American racial history timeline

Or:

On Jared Taylor’s cherries

The Cherry Picker
William-Adolphe Bouguereau
(1825-1905)

His site [American Renaissance] is a valve escape for semi-normies to release their frustrations in a comfortable and safe way. —Jamie

This is a reply to ‘What the Founders Really Thought About Race’ by Jared Taylor, a classic American Renaissance article of February 17, 2012 republished yesterday on AmRen.

If there is one racialist who can be considered a patriot in the traditional sense of the word, he is Jared Taylor. Unlike the traditional sense, I prefer to say Your race is your nation, which means that the history of Sweden or Germany should be as important to the white nationalist as the history of his home country.

But Taylor cherry-picks historical facts that seem to put the history of the US (not of his race, his real nation) in a benign light. That’s why in yesterday’s article he said: ‘Today’s egalitarians are therefore radical dissenters from traditional American thinking’.

The truth is that there have always been egalitarian fanatics in his country, as we shall see.

The best way to answer Taylor is to quote his pal Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, who in 2008 and 2009 made a very long list of American racial history that is worth quoting, in abbreviated form, as I do below adding some comments of mine, including a few sentences in square brackets and emphasis in red letters. (*)

Griffin’s long list provides context to the subject of Taylor’s recent article, and demonstrates that the granddaddy of the Alt-Right, as Greg Johnson once called him, carefully cherry-picked some historical facts to provide an idealised picture of the US:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

American Racial History Timeline

1550

The term ‘negro’ enters the English language from Spanish. (Jordan, 61)

1600

The term ‘mulatto’ enters the English language from Spanish. (Jordan, 61)

1619

Twenty blacks brought by a Dutch ship to Virginia. Some blacks had arrived even earlier. (Davis, xi)

1637

Pequot War in Massachusetts. (Jordan, 68)

1638

First negroes arrive in New England aboard the slave ship Desire, perhaps as slaves. (Jordan, 67)

1652

Rhode Island outlaws slavery but the law remains a dead letter. (Jordan, 70)

1661

Maryland criminalizes intermarriage between white women and negro men. (Brown and Stentiford, 533)

1662

Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)

Maryland passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)

1676

Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia. (Klinker and Smith, 10)

1681

Maryland passes another anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)

1688

Four Quakers sign antislavery petition in Germantown, Pennsylvania. (Davis, xii)

Virginia Assembly declares that free negroes ‘ought not in all respects to be admitted to a full fruition of the exemptions and impunities of the English’. Variations of this guideline are accepted in every colony. (Jordan, 123)

1691

Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law that prohibits all interracial liasons. (Jordan, 80)

Virginia requires manumitted negroes to leave the state. (Jordan, 124)

1692

Maryland passes an anti-miscegenation law.

1700

Negroes are now commonly being treated as chattel slaves. (Jordan, 44)

In the Southern colonies, free negroes are unable by law to testify against white persons. In New England, free negroes can testify against anyone. (Jordan, 123)

1705

Virginia Assembly declares negroes ineligible to hold public office. (Jordan, 126)

Virginia writes its slave code. Free negroes from raising their hand against whites. (Jordan, 73) Slaves forbidden to carry firearms, teaching slaves to read a crime. (Brown and Stentiford, 223)

Massachusetts adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)

1712

Slave uprising in New York City. (Davis, xii)

1715

North Carolina and South Carolina bar negroes from the polls; North Carolina does not continue the prohibition after the 1730s. (Jordan, 126)

North Carolina adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)

1717

South Carolina adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)

1722-1740

South Carolina requires free negroes to leave the colony unless permitted to do so by special act of the assembly.

1723

Virginia bars negroes from the polls. (Jordan, 126)

Virginia prohibits manumission [the act of freeing slaves by their owners] of negroes. (Jordan, 124)

1726

Pennsylvania adopts an anti-miscegenation law.

1739

Stono slave rebellion in South Carolina. (Davis, xii)

1741

Slave conspiracy uncovered in New York City. Many hanged and burned at the stake. (Davis, xii)

1745

Massachusetts prohibits negroes from participating in a government lottery [an electorate system] . (Jordan, 130)

1750

British government sanctions slavery in Georgia, prohibited in 1735. (Davis, xii)

Georgia adopts an anti-miscegenation law after negroes are admitted into the colony. (Jordan, 139)

1758-1776

Quakers begin pre-Revolution antislavery agitation. (Jordan, 271)

1760

The [Newspeak] word and concept of ‘prejudice’ comes into circulation in the years after 1760. (Jordan, 276)

1761

Georgia restricts suffrage to white men. (Jordan, 126)

1762

Virginia disenfranchises negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

1763

The first known Asians arrive in the United States when a group of Filipinos known as the Louisiana Manila Men developed settlements in Louisiana. These individuals fail to attain U.S. citizenship, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 only granted citizenship to free whites. (Brown and Stentiford, 48)

1769

Virginia establishes castration as the penalty for convicted black rapists of white women. (Jordan, 473)

1770s

Denial of negro mental inferiority becoming common place in antislavery circles. Benjamin Franklin thought Negroes ‘not deficient in natural understanding’, though Alexander Hamilton seemed less certain when he remakred that ‘their natural faculties are perhaps probably as good as ours’. (Jordan, 282)

1770

Delaware forbids negroes from administering corporal punishment to whites. (Jordan,131)

1773-79

New England slaves petition legislatures for freedom. Increasing numbers of antislavery tracts are published in America. (Davis, xii)

1774

Rhode Island prohibits slave trade. (Jordan, 291)

Rhode Island raises a separate battallion of negroes to fight in the American Revolution; Georgia and South Carolina hold out to the end. (Jordan, 302)

1775-1783 – American Revolution

Negro soldiers participate in virtually every major military action of the American Revolution. (Litwack, 12)

George Washington orders recruiting officers not to enlist ‘any deserter from within the Ministerial army, nor any stroller, negro, or vagabond’. (Klinker and Smith, 17)

5,000 negro soldiers participate in the American Revolution. (Brown and Stentiford, 281)

1775

Lord Dunmore, royal governor of Virginia, promises freedom to any slaves who desert rebellious masters and serve in the king’s forces, an offer taken up by some eight hundred blacks. (Davis, xii)

The first secular antislavery organization is founded, The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes. (Jordan, 343)

Maryland and the Northern colonies do not officially bar negroes from the polls until the Revolution. (Jordan, 126)

1776

Declaration of Independence describes Indians as ‘merciless Indian Savages’. (Nugent, 4)

Thomas Jefferson’s indictment of slavery is removed from the Declaration of Independence out of fear that the Southern colonies, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would refuse to sign. (Brown and Stentiford, 462)

Thomas Paine publishes incendiary [egalitarian] pamphlet Common Sense. (Nugent, 7)

1777

Vermont’s constitution outlaws slavery. (Davis, xii, Jordan, 345)

1779

Thomas Jefferson’s revisal of the laws of Virginia calls for banishment of white women who have mulatto children: ‘If any white woman shall have a child by a negro or mulatto, she and her child shall depart the commonwealth within one year thereafter. If they shall fail so to do, the woman shall be out of the protection of the laws, and the child shall be bound out by the Aldermen of the county, in like manner as poor orphans are by law directed to be, and within one year after its term of service expired shall depart the commonwealth, or on failure so to do, shall be out of the protection of the laws’. (Jordan, 472)

Editor’s note: Note that this is very different from killing those who mixed their precious blood, as the Iberian Visigoths did before Christianity brainwashed them.

1780

Pennsylvania adopts a gradual emancipation law [in this context, emancipation was any effort to procure economic, social or political rights / equality to Negroes].

(Davis, xii, Jordan, 345)

Revolutionary era constitutions of Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia exclude negroes from the franchise. (Jordan, 412)

An estimated 200,000 to 250,000 Indians are living east of the Misssissippi. By 1780, almost all Indians have been pushed west of the Appalachians. (Nugent, 10)

1781-1782

Thomas Jefferson writes his Notes on the State of Virginia. [Among other topics, he wrote extensively about slavery, his dislike of miscegenation, justifications of white supremacy, and his belief that whites and blacks could not co-exist in a society in which the latter were free.]

1782

Virginia legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 574)

1783

In Massachusetts, the case of Commonwealth v. Jennison is interpreted as removing any judicial sanctions for slavery. (Davis, xii)

Kentucky and Tennessee no longer seriously contested between whites and Indians. (Nugent, 48)

1784

The Pennsylvania Abolition Society is formed. (Davis, xii)

Connecticut and Rhode Island enact gradual emancipation laws. Congress narrowly rejects Jefferson’s proposal to exclude slavery from all Western territories after the year 1800. The New York Manumission Society [to abolish slavery] is organized. (Davis, xii)

1785

The New York assembly passes a gradual emancipation bill which would have barred Negroes from the polls [voting in today’s vocabulary] and from marrying whites, but the state senate objected to the intermarriage clause because ‘in so important a connection they thought the free subjects of this State ought to be left to their free choice’. The New York assembly voted again to keep the anti-miscegenation clause, but ultimately receded on it. (Jordan, 741-472)

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton [an American revolutionary, statesman and founding father of the United States of America] chair the New York Manumission Society. (Litwack, 14)

1786

In Massachusetts, an act of 1786 voids marriages between whites and Negroes. (Jordan, 472)

Massachusetts legislature votes to expel all negroes who are not citizens of one of the states. (Litwack, 16)

1787

Thomas Jefferson publishes Notes on State of Virginia, endorses racialism, negro intellectual inferiority, and calls for the colonization of free blacks to their native climate. (Jordan, 547)

The Constitution Convention agrees to count three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation; to forbid Congress from ending the slave trade until 1808; and to require that fugitive slaves who cross state lines be surrendered to their owners. The Continental Congress enacts the Northwest Ordinance, prohibiting slavery in the territories north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi rivers. (Davis, xiii)

The U.S. Constitution specifically excludes Indian nations from inclusion in the American political system. Classified as foreign nations and ‘Indians not taxed’, the Constitution gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction for dealing with Indian tribes. (Brown and Stentiford, 579)

U.S. antislavery movement becomes interested in vindicating Negro mental equality in reponse to Jefferson’s racial theories in his Notes on the State of Virginia. Equalitarianism will become a standard theme of abolitionist literature during the 1790s. (Jordan, 445-446)

South Carolina bans slave importations. (Jordan, 318)

All the states have by now banned the slave trade. (Jordan, 342)

Northwest Ordinance prohibits slavery in the Northwest Territory. (Jordan, 322)

Delaware legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

 
1789-1797, George Washington Adminstration

1789

An ‘Address to the Public’ by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, signed by its president, Benjamin Franklin, declared that the chains which bound the slave’s body ‘do also fetter his intellectual faculties; and impair the social affections of his heart’. (Jordan, 447)

William Pinkney, a famous Maryland state legislator, attacks slavery by arguing that Negroes and whites were ‘endued with equal faculties of mind and body’. He goes on to state that Negroes are ‘in all respects our equals by nature; and he who thinks otherwise has never reflected, that talents, however great, may perish unnoticed and unknown, unless auspicious circumstances conspire to draw them forth, and animate their exertions in the round of knowledge’. (Jordan, 447)

1790

New Jersey passes a law that allows all ‘qualified’ inhabitants to vote. (Keyssar, 54)

Quakers and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society petition Congress to use its fullest constitutional powers to discourage slavery and slave trade; the petitions evoke angry debate and attacks on petitioners by congressmen from the Deep South. (Davis, xiii)

Charles Crawford attacks Jefferson’s racialism in his Observations Upon Negro Slavery.

The first federal naturalization law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, restricts American citizenship to ‘free white persons’. (Jordan, 341)

An estimated 61 to 66 percent of Americans are of English origin and between 80 and 84 percent of English-speaking origin. (Jordan, 339)

Maryland legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

1792

Virginia legislature specifically declares castration to be a permissible punishment for any slave ‘convicted of an attempt to ravish a white woman’. (Jordan, 473)

Gilbert Imlay attacks Jeffersonian racialism in his A Topographical Descritpion of the Western Territory of North America. (Jordan, 441-442)

Virginia slave code restricts the right of free negroes to purchase servants only of their own complexion. (Jordan, 407)

Congress passes a federal militia law which includes only ‘white’ men. (Jordan, 412)

Delaware disenfranchies negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

1793

Congress enacts a fugitive slave law. (Jordan, 327)

Virginia prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

1794

Congress passes a law forbidding Americans from participating in the international slave trade. (Jordan, 327)

1795

Before the mid-1790s many states extended to negro slaves the right of trial by jury in capital cases. Racial attitudes begin to harden again about ten years after the American Revolution. (Jordan, 403)

Treaty of Greenville. Indians cede title to 3/4ths of the future state of Ohio. (Nugent, 44)

1795-1808

Decline of the first antislavery movement. (Jordan, 348)

1796

Maryland legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)
 

1797-1801, John Adams Adminstration

1797

Connecticut adopts another gradual emancipation law. (Litwack, 3)

1798

Rhode Island passes a law that bans interracial marriage between blacks and whites. (Jordan, 472)

Kentucky legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

1799

New York adopts a law for gradual emancipation. (Davis, xiv)

Kentucky disenfranchises negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

1800-1860

Until the post Civil War-era, Northerners draw a sharp distinction between negro civic equality, of which they approved, and political and society equality, which they did not. (Litwack, 15)

1800

Rhode Island legislature declares no paternity suits could be brought by Negro women against white men. (Jordan, 472)

South Carolina outlaws residence of free negroes. (Jordan, 399)
 

1801-1809, Thomas Jefferson Administration

1801

Tennessee legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

Maryland statute disenfranchises negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

1802

James T. Callender makes his famous charge in the Richmond Recorder that it was ‘well known’ that Thomas Jefferson kept Sally Hemmings, one of his slaves, as a concubine and had fathered children by her. (Jordan, 465)

Editor’s note: If true, Jefferson deserved the punishment the Visigoths used for those who committed the sin against the holy ghost (miscegenation).

Georgia relinquishes claim to Alabama and Mississippi in exchange for a promise by the Jefferson administration that the federal government would seek voluntary removal of Indian tribes within her boundries. (Howe, 256)

1803

South Carolina reopens the slave trade. (Jordan, 318)

1804

Clement Clarke Moore, a New York scholar of Hebrew with Federalist sympathies, attacks Jefferson’s racial views in his Observations upon Certain Passages in Mr. Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, Which Appear to Have a Tendency to Subvert Religion. (Jordan, 442)

1805

Yet again, both houses of the Virginia legislature adopt resolutions calling for the removal of free Negroes. The resolution of 1805 instructed Virginia congressmen to press for a portion of the Louisiana Territory for settlement of free Negroes. (Jordan, 565)

Virginia revises penal code and abolishes castration. (Jordan, 473)

1806

Hudgins v. Wright, the court decides that three generations of women with straight black hair were Indian, not black, and therefore free. (Brown and Stentiford, 535)

Virginia restricts the right of masters to manumit their slaves; free blacks must leave the state within one year. (Jordan, 574)

Ohio already prohibiting permanent residence of Negroes. (Jordan, 575)

Georgia enacts a mandatory death penalty for any Negro raping or attempting to rape a white woman. (Jordan, 473)

1807

Slave trade abolished in the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xxxix)

Maryland prohibits permanent residence of free negroes. (Jordan, 575)

Louisiana prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)
 

1809-1817, James Madison Administration

1810

Reverend Samuel Stanhope Smith attacks Jefferson’s racialism in his An Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species. He argues in a Boasian vein that the Negro skull and intellect has been deformed by his harsh environment. (Jordan, 443)

Proportion of Free Negroes:

Delaware: 75.9%
Maryland: 23.3%
Virginia: 7.2%
North Carolina: 5.7%
South Carolina: 2.3%
Georgia: 1.7% (Jordan, 407)

All Southern and two Northern states pass laws either restricting immigration of free Negroes, banning it altogether, or requiring emigration of emancipated slaves. (Jordan, 410)

1811

Delaware prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 220)

1812

Louisiana admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 70)

Louisiana disenfranchises negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

James Madison’s war message references Indian attacks along the Northwestern frontier, ‘the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers: a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity’. (Nugent, 82)

1812-1814, War of 1812

Negro soldiers participate in the War of 1812. (Brown and Stentiford, 281)

1813-1815

Creek War. (Nugent, 117)

1814

Treaty of Fort Jackson. Creeks are forced to cede much of their land in Alabama and Georgia. (Nugent, 227)

1814-1838

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, North Carolina and Pennsylvania prohibit or drastically restrict voting by negroes. (Jordan, 414)

1816

Bishop Richard Allen founds the African Methodist Episcopal Church. (Brown and Stentiford, 252)
 

1817-1825, James Monroe Administration

Under the Monroe administration, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun encourages gradual resettlement of Southern Indian tribes across the Mississippi. (Howe, 255)

1817

New York adopts a law that frees all remaining slaves in 1827. (Davis, xiv)

Indiana passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

1818

Illinois abolishes slavery. (Litwack, 3)

1818-21

The Missouri Crisis, followed by the Compromise of 1820 and further debate over Missouri’s constitution, which restricts entry of free blacks and mulattos. (Davis, xiv)

1819

Adams-Onís Treaty. Acquisition of Florida by the United States. (Nugent, 96)

Appropriation from the Monroe administration supports the American Colonization Society. [The American Colonization Society (ACS), originally known as the Society for the Colonization of Free Coloured People of America until 1837, was founded in 1816 by Robert Finley to encourage and support the migration of free blacks to Africa.]

1820

By 1820, free negroes could not exercise certain rights and privileges guaranteed to American citizens and aliens. (Litwack, 33)

American Colonization Society makes its first attempt at African colonization by settling 86 negroes and their families on Sherbro Island off the west coast of Africa. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)

Editor’s note: In a futuristic, post-Christian Western civilization that complies with Nietzsche’s revaluation of all values, these pious measures will be deemed unnecessary.

1821

American Colonization Society establishes the colony of Liberia on the west coast of Africa. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)

1822

Mississippi prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

1824

Ohio state legislature passes a resolution proposing African colonization linked with gradual emancipation. The resolution is soon seconded by seven other free states and Delaware. (Howe, 265)

Elizabeth Heyrick anonymously publishes the pamphlet Immediate, not Gradual Emancipation. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)
 

1825-1829, John Quincy Adams Administration

1825-1842

Indian Removal in the Old Southwest (Five Civilized Tribes) and Old Northwest (Shawnees, Sac and Fox, Potawatomies, Miamis). In 1825, the War Department estimated that more than 50,000 Indians were in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. By 1838, more than 80,000 Indians had been removed to Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. As of 1855, only 8,500 Indians lived east of the Mississippi. The Old Southwest together with Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana were basically Indian free by 1842. (Nugent, 229)

1825-1830

The first minstrel shows appear. (Howe, 639) [The minstrel show was a form of racist American entertainment developed in the early 19th century. Each show consisted of comedy sketches, variety acts, dances and musical performances depicting people specifically of African descent. The shows were performed by mostly white people wearing blackface or make-up to play the role of black people.]

1826

North Carolina prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Florida Territory prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

1827

Gradual emancipation comes to an end in New York. Slavery abolished. (Howe, 174)

Founding of America’s first negro newspaper, Freedom’s Journal. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Several slave states begin to invest in Liberia. They organize themselves independently of the ACS and established colonies in an effort to transport free negroes to Liberia. Approximately 11,000 negroes relocated before the movement ended. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)

1828

Moses Elias Levy, the most prominent Jewish abolitionist in the United States, publishes his Plan for the Abolition of Slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Abolitionist Benjamin Lundy begins publication of his newspaper, The Genius of Universal Emanicpation. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)
 

1829-1837, Andrew Jackson Administration

1829

Illinois passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

1830

By 1830, whether by legislative, judicial, or constitutional action, negro slavery had been virtually abolished in the North. Of the 3,568 negro remaining in bondage, two-thirds resided in New Jersey. (Litwack, 14)

1831

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, John Marshall rules that the Cherokees are a ‘domestic dependent nation’, not a sovereign state. (Howe, 355)

William Lloyd Garrison begins publishing The Liberator, an abolitionist newspaper, in Boston. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

After 1831, abolitionists would vigorously denounce colonization [i.e., sending blacks to Africa]. (Litwack, 27)

Before it is crushed, Nat Turner’s Rebellion leads to the death of sixty whites in Southampton County, Virginia. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Tennessee prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

1832

Following the Nat Turner slave rebellion, Virginia debates colonization of slaves and free blacks abroad. Both sides in the debate agree that Virginia should be a ‘white man’s country’. (Howe, 326)

Founding of the New England Anti-Slavery Society (NEASS) in Boston. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Alabama prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Formation of racially integrated Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

1833

American writer Lydia Maria Childs publishes An Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

The American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS) is founded in Philadelphia; the group favors the immediate emancipation of American slaves. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

1834

Massachusetts repeals its anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

1835-1842

Second Seminole War. (Howe, 516)

1835

The word ‘white’ is added to North Carolina’s constitutional requirement. (Keyssar, 55)

An extensive postal campaign by the American Anti-Slavery Society uses the postal system to send abolitionist literature throughout the country and especially into the south. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French traveller in the United States of the 1830s, publishes his Democracy in America, in which he calls slavery ‘evil’.

1836

Anglos outnumber Hispanics ten to one in Texas. (Howe, 660)

Battle of the Alamo. (Howe, 665)

Texas independence declared. Anglo-Texans almost exclusively Southerners and wage race war against mestizos. Northerners regard Texas as an outpost of slavery. Their opposition prevents the annexation of Texas under the Van Buren administration. (Howe, 665-666, 670)

Founding of the New York Committee of Vigilance, one of the most radical negro abolition societies in the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

In its decision on Commonwealth v. Aves, the Massachusetts Supreme Court sets an important precedent by declaring that slavery cannot exist in Massachusetts except as it is regarded by the U.S. Constitution; thus, any slave brought to the state was immediately freed and the only slaves that could exist in Massachusetts were fugitive slaves whose return was mandated by the federal Fugitive Slave Act. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)
 

1837-1841, Martin Van Buren Administration

1837

An angry mob in Illinois murders abolitionist publisher Elijah P. Lovejoy as he attempts to prevent destruction of his press. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

1838-1839

Deporation of Cherokees to Oklahoma. (Howe, 416)

1838

David Ruggles publishes the first negro magazine in the U.S., the Mirror of Liberty. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

1839

Texas ethnically cleanses Creeks, Cherokees, and other Indians from east Texas. (Nugent, 155)

Formation in the United States of the antislavery Liberty Party. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

Abolitionists Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimke Weld, and Sarah Grimke publish their antislavery pamphlet, American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

1840

Brothers Lewis and Arthur Tarpan found the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

 
1841-1845, John Tyler Administration

1841

Former president John Quincy Adams delivers final arguments before the Supreme Court in defence of the thirty-four negro captives from the Amistad. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Amistad captives were never legally slaves and thus are free to return to Africa. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1842

The Anglo-American Webster-Ashburton Treaty establishes the Africa Squadron, an American naval squadron charged with patrolling the west coast of Africa to intercept any American vessels illegally engaged in the slave trade. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1843

4,291 American negroes have settled in Liberia; over ten thousand more would come before the Civil War. (Howe, 262)

Reverend Stephen Symonds Foster publishes The Brotherhood of Thieves, or a True Picture of the American Church, a searing indictment of American evangelical Christians for their complicity in the sin of slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1844

Ralph Waldo Emerson gives an important speech, commemorating the tenth anniversary of emancipation in the British West Indies, affirming the human dignity of negroes. (Howe, 625)

1845-1855

New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin reaffirm racial exclusion of negroes from the polls in constitutional conventions or popular referenda. (Keyssar, 55)

1845

Former slave Frederick Douglass publishes his influential Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

Abolitionist Lysander Spooner publishes the first part of his famous work, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery; the second part of the work appears in 1847.
 

1845-1849, James K. Polk Administration

1846-48, Mexican War

The Mexican War leads to the annexation of much Western territory, including California, thereby igniting much controversy over the expansion of slavery. (Davis, xiv)

1846-1847

Wilmot Proviso passed repeatedly by the House of Representatives. Called the ‘White Man’s Proviso’, Wilmot’s declared purpose was to ‘preserve free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and own color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings free labor’. Endorsed by ten Northern state legislatures. (Howe, 767-768)

1846

War breaks out between the United States and Mexico. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1847

Former slave Frederick Douglass publishes the first issue of his abolitionist newspaper, North Star. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

Liberia, the West African colony of resettled negroes, becomes independent. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1848

Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is signed, ending the Mexican-American War and transferring large tracts of territory from Mexico to the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii) Mexican Cession of the American Southwest. (Nugent, 187)

The first women’s rights convention held in the United States, the Seneca Falls Convention, meets in Seneca Falls, New York. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

 

1849-1850, Zachary Taylor Administration

1850s

Martin R. Delany leads a ‘Back to Africa’ movement.

1850

The federal census first begins taking note of mulattoes. (Brown and Stentiford, 534)

Origin of ‘separate but equal’ doctrine in Robert v. the City of Boston. (Brown and Stentiford, 106)

With assistance from other abolitionists, illiterate former slave Sojournor Truth publishes her memoirs, The Narrative of Sojournor Truth: A Northern Slave. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

In a speech delivered on a debate on the Compromise of 1850, Senator William H. Seward speaks of a ‘higher law’ beyond the Constitution, i.e., God’s law, that demands no compromise with slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

1851

New Iowa constitution omits its anti-miscegenation clause. (Farnam, 216)

Indian Appropriations Act.

Former slave Sojournor Truth delivers her famous speech, ‘Ar’nt I a Woman?’, at the women’s convention in Ohio. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

1852

Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes her controversial novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

1854

Founding of the Republican Party. (Brown and Stentiford, 678)

Escaped slave Anthony Burns is arrested in Boston under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; despite demonstrations on his behalf, Burns is returned under guard to Virginia, although Boston abolitionists later purchase his freedom. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

1855

Only five states do not discriminate against negroes in voting rights: Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.

These states contain only 4% of America’s free black population. Negroes also prohibited from voting in U.S. territories. (Keyssar, 55)

1856

American pacifist Elihu Burritt publishes A Plan for Brotherly Co-Partnership of the North and South for the Peaceful Extinction of Slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

Abolitionist John Brown and his sons murder five proslavery settlers at Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas in retaliation for the sack of Lawrence. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

1857

George Fitzhugh publishes his most famous proslavery volume, Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

Hinton Rowan Helper publishes his controversial book, The Impending Crisis of the South and How to Meet It, which decries the economic effects of slavery on the South and vehemently attacks the region, the Democratic Party, and negroes. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

1858

Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois. (Davis, xv)

1859

Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species. (Howe, 466)

1860

436,000 slaves in Mississippi. Negroes account for over 55% of Mississippi’s population. (Brown and Stentiford, 536)

November 6 – Abraham Lincoln becomes the first Republican elected president. (Zuczek, xlix)

December 20 – South Carolina secedes from the federal Union. (Zuczek, xlix)

1861-1865, American Civil War

Abraham Lincoln declares the Civil War a ‘white man’s fight’ and says that no negroes, free or slaves, would be accepted into the Union forces, but reneges on his policy in 1862 due to mounting losses. Negroes fight in segregated units under white commanders. (Brown and Stentiford, 282)
 

1861-1865, Abraham Lincoln Administration

1861

January-June – Ten other slaves states secede from the Union. (Zuczek, xlix)

Jefferson Davis begins his term as president of the Confederate States of America, whose constitution gave recognition and protection to ‘the institution of negro slavery’. (Davis, xv)

1862

Battle of Antietam, Maryland, between Generals Robert E. Lee and George B. McClellan gives Lincoln encouragement to issue Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. (Davis, xv)

1864

The term ‘miscegenation’ appears for the first time in an anonymous pamphlet, Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro. (Brown and Stentiford, 526)
 

1865-1869, Andrew Johnson Administration

1865

Civil War ends; slavery officially abolished (Thirteenth Amendment); KKK formed.

January 31 – Congress passes the Thirteenth Amendment, which will formally abolish slavery in the United States. It is sent to the states for ratification. (Zuczek, li)

April 14 – President Lincoln is shot while watching a play at Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C. (Zuczek, li)

South Carolina – Miscegenation Statute prohibited marriage between a white person and a person of color. (Jim Crow History.org)

1866

June 13 – Congress passes the Fourteenth Amendment and sends it to the states for ratification. (Zuczek, lii)

1868

South Carolina – Barred school segregation (Constitution). All public schools and universities to be free and open to all persons regardless of race or color. (Jim Crow History.org)

End of Indian Wars on Southern Plains. (Nugent, 229)

July 28 – The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified, granting equal protection under the law to all American citizens. It also confers citizenship to every person born in the United States, including former slaves. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiii)

1868-1871

The South is swept by a wave of Ku Klux Klan terrorism. (Keyssar, 105)

Civil Rights Act of 1871 (‘Ku Klux Klan Act’).
 

1869-1877, Ulysses S. Grant Administration

1869

February 25 – Congress passes the Fifteenth Amendment and sends it to the states for ratification. (Zuczek, liv)

South Carolina – Barred public accommodation segregation (Constitution)
Gave all classes of citizens without regard to race or color equal access to public, legal and political privileges. Included the right to intermarry. (Jim Crow History.org)

1870

Black men (and ostensibly other male ethnic/racial minorities) officially given voting rights with the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment

California finally recognizes Mexican-Americans as citizens. (Howe, 810)

1871

Mississippi – Barred anti-miscegenation (State Code), omitted miscegenation or intermarriage statute. (Jim Crow History.org)

1874

All of New England has outlawed de jure segregation in schools. (Fitzgerald, 171)

June – Appearance of White League in Louisiana, terrorist organization aimed at overthrowing Republican Kellogg. (Zuczek, lvi)

August 30 – White League murders Republicans in the Coushatta Massacre. (Zuczek, lvi)

1875

Rough beginning of the Jim Crow Era.

1876

July 7 – Hamburg Massacre in South Carolina, as election campaigning puts Republican negro militiamen against white conservative gun clubs. (Zuczek, lvii)

September 16-19 – In South Carolina a three day, countywide killing spree conducted by white gun clubs earns the name the Ellenton Riot; ends with direct intervention by U.S. infantry units. (Zuczek, lvii)

October 16-17 – White attack on a Republican meeting, called the Cainhoy Riot, leads Grant to send more federal troops to South Carolina for the election. (Zuczek, lvii)
 

1877-1881, Rutherford B. Hayes Administration

1877

The Compromise of 1877 removes the last of the federal troops from the former Confederate states. Reconstruction ends, but the Jim Crow period is not underway fully. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiii)

End of Reconstruction.

1877-1965, Jim Crow America

1878

Mississippi – Education (Statute) prohibited teaching white and black children in the same school. (Jim Crow History.org)

1880

Mississippi – Miscegenation (State Code) revised state code to declare marriage between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes or persons of one-quarter or more Negro blood as ‘incestuous and void’. Penalty: Fine up to $500, or imprisonment in the penitentiary up to ten years, or both. (Jim Crow History.org)

In re Camille, federal district court in Oregon denies citizenship to a half white/half Indian man on the basis of race.
 

1881, James A. Garfield Administration

1881

Tennessee enacts the first law requiring racial segregation on public trains. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiii)
 

1881-1885, Chester A. Arthur Administration

1882-1900

1,700+ negroes lynched in America. (Blum, 3)

1882

The Chinese Exclusion Act drastically limits the number of Chinese immigrants to the United States and requires all Chinese residents who leave the United States to reapply for reentry. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiii)

1883

Pace v. Alabama, Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Alabama’s anti-miscegenation law. (Brown and Stentiford, 535)

1884

Elk v. Wilkins, Supreme Court rules that Indians, as tribal citizens, were not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment and were not citizens of the United States. (Brown and Stentiford, 580)

Arkansas – Miscegenation (State Code). All marriages of white persons with Negroes or mulattoes declared illegal. (Jim Crow History.org)

1885

Florida – Miscegenation (Constitution) ‘forever’ prohibited marriages between whites and blacks, or between a ‘white person and a person of Negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive’. (Jim Crow History.org)
 

1885-1889, Grover Cleveland Administration

1886

Surrender of Geronimo and the Apaches ends the Indian Wars in the Southwest. (Nugent, 229)

1887

Disenfranchisement of native Hawaiians. (Nugent, 264)
 

1889-1893, Benjamin Harrison Administration

1890-1910

Blues, ragtime, and jazz develop in Southern cities, particularly New Orleans, as the most popular music forms amongst negroes. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiv)

Franz Boas’s anthropological work eventually developed the notion of culture as distinct from race. (Brown and Stentiford, 529)

1890

The Indian Naturalization Act grants U.S. citizenship to Indians in certain areas under certain conditions. (Brown and Stentiford, 580)

In re Hong Yen Chang, federal district court in California denies American citizenship to Chinese on the basis of race.

1892

April – In response to anti-negro violence and the rise of lynchings across the South, negro journalist Ida B. Wells begins an anti-lynching crusade that grows to international dimensions. (Zuczek, lix)

The Geary Act extends the Chinese Exclusion Act and required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year at hard labour. In addition, Chinese were not allowed to bear witness in court, and could not receive bail in habeas corpus proceedings. (Wikipedia)
 

1893-1897, Grover Cleveland Administration

1894

In re Saito, federal district court in Massachusetts denies American citizenship to the Japanese on the basis of race.

In re Po, federal district court in New York denies American citizenship to Burmese on the basis of race.

1895-1900

An average of 101 negroes are lynched per year. (Klarman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, 3)

1895

South Carolina – Miscegenation (Constitution) prohibited marriage between a white person with a Negro or mulatto, or a person who had one-eighth or more Negro blood. (Jim Crow History.org)

1896

Mississippi – Education (Statute) separate districts established for the schools of white and black children. (Jim Crow History.org)

The Democratic Party triumphs in the South by promising white supremacy at the polls. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiv)

1897

In re Rodriguez, federal district court in Texas denies American citizenship to Mexicans on the basis of race.
 

1897-1901, William McKinley Administration

Spanish-American War, 1898-1899

Acquistion of Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. (Nugent, 240)

1898

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Supreme Court rules that the U.S. government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even someone of Chinese ancestry. (Oyez)

1899

In re Kanaka Nian, a federal district court denies citizenship to native Hawaiians on the basis of race.

December 18 – Supreme Court, in Cummings v. Richmond County (Georgia, declares segregation in the schools is legal under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Zuczek, lix)

1899-1902, American-Filipino War

1900

Race riot in New Orleans is sparked by a shoot-out between the police and a negro labourer. Twenty thousand people are drawn into the riot that lasted four days. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiv)

Race riot in New York City. (Brown and Stentiford, 128)
 

1901-1909, Theodore Roosevelt Administration

1901

Alabama – Miscegenation (Constitution) declared that the legislature could never pass any law authorizing or legalizing ‘any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro’. (Jim Crow History.org)

Between 1901 and 1947, the California state government enacted laws that created segregated communities for ‘Asian Americans’. (Brown and Stentiford, 49)

1902

Thomas Dixon, Jr. publishes his response to Harriet Beecher Stowe, The Leopard’s Spots: An Historical Romance of the White Man’s Burden, 1865-1900, a best-selling novel which introduces readers to the Negro Problem and trauma that the North inflicted upon the South during Reconstruction. (Brown and Stentiford, 237)

1904

Race riot in Springfield, Ohio. (Brown and Stentiford, 128)

Congress bars Chinese immigration with amendments to the Chinese Exclusion Act. (Brown and Stentiford, 53)

Kentucky passes the ‘Day Law’ which requires racial segregation of all public and private schools. (Brown and Stentiford, 438)

1905

The Niagara Movement forms. An organization of black intellectuals who opposed Booker T. Washington and his Tuskegee Machine, the Niagara movement promoted negro political equality and voting rights. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

1906

Founding of U.S. based journal, Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

Rumours of negro assaults on white women lead to a race riot in Atlanta. The riot claims the lives of 25 negroes and one white. Hundreds are injured. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

Editor’s note: Compare it to the way today’s Britons react—like lobotomised eunuchs—when hundreds of pubescent English roses are raped by Orcs.

1908

Louisiana – Miscegenation (Statute). Concubinage between the Caucasian or white race and any person of the Negro or black race is a felony. Penalty: Imprisonment from one month to one year, with or without hard labour. (Jim Crow History.org)
 

1909-1913, William Howard Taft Administration

Federal patronage of negroes sharply curtailed under President Taft. (Brown and Stentiford, 679)

1909

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is founded in New York City. Some of the members of the Niagara Movement contribute to the founding of the NAACP. The board of directors of the NAACP includes several white progressives. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

1910-1930

‘Great Migration’ of 500,000 negroes to the North. (Gilmore, 17)

1911

Franz Boas (Jew) publishes The Mind of Primitive Man, a turning point in anthropological thought, ushering in the notion of cultural relativism and the ethnological method. (Brown and Stentiford, 529)

1912

First International Conference on Eugenics. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)
 

Woodrow Wilson Administration, 1913-1921

1913

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) formed.

Massive expansion of federal government with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which formed the IRS.

U.S. v. Sandoval, Supreme Court describes American Indians as ‘essentially, a simple, uninformed and inferior people’ incapable of exercising the privileges of citizenship. (Brown and Stentiford, 581)

Florida – Education (Statute): Unlawful for white teachers to teach Negroes in Negro schools, and for Negro teachers to teach in white schools. (Jim Crow History.org)

1914-1918, First World War

World War I engulfs Europe, and involves much of the world through colonial empires and alliances. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

1915

Texas – Miscegenation (State Code): The penalty for intermarriage is imprisonment in the penitentiary from two to five years. (Jim Crow History.org)

Lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia. (Gilmore, 197)

Film director D.W. Griffith adapts several novels by Thomas Dixon, Jr. into the nation’s first modern motion picture, The Birth of a Nation, which depicts the Ku Klux Klan as heroic defenders of white womanhood and civilization. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

Editor’s note: Again, compare it to the worst generation of whites since prehistory.

Rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan in Stone Mountain, Georgia. (Brown and Stentiford, 239)

1916

Founding of U.S. based journal, Eugenical News. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

Madison Grant publishes The Passing of the Great Race. (Brown and Stentiford, 562)

1917-1920 First Red Scare (widespread anti-Jewish sentiment because they are correctly associated with Communism and revolutionary activities).

1917

Buchanan v. Warley, Supreme Court invalidates laws requiring racial segregation of neighborhoods. (Brown and Stentiford, 114)

First use of ‘racialist’ in the English language. (Online Etymology Dictionary)

1919

Race riots across the nation claim more than 200 lives. The biggest riot is in Chicago. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv) Race riot in Charleston, South Carolina; in Longview, Texas. (Brown and Stentiford, 128)

‘Red Summer’ – an estimated 25 race riots in the United States. (Brown and Stentiford, 128)

1920

The Nineteenth Amendment passes, granting the right to vote to women. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

Lothrop Stoddard publishes The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
 

1921-1923, Warren Harding Administration

1921

Second International Conference on Eugenics. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

A race riot in Tulsa, Oklahoma, nearly wipes out the entire negro area, including the ‘Black’ Wall Street. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

Arkansas – Miscegenation (Statute) prohibits cohabitation between whites and blacks and defines the term ‘Negro’ as any person who has any Negro blood in his veins. (Jim Crow History.org)

Editor’s note: The right way to define him: the zero-drop rule.

1922

Henry Ford’s The International Jew published.

Ozawa v. United States, Supreme Court confirms the policy which refused American citizenship to Japanese immigrants. (Brown and Stentiford, 401) Editor’s note: The US wasn’t crazy a hundred years ago!
 

1923-1929, Calvin Coolidge Administration

1923

Rosewood Massacre in Florida. (Brown and Stentiford, 304)

Dyer federal anti-lynching bill defeated by Southern opposition in Congress. (Brown and Stentiford, 197)

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, Supreme Court rules that Indians (subcons) are not white and denies citizenship to ‘Indian-Americans’.

1924

Immigration Act of 1924 restricts immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. (Brown and Stentiford, 53)

1925-1935

American Communists alone arguing for complete equality of the races. (Gilmore, 4)

1925

Psychologists begin to attack the concept of inherent mental differences between racial groups. (Barkan, 5)

1926

Arthur Estabrook and Evan McDougle publish Mongrel Virginians: The Win Tribe. (Brown and Stentiford, 275)

Corrigan v. Buckley, Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of racial covenants. (Brown and Stentiford, 720)

1927

Supreme Court rules in Lum v. Rice that ‘separate but equal’ applies to Asians and is within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th Amendment. (Brown and Stentiford, 235)

1928

Founding of U.S. based journal, Eugenics: A Journal of Race Betterment. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

The Ku Klux Klan makes a large march down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. (Brown and Stentiford, 445)

Anti-lynching bill dies in Congress. (Brown and Stentiford, 256)

American communists continue their campaign against segregation. The national platform of the CPUSA includes calls for full racial equality, the abolition of Jim Crow laws, enfranchisement of African Americans, integration of schools, juries, unions, and the military, a federal law against lynching, the end of chain gangs, and equal job opportunities and pay. (Brown and Stentiford, 177)
 

1929-1933, Herbert Hoover Administration

The crash of the stock market reveals serious problems with the American economy. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)

1930s

‘Raciology’ a vanishing vocation. (Barkan, 4)

Editor’s note: This is why the text by a Spaniard on racial classification is so important in my collection of essays (The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour). Raciology is a science that no longer exists in today’s ethnosuicidal West.

1930

The Hays Code prohibits depictions of miscegenation in Hollywood films. (Brown and Stentiford, 533)

Editor’s note: The prohibition was forgotten some decades later, within my lifetime. I still remember an episode in the late 1960s when Captain Kirk kisses a mulatta in Star Trek: the first time ever we saw such a thing on TV!

1932

Third International Conference on Eugenics. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

First use of ‘racist’ as a noun in the English language. (Online Etymology Dictionary)

Franklin D. Roosevelt is elected president. His promise of a New Deal and a ‘Black Cabinet’ in 1933 attracts many negro voters to the Democratic Party. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)
 

1933-1945, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration

1933

NAACP begins its legal campaign to desegregate education. (Gilmore, 2)

1936

Pearson v. Murray, Maryland Supreme Court orders the University of Maryland Law School to admit negro students. (Brown and Stentiford, 112)

Jesse Owens wins four gold medals at the Summer Olympics in Berlin. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)

1937

Death of Madison Grant.

1938

The American Anthropological Association unanimously passes a resolution condemning racism. (Gilmore, 199)

1939-1945, Second World War

1939

Television is introduced to the American public at the New York World’s Fair. (Brown and Stentiford, 770)

Thomas Dixon, Jr. publishes his final novel, The Flaming Sword, which claims communism and miscegenation threaten to destroy America. (Brown and Stentiford, 239)

1940s

The University of Pennsylvania, the most racially egalitarian university in 1946, boasted only 40 negroes out of an institutional enrollment of 9,000. (Brown and Stentiford, 595)

1941-1945, Second World War (U.S. involvement)

The United States joins the Allies and wages war against the Axis Powers of Germany, Japan, and Italy in World War II.

1942-1945

Discrimation and internment against some Americans of Italian and German descent.
 

1945-1953, Harry Truman Administration

1945-1947

Note of the Editor: A true Holocaust perpetrated by the Allies against the Germans: the best-kept secret in modern history (pace Jared Taylor, the Nazis, not the American founding fathers, were the true defenders of the Aryan race).

Cold War, 1947-1991

1947

President Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights issues its 178-page report, ‘To Secure These Rights’. The report calls for laws requiring states to end discrimination in education, mandating a ban against discrimination in the armed services, laws to guarantee fair employment practices for blacks, federal prohibition of lynching, repeal of poll taxes and other discriminatory voting restrictions, denial of federal grants when discrimination in evidence, an expanded civil rights division at the Justice Department, creation of permanent civil rights commissions at the federal and state levels, specific federal ban on police brutality, and enforcement of a Supreme Court decision against restrictive real estate covenants. (Roberts and Klibanoff, 38)

1948

President Harry S. Truman orders the desegregation of the U.S. military with Executive Order 9981. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)

Perez v. Sharp, California Supreme Court strikes down California’s anti-miscegenation law. (Brown and Stentiford, 397)

1950s

The first segment of the Civil Rights Movement is underway by 1954.

Emergence of rock and roll music.

1950

Henderson v. United States, Supreme Court abolishes racial segregation in railroad dining cars. (Roberts and Klibanoff, 49)

Thirty states still have anti-miscegenation laws on the books. (Brown and Stentiford, 503)

Ralph Bunche becomes the first negro to win the Nobel Peace Prize. (Klarman, From Jim Crow, 3)

1952

The McCarran-Walter Act lifts the ban on Asian immigration established by the Asian Exclusion Act. (Brown and Stentiford, 54)
 

1953-1961, Dwight Eisenhower Administration

1954

The Supreme Court decides for the plantiffs in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education. The ruling makes illegal segregation and discrimination in the nation’s public schools. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)

1956

Gayle v. Browder, Supreme Court outlaws segregation in all public transportation. (Brown and Stentiford, 615)

1957

Allen v. Merrill, Indians gain the right to vote in Utah. (Brown and Stentiford, 581)

Clash in Little Rock, Arkansas, over the desegregation of Central High School. President Eisenhower dispatches federal troops to keep order and enforce desegregation. (Schuman et al, 54)

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 pledges the federal government to prosecute abuses of negro civil rights. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvii)

1958

Cooper v. Aaron, Supreme Court rules unanimously for integration to proceed immediately at Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas. (Brown and Stentiford, 186-187)

1959

George Lincoln Rockwell founds the American Nazi Party.

1960s-present

Editor’s note: Whites adopt anti-Nazism as their new religion and, throughout the entire West, hand over the zeitgeist of their culture to their ancestral enemies, the Jews.

1964

Civil Rights Act.

1967

Loving v. Virginia – miscegenation effectively legalized across the U.S.

1971

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) formed.

2008

First black president elected in the United States.

2020

BLM riots are officially the most costly manmade damage to American property in history.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: On The Unz Review, Robert Morgan commented today:

C.T.: Since you specialize in debunking what the racial right has to say about Lincoln, I’d like to hear your opinion on a classic American Renaissance article, republished this day in Jared Taylor’s webzine… Although I am not an expert in American history, I have the impression that he is telling things in a very biased way.

You’re right. A charitable way to put it is ‘biased’. I’d state more directly that it’s a package of lies designed to mislead. Take his statement that Jefferson freed no slaves. That’s just false. In his will he freed children of Sally Hemings, a quadroon who was his dead wife’s half sister and almost certainly his mistress. He was likely the father of those children.

Then we have Taylor’s telling of Jefferson’s supposed horror of race mixing. LOL! If he thought it so horrible, why did he engage in it?

He predictably mentions the American Colonization Society, but ‘forgets’ to tell his readers that it was in the ACS Charter that any ‘colonization’ [deportation in today’s vocabulary—Editor’s note] of negroes was to be on a voluntary basis only. Needless to say, the idea that all the negroes were going to leave voluntarily always was a joke. Perhaps some American Christians, who also claim to believe absurdities such as corpses coming back to life, were stupid enough to believe this would happen, but intelligent people such as the first few American presidents must have always known it was a ludicrous expectation.

He also brings up the Naturalization Act of 1790, which allowed only whites to become naturalized citizens, without explaining that naturalization was only one way for people to become citizens. Plenty of non-whites were made citizens by treaty, for example in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, when the USA acquired lands from Mexico. Also, at the time the Constitution was being written, free negroes had already been allowed to become citizens in several of the 13 original states. Later Constitutional Amendments after the Civil War gave national citizenship and the vote to all of them.

He repeats the Kevin MacDonald spin on the 1965 immigration reform, without telling his readers that the 1924 Act it rescinded allowed for unlimited immigration from anywhere in the Western hemisphere. Imagine, if that provision had remained in force, every negro in Haiti and Brazil would now be living in the USA!

He quotes Henry Ward Beecher in one of his speeches collected in the book Patrtiotic Addresses:

Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: ‘Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them’.

But he again leaves out a crucial detail, namely that H.W. Beecher too advocated only a voluntary departure of the negroes. Beecher goes on to say that to even think of forcing them out for the benefit of whites would be a sin! (LOL, gotta love these Christian loonies!)

All in all, the article is just typical Jared Taylor BS. Since he makes his living from his website, I can only surmise that he thinks telling his readers what they want to hear increases donations.

At AmRen’s comments section, yesterday a commenter criticised Taylor’s article with these words: ‘Blah, blah, blah: Dissecting a speech [Lincoln’s] and a movement whose very purpose was intended to bring about abolition, the author will slice and dice the words until they are shown to mean Abraham Lincoln had the very opposite purpose in mind. But that’s what liberals do: lie’.

_________

(*) Brad Griffin’s sources:

David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Winthrop D. Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968).

Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites: And the Betrayal of Democracy (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1995).

Howard Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan, Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations, Revised Edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997).

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 75

The opinion that Adolf Hitler was an agent of the diabolical forces, that his initiation was only a monstrous counter-initiation, and that his SS Order was only a sinister brotherhood of black magicians, is—without a doubt!—widespread among anti-Hitlerians more or less daubed in occultism (and there is no shortage of them).

The most convincing argument against this seems to me to come from India. In the West, the confusion in terms of knowledge of the principles is such that it’s difficult to say whether there is still a group that can legitimately claim a true filiation with the Tradition. There is therefore no point of comparison between the attitude of true initiates and that of charlatans. According to René Guénon, practically all societies in Europe that claim to be ‘initiatory’ nowadays would be classified under the latter heading. However, it is their members who make themselves heard, who agitate, who take a stand against Hitlerism as Louis Pauwels and the Jew Bergier did, whenever they could, in the magazine Planète. Incidentally, I don’t know of a single European group interested in esoteric doctrines which is not anti-Hitler (I could be wrong, of course; I would like to be wrong on this point).

But the same is not true in India.

For one thing, one is faced with a completely different ‘spiritual landscape’ there. Instead of dealing with groups with more or less ‘initiatory’ claims, moving amid a huge profane society, infatuated with experimental science and ‘progress’ and concerned above all with its material well-being, we are in the presence of a traditional civilisation, very much alive despite the growing influence of technology. The man of the masses, not poisoned by propaganda since he still enjoys the ‘blessing of illiteracy’ (to use an expression dear to the Führer), thinks more about it than the individual of the same social level in the West—which among us is not an achievement! He thinks about it, above all, in the spirit of Tradition as witnessed by the young Sudra whose story I recalled at the beginning of these Memories and Reflections.

The Hindu who has been to school, and even the one who has studied in Europe or the USA, is not hostile to Tradition. He is familiar with the idea of natural hierarchy, of biological, and therefore racial, heredity intimately linked to the karma of each individual. And in the vast majority of cases he lives according to the immemorial rules of his caste—even when the ‘progressive’ government of a so-called ‘free’ India (in reality: a grotesque copy of Western democracies) has proclaimed the abolition of castes and imposed universal suffrage. In some cases, of course, he brings back subversive ideas or shocking habits back from his contacts with foreigners. But then he is scorned by his own, and orthodox society turns away from him—no government having the power to force matters, he has to accept it whether he likes it or not.

As for the traditional initiatory groups and the isolated masters of true secret science, they continue to exist as in the past: in silence, unnoticed by the general public. They keep themselves, in principle, out of the whirlwind of politics, and don’t give press conferences. At most, a word, a reflection formulated with a visitor who respects the Tradition, even if he is not an initiate himself, can sometimes let us guess where the earthly sympathies of this or that sage.

There are also, as is to be expected in an age of universal decadence, people who profess ‘spirituality’ and groups who claim to be transcendent masters and claim to transmit the so-called ‘initiation’ without having a shred of a right to it. There is no shortage of charlatans in orange tunics—or naked, with their bodies covered in ashes—who hang around temples, especially in places of pilgrimage, living by begging or swindling, posing as ‘gurus’ to credulous widows. They are rascals but of small scale and limited harmfulness.

Infinitely more dangerous are those individuals or groups who work to bring to India—as far as possible—the anthropocentrism inherent in religious or political doctrines influenced more or less directly by Judaism or by the Jews. By this I mean all those individuals or groups who, under cover of a false fidelity to Tradition, which they twist and disfigure as they please, preach egalitarian principles, democracy, and the horror of all violence, even if it is detached when this is exerted against ‘men’, whoever they may be—whereas the monstrous exploitation of animals (and trees) by man hardly disturbs them (if they are not completely indifferent there, and even if they don’t justify it!).

I am thinking of all those who claim to pay homage to the ‘true ancient wisdom’ by obstinately denying any natural racial hierarchy, by condemning the caste system to the core, by preaching the ‘right’ of people of different races to marry each other if they believe that in this way they will find their ‘happiness’. I am thinking of those who would like to replace, among Hindus, the old caste privileges with privileges based on ‘education’ (in the Western sense of the word) and the concern for metaphysical orthodoxy with an ever-increasing preoccupation with the ‘social’, the ‘economic’, the ‘improvement of the living conditions for the masses’. I am thinking of the organisers of ‘Parliaments of religions’, of the advocates of a fusion between ‘East and West’ at the expense of the spirit of Tradition, which was originally common to both, and which only Hinduism has preserved as the basis of civilisation; of the missionaries of a universal morality centred on ‘man’, as conceived by both the Christian and the rationalist West.

The ‘mission’ which claims to be inspired by the divine Ramakrishna—a true initiate who lived in the last century—seems to be moving more and more in this direction, under the influence of Western benefactors, especially Americans. But this trend is not new.

More than a hundred and fifty years ago it emerged with the foundation of the Brahmo Samaj, a society of deists deeply influenced by their English university education and the Protestant form of Christianity. This sect, under the pretext of bringing Hinduism back to a so-called ‘original purity’, interpreted it according to that ‘modern spirit’ whose hold on Europe René Guénon so rightly deplored. But, as Guénon says again, its adherents are, despite the social position and, what is more, the high caste of the best known of them, rejected by the orthodox Hindus. The latter refuse to give them their daughters in marriage or to accept their daughters for their sons. And in the villages they would not accept a glass of water from them—and, I repeat, no government could force them to do so. This attitude comes from the fact that the Brahmo Samajists reject the principle of the caste system: the unequal ‘dignity’ of men, according to their heredity. It also comes from the fact that the Brahmo Samaj is not Indian any more than any other like-minded sect is India (for example, the Arya Samaj, which is ‘Arya’ in name only because it also rejects the idea of a natural hierarchy of races).

Published in: on February 19, 2022 at 2:52 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 75  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 74

One of the earliest epigraphically attested reference to the word
arya occurs in the 6th-century b.c.e. Behistun inscription.

Moreover, it was not only with the initiates of the Forbidden City of Lhasa (and perhaps with the Dalai Lama himself) that the spiritual elite of the SS Order—which was that of a new traditional civilisation in the making, if not currently in gestation—sought contact. To my humble knowledge, there were also similar meetings in India: meetings that few people in the West suspect, quite apart from the political conversations that may have taken place with certain Hindu leaders, such as Subhas Chandra Bose, in India and Germany before and during the Second World War.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: With the benefit of hindsight, it is relatively easy to see that this esoteric search was a fool’s errand. Given what happened in real history, what the Nazi elite ought to have studied was already written in the German language. I refer to the texts by Nietzsche that we quote at the appendix to the masthead of this site (pages 84-90, here).

Now that Christian axiology has reached its apex, albeit in secularised form, it is clear that Evil, with a capital ‘E’, always came from Judeo-Christian ethical injunctions in secularised form.

It is not that the 21st-century priest of the sacred words is feeling superior to the Nazis of the previous century. Rather, they lacked the perspective that we have so far. For example, what we said last November about the evangelist Mark, who invented the fictitious figure of Jesus just after the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, is something that no German Nazi ever thought of.

The exegesis of the New Testament had to develop to the degree that it has developed today—and I am referring to the non-existence of the historical Jesus—for us to realise that the whole New Testament thing was, from the beginning, a very subversive text aimed against Rome (this is very clear in the last book of the Bible).

There was nothing to be looking for in Tibet or India. The Third Reich would have done well to take New Testament studies where Richard Carrier has recently taken them. But as the Irish commenter Gaedhal said on this site, American racialists are even more primitive than liberal Christians in that they don’t even want to know that the New Testament has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny since the German Enlightenment (cf. what we have been saying about Reimarus). Apparently, I am the only one who has pointed out these studies in the racialist forums of the new century. But let’s move on to Savitri….
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Since 1935, a cultural magazine, The New Mercury, had been published in Calcutta, very ably edited by Sri Asit Krishna Mukherji, in collaboration with Sri Vinaya Datta and some others. The Fuhrer’s speeches, of which the official press, both in English and Bengali, reported only excerpts, were spread in extenso, especially if they were, as was often the case, of interest beyond ‘politics’. One of them, which particularly caught my attention at the time, was on the subject of ‘Architecture and the Nation’. But the said journal also published studies on everything that could tend to bring to light a deep, non-political connection, going back very far and very high, between the traditional Hindu civilisation as it has never ceased to exist, and the traditional Germanic civilisation, as it had existed, long before Christianity, and aspired to be reborn. These studies revealed in their authors, in addition to the indispensable archaeological erudition, serious knowledge of cosmic symbolism. Several of them were, needless to say, centred on the Swastika.

They seemed to show, indirectly, the exceptional character of a great modern state which recognised as its own a sign of such universal significance; engraved it on all its public monuments, and printed it on all its banners. At the same time, they suggested the aspiration of this great State to renew contact with the primordial Tradition, from which Europe had already detached itself for centuries, but of which India had kept the invaluable deposit.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Let me clarify this matter a little more. All this searching for India’s Aryan roots is good. What was wrong is not seeing the Christian enemy next door: the Anglo-American slaves of Judeo-Christian ethics, who would murder this revived Aryan baby through the Hellstorm Holocaust (read Tom Sunic’s Homo Americanus). In other words: the priority should have been to know their fanatic enemy, the Judaized Anglo-Americans, and looking for the Aryan roots should’ve been a secondary matter. Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
I have no evidence that the Ahnenerbe played any part in the publication of the New Mercury. This seems to me all the less likely as this special section of the SS was itself only founded in 1935, the same year as the said magazine. But I know that the latter was at least partly financially supported by the government of the Third Reich. Germans, and representatives—German or not—of German firms in India were supposed to subscribe to it. And at least one of them, to my knowledge, was recalled to Germany, having been dismissed from the direction of the branch which he governed for years, for having refused to do so and declaring that ‘this new-style propaganda’ (sic) did not interest him.

The founder and editor of the periodical, Sri A. K. Mukherji, remained in close contact with Herr von Selzam, the German Consul General in Calcutta, as long as he remained in that post. And this official representative of Adolf Hitler gave him, on the eve of his departure, a document addressed to the German authorities, in which it was specified in no uncertain terms that ‘no one in Asia had rendered the Reich services comparable to his’. I saw this document. I read it again and again, with joy, with pride, as an Aryan and a Hitlerite, and as the wife of Sri A. K. Mukherji. I have already alluded to it in these reflections.

I can’t say whether or not the services referred to therein went beyond the rather narrow confines of Sri A. K. Mukherji’s activities as editor of a fortnightly, traditionalist journal, both Hindu and pro-German. It would seem that they had outgrown them, for the journal had lasted only two years; the British authorities having banned it towards the end of 1937, shortly after the definitive ‘turning point’ in the evolution of British policy towards the Reich. In any case, I didn’t know Sri A. K. Mukherji personally at that time: his name only evoked, for me, the existence of the only magazine of distinctly Hitlerian tendencies that I knew in India. But one thing leads me to believe that his knowledge of esoteric Hitlerism, i.e. of the deep connection of the Führer’s secret doctrine with the eternal tradition, was in no way comparable to the vague impressions I might have had on the same subject. In the very first conversation I had with him, after having had the honour of being introduced to him—on 9 January 1938—, less than two years later, he was destined to give me his name and his protection, and asked me incidentally what I thought of Dietrich Eckart.

I knew that this was the author of the famous poem Deutschland erwache, the fighter of the very first days of the Kampfzeit, who died a few weeks after the failed putsch of 9 November 1923 at the age of fifty-five: the comrade to whom Adolf Hitler had dedicated the second part of Mein Kampf. I was still unaware of the existence of the Thülegesellschaft, and was therefore far from suspecting the role that the poet of the national revolution had played with the Führer.

I enthusiastically displayed my pitifully little erudition. My interlocutor, who had rendered, and would soon render, to the Third Reich (and later to its Japanese allies) ‘services comparable to those of no other’, smiled and moved on to another subject.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 73

(Left, André Brissaud’s Hitler et l’Ordre Noir.) It is probably unnecessary to point out that the ‘transparency’ referred to here is not material, and therefore not visible. It represents a state of being more subtle than the one we know; more open to direct contact with the intangible and even the informal. In other words, the Hyperboreans, holders of the primordial Tradition, would have been capable of intellectual intuition to a degree that we cannot conceive.

Who were they? And, if they really existed, where did their territory extend? The more or less evocative allusions made to them by the ancients—by Seneca in his Medea; by Pliny the Elder, Virgil, Diodorus of Sicily, Herodotus, Homer (in the Odyssey) and the author or authors of Genesis, and especially of the enigmatic Book of Enoch—are rather vague, though all referring to the ‘Great North’.

And the evocation of the extreme ‘whiteness’ of the Hyperboreans, of the unspeakable beauty of their women and the ‘extraordinary gifts of perspicacity’[1] of some of them, would make one think of an Aryan race immensely superior to the average of the present-day Norsemen, which is not surprising since it concerns a past that is lost in the mists of time.

But there is more: the scholar Bal Gangadhar Tilak, better known as Lokomanya Tilak, a Hindu scholar and sage,[2] has, in his book The Arctic Home in the Vedas, very clearly linked the oldest tradition of India to a region located in the high latitudes; a region knowing both the long polar night and the midnight sun, and the aurora borealis: a region where the stars neither rise nor set, but move, or seem to move, circularly along the horizon.

The Rig Veda, which he studied especially, and from which he draws most of the quotations in support of his thesis, is said to have been, as well as the whole of the Vedas—or ‘seen’, i.e. direct, knowledge—revealed to these ‘Aryas’, i.e. ‘Lords’ of the extreme Septentrion, and preciously preserved by them during the migrations which, in the centuries, gradually brought them into India.

Tilak places the abandonment of the Arctic homeland at the moment when it lost its temperate climate and verdant vegetation to become ‘icy’, that is to say, at the moment when the Earth’s axis tilted by more than twenty-three degrees, some eight thousand years ago. He doesn’t specify whether the island or the portion of the continent thus struck by sudden sterility was swallowed up, as the Thule legend has it, or continues to exist somewhere in the vicinity or within the Arctic Circle. Nor does he mention the steps which the repositories of the Eternal Veda—the Wisdom hidden beneath the sacred texts of that name—had to take between their Arctic homeland and the first settlements they founded in north-west India.

And as his work is not addressed to initiates (who wouldn’t need it, but only to bona fide orientalist scholars whom he knows to be insensitive to any argument not supported by evidence) he says nothing about the ‘underground’ initiatory centres, Agartha and Shamballa, which are so often mentioned in the secret teaching of the Thule Society to its members—teaching which Alfred Rosenberg, Rudolf Hess, Dietrich Eckart and, presumably through the latter, Adolf Hitler himself received.

Agartha, or Agarthi, would be the centre placed ‘under the wheel of the Golden Sun’, that is to say, the one to which the contemplatives who refuse in advance to participate in the affairs of this world are attached: that of the sages whom I have called ‘men above Time’. Shamballa, on the other hand, would be the spiritual centre of men ‘against Time’: initiates who, while living in the eternal, accept to act in this world ‘in the interest of the Universe’, according to the unchanging values, or, to use the Führer’s own words, according to the ‘original meaning of things’. It is, of course, to this second centre of the Masters of Action that Adolf Hitler would relate.

Remarkably, the names of Agartha and Shamballa ‘appeared several times on the lips of more than one SS leader during the Nuremberg trials, and more particularly, of the SS leaders of the Ahnenerbe’.[3]

This organisation, among others, sent to Tibet ‘an expedition led by the SS ethnologist Standartenführer Dr Scheffer’.[4] The fragments of his reports, which exist on microfilms in the National Archives in Washington, seemed ‘extraordinary’ to André Brissaud, who read them. Why such an expedition? Certainly not to try to find, in Central Asia, ‘the origins of the Nordic race’, as Brissaud seems to think.

During the Third Reich, even schoolchildren knew from their textbooks—some of which, such as that of Klagges and Blume, So ward das Reich, were remarkable—that this race had spread from north to south and east, and not vice versa.[5] What Dr Scheffer and his collaborators wanted, no doubt, was rather to try to penetrate the mystery of Agartha and Shamballa; perhaps to try, with the help of the heads of a spiritual centre where it manifests itself, to get in touch with the principle (for it is a principle, not a personage) that René Guénon calls the ‘king of the world’.[6]

This seems all the more plausible since, among these sections of the Ahnenerbe whose work was classified as a ‘secret affair of the Reich’ and ‘of which nothing is known’, ‘one section included, in addition to the study of ancient languages, cosmology and archaeology, the study of Yoga and Zen’; and another was focused in ‘esoteric doctrines, and magical influences on human behaviour’.[7]

__________

[1] Brissaud: Hitler et l’Ordre Noir, page 58.
[2] Born 3 July 1856; died 1 August 1920. He was a Brahmin from Maharashtra, of the Chitpavan sub-caste.
[3] Brissaud: Hitler et l’Ordre Noir, page 59-60.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Klagges & Blume, So ward das Reich, page 15.
[6] René Guénon: Le Roi du Monde, page 13.
[7] Brissaud: Hitler et l’Ordre Noir, page 285.

Published in: on February 7, 2022 at 11:51 am  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 73  

WDH vs. AmRen

Martin P. Nilsson
(1874-1967)

On Thursday I wrote ‘The Broken Lyre—Or—: Marcus Aurelius for Dummies’ from the point of view of the 14-word priest. The next day American Renaissance posted ‘One of the Greatest Books of All Time’ where Gregory Hood and Chris Roberts discuss Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and his Stoic philosophy.

Judging from the comments section, for example—:

Stoicism is truly one of the greatest gifts of the White Race to the World. It’s [sic] fundamental wisdom and logic can be favorably adopted by adherents to any religion (including Atheists) and it is a great daily tool to navigate the reefs and shoals of modern life.

—the abysmal difference between the quasi-normies of AmRen and The West’s Darkest Hour is noticeable. I call the folk who comment on Jared Taylor’s forum quasi-normies for one simple reason. How can’t they see that a philosophy that doesn’t say a peep about the blood mixing that destroyed Rome—a philosophy no less than from the pen of a Roman emperor!—isn’t wise?

Of the links in our article on Marcus Aurelius, perhaps the most important was that of Swedish philologist and scholar of classical religions, Martin P. Nilsson’s ‘The Race Problem of the Roman Empire’.

Published in: on January 29, 2022 at 7:47 pm  Comments Off on WDH vs. AmRen  

Exchange at the Observer

The quote above in the sidebar, ‘In committing the matricide of Europe, Anglo-Americans heaped up their own funeral pyre’, is from Junghans, with whom I had been discussing amicably years ago.

After years of not discussing with him, on Tuesday I mentioned to Junghans at The Occidental Observer comments thread my usual mantra about miscegenation in Latin America, which shows that Iberian whites committed ethnosuicide without Jewish help. We have already seen what I said about Claudius, a monocausal Argentinian who insulted me and now no longer comments here. In the Observer, another Argentinian under the pen name of Angelicus said: ‘I am 62 and I was born in Argentina, a country whose population is nearly 75% White’. In my reply to Junghans, I mentioned Angelicus’ preposterous claim:

The Argentinian who wrote the above is hallucinating: if most Mexicans are mestizos, Argentinians and Uruguayans are what in Latin America we call castizos or harnizos. I.e., they have less Indian blood than the Mex, but they still have it (see the new racial classification, pages 561-620 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

Among other claims, Angelicus responded: ‘What Mexico’s government publishes instead is the percentage of “light-skinned Mexicans” there are in the country, with it being 47% in 2010 and 49% in 2017’. This was my response:

HAHAHA! I’ve lived here for more than half a century and hardly see any white people on the streets. I don’t need academic ‘studies’ to see what I see every day when I leave the house.

Regarding Argentinians and Uruguayans, the claim that most of them are pure whites is bunk. I invite Observer visitors to see YouTube clips of the 2014 Football Cup celebrated in Brazil. Most of the Argentina team members were mestizoids, as well as the thousands of fans at the stadiums from that country (you only see very few real whites from Argentina). Latin America is a complete goner, far more than the US and Canada. (Why do some of them claim to be white, you may ask?—see this article.)

Another commenter, Moneytalks, replied to me wrongly assuming that I hadn’t visited the states of the Mexican republic. This was my response:

You are assuming that I haven’t travelled to the states, but I have. There are more white people in the north of Mexico than in the south, for example.

Alas, regarding those who look like Iberian whites, appearances are deceiving. In Mexico there are hardly any racialist groups. A pure Spaniard, named Pedro by the way, from one of these groups said something that hits the nail referring to those Latin Americans who look like Iberian whites: “Fenotipos vemos, genotipos no sabemos” (‘We see phenotypes, we don’t know genotypes’).

Very true. There are people you can see on the Mexican streets and they look as white as an Iberian Spaniard. The problem is with their children! Since they aren’t pure Spaniards, by Mendel’s laws one of the children can be born brown (‘We see phenotypes, we don’t know genotypes!’). I have written on the subject in El Grail, the eleventh of my books in Spanish, but this month the Lulu printing company closed my account and it is only available, for the moment, to those who request it by email.

On this site Mauricio commented:

Not knowing the phenotype of an unborn child, due to the contaminated genotype of the parents… Lovecraftian horror at its finest.

This was my response:

I don’t remember on which of the main white nationalist forums not long ago I read a comment from a guy who visited Mexico and was shocked when a very white woman told him she was half Indian because her mother (or father?) was Amerindian. He couldn’t believe it.

But that’s precisely the problem when you copulate with an indigenous woman. Above [I refer to my Friday article ‘On Alberto Athié’] I was talking about Athié’s brother who married a close aunt. Without dropping names, this aunt’s brother married a very white woman and had a couple of daughters.

At family gatherings the difference between a phenotypically Aryan girl—green eyes, light hair, rosy-white skin, etc.—and the brunette sister is noticeable. One of the anecdotes I mention in The Grail is that my mother, many years ago, warned me not to praise the Aryan girl’s beauty because it might hurt her little sister, who might suffer from an inferiority complex. This sort of thing happens to mudbloods and the only way to avoid it is the zero-drop rule.

Let’s take another example, this one about one of my cousins who moved to Canada, another brunette. When her white sister visited her, some Canadians asked her why if she was white, her sister was brunette: a great curiosity for the WASP normies who don’t understand that Mendel’s laws apply not only to flowers, but to humans.

In addition that it is preposterous to believe that there is a huge percentage of white men south of the Rio Grande, many Observer commenters still fail to grasp Mendel’s laws. Fenotipos vemos, genotipos no sabemos…

Published in: on January 23, 2022 at 12:48 pm  Comments Off on Exchange at the Observer  

‘Philosophy’

Today in the morning the first thing I did when I got up was to take a walk in the street. Whenever I go for a walk I think. Keeping in mind what we said yesterday about the pretentious academic profession called ‘philosophy’, I remembered a passage from my book El Grial that is worth translating into English:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

In the mid-1970s, when I wanted to study philosophy, I treasured one of the most popular philosophical dictionaries in the Spanish language: that of the Italian philosopher Nicola Abbagnano. After sleeping for decades in an era that hid fundamental questions from me, when I became awake it occurred to me to see what Abbagnano’s dictionary of philosophy said about National Socialism, but there was no article about it. So I looked up the word ‘Racism’ and was in for a surprise. After a good introductory paragraph, Abbagnano wrote the most propagandistic falsehoods one can imagine, breaking even the tone of his usual academic prose. We mustn’t forget that Abbagnano finished writing his dictionary in 1960, when the West knew nothing about the Third Reich except Allied propaganda. It is therefore not surprising that an Italian professor had to bow to such a narrative. But I would like to focus on his article:

Racismo (English racialism; French racisme; German Rassismus; Italian razzismo). The doctrine according to which all historical-social manifestations of man and his values (or disvalues) depend on race, and which enunciates the existence of a superior (‘Aryan’ or ‘Nordic’) race destined to be the guide of the human race. The founder of this doctrine was the Frenchman Gobineau in his Essai sur l’Inégalité des Races Humaines (1853-1855), aimed at defending aristocracy against democracy.

Not long ago, by the way, I added Count Gobineau’s book to my library, but let’s see what Abbagnano says next:

Towards the beginning of the 20th century a Germanophile Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, spread the myth of Aryanism in Germany in Die Grundlagen des XIX Jahrhunderts (The Foundations of the 19th Century, 1899), identifying the superior race with the Germanic race.

Here the problems begin, because that is not a myth. It is no coincidence that, until very recently, the Aryans have dominated culture, science, technology, and the political world.

Anti-Semitism dated back to ancient times in Germany and therefore the doctrine of racial determinism and the master race found easy dissemination there, resolving itself in support for anti-Semitic prejudice and the belief that there is a Jewish conspiracy for the conquest of world domination and that therefore capitalism, Marxism and, in general, cultural or political manifestations that weaken the national order are Jewish phenomena.

Here it is already raining ignorance. Abbagnano writes as if the Jewish problem were hallucinatory: a German prejudice. The best way to answer the late Abbagnano is simply to say that it is not hallucinatory. When Abbagnano was in his prime, Jews were over-represented not only among Lenin’s willing executioners, but the civic associations that lobbied to open the doors to mass non-white migration to the United States were Jewish. Those who doubt the veracity of these claims should read two books that document this, one by a Gentile and one by a Jew: Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique and Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears.

After the First World War, racism was for the Germans the myth of consolation, the escape from the depression of defeat, and Hitler made it the foundation of his politics.

Abbagnano was a scholar. It seems improbable that he was unaware of a few things in Western history. The paragraph above implies that racism was a 20th-century German myth. The truth is that racism is millennia old: from the Aryans who invaded India and developed a Brahmanical religion so as not to contaminate their blood; from the ancient Egyptians who posted signs that no blacks were allowed in their lands beyond a certain latitude; from the blond Spartans of ancient Greece who had very strict rules to avoid interbreeding with non-Dorians, to the Visigoths who burned at the stake any Goth who married a mudblood in ancient Hispania. Republican Rome used to practice patrician inbreeding to avoid mixing with the lower classes; the patricians being more Aryan than the plebeians (not to mention the slaves). Racism was not Hitler’s invention. All that the Germans of the century in which Abbagnano and I were born did was to provide racism with the scientific basis, and the political impetus, that such a healthy instinct required. The philosopher’s ignorance continues:

The doctrine was elaborated by Alfred Rosenberg in The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930). Rosenberg asserted a rigorous racial determinism. Every cultural manifestation of a people depends on its race. Science, morality, religion and the values they discover and defend depend on the race and are the expressions of the vital force of the race. Therefore, truth is always such only for a given race. The superior race is the Aryan, which from the North spread in antiquity through Egypt, India, Persia, Greece and Rome, and produced the ancient civilisations: civilisations that declined because the Aryans mingled with inferior races. All the sciences, the arts, the fundamental institutions of human life have been created by this race. Opposed to it is the parasitic Jewish anti-race, which has created the poisons of the race: democracy, Marxism, capitalism, artistic intellectualism, and also the ideals of love, humility, equality spread by Christianity, which represents a Roman-Judaic corruption of the teaching of the Aryan Jesus.

True, some National Socialists fantasised about an Aryan Jesus, Hitler included; but as we saw in the section on Jesus in my previous volume, 21st century New Testament studies have revealed that, in real history, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t even exist. But let’s return to the Italian philosopher. The reprint I own of Abbagnano’s Dictionary is from 1987. My original copy from the mid-1970s is now in the hands of a friend of the Arboledas Park [see The Human Side of Chess]. It is not worth quoting his entire article, ‘Racism’, pages 977-8 in the Fondo de Cultura Económica edition, but I should point out that it is on page 978 that the dictionary becomes nonsense. This is Abbagnano’s first nonsensical sentence: ‘There is no such thing as an “Aryan” or “Nordic’ race”.’ While it is true that, if one wants to write accurately one could say ‘ethnic group’ instead of ‘race’, the Nordics as an ethnic group do exist. The malevolence in an assertion like Abbagnano’s is similar to denying that races exist. Abbagnano’s second nonsensical claim deserves to be indented:

There is no proof whatsoever that race or racial differences influence in any way cultural manifestations or the possibilities for the development of culture in general. Nor is there any evidence that the groups into which mankind can be distinguished differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development. On the contrary: historical and sociological studies tend to reinforce the view that genetic differences are insignificant factors in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of men.

I dare say that such a paragraph invalidates not only the article ‘Racism’ but the whole dictionary. What is the use of so much ontology, so much theory of knowledge, so much metaphysics and logic of academic philosophers if they are unable to see the most elemental thing of the empirical world? What value can the so-called social sciences like the sociological studies that Abbagnano mentions—opinions in fact—bring to us as opposed to the exact sciences? If there is one thing that has been clear since Darwin and his disciples in physical anthropology (Franz Boas’ ‘social anthropology’ is pseudoscientific), it is the difference in cranial capacity between, say, blacks and whites. Moreover, there are psychometric tests on baby blacks adopted into the homes of wealthy whites. Such studies not only show that IQ varies between races, but also between men and women. Among active chess players there are no black chess grandmasters. And the world championships have to be divided between men and women, while the latter have been unable to reach the crown that has been won by champions such as Capablanca, Fischer and Carlsen.

If there is one thing that raciology, the study of human races, teaches us, it is that genetic differences between humans are determining factors in social differences (I have already mentioned Jared Taylor’s group that brings together all these scientific studies). The ivory tower of philosophers like Abbagnano, who all they do is bend the knee before the current narrative, should be the laughingstock of anyone who has overcome political correctness.

There is also no evidence that breed mixtures produce biologically disadvantageous results. It is very likely that ‘pure’ races do not exist and have never existed over time. The social outcomes, both good and bad, of miscegenation can be attributed to social factors.

Passages like that move me to say that what goes on in the minds of academics like Abbagnano is on the level of the Byzantine discussions of other times: thinking of angels on the head of a pin instead of real and concrete facts. The notable Italian philosopher seems to be deliberately dissociating reality. Any honest Italian can see that the mixed people of Sicily with the Turks in the south belong to an inferior culture than the whiter Italians in the north of the peninsula. And let us not speak of how, by interbreeding with Indians and blacks, the Iberians produced an inferior stock to their Anglo-German counterpart north of the Rio Grande. What on earth is Abbagnano basing his statement that there is no historical evidence that admixture produces disadvantages in mestizo offspring? The answer is not hard to find. In the last paragraph of his article we see that Abbagnano subscribes, religiously, to the suicidal universalism of the West: the heritage of the universal Catholicism of his country’s church. Let us hear what Abbagnano, who was born and died in Italy, opines about racism:

…it is an extremely pernicious prejudice, because it contradicts and hinders the moral tendency of humanity towards universalist integration and because it turns human values, beginning with truth, into arbitrary facts that express the vital force of race and thus have no substance of their own and can be arbitrarily manipulated for the most violent or heinous ends.

Violent ends? Who were the biggest genocidaires in World War II, the racists or the anti-racists? The most common way of lying by academics and the media is omission. The classic case of lying by omission is the Holocaust of Germans perpetrated, after 1945, by the Allies when the Germans had already surrendered; not to mention Lenin’s and Stalin’s wilful executioners and their tens of millions of dead.

Taylor debates a Catholic

Watch the video in Bitchute: here. American anti-Semites love E. Michael Jones, who has written on Jewish issues, notably in the 2008 book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History. It is pitiful to see Jones read his pseudo-responses to Taylor, previously typed on his computer before the debate, instead of trying to answer Jared’s superb class on race realism. However, I disagree with Taylor that some Jews could be accepted as part of the tissue of the West.

After a tough question by the moderator, after 1:31 Jones said that by ‘preaching to all nations’ the Gospel meant ‘ethnic groups’.

He is right! There’s an irreconcilable conflict between Christian doctrine and racism, as Savitri wisely said in our latest posts.

After 1:39 the Christian Jones showed his true colours. The moderator asked him: If the millions of non-white Muslims and blacks in France suddenly became Catholics should they be expelled? Emphatically Jones answered ‘No!… They could become Frenchmen, without any problem!’ He even added that an African who migrated to Poland could become Polish as well…

It is interesting to know that Jared read Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy, as he says in this debate (I read it too). His argument that not all Jews are subversive is easily answered with Pierce’s article ‘Seeing the Forest’:

Perhaps only 10 per cent of the trees in this Jewish forest have roots deep enough to inject their poison into us, and the other 90 per cent play only supporting roles of one sort or another. It is still the whole forest which is our problem. If the forest were not here we would not have had to endure the curse of Bolshevism. If the forest were not here America would not be growing darker and more degenerate by the year. It is the whole forest, not just a few of the most poisonous trees in it, which must be uprooted and removed from our soil if we are to become healthy again.

There is much truth in this statement despite the fact that, even with the Jews fairly controlled by the Inquisition, the Iberians miscegenated both in the peninsula and in the Americas. As we have been saying, this was due to Christian ethics that do not distinguish between races. In fact, Jones’s stance on race has been universal among Catholics and traditional Protestants. Among the former it was universal even before Constantine handed over the empire to his bishops.

On balance, for the health of the fourteen words I find Jones’ racial universalism more toxic than Jared’s relatively benign view of Jews.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 2

Chapter II—False nations and true racism

‘We have to distinguish between the state as a vessel and the race as the content. This vessel only makes sense if it is able to preserve and protect its contents; otherwise it is worthless’.

—Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, 1935 edition, page 434)

Do not forget that it is considerations of race which distinguish a real people from a collectivity of men which does not deserve the name.

Such communities can be very different from each other. There are states where the population is a deeply mixed mass, where specimens of ‘pure’ appearance, if there are any, have children who do not resemble them; where children of the same family, who nevertheless seems ethnically homogeneous, are different races: one Negroid, the other Mediterranean, or almost, the third, marked with strong Amerindian characteristics. These are states, not peoples. There is, for example, a Brazilian state. There is a population (multiracial, and without segregation laws) who inhabit Brazil. There are no Brazilian people—nor, therefore, a Brazilian ‘nation’.

There are, on the other hand, states whose populations are made up of several peoples juxtaposed, but not fused together. This is the case of the United States of America [Editor’s note: Remember that this was written in the late 1960s], the Union of South Africa, Rhodesia, the Soviet Union, and India. It is by an abuse of language that one gives to the general population of any one of these States, the name of ‘people’ or of ‘nation’. There is, in fact, no natural link, no biological link, between an ‘American citizen’ of Anglo-Saxon, Irish or Mediterranean origin, and another ‘American citizen’ Negro or mestizo, or Jew…

Moreover, in the USA, as in the so-called ‘racist’ states of Rhodesia and South Africa, and more, Aryans and Negroes belong to the same Christian churches; are Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics or ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, as the case may be, but always without distinction of race. Since the realm of the true Christian is not of this world, biological considerations cannot be included…

If, favoured by the diffusion of a uniform way of life as well as of a common ‘knowledge’, and especially of self-distant common anti-racist ‘values’, the gangrene of interbreeding is gradually gaining the entire population, it is, for this, the irremediable decadence: the end of all culture, the end of all disinterested creation, that is to say of any activity other than that which consists in ‘producing’ always more, in order to acquire more and more material well-being. If, on the contrary, it is the healthy tendency of each race to remain separate from the others that prevails, the population will retain its heterogeneity. It will not become ‘a people’—much less a ‘nation’. It will remain what it is, namely a juxtaposition of two or more races living in harmony with each other to the extent that their primary diversity is recognised and accepted. [Editor’s note: Again, writing in the 60s, Savitri ignored that that is impossible in the long run.]

The Union of South Africa, so decried by anti-Hitlerites around the world for its so-called ‘racism’, is not such a multiracial state, or only very incompletely, despite its official program of ‘separate development of races’. It is only very incompletely so because, just like Rhodesia which, for its part, denies exalting racism, and like the USA which, despite the continued resistance of its segregationists, is fighting it, it confuses, as I said earlier, ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’. [Editor’s Note: Living in Mexico I can say that the few Jews I have come to know are phenotypically white, sometimes completely indistinguishable from real Aryans except for their last names (see e.g., here). This means that from now on I will use the terms ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’ as Savitri used them; being the ‘Aryans’ those whites who don’t have Jewish blood, though many Ashkenazi Jews are white: something that Richard Spencer has acknowledged in one of his recent podcasts.]

Far, for example, from removing the Jews from key positions in the country and, in general, from any profession in the exercise of which they are likely to acquire political or cultural influence, it gives them, because of their colour alone, all the advantages enjoyed by the ‘Whites’, advantages that she refuses to the Aryans of Asia, however illogical that is, and that, even if, like most Brahmans and many ‘Khatris’ of Punjab, they are fair complexion. Crossbreeding between Aryans and Jews is not prohibited in the so-called racist Union of South Africa—any more than it is elsewhere. It has never been so in any country of Christian population, if the Jew—or the Jewess—had, by baptism, been received into the religious community of her partner. He was so only in the Third German Reich, a State whose true religion was that of Blood and Soil—and, it is again, since 1955, in the State of Israel, whose people believe themselves, to the exclusion of everything else, ‘chosen of God’.

It is true that wherever there are two or more human races, whose nations all or almost all adhere to a centred religion, like Christianity, in the long run a tendency of interbreeding emerges. All true racism implies the negation of the dogma of the immense value of ‘man’ whoever he may be; the negation of the ‘apart’ character of man, and his integration into all other living species; the negation of the legal equality of ‘souls’ as well as of men’s bodies.

______ 卐 ______

 
I will now tell you about India, so that you can once again be proud to be Aryan.

To understand the history of the peoples who inhabit this vast portion of the continent—which includes, in fact, in addition to the current ‘Indian Republic’, the two ‘Pakistans’[i] and the island of Ceylon; a surface, in all, equal to that of Europe minus Russia—you must refer to the distant time when the first Aryan tribes, coming from the North, descended in successive waves on the Pays-des-Sept-Rivières (the Sapta Sindhu of the Sanskrit Scriptures) by the famous Pass of Khaïber, the Voie des Couquérants.

It was, according to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, commonly called Lokamanya[ii] Tilak; this Brahmin of Maharashtra, both scholar and mathematician, who demonstrated it by astronomical considerations—before the fourth millennium before the Christian era, therefore at the time of the very first Egyptian dynasties, several centuries before the construction of the pyramids of Giza; at the time when, in Mesopotamia, the Sumerian civilisation flourished in its oldest centres: in Erech, in Nippur, in Eridu, some fifteen hundred years before Sargon of Akkad. And the Aryas—which, in Sanskrit, means ‘those who command’, in other words, the men of the race of the lords—came, still according to Tilak, from the far North. They were the brothers of those who, closer to the common cradle of the race, were one day to be called the Germans, the Hellenes, the Latins, and whose languages presented deep similarities with theirs. Their ancestors had lived beyond the Arctic Circle, at a time when the lands of this region still enjoyed a temperate climate—that is to say before the axis of our planet tilted further; twenty-three degrees. They had awaited in worship the return of the Sun—the victory of the Day after the long nights streaked with aurora borealis—and they had sung the splendour of the sky and venerated the stars (the ‘brilliant’ or ‘Devas’) which did not go to bed.

During the centuries that they had taken to cover, in stages, the immense distance which separated them from the divine arctic homeland, the Aryas had preserved some of these hymns. Their bards had composed others, and soon, during the gradual conquest of the hot lands, where to improvise new ones. For a very long time transmitted from mouth to mouth, 1009 of these poems—finally written—have come down to us. The whole constitutes the Rig Veda: the oldest sacred text in India, which pious Brahmans still chant today.

The Aryas were a few thousand—perhaps, over time, a few tens of thousands—in front of all these hostile peoples and tribes, which they called Dasyus, or dwellers of the woods, or the Rakshasas or demons. It is possible that they found, already in force in the society of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, a hereditary system of a division of labour. But it was they who gave such a system, if it existed, racial significance, and classified the population of India into immutable castes. They could not do otherwise if they wanted to preserve their physical and moral characteristics for their Aryan race, in other words, if they wanted to survive.

They probably began by mixing freely, if not with the Aborigines at least with the Dravidians, technically more advanced than them until they grasped, in all its tragic horror, the danger of interbreeding. It was then that the caste system was formed: the division of the population of the Indies into a minority of dwijas or twice-born Arya (because they had to know this ‘second birth’ which the spiritual initiation represents), and an immense majority of Shudras, people with dark skin, intended for servile work. At the bottom of the scale—out of all caste—were rejected the Negroids, Negro-Mongoloids and people of the Munda type: the oldest inhabitants of Indian soil. The ‘twice-born’ shared power. Spiritual authority was henceforth the privilege of the Brahmans; temporal power, that of the Kshatriyas; and this power which already gave, in a society much less attached than ours to material goods, wealth, born of commerce, the prerogative of the Vaishyas.

Disinterested scientific knowledge and above all spiritual knowledge was reserved for the Aryas, and very soon only for the Brahmans and Kshatriyas. It was unthinkable that a young Soudra, even exceptionally gifted—and all the more reason a Chandala, below any caste—were taught the supreme truths, or that he was taught to recite, even that recited before him the most beautiful invocations to the Devas or the most powerful ritual formulas. Frightful penalties awaited those who would have dared to transgress this defence, and those in favour of whom, it would have been transgressed.

Since then, many things have happened, many transformations have upset Indian society, like all societies. In spite of everything, forbidden unions took place; children were born whose parents did not belong to the same caste…

One could photograph and classify specimens of all both racial and professional groups in India. We would thus obtain a huge collection of types gradually going from Negroid or even Australoid to pure Aryan—an Aryan often purer than the majority of his brethren in Europe (at least in Southern Europe). There is maybe, very light, with brown or gray eyes (exceptionally blue or blue-green), hair ranging from black to reddish brown, with perfectly Indo-European features. It is little, one will say. This is a lot if we remember that at least sixty centuries separate the present day from the time when the first Aryan tribes emerged from the Khyber Pass.

In any case, the facts that I have just recalled here clearly show that the Indies are no more ‘a people’ than are the United States of America, the Soviet Union or the South African Union.

But there is a difference: while in each of these countries a common dogmatic faith, the dissemination of which is encouraged—and a clearly anti-racist faith, or one concerning the other world and indifferent to racial issues, let it be it is Marxism or any form of Christianity whatsoever—tends, in spite of everything, to bring the races together; constitutes, in any case, a permanent brake on the instinct of segregation, in India, it is the opposite which occurs. There the religious tradition itself proclaims the congenital inequality of ‘souls’ as well as of bodies, and the natural hierarchy of races, dominated by the Aryan race—in exactly the same spirit as Hitlerism—and thus encourages segregation.

Over the centuries, we have tried, either in the name of a philosophy denying Life, or in the name of ‘practical necessities’, to kill this racist tradition. We did not succeed. Buddhism referred its followers to monastic life, but had in practice as a result of mixing the castes without causing the extinction of the human species. He ended up being swept from India. Guru Govinda Singh, the founder of the Sikh warrior sect, had wanted to take his followers from all castes, claiming to take into account only the individual worth of each man. But this concern for combative efficiency, this requirement for essentially Aryan qualities such as the spirit of sacrifice, the sense of responsibility, the joyful acceptance of discipline, even a very hard one, etc., have resulted in it being mostly Hindus from Aryan castes who came to him. One only has to look at the Sikhs to see it. No Government of the present ‘Indian Republic’ will succeed where Guru Govinda Singh and, centuries before him, the Buddha himself, failed…

In other words, India will never be ‘a nation’. Nor will they—hopefully at least—be ethnic chaos without a racial elite: the caste system, even with its current weaknesses, will save them from such a fate. They will remain an association of peoples and races, united by the only common civilisation which is in accord with their natural hierarchy. Because Hinduism is more than a religion in the sense in which we hear this word today in the West. It is a civilisation; a civilisation dominated by Aryan racism, made acceptable to many non-Aryan races, thanks to the dogma of karma and the transmigration of souls.

If one day Hitlerism succeeded in conquering Europe, it seems to me almost certain that over the following centuries the mentality of the average European would come closer and closer to that of the Orthodox Hindu of any caste. I will tell you, as an illustration of this, an episode from my life in India.

It was during the glorious year—1940—shortly after the start of the French campaign. I was living in Calcutta—unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I had not managed to return to Europe in time. And I had a young servant named Khudiram, a fifteen year old teenager, Shudra, from the Mahishya sub-caste (West Bengal farming community), very dark skinned, with slightly slanted eyes, with a flat face—not Aryan at all!—and perfectly illiterate. One morning, coming back from the fish market (where he went every day to buy something to feed the cats) this boy said to me triumphantly: ‘Mem Saheb, I worship your Führer, and wish with all my heart that he wins the war!’

I was speechless. ‘Khudiram’, I said, ‘do you worship him only because you know, like everyone else, that he is victorious? You don’t know anything about the story of his life and his actions’.

‘It may be’, the teenager replied, ‘that I’m just ignorant. But this morning I got to know a grown-up at the market who is at least twenty years old and can read. And he told me that your Führer is fighting, in Europe, in order to root out the Bible, which he wants to replace with the Bhagavad-Gita’.

I was speechless again. I thought, in the blink of an eye: ‘The Führer would be very surprised if he knew how to interpret his doctrine in the Halls of Calcutta!’ Then I recalled a passage from Song I of the Bhagavad-Gîta, as I knew it in the beautiful translation of Eugène Burnouf: ‘From the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes—therefore of races. From the confusion of castes comes the loss of memory; from the loss of memory comes the loss of understanding, and of it all evils’.[iii] And I thought, What else has Adolf Hitler done, but repeat these eternal words, and act according to their mind?

I said to Khudiram: ‘The ‘great’ you speak of was right. Repeat what he taught you to anyone who wants to hear you. I give you a day off for this purpose—and a rupee to pay for a cup of tea for your friends. Go, and use your freedom for a good Cause!’

The kid, very happy, was about to leave the kitchen where this interview had taken place. I couldn’t help but hold him back for a moment and ask him what made him so enthusiastically want this ‘New Order’ which, however, hardly favoured people of his race. ‘Do you know, Khudiram’, I said to him, ‘that to replace the Bible with the Bhagavad-Gita in distant Europe and in all the countries which come under its influence, would be equivalent to extending to practically the whole earth a caste system parallel to that of the Indies? And do you know that as Shudra you wouldn’t have any chance of promotion in my Führer’s New Order? And do you love him despite that?’

I will never forget the teenager’s response—the response of the non-Aryan masses in India, loyal to a racist Tradition that goes beyond them, from the mouth of an illiterate youth: ‘Certainly I know that. I want your Führer to win because the order he tries to establish wherever he can is in accordance with the spirit of the Shastras; because it is the divine order; the true order. No matter what place he gives me, to me! I am nothing; I do not count. It’s the truth that counts. If I was born into a very humble caste, it is because I deserved it. I have faulted, and seriously, in my past lives. If, in this life, I remain faithful to the rules of my caste: if I do not eat prohibited foods; if I marry a girl among those that are allowed to me, and do not desire any of the others, I will be reborn a little higher in the scale of beings. And if I persevere, from life to life, in the path of purity, who knows? One day—in many centuries—perhaps I will be reborn as a Brahmin? Or among these new Aryas of Europe who also worship your Führer?’

In successive waves, descended the Khaïber Pass. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them after sixty centuries. And I thought of my German comrades—my brothers in the Hitlerite faith—whose armored divisions then followed each other along the roads of France. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them too, because their faith is the modern expression of the Aryan Tradition of always.

______ 卐 ______

 
England’s real crime against India is not to have exploited the soil and the people on an unprecedented scale, but was to have inculcated into the heads of thousands of Hindus of higher castes, anti-racialist democratic principles, anti-traditionalist principles, along with an ominous humanitarianism when not an out-and-out anthropocentrism; and finally to have introduced into the administration of that vast sub-continent such measures as tended to promote the least valuable racial elements of the population.

The whole system was conceived in order to take away from the Hindus, in general, and especially from the high-caste Hindus—i.e., from the Aryan elite of India—every scrap of political power, already within the more and more ‘Indianised’ administration that the British were setting up themselves, before their departure, which they had felt was unavoidable. It was enforced by the authority without appeal of the colonial power. One could not change it. One only could, from an Aryan racialist standpoint, try to limit the mischief that would result out of its applications. And in order to do that, one had to act as though one accepted the absurd principle of the ‘right’ of any majority to power, regardless of its value, simply because it represents the greatest numbers and strive to make the Hindus a majority at the expense of other communities. (Editor’s note: With their obsession with JQ, white nationalists have been blinded to seeing the beam in their own eye – in this case, the egalitarianism imposed on this colony of the British Empire.)

One therefore had to try to give to the most backward of the most degenerate of Aborigines—to the half-savages of the hills of Assam—a (false) Hindu consciousness. One had to bring them to proclaim themselves ‘Hindus’, sincerely, by telling them how tolerant Hinduism is, but by forgetting to mention the caste system that it upholds. One had to try to bring (or rather bring back) the Indian Christian or Muslim (both, as a rule, sprung from low-caste Hindus converted to one of the two foreign creeds) to Hinduism. And for that one had to surmount the repugnance of most Hindus to accept them, for never yet had Hinduism taken back into its fold anyone who had left it or had been expelled from it (and declared Untouchable). One could fall out of one’s caste and land into Untouchable. One could not re-enter it. But one had to change that, if power was not to pass entirely into the hands of the non-Aryan majority of the population of India. For alone could a (false) nationalism—a European style nationalism, necessarily false in the case of any multiracial society—bring about the change and unite the Hindus under a no less false parliamentary system imposed up in them against their tradition, and against the Aryan Tradition, of which their elite had remained up till then the sole depositary.

I was then employed as a lecturer and as a ‘missionary of Hinduism’ by the ‘Hindu Mission’, a half-religious, half-political organisation which, for more than thirty years already, had been striving to recover from Hinduism all those who were (or whose fathers were) out of it, for whatever reason. Full of bitterness towards historical Christianity because of the role it played in the West—ardent admirer of Emperor Julian and Hypatia, no less than of Wittekind—I once introduced myself to the President of the Mission, Swami Satyananda. I had offered my services to him. He asked me what attracted me to India, and I quoted him, translating them into Bengali:

Rama, Daçarathide honoured with the Brahmans,
You whose blood is pure, You whose body is white,
Said Lakshmana, hi, sparkling tamer
Of all the profane races! [iv]

I had told him that I was Hitlerist and Pagan—still regretting the conversion, by snatch or by force, of my native Europe to the religion of Paul of Tarsus—and that I wanted to work to prevent the one and last country to have kept (in part at least) the Aryan Gods—India—from following the bad example of the West and from falling, too, under the spiritual influence of the Jews. I told him I wanted to help make India our ally, in the fight against false ‘values’.

He had accepted me and given me full freedom of expression provided that he told me, I place myself, in my speeches to crowds, ‘from the Hindu point of view’ and that I ‘take into account the particular circumstances from the country’. ‘I consider’, he added, ‘Your Master as an Incarnation of Vishnu, an expression of the divine Force which preserves what deserves to be preserved. And his disciples are in my eyes our spiritual brothers. But you will have to make concessions here, at least as long as the English are there; otherwise you will not be able to compete with the propaganda of Christian missionaries who preach “man”, regardless of race. Think about it!’

I had to ‘think about it’! No appeal to a mass, and especially to a multiracial mass, is possible without certain compromises. We could not ask the Shudras (or the Untouchables) converted to religions of equality, to come out and reintegrate Hinduism, without giving them the impression that they would lose none of their acquired ‘rights’…

The English administration, antiracist in principle (despite a racial segregation limited to worldly relations, and which did not apply to Jews, moreover) made no difference between a Brahmin, Indo-European by blood and mentality, and the last of the Nagas or Koukis of Assam, especially if the latter represented in the Assembly either the Christians or the ‘shudra castes’, that is to say the Untouchables, of his province. It was not my fault if she had this attitude, and if she tended to ‘Indianise’ as much as she could the legislative bodies and the public services, in this spirit that was other than that of decadent Europe; of that Europe which would soon reject Hitler’s renaissance with the stupid vehemence we know.

______ 卐 ______

 
If we had won the war, India—that she would have remained ‘British’, which is unlikely, despite the Führer’s desire (before the war) not to touch the British colonial empire—or that it had become independent—would have very quickly got rid of the democratic reforms introduced by the English and would have returned to its immemorial tradition: to the Tradition of the Aryas…

I have often wondered to what extent the few Englishmen who seriously wanted their country’s collaboration with the German Reich—those Englishmen who were, almost all, from the start of World War II, interned ‘preventively’ in the name of the Law 18 B, realised the magnitude of the transformation this would have brought about, and the repercussions it would have on the future of their people and the world. I knew one well—Elwyn Wright, physically and mentally, one of the most beautiful specimens of Aryan that I have met—who was aware of it, and who wanted this collaboration precisely because of that. But how many were there like him?…

One of the tragedies of our time is that, taken en masse, it is the enemies of Hitlerism, and in particular the Jews, and intelligent Christians, who have understood this best. They hated him, no doubt; but they detested him precisely for what makes him greatness and eternity: for his scale of values, centred not on ‘man’, but on life; for its possibility of becoming very quickly—once associated with rites—a real religion. They hated him because they felt, more or less confusedly—and sometimes very clearly—that his victory would mean the end of everything that, for at least two thousand years (if not two thousand and four hundred), the Western world has known and loved; the negation of the values which, for so long, helped him to live.

It should be noted that at least one of the most brilliant French collaborators—and one of those who paid with their life for their friendship for regenerated Germany—Robert Brasillach, himself was aware of the character essentially ‘Pagan’, from Hitler mysticism. He collaborated with Germany despite this; not because of it. And he has on several occasions, in particular in his novel Les Sept Couleurs, underlined the impression of disorientation, of somewhat frightening strangeness, which he felt in his neighbours across the Rhine, in spite of all the weather. Admiration he had for their rebirth, both political and social. ‘It is’, he writes, speaking of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, ‘a strange country, further from us than the most distant India or China, a pagan country’…

Among the French collaborators as well as among the English 18 B’s I have only met very few people who are sincerely Hitlerites, although they are aware of the philosophical implications of Hitlerism. I will say more: there were, even at the time of the greatest glory of the Third Reich, very few true Hitlerites among the millions of Germans who acclaimed the Führer. One of the purest that I have had the joy and the honour of knowing—the Oberregierungs-und Schulrat Heinrich Blume—told me in 1953 that the number of Germans who had given themselves entirely to the Movement knowing fully this they were doing, never exceeded three hundred thousand. We are far from the ninety-eight and a half percent of the voters of the Reich, who had brought the Führer to power! The vast majority of these had voted for the reconstruction of the German economy and the regeneration of the social body, not for the return to the fundamental truths of life and for the ‘fight against time’ that Hitlerism involved, and of which they did not even realise. (Editor’s note: This explains why the Allied denazification process was so easy.)

Even more: there are Germans who—like Hermann Rauschning, the author of the book Hitler Told Me—withdrew from the Movement as soon as they realised the pagan character of Hitler’s Weltanschauung. And it should be noted that they did not realise this until they had gained the Führer’s confidence enough for him to admit them into his small circle of insiders or partially insiders. For there was a difference between the teaching given to the people in general and that which the disciples received; a difference, not in content, but in clarity. For example, Point 24 of the famous ‘Twenty-five Points’ specifies that the Party, while proclaiming the widest religious tolerance, sticks to a ‘positive Christianity’—in other words, to there is something ‘positive’, that is to say true, in conformity with tradition, in historical Christianity—but that it condemns and combats any religion or philosophy ‘which shocks the moral sense of the Germanic race, or which is dangerous to the State’.[v] He (no doubt deliberately) omits to recall that any religion which turns its back on the realities of this world, and in particular on the biological realities, to the point of allowing the marriage of people of different races, provided they are members of the same ‘church’, as well as any religion or philosophy who exalts ‘the man’, even deficient, even to the last degree of physical or moral (or physical and moral) degradation, can only be a public danger, in the National Socialist State.

The Führer defends himself in Mein Kampf from aiming in the least at religious reform. ‘It is criminal’, he writes, ‘to try to destroy the faith accepted by the people, ‘as long as there is nothing that can replace it’.[vi] He further writes that the mission of the National Socialist Movement ‘does not consist of religious reform, but of a political reorganisation of the German people’.[vii] But what he does not write—what he could not write in a book intended for the great mass of a people Christianised since the ninth century and believing himself, at least for the most part, to be Christian—is that any regime based, as was the National Socialist regime, on the negation of the intrinsic value of everything man, regardless of his race and his individual worth, is necessarily the antithesis of a Christian social order. Because every Christian society has for principle the respect of ‘the human being’ created, whatever it is, ‘to the image and likeness’ of a transcendent and personal God, essentially a friend of man. What Adolf Hitler could not tell the masses is that any political regime based on a doctrine centred on Life and its eternal laws necessarily has a more-than-political meaning. His own success depended on the voice of the masses, because we must not forget that he took power ‘legally’, that is to say ‘democratically’.

This more-than-political significance of Hitlerism, only in Germany fully grasped the Führer himself and the National Socialist elite: the initiates of the Thüle-Gesellschaft; the teachers and the best pupils of the Ordensburgen, where the members of the SS were formed. The mass of the people did not feel it, and would have been astonished, if someone had shown it to them, with all its implications; if, for example, someone had made him understand that Christianity and Hitlerism are two different and incompatible paths, open to the Eternal, and that the same person cannot follow both, but must choose. (Editor’s note: Therefore, white nationalists have chosen evil.)

Outside of Germany—and outside of India, of Aryan tradition—a thinking elite loved or feared or hated Hitlerism because of its true nature. The Jewish elite cursed him for reasons far more profound than the secular secret hostility which opposed Israel to the Germanic world. The enormous mass of men from all countries—indifferent to ‘politics’—feared him without knowing exactly why, in reality because they vaguely felt in him the negation of all anthropocentrism; the ‘Starry Space Wisdom’ (as I have called it myself) as opposed to ‘the love of man’ and the concern for his happiness, in this world or in another.

_______________

[i] This was written before East Bengal ceased to be called ‘Pakistan’, to become ‘Bangladesh’, which simply means ‘Bengal’.

[ii] ‘Honoured with men’.

[iii] Bhagawad-Gîta, I, verses 41 and following.

[iv] Leconte de Lisle (The Arc of Çiva; Ancient Poems).

[v] ‘Wir fordern die Freiheit Aller religiösen Bekenntnissen im Staat, solang sie nicht dessen Bestand gefährden oder gegen das Sittlichkeits—und Moralgefühl der germanischen Rasse verstoßen’.

[vi] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf German edition 1935, pages 293-294.

[ [vii] Adolf Hitler, Ibid, page 379.

The human side of chess, 9

‘Why do chess players grieve so much after a defeat?… Because defeat is like a little death’. —Manuel Suárez / Boris Zlotnik

What to do after defeat

None of the chess fans I know knows that mastery of the game is due to factors that have nothing to do with his will. Only in a small group of vocations can a human being aspire to be a child prodigy. Music, mathematics and chess are paradigms. Some compare Bach’s music with mathematics, whose logic is inherent, or a priori a Kantian would say, to the human mind. Also, as a special form of computation that is chess, early training can turn a child with special characteristics into a Capablanca, for whom chess was his mother tongue. The same can be said for Russian and former Soviet republics players who, unlike my very modest level when I played Monroy, reach grandmaster norm at fifteen or sixteen.

Few things have impressed me more than the autobiographical part of Capablanca’s My Chess Career. By winning a match against American Frank Marshall, the Cuban reached the level of a grandmaster without studying a single opening book. This is the most representative fact that I can think of to point out how someone with good genes who learned to play chess from the age of four, and developed the edge of his mind in that computational area, can become a world champion. Capablanca’s brain, the ‘chess machine’, was trained in the span of life in which one is capable of developing new faculties. That is why music conservatories do not admit students after a certain age. The same thing happens in chess.

The neurological development of certain areas of the brain differs between a Capablanca or fifteen-year-old GMs and the rest of the hobbyists. An even more terrible truth is that a high IQ is innate, and has to do with the ethnic group to which one belongs. Not having heard this, many have pursued the mirage that, through sheer study, they would become grandmasters as if it were something similar to obtaining a doctorate in physics. In reality, the rating that a young man learning the game in his twenties can develop is relatively modest, and even the level of a child or pubescent if he doesn’t have the right genes for this game. If we study chess to reach the equivalent of a doctorate, the knowledge acquired can help us to be excellent instructors, but it won’t necessarily allow us to play like the first boards in the world. Like the violin or piano prodigies, in chess what counts is how much we train certain areas of our brain in childhood, puberty and adolescence. Using a crude computational analogy, what really matters is the kind of software our brains were trained with, in addition to racial hardware (nowadays, there are no active chess GMs of the black race).

In the introduction I said that the talks of some amateur fans motivated me to write this book. One of these friends is called Alcides, who is well educated in chess. In the café where we talked Alcides played matches with Yayo, who doesn’t read chess and doesn’t even know how to maintain the opposition in a king and pawn versus king ending. However, Yayo generally beat Alcides in matches. On several occasions I spoke with Alcides about the Lasker manual. He likes the original German version better than the shortened English and Spanish versions. One of these versions once wore on a coffee table, but as usual Lasker’s pupil was swept away by Yayo. Alcides is capable in his profession of computer science and handling of computers. But despite his chess and computational knowledge, his uneducated rival has a better brain to play chess. Let’s put it iconoclastically: Lasker’s manual, and in fact all the chess books that I know, are bad and anti-pedagogical because they don’t start from a vital axiom about the game: the development of certain brain areas differs among people and even among the races.

It is not my intention to discourage Caissa’s suitors. But the young aspiring would spare a lot of dreams if, at home or school, we had been given this elementary class in neurology and raciology. Personally, given my father’s talents in music and visual arts, that was where I could’ve excelled (think of prominent Mexican filmmakers in Hollywood like Cuarón, Iñárritu, and del Toro), not computational business like chess. But even if we take all of this into account, compared to Cuba the chess level in Mexico is low. If we add to this that many of us are ageing and that we don’t have good instructors, those Botvinnik and Averbach that the Russian children and lads had, it will be virtually impossible to make the quantum leap to become GMs. Here I can’t help but come to mind a photograph of instructor Botvinnik with a young Garri Kasparov next to him. It also comes to mind that both of Fischer’s parents were Jewish. His biological father was a brilliant mathematician (Ashkenazi Jews are the ethnic group ranked the highest on the IQ scale).

Listening to a thirteen-year-old boy play Beethoven’s concerto for violin and orchestra is like watching some children from the former Soviet republics play games of blitz. Such is the virtuosity of these Paganinis of Caissa that they give their colleagues a five-minute lead, by just two minutes of their own, and destroy them with diabolical precision. No matter how hard you study, you’ll never play blitz games like that: an infallible measurer of the level of a boy whose mother tongue had been chess. To meditate thoughtfully on what we read in chess literature, to put our games to Fritz to understand them better, to consult the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings to see where we made the imprecision, to play one tournament after another to accustom to fighting chess, may be instructive but not necessarily to jump significantly in skill level. At least not to take the leap that some young people fantasise about. Our brain is already formed, formatted I would dare to say.

Presently, the edge of my mind manifests itself in my speciality of understanding the psychic havoc that abusive parents cause—an area that has nothing to do with chess. Capablanca, who never undertook the chess study marathons that many unsuspecting do, played infinitely better than I and other inveterate scholars. I have said that few things have impressed me more than Capablanca beat a GM during a match without studying a single opening book (on another level, this is exactly what happened in Alcides’ matches with Yayo). At twenty Capablanca had not played a single match with a grandmaster, and he beat Marshall with a crushing score of +8 = 14 –1 (eight games won, fourteen draws and one loss). This is the fact that best illustrates what a genius is. If the pedagogues were humble enough to accept the innate deficiencies of the child, they would know that he won’t speak as fast as the Jew Ben Shapiro, or that he won’t obtain the title of GM of chess at thirteen as did the Nordic Magnus Carlsen, who would conquer the sceptre.

(Thirteen-year-old Carlsen in Norway giving a simultaneous exhibition.) We don’t need to rank high on verbal IQ, the speciality of the Jews, to become a champion. But we do need to rank high, like the Nordics, Slavs or Asians, in spatial intelligence. If you still want to play under these circumstances, my suggestion is that you write an intimate diary about your emotions in the game and your love of the game taking these facts into account.