and it might come in handy later. In any case, whether she takes the money or not, nothing can really be said from this about questions of causality or morality. Your offer of $50 didn’t cause her to become a whore, if that’s what she is. Conversely, if she slapped your face and walked away, your offer of $50 didn’t in any way cause her virtue. In fact, it’s quite conceivable she might actually be a whore, but thought your offer was too low.

In the same way, Jewish incentives can’t meaningfully be said to cause any white (or even non-white) actions. Unlike in animal studies, with humans there is in fact almost never any way to distinguish between voluntary cooperation and caused (i.e., incentivized) behavior.

“We cannot determine these questions without further information, but what we can determine is that such incentives sway at least some people who would not otherwise have acted in the same manner.”

That seems reasonable, but still, you are assuming what you are setting out to prove. I can reduce it to this: Because human motivations are complex, much more so than with animals, there’s no way to ever be completely sure if something is done for an incentive or for other reasons. With the rat experiment, you can show causality because if you stop giving the reward, eventually the maze-running behavior will be extinguished. With humans, it’s much more complicated. They might, and in fact, in the case of sex, doubtlessly would, find other reasons to continue the behavior even if the incentive were not offered. To tie it in a little better to Kevin MacDonald’s remark, if a white man takes a job working for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is he doing it for the money and prestige (i.e., incentive), or because he actually believes in racial and sexual equality? Or both? Or neither? From the outside, and in fact, even from the inside (one’s insight into even one’s own motivation may not be perfect) I don’t see that there’s any way to say for sure.

“In this case we know how politicians (and others) behaved in the past. We know that since the rise of Jewish power, they have come to act in a dramatically different manner. We know about the control of information and we know about the system of incentives / disincentives. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to deny the causal relationships here.”

The main problem with this narrative isn’t merely that it’s an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, but that it contradicts history. The biggest boost toward legal and social equality with the white man the negro ever received was during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Whites did this on their own, in the absence of modern mass media and the modern educational techniques, and before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great numbers. This again points up the importance of worldview, since this first step in the direction of equal “civil rights” for everyone, regardless of race, was framed and justified in terms of Christian morality. A great many of the most prominent Abolitionists were Christian religious fanatics.

“We shouldn’t forget that it is not just the incentives / punishments that are in play here, there is also the power of Jews to control the flow of information upon which individuals rely to form their own world views. This is at least as important as the incentives / punishments in my opinion.”

Worldview is in fact much more important and more powerful than a system of incentives because it is logically prior to any such system. Worldview establishes a system of value that determines what can be used as an incentive and what can’t. For example, it determines whether money or race is considered more important. Someone who truly puts race first can’t be “incentivized” with money.

It’s not clear that Jews control white worldviews though, unless you want to allow that they’ve been in control of whites for two thousand years or more. A difficult position to maintain! In any case, to eliminate Jewish influence you’d have to go all the way back to pre-Christian times.

“In fact, the subject of abolition of slavery is not even relevant to subject here.”

I think the setting of negroes on equal footing with whites by means of a war that cost hundreds of thousands of white lives is extremely relevant. What it shows is that whites are quite willing to impose racial genocide upon themselves without any help from Jews.

“It has been well established that if you can control the information that people are exposed to, you can to a large extent mold their opinions and world view.”

Your argument here is tautological. If you can control people, then you can control them. Yes, that’s true, but so what? Information about Jews is widely available. That’s not the problem. The problem, from the white point of view, is that people overwhelmingly reject both racism and anti-Semitism. They just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t necessarily indicate they’re being “controlled”. If you have ever managed to persuade anyone to see the Jewish question your way does that mean that you’re now controlling them? The question you’re not coming to terms with is, how do you distinguish between someone who simply doesn’t agree with you from someone who is being “controlled”? If the problem is only lack of information, then it should vanish as soon as you supply the missing information. But it doesn’t.

“Clearly using their control of the money and media has been used to transform the culture and the society. It has been used to mold public opinion by altering the worldview of millions of Whites (and non-Whites).”

After the Christian takeover of white civilization, the philo-Semitic, anti-racist worldview of Christianity has never been altered by Jews. There’s been no need. The program it set forth has just been carried out and refined over generations by willing participants.

“It seems a reasonable and logical assumption that if one can control these environmental factors, that one can affect the worldview of an individual or even an entire society. ”

If you can control people, then you can control them? Again, a tautology. But I’m not persuaded that anyone really controls the worldview of a whole society or can dictate a change in it. There’s such a thing as reality, after all, and instinctive drives, such as the will to live, and to procreate. Surely that must count for something. Everyone has immediate and unrestricted access to the world itself through their own senses. They can see what is going on.

“I have held positions in the past based upon my exposure to mass media that I have since repudiated when I discovered that the ‘facts’ upon which I had based those opinions were not true.”

Again, the issue you are avoiding is how to tell the difference between someone honestly disagreeing with you and their being “controlled” to disagree. Also, I have to ask, what accounts for your peculiar immunity from this seemingly omnipotent Jewish “control”? Why is such immunity not more widespread? Why doesn’t merely informing the vast majority of people of the “facts” as you see them change their minds on the Jewish question?

“This is precisely what is happening to us. We are being domesticated and if we are to do anything more than allow ourselves to be herded to our fate, we need to understand what is happening, what the processes at work are and who is driving this.”

I agree that people are being modified genetically by civilizational processes; “tamed” if you want to put it that way. But most whites see civilization as a good thing and are willing participants. If they’re wronged or damaged, rather than killing someone in a duel, they sue. If a relative is murdered, rather than starting a clan-based vendetta, they let police and the courts handle it. Just as with the use of birth control to lower the white fertility rate below replacement level, this is not something Jews are doing to white people. They are doing it to themselves.

“If control of the flow of information and a structure of incentives designed to encourage anti-White behavior are not effective, then why all the hand wringing about Jewish control of media and the monetary system?”

I hate to break it to you, but not many white people are actually worried about this, Bob. They approve of the status quo, and in fact it would be impossible to run such a vast and complicated panopticon without the approval and active participation of white people.

“In fact, why are we all wasting our time trying to provide an alternative worldview to our fellow Whites at all if our information is not going to have any effect on their worldview?”

I think you’re confusing worldview with mere political opinions. They’re not the same thing at all. That’s why trying to build a political mass movement through “education” is a waste of time, in my opinion.

All attempts at educating white people out of their Christian worldview of universal brotherhood and racial / sexual equality have failed, and I believe this is because worldviews don’t so much depend on facts as determine what is regarded as a fact. They provide the framework for interpreting reality; for saying both how the world is and how it ought to be. They aren’t political opinions, but lay the groundwork for those opinions by defining what is permissible and what isn’t.

A shared worldview among the citizenry is essential for the smooth functioning of society. That’s why the state puts such emphasis on assimilating elements within it that don’t necessarily accept the standard list of Christian values: non-violence, anti-racism, respect for authority, belief in the value of work, and of the sacredness of human life as opposed to that of animals; belief in a uniquely human free will, a just God and fair dealing, equality, sin, forgiveness, redemption, the importance of being “moral”, etc.

toms cabin

Even a fellow like you, who thinks he is above being “controlled”, has actually accepted it, as your denunciation of slavery showed. In the Civil War you’d have been an abolitionist, fighting against your own race! Yet imagine what chaos would reign if people rejected all of these values, or simply forgot about them! Only at that point could you say they have changed their worldview. Of course, such a change would probably make civilization as we know it today impossible.

Christianity is a very good religion if you want to build a race-neutral technological civilization, but, as history has shown, it is quite inadequate to the task of preserving race.

“It shows nothing of the kind, unless of course you buy into the propaganda that the war was waged to end slavery. This is something that we know to be untrue. We need only look at the contemporary writings of Lincoln and others who were directly involved in the decision to wage that war.”

It’s something that you think you know is untrue, for reasons that are entirely unclear to me. What about the songs the soldiers would sing before marching into battle? Read the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic some time, replete with Christian religious imagery, and the telling phrase “let us die to make men free.” Or how about that other popular ditty, John Brown’s Body:

Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage
whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

Or read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which sold more copies in its day than any book except the Bible. These are facts that are very hard to explain unless abolitionism had a great deal to do with the war.

“The truth is that mistrust of Jews and belief in racial separation were the norm just a few generations ago. The average White American in the 1950’s would find nothing controversial about most of the views expressed here on The Occidental Observer. Why have they come to reject ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘racism’?”

Please think about what you are saying. The average white American man of the 1950s had just returned from crushing racist, anti-Semitic Nazi Germany, and he was mighty damn proud of himself for doing so, Bob. If anti-Semitism and racism had not already been so unpopular, there would probably not have been a war at all. Stateside, the races were still segregated compared to today, but much less so compared to slave times. There has been a slow but steady progression in integration and race mixing over time, just as always happens in any society in which two races live together. It has happened throughout history all over the world, even in places with no Jews. It’s part of the civilizational process.

“If the world was populated by philosophers and people with the time and inclination to research these things and sort them out for themselves, then your point would be valid, but it is not. Most people are busy trying to live their lives. They don’t expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy fact checking and researching ideological questions. They form their worldview based upon the culture within which they are immersed, the indoctrination they have been exposed to and the information that is spoon fed to them by the mass media.”

In that case, a well-informed fellow like you should be able to cure their ignorance very quickly, Bob. But the puzzling thing is, you can’t. All such efforts have failed, even by people far more eloquent than either of us, and even by those with far more prestige and power.

“Insofar as the domestication of Whites goes, if you think that the future we are facing is just the evolution of civilization, then you have completely misunderstood what I am saying.”

I think I’ve understood you perfectly. I just disagree with you.

“I do appreciate your contribution and your efforts certainly do cause me to think about things from different points of view. Thanks.”

Likewise, Bob. I appreciate your efforts too. Even when we disagree, they challenge me and help me tighten up my thinking.

On turning Americans into nazis

by Jack Frost

19th-century cartoon depicting Jack Frost

Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem.

Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists.

It’s safe to say the chances of that happening on a mass scale are almost zero.

Jesus: the first cuckservative

19th-century cartoon depicting Jack Frost

by Jack Frost

Terms like “White supremacist,” “racist,” “anti-Semite” “Nazi” have been devastatingly effective, but they are only effective because they are disseminated by our hostile elites. [a quotation from a Kevin MacDonald article]

They are only effective because whites take them seriously and accept that they’re evil. But this was no mere invention of modern mass media, as they were accepted as evil long before its advent. Racism and white supremacy have been out of style in America at least since the Civil War. White supremacy was offensive to Christians back in that day because it goes against so many Biblical teachings: the insignificance of race, the equal importance and uniqueness of all souls to God, the unimportance of the body, etc.

Thus they abolished it, at great cost to themselves in blood and treasure, before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great number. Further, doesn’t the Bible (Matthew 19:28-30) predict that when Heaven on earth arrives, that then when Jesus’ followers have completely forsaken their blood relations in order to follow him, that those who were last shall be the first, and the first shall be last?

Here we have the essence of cuckservatism, foretold in the sayings of Jesus. Hence, a devout Christian must prep the bull, in order to make up for having sinfully been first (cf. Mark 9:35). It shows proper humility.

On exterminationism

Editor’s note:

This passage from George Lincoln Rockwell’s White Power strongly reminds me the book I’m presently writing, Extermination; and cannot contrast more with the non-revolutionary nationalists who presently are defending the Confederate Flag (a flag that only made sense when southerners were bloodthirsty for war). Presently what we need is this metamorphosis of the mind in the Aryan peoples, not trying to resuscitate the cadaver of Southern Nationalism.
 

* * *

 
rockwell

As Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf, the only question in the history of our times is: Will the titanic and final struggle of humanity turn out for the benefit of the White Aryan, or the benefit of the scheming Jew and his swarming army of colored inferiors?

As this racial Armageddon approaches, the real value of a human being will shortly appear with a vengeance whether we like it or not. Like the “plague of diamonds” pouring out of the sky, there will be such a roaring storm of people on this planet that it will sink in its orbit from sheer weight. Colored “humanity” will drop to lower than zero on the scale of value.

Your children or grandchildren will be forced to exterminate and/or transport swarms of wild Blacks until all of them are finally dead or corralled in Africa. And your grandchildren’s children, in turn, will look back on you and wonder how, in the name of heaven, we ever let this insanity go so far without doing anything but talk! …

There is no “cure” for the coming population horror other than to kill…

This was the situation, for instance, in what is now Rhodesia, where the native, Black population never exceeded 40,000 since the beginning of time. Then along came the humanitarian, half-witted, White liberal, and “outwitted” Nature by providing these swarms of human scum with the medical genius of a higher race, with education, with police to maintain order and prevent them killing and eating each other, with hygienics to put down germs and mosquitoes and prevent disease, with sanitation facilities, and otherwise applying the miracles produced by White brains and character, to enable Black and inferior humanity to proliferate like flies on a dung heap.

The Whites came to Rhodesia with law and order, medicine, education and food—and produced 40 millions of Blacks, who now demand to take over the Whites! The way out of this mess is not in making available more food, better medical care, more efficient farming, or birth control! There is only the old-fashioned way of Nature: death, one way or another. Somebody has got to go, ugly as that may be.

The problem would never have arisen, had men been wise enough to obey Nature’s ancient and eternal laws. But we didn’t, and the problem is about to overwhelm us in a furious catastrophe.

If we don’t do something about it, Nature will. There will be famines such as the world has never imagined, massacres such as the worst nightmare cannot envision, slaughter, disease, death and horror until there is nothing but blood and darkness on the face of the earth…

This is no call to brutal, heartless, sadistic massacre. There is no “hate” involved here, any more than there is “hate” involved when roaches or bedbugs invade a home and must be exterminated. It is a matter of survival.

If they survive and swarm by the millions, we must die. It will not be too many years before even the most rabid liberal will see that. Some of them already have, as the Blacks run around attacking them, shouting “Kill Whitey,” “Burn, baby, burn!” and sacking our cities.

To survive, we will undoubtedly have to kill vast numbers of those of the colored races who attack us. I believe the planet will run red with the blood of both sides, in the lifetimes of many now living, before order is restored to the world, and genuine peace is therefore possible.

To stop a plague of bed bugs takes killing, not words. To stop a plague of traitors, agitators and black half-animals is going to take killing, not words.

Locusts and bed bugs that do not invade your home do not need killing. Inferior humanity which leaves the White Man alone does not need killing, either, and can be left to limit their own numbers by their own stupidity, improvidence and cruelty. But it is forever too late for those colored people who attack the White Man to be permitted to survive.

We have no intention of attacking or exterminating those who leave us alone.

But let this be a declaration of war upon the savages who dare to shout “Kill Whitey,” and on those Jews and others who dare to encourage, agitate, arm and finance them in this bloody insanity. It’s them, or us!

On cognitive dissonance

by Jack Frost

Given the general Christian insistence on regarding all souls as “equal in the eyes of God,” cognitive dissonance without doubt has had a lot to do with the evolution of anti-racism throughout what used to be called Christendom.

Ben-Franklin-DuplessisFor example, the discomfort (i.e., cognitive dissonance) of the Founding Fathers with regard to race-based slavery conflicting with their worldview is palpable when you read their writings. Some, like the deeply religious Benjamin Franklin, became abolitionists, and freed their own slaves (n.b., but only after using them for most of their lives). The descendants of those same slaves no doubt are still preying on whites even today. How many murders, rapes, and robberies of white people have been the result of Franklin’s act of Christian generosity? How many shattered, ruined lives?

We’ll never know. Given the prevailing worldview, the question is uninteresting, just as the ongoing genocide of whites in South Africa is uninteresting. Eventually, of course, other abolitionists even fomented America’s Civil War over the issue, and their descendants, such as the founders of the NAACP, worked sedulously to make the negro the white man’s equal in law. Nearly all of these abolitionists were Christian fanatics who framed their objections to slavery in moral terms. Confronting such people with evidence they are wrong will usually only increase their fanaticism.

This being the case, could it be that efforts at “education” are not only fruitless, but counter-productive? This would explain much about the racial right’s long history of failure.

March of the Titans

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.

The_burning_of_Columbia,_South_Carolina,_February_17,_1865
The Burning of Columbia, South Carolina (1865) by William Waud

 
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.

Freedman's_bureauThe South’s four million Blacks took advantage of the chaos to seize as much property as was remaining, with their claims often being legitimized by the Black dominated Reconstruction governments.

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.

A secondary infection

“No one who is familiar with the 18th century and the 19th century can possibly believe that Whites are blameless” said Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) a little more than an hour ago. In another thread on the same subject, a commenter asked:

Why are Jews leading white nations to begin with? What level of idiocy does it take to allow your nation to voluntarily be led by a foreign tribe? That’s the question.

Griffin responded:

Ever since the French Revolution—see what happened in Haiti—, the answer has been liberalism.

Yankees believed in liberal capitalist democracy and their ideology legitimized the Jewish takeover of their society without a shot being fired. Germany put up more resistance under Hitler because Germans were less committed to liberalism.

It’s really that simple: Jews thrive in liberal democracies, under communism, and other systems that substitute abstract ideology for ethnic or religious solidarity.

Is Jewish influence bad? Of course.

It is a secondary infection. Jews don’t thrive in the Muslim world, China, Japan and other places because the conditions there aren’t favorable to Jews like they were in early twentieth century Yankeeland.

Yankees believed that Jews had a right to own their newspapers and film industry. They had a right to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and participate on an equal basis in their political system. The rest is history.

It couldn’t have ended any other way. See also Weimar Germany.

The strong feeling that Jews are bad and should be expelled is a healthy sentiment because Jewish influence has negative consequences.

What allowed the Jews to become so powerful? The culprit is Americanism which left the native population defenseless against the Jewish assault in the early twentieth century. Even without the Jews, Americanism alone had already inspired Yankees to destroy the South.

Liberalism also inspired Britain and France to inflict incredible damage on their Caribbean colonies.

Judeo reductionism – why?

In a recent comment Sebastian Ernst Ronin commented on one of my phrases: “Re Although many white nationalists abhor the phrase ‘We are doing it to ourselves,’ it is nonetheless us who have a loose screw that needs a little tightening up.” And he added: “You are preaching to the wind.”

Although Ronin is right that I am preaching to the deaf, it is still a pity that not even those white nationalists who are very conscious of the Jewish Question have studied carefully the whole trilogy of Kevin MacDonald on Judaism.

Why? I discovered the pro-white movement in 2009 and have already read the trilogy together with some of the most important books authored by those who advocate white interests (and, incidentally, a couple of days ago I ordered Tom Sunic’s latest book).

I would recommend the Judeo reductionists, those who still are under the impression that the subversive tribe is behind all our woes, to study carefully MacDonald’s trilogy. You will find out that he is not a “monocausalist.” First, obtain a hard copy of MacDonald’s first trilogy book, A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples, and read it from cover to cover, making copious notes, starting with the 2002 preface.

That whites are whites’ deadliest enemy—“No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves” (Sunic)—is also suggested on pages xliv-xlix of MacDonald’s preface to A People that Shall Dwell Alone, of which I’ll cite a few passages:

OldShipWindowPuritans forbade the worship of Christmas, both in England and in Massachusetts, and whipped, burned, and exiled those they found to be heretics, all the while believing themselves to be the beleaguered defenders of liberty…

At that time certain religious non-conformists, especially Anabaptists and Quakers, were still prevented from settling in New England and imprisoned, tortured and even executed if they returned there.

The above image, a window from Old Ship Church, a Puritan meetinghouse in Hingham, Massachusetts doesn’t appear in MacDonald’s book; I added it.

MacDonald reaches similar conclusions to what Brad Griffin, the admin of Occidental Dissent, has been saying for a couple of years: that the Yankees and the Jews have long been on the same page. MacDonald wrote:

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired the rhetoric and rendered the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa justifiable in the minds of Puritans. Militarily, the war with the Confederacy rendered the heaviest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans (Phillips 1989, 477). Puritan moral fervor and its tendency to justify draconian punishment of evil doers can also be seen in the comments of “the Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Church in New York [who] went so far as to call for ‘exterminating the German people… the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the woman’” (in Phillips 1999, 556).

If this is not whites having a pretty loose screw, what is it? Keep in mind that the American Civil War happened before the Jews took over the American media.

Review of Sunic’s book

by Mark Farrell

Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (BookSurge, 2007, with a foreword by Kevin MacDonald).

In today’s politically correct world, very few authors dare to criticize what is wrong with society. Despite the First Amendment, it is often political suicide to realistically recognize what is occurring, and may even cost one’s job in some cases, if not more. Dr. Tom Sunic is one of those brilliant and fearless individuals who defies the politically correct ban, and he has written an astounding book that all fans of freedom should take the time to read.

Who is Dr. Tom Sunic, you might ask? He is a man of many talents, whose credentials are impeccable. He obtained his doctorate in political science at the University of California. He is fluent in Croatian, French, and German, and has had articles published in various publications in these languages, as well as several books. He has worked as a US professor, and was also a diplomat for Croatia for some time. He is no lightweight in either the political or intellectual establishment. And yet he dares to speak the truth about the destruction of the West, and doesn’t cringe when mentioning the perpetrators largely responsible for America’s ongoing transition to third-world status. It should come as no surprise that America’s most brilliant psychologist, Professor Kevin MacDonald, has written the foreword of Dr. Sunic’s book, for Dr. Sunic is a man to be admired: He is one of those brave-hearted and brilliant souls who dares to stand up to be counted among those who recognize America’s reckless nature. He unapologetically speaks the truth of where this once mighty nation is heading: on a one-way, broken roller coaster—downhill and fast.

In Dr. Sunic’s most recent book, Homo Americanus, he tries to define just “who” is the American man, and what the American man believes. Dr. Sunic’s views are very interesting and somewhat refreshing, as he has lived under one of the former communist nations and knows firsthand how totalitarian governments infringe on personal liberties; and he doesn’t hesitate to point out what some Americans already realize—namely, that we too are having our rights torn asunder by the politically correct crowd who stop at nothing to destroy the last vestiges of liberty in America. In a chapter of Dr. Sunic’s book, “Americanism and Anti-Americanism,” he comments on America’s new fangled Orwellian Society in terms that describe its politically correct policies to limit free expression:

Admittedly, every epoch has its dominant ideas, and each ruling class in every country on earth is never too eager to discard its founding myths and replace them with other myths that may be seen as factors destabilizing for its political survival. Likewise, the dominant ideas at work in modern Americanism are often hailed by the ruling class and its court historians as “self-evident.” Questioning the veracity of that self-evidence can cause serious troubles for an intellectual heretic and can even lead to the signing of a death warrant to their intellectual career. For instance, challenging the principles of American democracy or probing critically into the legacy of antifascist victimology must be strictly avoided. These prohibitions are not officially on display in America; they just constitute a public no-entry zone. An author or a politician who ventures into one of these forbidden fields is at best shrugged off as a crank by the masters of modern American discourse or labeled as a “prejudiced” person. At worst, he can end up in prison. In most cases, however, he will find himself cut off from academic discourse and political debate, which in effect means that he is intellectually sentenced to death.

Indeed, an increasing number of Americans seem to suffer under the politically correct rules of debate. One needs only to look at such individuals as the Ph.D.-level chemist Germar Rudolf, who was deported from the U.S. and ripped from his American wife and child for having dared to write his doctoral dissertation on a politically incorrect topic in Germany years prior, where he was imprisoned after being deported. The same can be said of Ernst Zundel, another victim of thought crime who was also ripped away from his wife in the hills of Tennessee and shipped to Europe for having dared to venture into politically incorrect territory by questioning some of aspects of history. Of course, while it’s political taboo to discuss such things, it is unlikely either would have been deported if they weren’t white. In today’s Great Society, that is undoubtedly the greatest crime—being white—and trumps all others.

Sunic touches on the topic of white guilt that has plagued America for far too long. In his chapter, “E Pluribus Dissensus: Exit European Americans,” he describes some of the logic used to keep southern whites in a constant state of guilt and self-hate, and how similar actions have been used elsewhere as well:

The end of the antebellum South can serve as a laboratory for studying the guilty feelings that European people have been subject to in early postmodernity. The social malady consisting in self-hate started in America after the Civil War, only to be re-enacted a hundred years later all over Europe and postmodern America. In early postmodernity, Europe and America participated in the same joint guilt trip that can only be atoned by financial gifts and excuses to non-Europeans… Every opposing viewpoint was labeled by the liberal North as “hostile to freedom,” similar to the smear campaign of modern Northern successors against authors who criticize globalism and Americanism.

Dr. Sunic also breaks the social taboo of commenting on those people who call themselves the “Chosen Ones” for their involvement in changing the racial make-up of the US. For instance, after the Senate defeated the recent immigration bill, which would have changed the status of over 12 million illegal aliens, one of the first to cry about this was the exclusively Jewish organization known as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith. The ADL then put forth an article arguing on the illegal immigrants’ behalf. Such comments further prove Dr. Sunic’s many statements:

The process of Americanization seems to be enhanced by the rapid growth of multiracial society, which has always had strong supporters among Jewish intellectuals in America who have never hidden “that making of the US into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal from the beginning of the nineteenth century” [citing George Sunderland].

While Russia further distances itself from the Soviet apparatchik, we in America are slowly drifting that way, Dr. Sunic notes. If we in America are not too timid to take a hard look at reality, we must admit that America’s laws discriminate against whites in the name of “equality,” and America’s white citizens are often afraid to even voice dissent against such ridiculous policies for fear of being socially stigmatized, just as it was the old Soviet policy to stigmatize the families of those who criticized its similar policies. As a result of such policies in America that discriminate against whites, it is causing our universities and companies to significantly lower the bar in an effort to have a racial make-up that is reflective of the population. Testing and skills can no longer be used as the main criteria for entrance, as America’s educational institutions and companies become increasingly dysfunctional—similar to society itself in America.

As time progresses, such policies will undoubtedly put America further behind in the world, and will eventually lead to third-world status unless something is done. As the economy slowly withers, there is no real need to ask ourselves, “Why?” It is but a matter of time when wide-scale non-white riots like those that have occurred in all of America’s cities from time to time occur again; the real question remains whether America will be able to quell such riots. All it will take is a major, sudden drop in the economy, or perhaps the media’s focus of an isolated incident such as the Rodney King case of ’92. In the concluding chapter of Sunic’s book, he seems to point out this self-evident truth that all Americans see but most fail to openly recognize:

The egalitarian appetite, once observed in communist Homo sovieticus, is well under and under a new name in America and in Americanized Europe. American ideology will gain more prominence in the future, as egalitarian dynamics and wide-spread advocacy of permanent economic progress gain momentum. Once, when inequality was considered something natural, as it was in the antebellum South, or prior to the American Revolution, then even the crassest sign of inequality did not offend the observer’s eye. By contrast, when everybody is declared equal, even the smallest dose of inequality becomes unbearable. “The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases,” noted De Tocqueville. Consequently, as the American system becomes more and more economically opulent, even the slightest economic crisis, resulting in a small drop in living stands, is bound to cause social discord and political upheavals.

Dr. Sunic’s views are refreshing and well worth reading. His book should be required reading for all college students, and it is a tragic shame that it is not—yet, at least. Consider purchasing a copy of Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age for yourself, and ask your local librarian to order a copy as well.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers