Fighting Dirty

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 04 October 2006 17:33.

The Guardian is running a piece by Matthew Taylor today titled Web of hate. The hate in question is of Marxists, and belongs to the “far right” hard men of Redwatch.

Taylor explains:-

The site, which has links with the neo-Nazi organisation Combat 18 and a host of European fascist organisations, is hosted in the US but registered and run from the UK. It lists the personal details and shows the photographs of anti-racists - many taken during protests against the British National Party - alongside the slogan: “Remember places, traitors’ faces, they’ll all pay for their crimes.”

... Redwatch was launched in 2001 and takes its name from a Combat 18 newsletter produced in London in the 1990s. For the first few years it was just another online talking shop for hardline racists and fascists, offensive and unpleasant but apparently not dangerous. However, in April 2003, those behind the site signalled that Redwatch meant business. Leeds school teachers Sally Kincaid and Steve Johnson had been involved in local campaigns against the BNP and other far-right groups for years. Then their personal details appeared on Redwatch following a demonstration they had attended in the Pudsey area of the city. A couple of weeks later they suffered a fire-bomb attack at their home, which left their car burned out.

The incident was a turning point. Those featured on Redwatch were no longer being subjected to threats and harassment but to physical attacks.

So what is one to make of this? Well, there are two or three fairly evident points to be made.

First, the extremes of politics, left or right, attract certain personality types. It is disingenuous of Taylor to pass over his own side’s talents in this respect. The left has had more than its share of ruthless and violent Anti-Nazi League and Socialist Workers Party acolytes. There have been examples galore of extreme public disorder during leftist demonstrations. But the old socialist dictum, “No enemy to the left”, holds true til this day and, whilst the archaic SWP might be beyond the pail for its anti-capitalism and Trotskyism, there’s not a single Labour or Liberal Democrat MP who would be too embarrassed to meet with the ANL. Whether those they met had been arrested or convicted of a public order offence would not even arise. The ANL and its twin offspring, the trade union funded Unite Against Fascism and Love Music Hate Racism (“Murray Rothstein Meets Ken Livingstone”, for the uninitiated), are part of the Establishment - so sick and surreal are the times in which we live.

So one comes to the moral problem of Redwatch not as Matthew Taylor does, through the filter of the Jewish ethnic interest front, Searchlight, but from a converse perspective to that crisply described, in fact, in a history of the ANL on its own website:-

Intellectual outsiders too often write history, safe in their armchairs, away from the daily struggles being waged by working class people. This is an attempt to put a grass roots perspective on an important chapter in the struggle against fascism in East London.

One ought, I think, to maintain a certain awareness of one’s status here as an outsider. Redwatch is not a think tank. It is pushing back against the Marxist left at the grassroots level - not just in East London but wherever it can across England. Its “daily struggles” are not very genteel. They are those of some very tough “working class people” who happen to cognise their own ethnic interests, and aren’t too fussed about the interests of the enemy, including their physical welfare. The enemy, after all, is the one with the slurs and the faux-morality and the machinery of oppressive law. The enemy has been setting the agenda for years, conducting its campaigns, magically obtaining funding, popping up in the media, fighting as dirty as it likes … and getting away with it. Why should it have everything its own way? Why shouldn’t it come under a bit of pressure from time to time, just to see how it likes it?

Well, that’s the insider’s view, I think. But we are outsiders - safe in our armchairs and all that. We have the luxury of detachment. And from a distance it is possible to see the effect of a bit of exercised “far right” muscle on public opinion, and the nasty problem that creates for racialists trying to address the political mainstream.

It isn’t possible to explain away or excuse violence in politics, and any association with violence will terminally damage much more than just those involved. I find it hard to believe that the two long-time activists who run Redwatch and the unknown number who are involved in intelligence gathering and/or subsequent action are really interested in or mindful of that. They are provoked men. They are in any case, no doubt, individualistic types not much attached to cooperative ways of thinking. But wearing the blinkers of red-hot anger …

“What, Griffin’s mob? We’re doing them a favour.”

Somewhat unapologetically, the Redwatch page has these words trailing across its foot:-

The key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline. While it is the time to be ‘legal’ we must stolidly endure whatever the puppets of the capitalist state see fit to inflict upon us. And when it is time to revolt, we must be prepared to unleash all the furies of hell on that state and its puppets until we prevail!

In Plain English that means:-

1) Ooh look Mr

~~Puppet~~

Plod, we are being ever so lawful.
2) But don’t worry, pal, you’ll get yours later.

The problem with Redwatch is that through its tender ministrations we may never get what’s ours!

Tags: Far Right

Comments:

Posted by Bo Sears on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:24 | #

If we care to think of our generation as the First Generation to become awakened to the hideous cancers planted in our body politic since the midddle of the 20th century by those who hate us so deeply and so permanently, then perhaps the radical group mentioned above represents signs of the upswelling of the Second Generation which will be action oriented.

If history is any measure, such a Second Generation will be astonishing to us and unpredictable. It will sweep the First Generation from the field. Think of the French Revolution as it moved through its stages.

The Second Generation may be uncouth and rude. It may even plant wooden shoes (“sabots”) in the machinery of the state and our oppressors. It may even adopt the terror and killing tactics used against its cousins in Russia and Ukraine in the first half of the 20th Century. Turnabout, after all.

Pray the Third Generation doesn’t do house-to-house searches for dissenters but, if that comes about, it will only be a response to the imposition of a classical caste system on us, our children, and our grandchildren. Oh, yes, we are slated for the lowest caste, make no mistake.

Captive whites in a minority situation can, and have always, reacted eventually in ways unforeseen to those who would be our jailers (or gaolers, if you prefer). Sometimes it take a century, but it always happens.

Guessedworker is to be congratulated on printing the piece above because it behooves us to keep an eye on what is coming next to lead our peoples to White Liberation. I don’t know what White Nationalism is, but I do know what White Liberation is and its birth will be prolonged, vicious, and unpredictable. It will almost certainly arise from those with hardened hands.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:38 | #

I have repeatedly stated before that <a >the 2 dimensions beloved by the likes of John Jay Ray utterly miss the point</a>:

Self-determination.

A person may be an left authoritarian within his own immediate family and a right libertarian at the global level for obvious reasons.

I suspect the people who are bombing each other could agree to disagree at the global level if only they had some way to rid themselves of the theocrats that are controlling both the right and left.

Posted by wjg on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:17 | #

GW,

What’s your point? Is it that Red Watch is harming “the cause”?

Do you really think we will be successful sitting around sipping tea and eating crumpets with those who are actively carrying out our genocide? We are in the middle of a war and it will require many methods to achieve success. MR clearly has a role but I hope this continued snoot lifting (at least that is my perception) stops.

The commissariat of the Establishment is something that must be dealt with - both with a carrot and a stick. These are the folks who follow the leader, who have neither the mental capability, nor the moral courage to truly stand up for themselves (assuming they are White), but who have been invaluable to its ability to subjugate us. Red Watch is giving them a bit of the same stick they have been dealing us for quite a long time. Rather than criticize RW, we should strive to do things complimentary to the cause. Rather than lament how they may prevent us from reaching the mythical “mainstream” we should work with them by continuing to emphasize the carrot; that is all the rational reasons why we need to reclaim control over our future.

Both sides are needed.

If the precious “decency” of conservatism is what prevents us from aligning with such “hooligans” it is one more reminder of the need for its demise.

If I have misunderstood your point, please clarify.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:35 | #

Because the conflation of white racial consciousness with racialised statist political systems serves liberal/minority, Rusty. But these Redwatch guys are former skinheads, I believe. Not fascist in any real ideological sense.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:37 | #

WJG,

In effect, Redwatch delivers into the hands of any passing psychopath the reputation of white racial consciousness. That’s my objection to it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:54 | #

It appears to have appeal in Germany, though.

One size does not fit all and probably that which appeals to Germans may not be suitable for the English or white Americans.

Posted by wjg on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:24 | #

What is more “psychopathic”? Respectfully watching our people destroyed or acting to stop it? These folks are not “respectable” or “decent”, that is true. Those accolades are reserved for us - but psychopaths?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m knocking myself here as well. I have never gotten one black eye (yet) for our cause - preferring instead the anonymity and safety of blogging. But I don’t think it is wise to cast aspersions at our more active (though maybe reckless) brethren.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:25 | #

WJG,

If you have something which is of great value but easily broken you don’t ask a five year old to carry it for you. The survival of our people is, as JW preached so hard during his time here, an ultimate value. It justifies our closest possible care and attention. It repays us to protect it from all possible harm. Turning it over to some unknown streetfighter to do with it as he pleases is just not good housekeeping and suggests that, actually, we don’t much care about it at all.

Rusty, I certainly count myself on the radical right. I don’t know the two guys at Redwatch. We probably wouldn’t agree on what “radical right” meant.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:48 | #

Rusty,

If the good day arrives when there are 50,000 activists on our doorsteps a fool or two will not matter too much. But while we are still at such a nascent the fools can colour perceptions all too easily.

Why do you think the BNP works so hard to distance itself from Redwatch and its fans?

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:25 | #

Wotcha, cocks! It’s been a while. I see you finally evicted Monsieur Egomane.

Combat 18, like Searchlight, is a creature of the British security services, as (very possibly) are the BNP and Redwatch.

A great deal of ‘extremist’ activity is a masquerade designed to contain dissent, while creating just enough stir to convince the docile majority to stick with the mainstream parties or- since that’s too optimistic nowadays- relapse into apathy.

It is also a scheme of indoor relief for the overgrown schoolboys of the professional middle class. Since the end of the Cold War, what rationale there was for the bloated spook industry has largely vanished (cf NATO). So they have to keep discovering threats to our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered way of life and sinister schemes to undermine our rich vibrant multicultural diversity by “hate groups”- whose membership often consists materially of infiltrated spooks, spookesses and their narks, playing a perpetual game of Grandmothers’ Footsteps.

The new verdict on the impotence of the IRA should send the spectre of redundancy hovering over the spooks’ heads. But that presupposes a rational polity. However, writing off the Provos may drive the underworked cloak and dagger pantomimics to more frenzied and inventive activities in defence of their pay, perks and pensions—sorry, I meant in defence of “Judaeo-Christian civilisation”, or “universal Enlightenment values” as my chums at Harry’s Place put it.

Besides, posing as a neo-Nazi is far more fun than pretending to be a Muslim fundi: you get to drink a lot of lager and need not grow a weird beard.

Posted by wjg on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:51 | #

“Turning it over to some unknown streetfighter to do with it as he pleases is just not good housekeeping and suggests that, actually, we don’t much care about it at all. “

I do not suggest turning over the movement to our more militant/activist brethren. Different elements within a Pan-WN confederation should maintain a good deal of autonomy. BUT, we should cooperate or at the very least not triangulate against each other. Never give our enemy one inch even if it costs us a little respectability amongst the mainstream. When we start unifying and truly defying the enemy is when the lemmings might finally start coming around.

“Why do you think the BNP works so hard to distance itself from Redwatch and its fans?”

After hearing Nick Griffin’s “let’s not take on the Jew” speech I wonder where the BNP is going. I hope it is shrewd realpolitik and not treachery. Is it like Hitler dumping the SA - shrewd, or typical conservative treason?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:30 | #

“Combat 18, like Searchlight, is a creature of the British security services, as (very possibly) are the BNP and Redwatch.” (—Matt O’Halloran, Scourge of Harry’s Place)

Dunno about all of those ... Somehow I don’t think if Griffin were in the employ of MI6 they’d have gone as far as staging that pre-dawn raid on his home for thinking forbidden thoughts about Moslems some six or eight months previous or whatever it was. I just don’t think MI6 is capable of being that subtle, that cunning, or ... (is convoluted the word I’m looking for? ... something like that ...) that convoluted ....

No, Griffin’s the real deal until proven otherwise, I say.

Posted by rustymason on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:07 | #

I finally made it to Redwatch. Good heavens, where do those commies get all that money and publicity?

Posted by Matra on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 07:01 | #

I looked at Redwatch’s Northern Ireland section and didn’t see any problem with it.

There’s a place for intellectualising and there’s a place for direct action. Just as I’ve defended moderate conservatives like Derbyshire and Sailer against those who say they are not pure enough I refuse to criticise working class Enlgishmen who are willing to take action against our enemies. Now if GW were on the verge of becoming PM and Redwatch associations were hurting his prospects I’d agree it’s time to exile them to political Siberia. But at this stage of the struggle I can’t get worked up against Redwatch unless they are deliberately hurting our cause by dressing themselves in swastikas and other foreign paraphernalia.

It appears to have appeal in Germany, though.

So-called neo-Nazis have virtually no appeal in Germany if elections are anything to go by. They have parliamentary representation in only three or four state legislatures (mostly in the East if memory serves me) and even then they are a small minority. I’ve been hearing about a “neo-Nazi” upsurge in Germany since the late 1980s and so far it has amounted to nothing.

The new verdict on the impotence of the IRA

I read about this in the press today. Another example of English treachery. The IRA is stronger than it ever was. As anyone from Northern Ireland can tell you virtually all “dissident” incidents since 1994 have been orchestrated by the IRA. (In the past Irish Republican socialist factions were always wiped out so isn’t it strange that recent groups, whose violence just happens to serve the IRA agenda in the long term, have been left alone by the Provos who control Catholic areas?) Unfortunately just as the average Englishman falls for the lie that immigrants “are just like us” they also fall for the usual Irish nationalist propaganda. Perhaps like white Southerners in the US or white South Africans one has to be close to the enemy to truly understand its motives and the tactics they use. Wishful thinking about IRA intentions reminds me of US conservatives on the “last throes” of the Iraqi resistance. The Blair regime really is the most traitorous in British history. No wonder neocons love Blair so much!

Posted by calvin on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:55 | #

“A couple of weeks later they suffered a fire-bomb attack at their home, which left their car burned out”

Lucky they wern’t aiming for their car or they could have burnt their house down. Talk it up, talk it up!

Posted by del mar on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:11 | #

Combat 18, like Searchlight, is a creature of the British security services, as (very possibly) are the BNP and Redwatch.

What a crock. Love the use of parantheses, though. Either the BNP is a fake or it’s not. MO’H titillates himself thinking it is, but deep down knows better, hence the qualification.

Perhaps this blog is also a creation of the British security services, designed for the purposes you cite?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:17 | #

del mar,

You got me banged to majority rights. Now I’ll have to arrest myself. Can’t wait for the interrogation.

Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:22 | #

WJG,

Speaking of the mainstream, how about those conservatives? Listen to JJR. Just keep voting for those guys. Everything will be fine. :p

Britain’s (Conservative leader) Cameron Supports ‘Gay Marriage’

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/4/230015.shtml?s=ic

Britain’s Conservative Party leader David Cameron, in an effort to “modernize” his party, has embraced gay marriage as a key issue facing the next generation.

Cameron hopes to “bury old taboos” of past British generations, according to a report in The Times (U.K.). Among those taboos are gay marriage, single parenting and new house building.

Cameron, who is campaigning to replace outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair in the upcoming U.K. election, has targeted “female-friendly” issues, much like Blair did a decade ago, to broaden his party’s base and secure more votes, according to various news reports.

In a speech to the Tories, Cameron sought support for “a new direction” he hoped the Conservatives would champion, one which is in sharp contrast to what more traditional British voters might expect of his party. . .

Posted by wjg on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:41 | #

Daedalus,

Cameron is the perfect modern conservative. William Pierce describes it here:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3476

Fags should all be conservartives since it requires no fight, only surrender.

Re. everything being a front for the enemy… How about the person proposing everything is a front for the enemy also is a front or serving the same purposes unwittingly.

Even if organizations are infilitrated it doesn’t mean they can’t stay true to their vision. The spies can be dealt with as spies always have been when the time is right.

Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:16 | #

I once saw someone apply the label “white submissionists” to conservatives. Very fitting. They never fail to retreat at the slightest whiff of racial controversy.

Posted by wjg on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:39 | #

Even America’s fire-breathing paleocons are of that same effeminate species.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:53 | #

Daedalus, WJG,

Again I see the fateful parting of the ways between the uncompromising, hard-hearted, Germanicised heavy model and the practical, worldly, Anglicised light model. Not in your condemnation of Conservatism. No, behind that. In your reasons for condemning Conservatism (or, more accurately, right liberalism).

I am firmly of the opinion, and have been for a long time, that Man is a suggestible being. Except in a few instances he does not have the internal constitution to stand against the prevailing winds of his time - which are many besides the philosophical, and which together form the extensive “environmental” aspects of personality.

Yes, “modern Conservatives” are always pushed backward. And not so modern. Cameron is just the latest in a long, long line going back to Peel.

But what can you really ask of puny politicians? That they lift themselves singly out of the prevailing philosophical winds? Because you have?

They can’t. One has to help them by creating another current. Which is why I have said that it is liberalism in its entirety - the zeitgeist in which opinions, and even our very minds themselves, are formed - which we must oppose. Not elements within it ... the agitations of Jewry, the political left, globalised elitism, economism, etc.

For that reason I describe myself as a revolutionary Conservative. I don’t think it is a “light” model at all because it is complete, besides which the “heavy” model is a partial, pygmified thing tried once and found wanting.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:15 | #

del mar: The BNP has a paper membership of more than 7,000, several prominent figures with criminal records and the ability to win local elections. The security services would be failing in their duty if they did not have a number of informants in it: either those who had been bribed or blackmailed (cf Gerry Gable) into finking, or had been sneaked into the party with orders to make their way into its inner circle.

The question is how far the BNP is under control, as opposed to mere oversight. I think there are two main grounds for inferring that MI5 and MI6 have a degree of influence over it which may amount to direction, at least at moments when it matters.

First, the trajectory towards its limited success was based on eliminating the neo-Nazi image associated with John Tyndall and his clique, who were ruthlessly purged by Nick Griffin, Michael Newland (ex-treasurer), Richard Barnbrook (London gauleiter) and other incomers. Griffin’s pedigree—Cambridge law graduate from traditionalist Tory family, boxing half blue, constantly living above his apparent means—is pretty standard for a spook plant, though anything but customary for a latter-day British far right leader. Griffin’s apparent tribulations with the law should not be taken too seriously unless they result in his spending a long time in a nasty jail (not dictating his political testament to Tony Lecomber in the comfort of Ford Open Prison;-))

Also, the BNP appears to have been insolvent for at least two years, but somehow not only survives but expands. I doubt Lord Levy is bunging it the odd cheque. John Walker, the present treasurer, is an ex-civil servant and former soldier who worked at the ‘sensitive’ Defence Aviation Repair Agency in Flintshire. Many BNP activists who have joined in Griffin’s time are ex-servicepeople, with obvious scope for retaining security services links.

Secondly, the repositioning of the Conservatives as a left-of-Tebbit, centre ground operation under Cameron leaves a vacancy on the ‘right’ for a Poujadiste, post-Thatcherite party which can hoover up enough votes to defuse any threat from a genuinely extremist and/or extra-parliamentary movement of patriots. The BNP has lately been further emphasising its credentials as a palatable alternative for the lace-curtain set, by making nice with Zionism (Griffin is keener on Israel’s right to self-defence than any mainstream leader) while pushing on a newly open New Labour door in its tireless, but one-sided, denunciations of multicult, always aimed at Muslims.

Having long since dropped the demand for compulsory repatriation of coloureds which was the nub of its Tyndalljahre appeal, it now has little even to say about the harm done to the social fabric by negroid immigration. It may be about to admit blacks (like Jews and Turks) to membership as honorary white Brits—sound geezers who read The Sun, bet at Ladbrokes and drink lager. For some time Griffin has been fading up a cultural and environmental, implicitly voluntary, idea of what makes one British and refusing to trade in genetics.

In short, the Le Pen-isation of what can no longer be credibly seen as a totalitarian or fascistic body by anyone less stuck in his senile ways than old Gerry seems to me quite what one would expect the security services to wish for. This does not mean that the BNP is nothing but their marionette—hence my parenthesis—or that Griffin is laughing up his sleeve. Far from it; many if not most of the perpetual adolescents of the secret world hold more or less right-wing views and are more consciously patriotic than the bulk of those who pay their wages. Doing what you would do anyway for public money makes you all the better at it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:53 | #

So-called neo-Nazis have virtually no appeal in Germany if elections are anything to go by. They have parliamentary representation in only three or four state legislatures (mostly in the East if memory serves me) and even then they are a small minority. I’ve been hearing about a “neo-Nazi” upsurge in Germany since the late 1980s and so far it has amounted to nothing.

Possibly like the BNP upsurge in the UK. They too, have no national representation, but have been promising an up swell for years. Griffin suggests, any nationalism in Europe is good nationalism, despite the flaws. Nicko has all the arrogance of the Germans, without the spittle.

Either the garnering of a bounty of BNP council seats means something or it doesn’t. Ditto the NDP [those other neo-Nazis] in Germany. The model won’t fit in the Anglosphere but you can’t have it both ways. Unless you’re Iggy, of course.

How do you radicalise conservatives? Radical conservatives at the Bastille? United Empire Loyalists were radical conservatives? Oliver Cromwell and the Glorious Conservative Revolution? Despite the pleonastic nature of the phrase, possibly Auster has it correct; traditional conservative says it best. Or possibly Blandfordian Conservative, home of the Bastards and the Pitts.

Posted by Voice on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:56 | #

Great Posts guys…

GW..that you for articulating the position the agitators have in grand scheme of things..You and Jared Taylor are of the same opinion and this is where I reside as well.

BTW Matt, I like Griffins position and even the odd Jew and Turk(for the record I am more concerned about culture than genetics here generally with exceptions), but if he ever accepts Sub-Saharans that is where he would fail miserably and lose all credibility.

Posted by Bo Sears on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:57 | #

With ourselves serving as the First Generation after 60 years of defamation and malice to recognize the situation, the Second Generation may very well be unwashed, profane, and belligerent. For a look at what the Second Generation may act like, go to:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/041006brutality.htm

It’s not pretty, but they pushed back against ADL brainwashed law enforcement personnel, and won.

Posted by wjg on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:58 | #

“But what can you really ask of puny politicians?”

That they be Men of the West and either oppose us, support us, or shut up. They do none of these things consistently. They coddle us when it serves their purposes (though this is happening less and less since we are in a death spiral) with the phony patriotism you rightly condemn. But for the most part they bash us since they are spineless triangulators; standing for nothing other than themselves and a possible pat on the head from their masters. Conservative leaders of the WWII era and since have been our worst enemy by far. Without them we may have had a healthy rejection of what is now our dotage.

“Which is why I have said that it is liberalism in its entirety - the zeitgeist in which opinions, and even our very minds themselves, are formed - which we must oppose.”

Is not the Faustian Spirit of the White Race always striving to improve and does this not lend itself to what we refer to as liberalism? If so then liberalism is not a cause, per se, of our current travails - but the corruption of this spirit is.

Is not then the corrupter, the distorter, the dissembler our enemy and not our own souls? I think yes. If we define our own spirit - that which makes our own race unique - as that which is the root of our problems then we must destroy ourselves to win this fight. This is axiomatically suicidal.

The corrupter can be taken on because it is from without.

The defeat of this foreign element is not the only fight – I agree that liberalism must be realigned to serving us rather than destroying us – but it is the main one. Without winning that fight we have no hope.

Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:50 | #

I am at a loss to understand the “uncompromising, hard-hearted, Germanicised heavy model” you attribute to me. If anything is true, the version of racialism we once practiced here in the United States (i.e., white supremacy) was far more extreme than anything of the sort that ever existed in the Third Reich and owes nothing to German influence. We managed to practice slavery, ethnic cleansing, segregation and so on without apologizing for it endlessly. It was even once a source of pride. This tradition served us well for centuries in a multiracial environment; certainly more so than what has passed for politics over the last fifty years. That multiracial environment hasn’t disappeared. It has worsened considerably since the sixties.

Can you imagine conservatives ever summoning up the temerity to filibuster a civil rights bill? We used to have representatives in Congress that blocked every major piece of civil rights legislation for a century (for the record, they weren’t conservatives). Conservatives refuse to even so much as appear in public with pro-white speakers. They don’t have the same inhibitions about speaking to the NAACP or the National Council of La Raza. Where did we go wrong?

It goes back to 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. That was the year we had to choose between, as you would put it, the “uncompromising, hard-hearted, Germanicised heavy model” or the “practical, worldly, Anglicised light model.” It was a major fork in the road. We had the choice of recommitting ourselves to massive resistance, inviting federal occupation, and fighting for our principles, as our ancestors did during Reconstruction (they eventually won, btw), or taking the “practical” road of “sneaking up on the liberals” through mainstream, liberalism light, Goldwater-style conservative politics.

We chose the latter. In the beginning, not only were racialists in control of entire states, we dominated an entire region of the country. We had enough power to block legislation destructive to our interests except in the event of extraordinary Northern supermajorities in Congress. In much of the country, the shoe was on the other foot: anti-racists had to run for office in the teeth of public opprobrium. They were the radicals. They were the despised outside agitators. The Citizen Councils of America dwarfed any contemporary racialist organization in numbers and influence.

So, what happened? Committing ourselves to “practical,” aracial conservative politics had three major long term effects: 1.) deracializing all the millions of whites who originally supported us into brainless drones reciting FOX News talking points, 2.) normalizing the Dogma of Zero Group Differences of the Civil Rights Movement, and 3.) forcing politicians to whore themselves out to the Negro vote. This allowed the radicals of those years to consolidate their gains and redefine what is and isn’t morally permissible in the mainstream which, unsurprisingly, shifts further and further towards the fringe left every year.

This was the first capitulation to the idea of social equality. The worst slippery slope predictions of the segregationists have since come true. Now, homosexuals and illegal aliens contest for equal rights in the mainstream. We have foreigners and criminals benefiting from affirmative action over the native born in many of our cities. Whites are terrorized by nonwhite gangs in the our nation’s capital and the major cities; most of which have been all but abandoned. Elderly people are shot and women are raped in broad daylight.

Oh, but wait: Now, the good news: “conservatives” control all three branches of government! Tax cuts for hardworking corporate executives! Rolling back the “welfare state”! “Defense” against small little countries like Iraq (they are going to blow us up with WMD, LOL)! Money for the Jews! Fighting “anti-semitism!” And so on. All important matters undoubtedly worthy of our attention while the very foundation of our civilization crumbles beneath our feet.

Great moral fables could be written about our own times: A choice between principle and political expediency, the hard road and the easy road, heroism and cowardice. Degeneracy, as always, stems ultimately from moral failure. Major battles have turned on one side or the other losing its nerve. In the sixties, we lost our nerve and we are still dealing the consequences. One surrender led naturally enough to another surrender; one concession to another concession.

The spectacle of Cameron urging the Tories to “modernize” (i.e., surrender to) and embrace gay marriage and single parent families really just puts the vacousness of “conservatism” on full display. Is there any humiliation that these emasculated, detestable little wretches won’t submit to? So, there is no hope for the family now; the most elementary of social institutions. Maybe we will get it back one day if conservatives compromise their way into power, or not. The degeneration of conservatism is more advanced in Anglican Britain than Calvinist America, but we are clearly headed in the same direction. The “incitement to racial hatred” laws, homosexual priests, amnesty for illegal aliens, the “North American Union,” “Commission for Racial Equality,” “Human Rights Tribunal”; all of that is coming up. How long we we will continue to stand for it is an open question.

The demise of conservatism is really inevitable. It’s already under incredible strain. The rotten foundation can only be sustained for so long before even true believers buckle under the sheer weight of all the lies, duplicity, broken promises, destructive economic policies, and “tactical surrenders” of the conservative leadership. As conservatives go the way of the Whigs, disaffected Republicans and Tories (in America and Britain) will start migrating into racialist organizations out here on the “fringe.” They will bring with them all the conservative baggage like meekness (which they will call prudence), their exaggerated bourgeoisie status concerns (oh, those horrible working class people who use words like “n*****”!), philo-semitism, and half-educated advice about sneaking up on the liberals. It will be a challenge to accomodate these suburban lost souls without losing the edge of a revolutionary movement.

That’s what I fear: watering down racialism from broil to simmer, again; pissing away our country through conservatism until we are finally overwhelmed by the brown tidal wave. A conservative revolutionary is an oxymoron, as the paleocons here in America are finding out. A revolutionary is a man pushed to his breaking point, not simply trying to cling on. Revolutions happen when deep historical trends, disaffected masses, and a radical vanguard collide. If any of the essential elements are missing, revolutions fail to materialize. A case in point: the resistance to integration during the sixties.

Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry during the American Revolution. William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, Robert Barnwell Rhett, William Lowndes Yancey during the American Civil War. They were hardliners. Did Garrison or Brown compromise with the Slave Power over Kansas? No, they worked to polarize the electorate, not bring it together, as did their Southern counterparts. In Germany, the National Socialists polarized the country between themselves and the communists. Our historical task is also to expedite the disintegration of the mainstream by pulling in the opposite direction. If you see a fire, that means you throw gas on it, not cold water.

Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:09 | #

As for Nick Griffin, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were impressive in the 60’s. Even LBJ was impressive in the 40’s.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:39 | #

WJG,

Liberalism is not what you take it to be. It is grounded in the pursuit of individual freedom, beginning with freedom of the individual from the strictures of serfdom and the Church in medieval Europe. The spirit of our people is something I can understand only as a sociobiologically-grounded quality. In other words, we must discover ourselves - Know Thyself - and preserve what is real in us and our several, naturally-occurring mores.

The one - individual, rebellious, teleological - and the other - common, self-respectful, ontological - do not meet. The trajectory of liberalism takes us ever further away from that which we are. Conservatism grounds us deeper within in.

The latter, of course, is not an endorsement for any right liberal politician of the present day. There is nothing to be got from them. But also, there are no conclusions about the real nature of Conservatism to be got from them either.

I do not say, WJG, that I hold the keys to the kingdom. I have a few interesting candidates perhaps. However, I will allow that you believe your keys, your idées fixe, can also be slid into the lock. Here you may blog about it from the top, if you are interested, and we can argue the issue until we drop.

Posted by perroazul del norte on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:40 | #

Didn’t Wallace and Thurmond eschew the language of racialism and instead use the conservative rhetoric of “states’ rights” and “local customs” and “traditions”? Still a step up from Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act on essentially libertarian grounds. Sen. Theodore Bilbo was an open racist. He, however, died way back in 1947.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:47 | #

WJG,

One point about “spirit” that I might have made in that comment, but forgot. The forward-leaning, preposterously adventurous spirit of discovery that marks Western Man, with his peculiar mix of intelligence, individualism and cooperativeness, is a sociobiological phenomenon. It is not liberalism in any philosophical sense, or an expression of the desire to be free. Rather, it is an expression of our need to wrestle control of our survival from our food-scare, cold environment. It is sociobiological, and what one might call ancient English Conservatism properly attends to it through its acknowledgement that the individual and his freedom follows on from the health and stability of his society.

Posted by wjg on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:26 | #

GW,

I doubt not that you have a much better grasp on the origins of liberalism than do I. But often the man who can analyze the trees has a tough time seeing the forest. This is not an ode to ignorance as much as it is an appeal to both the mind and the heart. Too many of our people gravitate to one of these extremes or the other.

The views that either Liberalism or the Distorter are our chief adversary are not diametrically opposed since they are as intertwined as Adam’s pride and Satan. The union of the two caused the Fall.

As you say, we can argue this until hell freezes over and if the intent is for one of us to “win” then it is folly. It is clear we are fighting for the same cause and just haggling over how it is best achieved. In the process of this vetting I am learning a lot and hopefully a few others as well.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:03 | #

“The way to handle these questions is by making a list and checking it twice: does the person or organization in question behave like an agent provocateur?” (—Svy)

This is why Matt O’H is barking up the wrong tree in Griffin’s case: O’H himself says Griffin purged the neo-nazis from the BNP, something an agent provocateur wouldn’t have done. A government agent would’ve done the opposite: attempted to pull neo-nazis into the organization.

Posted by Bo Sears on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:29 | #

More Second Generation stuff, this time near Windsor Castle:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408689&in_page_id=1770

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:01 | #

No Aussies here to remind us of Cronulla Beach.

Posted by Matra on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:20 | #

Desmond, I was merely correcting your bizarre assertion that Germans are into those tactics. Your picture of an angry skinhead waving an NPD flag proves nothing. Where are the votes on election day if there is so much appeal for them?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:53 | #

Desmond, I was merely correcting your bizarre assertion that Germans are into those tactics.

I have no problem with that Matra. I need as much correction as I can get.

What bizarre assertions? All nationalist movement are small minorities. The NPD bettered its predicted result at the polls. It apparently believes parliamentary democracy is not the best governance model for Germany. It believes the Dresden bombing was a war crime. They appear to embrace Adolf, “a phenomenon—militarily, socially and economically,” at least to some degree. They are strong advocates, from what we are told, of the re-emigration of Muslims. They embrace, at least to some degree, the radical, street warrior element and they appear poised to improve their lot in Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt.

Why is that bizarre? They can’t reject their past anymore than Southerners can eviscerate theirs. It just means the road they take to German survival will probably be a whole lot different to the path followed in the Anglosphere, if in fact such an event even occurs in the US, Canada, England or Australia.

Posted by Matra on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:06 | #

Desmond, you said: “It appears to have appeal in Germany, though”. Yet now you admit they are a small minority, like all nationalist movements, with very little appeal in Germany! They are too small to accomplish anything significant. So like the simialr movements in other countries that have gone nowhere despite decades of efforts I think we can predict they will continue to appeal only to a fringe minority and be useful to the establishment that tries to portray opponents of race replacement as rabble. I hope I’m wrong but I see no evidence to suggest there is some hidden mass appeal.

Posted by Matra on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:13 | #

Nevertheless, Jews are concerned:

A German expert on right-wing extremism has warned that neo-Nazis are becoming “more professional” and threatening to become a mainstream political force.

Karl-George Ohse, who heads a consulting team charged with countering growing neo-Nazi influence in the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, said that right-wing extremism is “strongly anchored” in the state and that the right-wing NPD is likely to win at least 10 per cent of the vote in the next state election.

He stated: “Neo-Nazis are the only ones that offer anything to youngsters in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.”

http://www.ejpress.org/article/11028

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:36 | #

“right-wing extremism is ‘strongly anchored’ in the state” (—quoted in Matra’s comment, above)

If the German “right wing” is asking only that the German people not be forcibly race-replaced, the German “right wing” can’t be called “extremist.” Questioning one’s nation’s forcible race-replacement isn’t an extremist thing to do.

I’ve seen a good portion of this party’s platform: there’s nothing “extremist” in it that I’ve seen. I wonder if Mr. Ohse can say what’s “extremist” in it.

Posted by Jethro Kull on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:00 | #

“Again I see the fateful parting of the ways between the uncompromising, hard-hearted, Germanicised heavy model and the practical, worldly, Anglicised light model. “

If anything, I see the opposite. These days it seems that the “Germanicised” model is far more practical and worldly—as well as being effective and productive. In Germany and Austria, the immigration and nationality laws have basically succeeded in all but halting Third-World migration recently, but there wasn’t much fanfare to it, and certainly no hard-hearted White supremacy. It was just something following on the heels of a calm, mainly positive discussion of what made those countries great—their European people—without simultaneously putting down other peoples, and the laws took hold without fanfare. Germans in general are extremely kind to non-Whites who visit from other countries and very curious about their cultures, they just draw the line at mass immigration from the Third World. (Hitler was an exception to this—Germans in general have been gracious to people from other cultures outside of the West, but very careful to hold the line at mass immigration.)

Contrast this with the US, which has mixed up the Diversity of Nations (very much desirable and interesting) with too much Diversity within a Nation (nothing less than national suicide). Britain and Australia are following suit. The natural reaction to this a more militant, angry White nationalism that is rooted, in large part, in frustration and impotence—the forces against us in the Anglosphere are far too strong. Rather than following the calm and positive model of Germany, we’re getting the worst of both worlds, with our White majority already a minority in the schools, and very embittered WN reaction as a consequence. The problem is, it’s probably too late at this point to undo the damage here.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:31 | #

f anything is true, the version of racialism we once practiced here in the United States (i.e., white supremacy) was far more extreme than anything of the sort that ever existed in the Third Reich

Daedalus,

That’s really bad stuff. You need to think about this a litte more critically.

The “white supremacy” you describe in the old America was actually pretty civilized. Note that even American slavery was actually benign (comparing it to other forms of slavery that have existed in the past) - if it hadn’t been so benign, you wouldn’t have such a massive black American population today. In fact the American slave population increased every decade since the revolution. Nazi occupation had the opposite effect - whole countries were depopulated by their policies. Due to the nature of the media’s fixation with the Holocaust what is easily forgotten is the enormous numbers of Russians and other Eastern Europeans who were slaughtered wholesale by the Nazis (and I am referring to civilians not combat troops).

You besmirch the name of your own ancestors by saying that America practised a racialism more “extreme” than anything Nazi Germany created. You’ve got to stop swallowing leftist bilge about how the whites “exterminated” the American Indian. They didn’t build camps for the Indians anywhere and they didn’t gun them down (whole tribes) in cold blood. The American Indian was ultimately wiped out by a combination of his own savagery and his refusal to accept the ways of European man. De Tocqueville covers this in his book on America.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:12 | #

I was surprised to learn from the blogger that the American Indian was “ultimately wiped out”. Their present day number exceeds that of the 17th Century, their ‘held in trust’ landholdings total 55.7million acres(including casinos operated tax-free) and the American government has routinely exceeded all treaty commitments.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:14 | #

17th should read 18th Century.

Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:56 | #

Phil,

I was referring to the elaborate racial caste system that used to exist in the American South. There were hundreds of laws and local ordinances that dealt with every aspect of the race question. In Montgomery, for example, it was illegal for blacks and whites to play checkers together in public. In Georgia, it was a felony to even so much as discuss miscegenation. The culture was thoroughly saturated in racial hierarchy. The Jim Crow South was a rigid one-party state for over a century. The entire political system of the region was warped around maintaining enough power in Congress to thwart Northern attempts to overthrow white supremacy, before and after slavery.

And yes, we did practice systematic racial cleansing. Andrew Jackson boasts about it in his Second Annual Message to Congress. The entire state of Oklahoma used to be a gigantic concentration camp for Indians. That’s why so many towns in Oklahoma still bear the names of their counterparts in Alabama and Georgia (Eufaula, AL and Eufaula, OK or Wetumpka, AL and Wetumpka, OK). The Indians didn’t simply vanish. They were creatively relocated out West.

This system of race relations had no parallel in the Third Reich. The Nazis may have dreamed of deporting the Poles east of the Urals, but we really did deport the Indians out the Southeast. It was a racial conquest. The Virginia Racial Integrity Act was harsher than the Nuremberg laws which were not based on the one-drop rule. Racialism never penetrated the deepest recesses of German culture like it did in the American South. The Nazis talked about their own superiority over the Slavs, but we literally enslaved blacks for generations. We treated them as property that could be bought and sold. The Nazis never went that far. Again, there were hundreds of laws that regulated every aspect of racial interaction. Nothing like that existed in the Third Reich.

Theodore Roosevelt glorified the annihilation of the Indians as the great epic of American history in his The Winning of the West. He even sought to emulate the racial conflict along the frontier in his Rough Rider regiment during the Spanish-American War. I see no reason to apologize for the actions of my ancestors to solace the decadent tastes of modern bourgeoisie liberals. These are the people who have to answer for the unprecedented crime of pissing away our entire civilization to satiate their own queer moral theories. It’s the present we should be ashamed of, not the past.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:07 | #

Daedalus,

I think we must first both acknowledge something very fundamental before we proceed – the question of what is civilization. In this case, why did Southerners go through so much trouble erecting this elaborate caste system when the simplest thing would have been to simply kill all the blacks? But the fact that they did not do this shows that they were men with a conscience.

And this brings us to the fundamental issue. If the actions of one people against another can have no higher justification than merely tribal justification, what is the difference then between Americans and Huns (or any of the African tribes that just slaughter the opposing tribe when the opportunity presents itself)? And then for that matter, what distinguishes European man from the African?

The prevention of mixing with the former slave population marked by colour was necessary to preserve civilization. For the races to have mixed, the white Southerners would have had to become a more degraded people. And that is why the elaborate caste system as you describe was necessary. However, if the solution to this had been extermination, it would bring them down to the level of the savage and had that happened it would paradoxically be a victory for savagery in the final analysis even though one savage people would have been destroyed.

As for the Indians, they were either driven out or massacared by white settlers or deported to the West by the federal government to forestall the former. An instructive example of this would be the fate of the Creek and Cherokee Indians. Look up the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and the Treaty of Fort Jackson. That’s how we won South Alabama and South Georgia. As a child, one of my favorite hobbies was excavating the ruins of Creek Indian villages and collecting various artifacts. They used to have a really big presence in the region. I still have an impressive collection of arrowheads, spearpoints, tomahawks, breast plates, beads and so forth. I will upload some pictures over at The Civic Platform one day. See also the Seminole Wars. That’s how we won Florida.
And yes, we did practice systematic racial cleansing. Andrew Jackson boasts about it in his Second Annual Message to Congress. The entire state of Oklahoma used to be a gigantic concentration camp for Indians. That’s why so many towns in Oklahoma still bear the names of their counterparts in Alabama and Georgia (Eufaula, AL and Eufaula, OK or Wetumpka, AL and Wetumpka, OK). The Indians didn’t simply vanish. They were creatively relocated out West.

Again, why go through the trouble of relocating people when they could have been simply exterminated? The Nazis would have done it – they could have gunned down entire tribes and slaughtered them all. Why didn’t the Americans do it? They had better and more guns, more ammunition and more men capable of carrying out such a task than the Indians did. But they chose instead to relocate the Indian to another part of the country. This shows that they were civilized men.

There were massacres by white Americans of Indians. But there were also massacres of whites by Indians. Also, many white Americans have some Indian ancestry. Those men and women were accepted into white society. The question would be why.

This system of race relations had no parallel in the Third Reich. The Nazis may have dreamed of deporting the Poles east of the Urals, but we really did deport the Indians out the Southeast. It was a racial conquest. The Virginia Racial Integrity Act was harsher than the Nuremberg laws which were not based on the one-drop rule. Racialism never penetrated the deepest recesses of German culture like it did in the American South. The Nazis talked about their own superiority over the Slavs, but we literally enslaved blacks for generations. We treated them as property that could be bought and sold. The Nazis never went that far. Again, there were hundreds of laws that regulated every aspect of racial interaction. Nothing like that existed in the Third Reich.

The Third Reich was much more brutal than anything the South ever devised. However, it only lasted for 12 years. It is an error to see the Nazi regime as less brutal because the regime only lasted for just over a decade (and it wasn’t until the first conquests by the Wehrmacht that Nazi brutality began to manifest itself).

I see no reason to apologize for the actions of my ancestors to solace the decadent tastes of modern bourgeoisie liberals. These are the people who have to answer for the unprecedented crime of pissing away our entire civilization to satiate their own queer moral theories. It’s the present we should be ashamed of, not the past.

Quite right. But it isn’t the bourgeoisie liberals that we need to think about. It is the fundamental distinction between civilization and savagery (actually the bourgeoisie liberals do not even acknowledge a distinction between civilization and savagery – because that would be “racist”). If there is no such distinction, then there is nothing to separate us from the Hutus and the Tutsis.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:32 | #

Daedalus,

Have a read through this chapter at leisure. I think this answers many of our questions.

Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:03 | #

Daedalus,

I think we must first both acknowledge something very fundamental before we proceed – the question of what is civilization. In this case, why did Southerners go through so much trouble erecting this elaborate caste system when the simplest thing would have been to simply kill all the blacks? But the fact that they did not do this shows that they were men with a conscience.

That’s like asking: why didn’t Southerners slaughter all their cattle? That’s the easiest way to get rid of cows. The answer, of course, was that slaves were extremely valuable property. Billions of dollars were invested in slavery. Slavery was the foundation of our economy and social structure. Nothing like that ever existed in the Third Reich. The Slavs were never reduced to a hereditary caste of slaves by the Germans. In the Antebellum South, slavery was a racial condition; so was liberty, for that matter. This contrast between black slavery and white freedom is what gave the “freedom” its meaning.

Needless to say, this system of hereditary racial slavery stands out in stark contrast to the revisionist liberal wet dream about the American past. The U.S. was founded as a republic, not as a liberal democracy. The great planters were enamored with the Romans who were also slave owners. They pointed out correctly that the ancient Greeks also owned slaves. “Liberty” for them meant freedom from toil to enjoy the public life of a citizen in the republic, in addition to freedom from government interference in this way of life.

The government buildings and plantation mansions they constructed emulated classical architecture. The towns they built were often given classical names (Athens, GA, Sparta, GA, Rome, GA). Victory in war still had its charm in those days. The young George Washington joined the army to seek fame and glory. Southern culture revolved around the code of honor, as Charles Sumner found it when Preston Brooks left the handwriting of South Carolina on his skull. The conquest of Indian land was believed to be the work of providence bestowing fortune on a young nation, not what is known in our own times as “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “human rights abuses.”

Southern culture was thoroughly paternalistic. The Negroes, as an inferior race, were treated like children or pets. They were “our Negroes” or “our black people.” Negro adults addressed white women and children as “Misses” and “Sir; white males as “Mister” or “Master.” In turn, whites addressed Negroes with terms like “boy.” In order to travel outside of plantations, they had to carry passes from whites. Everyone had a place. Even the lowliest white could always pride himself that he was better than a “n*****.” The unity and racial consciousness of whites was drilled into them from birth through institutions like the slave patrols. The patronizing Southern attitude towards the Negro was a thinly veiled form of racial contempt. The most popular form of entertainment was the ministrel show where actors in black face ridiculed Negroes as an inferior race of childlike, frivilous clowns given to merriment.

Originally, in the early seventeenth century, it was widely believed in the South that Negroes were the bastard offspring of humans who had been raped by the great apes in Africa. The other prevailing theory was that blacks were the descendents of Canann, the son of Ham who was cursed the servant of servants (literally turned into a Negro) for looking upon his naked father. During the eighteenth century, as naturalism took root in Western culture, these theories began to give way to the earliest versions of scientific racialism. Jefferson wrote in this vein in his Notes on the State of Virginia. By the mid-nineteenth century, the common human origins of blacks and whites had come into question in the South. Josiah Nott and Louis Agassiz popularized the theory of polygenesis; that blacks were a different inferior species altogether with a different racial origin from whites. Again, nothing like this ever emerged in the Third Reich.

And this brings us to the fundamental issue. If the actions of one people against another can have no higher justification than merely tribal justification, what is the difference then between Americans and Huns (or any of the African tribes that just slaughter the opposing tribe when the opportunity presents itself)? And then for that matter, what distinguishes European man from the African?

We should try to understand the past on its own terms. Southerners of that era would have replied that the Indian was a savage, as well as a heathen, and that his removal expedited the progress of white civilization. Jackson hits upon this theme in his address aove. As for the Negro, it was taken for granted that he was vastly inferior to whites. Slavery was thought to have elevated a naturally indolent race into economically productive workers and the moral instruction Negroes received from whites saved their souls and prevented them from falling back into their more savage habits like cannibalism.

The prevention of mixing with the former slave population marked by colour was necessary to preserve civilization. For the races to have mixed, the white Southerners would have had to become a more degraded people.

The first anti-miscegenation laws were passed in Virginia and Maryland in the 1660s. It was around this time that chattel racial slavery and white supremacy began to evolve in the South. All Southern states eventually passed such anti-miscegenation laws. During Jim Crow, miscegenation became a felony. These laws were continuously in effect until they were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. So, this went on for roughly three centuries. In the American South, the offspring of a white and a Negro was a Negro because of the one drop rule. In Nazi Germany, Germans of certain degrees of Jewish ancestry were still considered Germans.

And that is why the elaborate caste system as you describe was necessary. However, if the solution to this had been extermination, it would bring them down to the level of the savage and had that happened it would paradoxically be a victory for savagery in the final analysis even though one savage people would have been destroyed.

As the slave population demographically expanded, the planters and common whites alike feared slave rebellions more than anything else. A form of racial egalitarianism unknown in England evolved out of these circumstances. Negroes were not exterminated because such a huge investment had been made in slavery. Why not burn down your house or give away all your stocks and bonds? It made no sense to do so because the economy was based on cash crop agriculture.

There were massacres by white Americans of Indians. But there were also massacres of whites by Indians. Also, many white Americans have some Indian ancestry. Those men and women were accepted into white society. The question would be why.

There was a dirty war between whites and Indians up and down the frontier. White squatters pressed further and further into Indian lands provoking conflicts with the natives. Theodore Roosevelt glorified this in his The Winning of the West. These encroachments were often followed by wars between Indians and state militias or federal troops.

The Third Reich was much more brutal than anything the South ever devised. However, it only lasted for 12 years. It is an error to see the Nazi regime as less brutal because the regime only lasted for just over a decade (and it wasn’t until the first conquests by the Wehrmacht that Nazi brutality began to manifest itself).

Hitler himself mentioned the American West as his model on more than one occasion. There was talk of deporting Slavs beyond the Urals like the Americans did to the Indians in Oklahoma. The Germans planned to create vast agricultural plantations in the conquered lands of the east. These were to be serviced by German towns. The racial conflict with the Slavs and the rural agricultural environment was thought to be necessary to revitalize the German race. The Slavs were to be exploited as a vast market for German industrial output. Hitler talked about selling them shiny trinkets and giving them only enough education to read road signs. His other analogy was to the British in India. Russia and Poland were to play a similar role to the Germans. In the east, the Germans wanted to create something like white supremacy with Teutons and Slavs playing the role of whites and blacks or British and Indians respectively. This is not something I personally approve of, but it is clearly what he had in mind.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 01:12 | #

I was referring to the post Civil War period when slavery was abolished. Once the slaves had been freed, they were of no value to their former masters. So why not exterminate them since they have no value? But they weren’t exterminated. No matter which you cut it, the South was populated by a civlized people. There is no way around this.

Slavery was a grave mistake. A great many problems of modern day America stem from that. It is a mistake to see slavery in the America of the 18th and 19th century as an equivalent of slavery practised by the Romans and the ancient Greeks. The latter had no concept of the “rights of man” and were not a Christian people (note that Christianity abolished slavery in Europe).

I have also noted that you distance yourself from the Christians. That is of course a matter of personal opinion. But one cannot see the South without its attendant Christian beliefs. One of the biggest problems for Southerners in justifying slavery was that many of the slaves had been Christianised and Christianity forbids Christians from enslaving other Christians. The way around this problem was for some Southerners to deny the humanity of the Negro. Because once one admits that he is human, slavery flies in the face of Christian doctrine and in the face the ideas of the enlightenment (which were the basis of America’s founding).

In the American South, the offspring of a white and a Negro was a Negro because of the one drop rule. In Nazi Germany, Germans of certain degrees of Jewish ancestry were still considered Germans.

Jews were not a slave race. So paradoxically while the Nazis hated Jews, they conceded, to some degree, Jewish intelligence. This is an enormously important factor.

One cannot transmute the condition of the Negro to the slav and the Russian in Europe. The slavs and the Russians had a long history and had a history of nobility. Hitler himself thought that the more “Aryan” Slavs and Russians ought to be “Germanised”. The condition of the Negro in America was completely different. He was a conquered savage brought to America in chains. His origin in slavery left a permanent stigma on his entire race - as a result of which even after the abolition of slavery, the stigma remained.

Jews hadn’t been slaves since the time of Moses. That is an entirely different matter.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 01:17 | #

From that chapter I linked to:

The Spaniards pursued the Indians with bloodhounds, like wild beasts; they sacked the New World like a city taken by storm, with no discernment or compassion; but destruction must cease at last and frenzy has a limit: the remnant of the Indian population which had escaped the massacre mixed with its conquerors and adopted in the end their religion and their manners.28 The conduct of the Americans of the United States towards the aborigines is characterized, on the other hand, by a singular attachment to the formalities of law. Provided that the Indians retain their barbarous condition, the Americans take no part in their affairs; they treat them as independent nations and do not possess themselves of their hunting-grounds without a treaty of purchase; and if an Indian nation happens to be so encroached upon as to be unable to subsist upon their territory, they kindly take them by the hand and transport them to a grave far from the land of their fathers.

The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did they succeed even in wholly depriving it of its rights; but the Americans of the United States have accomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity, tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world. It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity.

That distinction is something to bear in mind when thinking about the “removal” of the American Indian.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 01:31 | #

Daedalus,

You should write something for this site or on your own blog detailing the current relations between the races in the American South. That would be a fascinating subject in itself, knowing that you would not beat about the bush when dealing with inconvenient facts.

The sorts of things I have in mind are things like race-mixing, the status of blacks in current white southern society, what most southerners currently think about race etc.

Tocqueville wrote that large scale mixing between blacks and whites (even when blacks were freed) would not happen in America and the humanitarians who were hoping that there would be such mixing were misguised fools. He also wrote that in any society or nation, whites would either subjugate the blacks (or have them live in a condition of degradation relative to themselves) or the blacks would destroy the whites (if they were numerically stronger - case in point, the currently unfolding genocide in South Africa).

Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 06:35 | #

I was referring to the post Civil War period when slavery was abolished. Once the slaves had been freed, they were of no value to their former masters. So why not exterminate them since they have no value? But they weren’t exterminated. No matter which you cut it, the South was populated by a civlized people. There is no way around this.

The Jim Crow South emerged out the wreckage of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Nothing like that was remotely feasible or desirable. The Southern economy was thrown into chaos by the abolition of slavery, the destruction of the war, and the decline of cotton prices in the late nineteenth century. The GOP, a sectional party, dominated the federal government until the New Deal and its economic policies only further immiserated the region. It took a decade to overthrow Reconstruction and end the military occupation; twenty years to fight off Northern attempts to push civil rights legislation, forty years to establish segregation. Within the context of a Union controlled by the North, the most we could hope for was home rule with respect to Southern race relations. Even that required the creation of a rigid one-party state to maximize our power in Congress.

Slavery was a grave mistake. A great many problems of modern day America stem from that.

The truly grave mistake was not slavery or segregation. It was joining the Union in the first place. Slavery ceased to be an issue in 1865, but the antagonism towards the South by the fanatical white liberals of the North only continued over issues. These were the people who emancipated the slaves, gave blacks full citizenship and equal rights, forced us to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment at gunpoint (giving the federal government virtually unlimited power), passed all the civil rights legislation of the fifties and sixties, in addition to the Immigration Act of 1965 which is currently erasing white civilization in much of the Southwest. Our political system is distorted even today by all sorts of weird issues like affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage and so forth that would be nonexistent outside the context of the Union.

It is a mistake to see slavery in the America of the 18th and 19th century as an equivalent of slavery practised by the Romans and the ancient Greeks. The latter had no concept of the “rights of man” and were not a Christian people (note that Christianity abolished slavery in Europe).

I wasn’t referring to America in general. The meaning of the American Revolution varied from region to region and was reinterpreted by subsequent generations. In New England, for example, slavery withered and died during and immediately after the Revolution as Yankees concluded that slavery was irreconcilable with American freedom. It was phased out in the Mid-Atlantic states over the next few decades and abolished in the old Northwest altogether by the Northwest Ordinance.

In the South, many Virginians hoped to rid themselves of slavery after the war. Madison was a president of the American Colonization Society. Jefferson also supported efforts to deport blacks to Africa. There was a small but strong abolitionist movement. The invention of the cotton gin in 1792, the growth of the English textile industry, and the colonization of the old Southwest reinforced slavery and dramatically increased the profitability of plantation agriculture. It was only during the early nineteenth century (1800-1850) that the Antebellum South came into full blossom.

In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, free blacks had originally enjoyed limited political rights. They could vote in North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Southern racial attitudes hardened dramatically over the next fifty years and these rights were lost. Virginia and South Carolina passed laws forcing free blacks to emigrate elsewhere. The rationalism of the Enlightenment, so prominent in the ideology of the Revolution, was supplanted by the new spirit of European romanticism. The most widely read and influential author in the South during this period was Sir Walter Scott.

Scott lionized the feudal society of the Middle Ages which dovetailed perfectly with the new aristocratic ideology and economic imperatives of Southern planters flush with cotton wealth. His cultural influence upon the sons of the Revolutionary generation in the South was enormous. Mark Twain even went so far as to blame Scott for inciting the Civil War. Southerners immersed themselves in his novels and the values he extolled. The code of honor, the glorification of women, tournaments, paternalism and so forth.

By the Civil War, it was not unusual for Southern planters to claim they were “Anglo-Normans” who were ethnically distinct from the Yankee Anglo-Saxons of the North. The rational, modern, materialistic, forward looking Yankee was increasingly repulsive to the romantic, paternalistic, genteel Southerner who valued leisure and looked backwards to Greece, Rome, and the Middle Ages for inspiration. Northern abolitionists portrayed Southerners as indolent, despotic slave drivers oppressing blacks and depriving them of their natural rights; bent upon spreading tyranny and slavery into the Western territories and ultimately the North itself. See Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Southerners like Yancey responded by attacking the North as a cold, cruel, intolerant land of overbearing, self-righteous, materialistic hypocrites driven greed and a fanatical disregard for the privacy and rights of others; capitalists who ruthlessly exploited children in their textile mills, a people so degraded in their pursuit of the dollar that they had reduced women to commodities fit to labor in factories.

I have also noted that you distance yourself from the Christians. That is of course a matter of personal opinion. But one cannot see the South without its attendant Christian beliefs. One of the biggest problems for Southerners in justifying slavery was that many of the slaves had been Christianised and Christianity forbids Christians from enslaving other Christians.

True. The South is known in our times above all else as the land of the Bible Belt and evangelical Christianity, but this was not always the case. In fact, evangelical Christianity throughout American history has traditionally been associated with the Puritans of New England. It has only been exported here in recent years while being overwhelming in the Northeast by the tidal wave of Catholic immigrants. Christianity has become a more prominent aspect of the Southern identity since the marginalization of racialism in the sixties.

The South was the least religious part of the country during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Southerners were often attacked by Yankees on account of their lack of religion. Jefferson, for example, was accused of being an atheist Jacobin (he was actually a Deist). During the Colonial Era, New England was dominated by austere Congregationalists whilst the Anglican Church was established in the Southern colonies. In later years, the Baptists and Methodists became more numerous in the South, but racialism was far more essential to the Southern identity and way of life than Christianity ever was at the time. The Baptists even split apart after the South seceded from the Union.

The way around this problem was for some Southerners to deny the humanity of the Negro. Because once one admits that he is human, slavery flies in the face of Christian doctrine and in the face the ideas of the enlightenment (which were the basis of America’s founding).

Neither slavery or segregation presented much of a problem for the Southern conscience. As Jason Sokol points out in his recent book about white southerners in the civil rights movement, racialism had become the religion of the South. It penetrated every aspect of Southern culture. Southern ideas about religion had been so thoroughly racialized that few pastors dared to speak out in favor of Negro equality. The Ku Klux Klan is a good example of this. Klansmen never saw any contradiction between their version of Christianity and racialism. Rather, it was always Yankees who were unable to reconcile Christianity with racialism.

Jews were not a slave race. So paradoxically while the Nazis hated Jews, they conceded, to some degree, Jewish intelligence. This is an enormously important factor.

The Germans did move to criminalize miscegenation between Aryans and Jews. They also claimed that Jews were an inferior race.

One cannot transmute the condition of the Negro to the slav and the Russian in Europe. The slavs and the Russians had a long history and had a history of nobility.

Hitler had something like this in mind. He believed the Slavs were an inferior race and that racial conflict with them in Eastern Europe would reinforce German racial consciousness. He believed Russia had once been controlled by a Germanic nobility that had been decimated by the Bolshevisks.

Hitler himself thought that the more “Aryan” Slavs and Russians ought to be “Germanised”. The condition of the Negro in America was completely different. He was a conquered savage brought to America in chains. His origin in slavery left a permanent stigma on his entire race - as a result of which even after the abolition of slavery, the stigma remained. Jews hadn’t been slaves since the time of Moses. That is an entirely different matter.

I believe that was my original point: the Third Reich was less extreme than the Antebellum and Jim Crow South. There was no possibility that the Negro could ever be seen being as good as a white man. His very humanity was in question. The contrast between a “n*****” and a “white man” in the American South took on a connotation that was far wider than anything that ever existed in Europe under the Nazis. This went on for centuries. It cut to the core of Southern culture in the minstrel show where the most popular form of entertainment revolved around degrading and humiliating blacks as an inferior race. The Negro as Sambo:

“Sambo, the typical plantation slave, was docile but irresponsible, loyal but lazy, humble but chronically given to lying and stealing; his behavior was full of infantile silliness and his talk was inflated with childish exaggeration. His relationship with his master was one of utter dependence and childlike attachment: it was indeed this childlike quality that was the very key to his being.”

Stanley Elkins, Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life (Chicago, 1959), p.82

Posted by Rnl on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 07:36 | #

Tocqueville:

The Spaniards pursued the Indians with bloodhounds, like wild beasts; they sacked the New World like a city taken by storm, with no discernment or compassion ... The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame ...

The vast majority of Indian deaths in Latin America occurred as the result of European diseases, not a planned extermination or anything resembling it. Alexis de Tocqueville can be forgiven for not knowing that, but his black-legend rhetoric shouldn’t be taken seriously. If every Conquistador had been a Mother Teresa, the number of dead Indians would have been much the same.

For a large portion of the indigenous peoples of Mexico, perhaps the majority, Cortez was a liberator. The Spanish alliance with the Tlascalans, without which the Conquest might not have occurred, saved them from extermination at the hands of the Aztecs.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 08:00 | #

Daedalus,

It has been a pleasure debating you. I do suggest that you read that chapter I linked to.

The fundamental point that I wanted to make, I think, was that Southerners would not have slaughtered the black population even if they could. The very fact that one has to create “castes” is an admission of the fact that the people consigned to the lowest caste are also human. If they weren’t human, caste formation would not be necessary.

You mention that the South was the least religious part of the country. But we are now talking relative to the rest of the country in the 18th and 19th century! Given the degree of religiousity in that era, even the least religious parts of the country would be very deeply religious by today’s standards. To illustrate this point, George Bernard Shaw couldn’t teach in the City University of New York in the 1940s beause he questioned the existence of God!

The truly grave mistake was not slavery or segregation.

No people have succeeded in enslaving another people forever. All slave owning comes to an end eventually. In antiquity this presented fewer problems because the slaves once freed could breed with their former masters because they were of the same race. African slavery was a different thing. This is what I was driving at.

One can of course speculate as to what might have happened if the Southern states hadn’t joined the Union. They might have then been reconquered by Britain (I am thinking now of the War of 1812). Reconquest by Britain would have brought those states back to square one (the British were even more committed to the abolition of slavery than the Yanks).

Neither slavery or segregation presented much of a problem for the Southern conscience.

Segregation is easier to justify than slavery. Segregation was also practised by the North (as Tocqueville notes, even more vehemently than the South - it just wasn’t done with legal sanction but with the powerful force of public opinion).

I believe that was my original point: the Third Reich was less extreme than the Antebellum and Jim Crow South.

I think the only way I can convince you is by asking you to consider what the Nazis would have done to the American Negro had they been in charge instead of white Southerners.

Posted by Rnl on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:30 | #

Phil Peterson wrote:

I think the only way I can convince you is by asking you to consider what the Nazis would have done to the American Negro had they been in charge instead of white Southerners.

The question is easy to answer: They would have repatriated Blacks to Africa. We can be certain of that, because we know that deportation was NS Germany’s preferred solution to the Jewish Problem.

Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:46 | #

Southerners were not in charge. We didn’t control the federal government. Jim Crow evolved within the context of a union where the boundries of legally permissible action towards Negro was set by Yankees. They emancipated the slaves and gave them citizenship during Reconstruction. In order to get around the Reconstruction amendments, we had to use ostensibly race neutral means like literacy tests to disenfranchise blacks. Slaughtering blacks was out of the question. That would have instantly invited renewed federal intervention and military occupation.

Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:29 | #

It has been a pleasure debating you. I do suggest that you read that chapter I linked to.

Will do. And thanks. I am also enjoying our conversation.

The fundamental point that I wanted to make, I think, was that Southerners would not have slaughtered the black population even if they could.

Probably not. There is nothing honorable about killing defenseless people. Then again, the Germans would have treated the Jews differently had it not been for the circumstances of the war.

The very fact that one has to create “castes” is an admission of the fact that the people consigned to the lowest caste are also human. If they weren’t human, caste formation would not be necessary.

I’m not seeing what you are getting at here. Southerners didn’t abolish slavery or segregation out of qualms about the humanity of the Negro or because either conflicted with their conscience as Christians. In both cases, slavery and segregation were abolished by the federal government (controlled by the North) in the teeth of bitter Southern resistance.

You mention that the South was the least religious part of the country. But we are now talking relative to the rest of the country in the 18th and 19th century! Given the degree of religiousity in that era, even the least religious parts of the country would be very deeply religious by today’s standards. To illustrate this point, George Bernard Shaw couldn’t teach in the City University of New York in the 1940s beause he questioned the existence of God!

If I recall correctly, the South is more religious today than it ever has been before. During the Colonial Era, little in the way of effort was made to convert slaves to Christianity. Religious services were attended infrequently. The planters of the Antebellum South were infamous for their frivilous lifestyle: chasing women, gambling, watching horse races, playing cards, drinking, hunting for sport. They were not austere Puritans like the abolitonists. Evangelical Christianity wasn’t a force in Southern politics like it is in our own times. The First and Second Great Awakenings swept over New England and the burnt over district, but left the South relatively unaffected.

No people have succeeded in enslaving another people forever. All slave owning comes to an end eventually. In antiquity this presented fewer problems because the slaves once freed could breed with their former masters because they were of the same race. African slavery was a different thing. This is what I was driving at.

Slavery was abolished at gunpoint in the South by the victorious North after the Civil War. As I said before, the real threat to Southern whites has never been the Negro, but our status as a minority within a Union controlled by Northerners who periodically run roughshod over the Constitution. It happened again a century later over segregation.

One can of course speculate as to what might have happened if the Southern states hadn’t joined the Union. They might have then been reconquered by Britain (I am thinking now of the War of 1812). Reconquest by Britain would have brought those states back to square one (the British were even more committed to the abolition of slavery than the Yanks).

There would be no Fourteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. There would be no Voting Rights Act. There would be no Immigration Act of 1965 or 1990. There would be no Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia or affirmative action. We never supported any of this. As for Britain, the Revolution was won in the South. The British, on the other side of the Atlantic, were far less of a menace to our way of life than the white liberals of the North.

Segregation is easier to justify than slavery. Segregation was also practised by the North (as Tocqueville notes, even more vehemently than the South - it just wasn’t done with legal sanction but with the powerful force of public opinion).

Tocqueville was right. There was something like Jim Crow in the North during the early twentieth century, at least in the Midwest. This state of affairs changed during the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Segregation and racial discrimination was outlawed in most Northern states. The North was fully integrated long before the rest of the country. The state laws dealing with race relations in the North can be found here.

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm

I think the only way I can convince you is by asking you to consider what the Nazis would have done to the American Negro had they been in charge instead of white Southerners.

The Nazis couldn’t have done anything had they been in our place because they would have also lacked the power to do so. It’s like suggesting the Nazis could have dealt with the Jewish problem in the manner that they ultimately did had they been in charge of only Bavaria.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:29 | #

“Southerners were not in charge.” (—Daedalus)

Had Southerners “been in charge” of their own sectional affairs after losing the war they’d have humanely repatriated the former slaves to Liberia or a Liberia-like set-up in Africa.

Had they won the war, or had there been no war, they’d have gradually phased slavery out over the next thirty-to-forty years or so, repatriating the Negroes to somewhere in Africa or, as Daedalus has discussed, selling them to slave holders outside their territory, thus avoiding burdening the next generation with the the problem of how to deal with free Negroes who couldn’t be integrated into white society. Abraham Lincoln indicated at one point his desire to do the same by removing free Negroes to Africa but I don’t know if he was of the same mind toward the end of the war. What he’d have done had he lived we’ll never know, of course, politics being largely unpredictable even from one month to the next.

Daedalus’ last sentence implying the reason slaughtering blacks was out of the question was it would’ve invited renewed federal intervention doesn’t sound like something he meant to imply — he may wish to rephrase that. We can be confident slaughtering people wasn’t something anyone in the defeated South had any desire to do.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments