|Starting with first principles and the scientific method|
|America First Books|
|Featuring ebooks that help find a truer path in uncertain times|
After making an accurate diagnosis, our task is then
to identify strategies for ourselves and the people we can influence
or join forces with in our local communities. Hopefully we can learn
how to lead more sane, healthy, prosperous, productive, and effective
lives while similtaneously increasing our defenses against misfortune.
Our Next Step:
Now we have to deal with another major stumbling block. We have
to examine how we interpret the past. This is very important, because
people usually make policy recommendations for the future based
upon the use of some kind of interpretation of past events. Dr.
Ralph Raico, in his Mises Institute lecture, emphasized this point
when he alluded to Winston Smith's job in the Ministry of Truth
in George Orville's novel 1984. Smith
scanned old newspapers for content that did not seem to fit Big
Brother's current policies and threw them down the memory hole.
"He who controls the past controls the present, and he who
controls the present controls the future."
a) Environmental top down (also
known as authoritarian modern liberalism, liberal fascism, and "neo-Jacobinism,"
all of which describes what America has become today)
Link to the following discussions regarding how each of these perspectives produces a unique interpretation of American historical trends:
a) Environmental top down (liberal
or neo-Jacobin fascism, what America has today)
Genetic Bottom Up Perspective
As a line of intellectual analysis, the "bottom up" racial nationalist viewpoint shares all of the same general genetic-related concerns of the "genetic top down" folks. However, like the anarcho-libertarians they fear that centralized political, economic, and even religious systems can easily become perverted, abused, or prove otherwise prove inadequate. They look to assert their genetic interests first and foremost on a grass roots level. This includes strengthening the ethnic, cultural, and religious institutions that directly support these interests. It also involves maintaining strong local government and representative institutions. Whereas anarcho-libertarians are focused upon avoiding the erosion of their individual liberties, libertarian racial nationalists want all of that plus something more. They are also focused upon a broader concept called popular soverignty, which deals with the ability of a people on a grass roots level to retain enough levers of power to determine their own destiny by bolstering their will for individual liberty with local community elements of cohesion, self-sufficiency, and self-governance.
Local tribalism is not necessarily a bad thing, although even that can be carried to extremes, as pointed out by John Utley in "Tribes, Veils, and Democracy."
The basic premise is very simple: we live in a predatory world,
and in order for people to defend their basic interests, they need
to not only be able to negotiate on their own behalf as individuals,
but also on a local group level. It is not enough to be bound by
abstract libertarian principles, since in the final analysis groups
get their way not only because of what they believe in, but what
they are willing to fight and risk their lives for. Therefore, we
usually need to include shared ethnic, racial, and cultural factors
into the group defensive equation to arouse enough fighting spirit
for a group to effectively defend its interests against other groups.
19th century classical liberals were explicitly pro-white racialists. They sought to limit the power of government, while strengthening local racial, ethnic, economic, and political institutions. They promoted meritocracy in the place of special privilege. They favored an internal focus on the peaceful development of science, industry, entrepreneurship, and the accumulation of private property in the place of war and imperialism, which they generally viewed as potentially highly destructive of liberty and property rights.
The history of the Nordic and closely related Celtic peoples is
very rich in this area, going all the way back to ancient Greece
and Rome and even prehistoric times. Some obvious starting points
include looking at the history of grass roots political independence
and insurrectionary movements, the history of religious separatism,
and the history of grass roots radicalism in the English Common
Quite often innocent bystanders who observe this abuse may become
too scared to come to the aid of the oppressed individual, for fear
that they could become singled out next. People can be intimated
in hundreds of subtle ways that leave few fingerprints, ranging
from losing their jobs or getting harassed by tax agents.
This point should be common sense to most people, yet surprisingly in recent decades we have seen certain writers with the John Birch society and other rightist groups in America condemn racism and ethnocentrism as a form of Marxist "collectivism," and furthermore insist that ethno-racialism is "divisive" in a multi-racial, multi-cultural society, and hence plays into the hands of our enemies who seek to "divide and conquor" us.
There are profound differences in the meanings of words such as "being divided" and "being conquored" on the one hand and "acheiving independence" and "asserting popular soverignty" on the other hand. This merits some extended explanation.
In the first case of "divide and conquor," our enemies have the initiative and decide how they want to divide us and what they want us to have left after they have conquored us. They may decide to divide us along class, occupational, sexual preference, or gender lines, but you can rest assured they will try to forcefully integrate us along racial and ethnic lines to wipe out the most potent, time-proven source of strength that we have.
In terms of being conquored, our enemies may make a few concessions
so that our chains do not become too uncomfortable. For example,
they may allow us to unite with some multi-racial rabble in a Marxist
labor union. They may also allow us to successfully fight campaigns
to achieve a dollar increase on middling wages. But do not hold
your breath, expecting that they will let either us or our kinsmen
get our hands on any of the real levers of power. They do not want
to see us develop a coherent ethno-racial religious mass movement
similar to the Polish union Solidarity in the 1980's that helped
bring down first the Polish government and then the Soviet Union.
They definitely do not want you to get our hands on any major national
media. Nor do they want us anywhere near their central bank operations.
Good luck fighting it out with their policemen in the cities or
their soldiers in the field.
Bottom line: America has elites in places like Washington D.C. and New York City who have cleverly acquired outrageous wealth and special privileges by taking more from Americans than they have given back. Much of this has been done through the use of bullying as well as theft by deception. They are scared of being found out and have a tiger by the tail.
Asking the right questions:
As we look at the libertarian racial nationalist line of analysis, which focuses upon grass roots sovereignty in a perpetual tug of war against the forces of statism (authoritarian nationalism), ideological imperialism (Jacobinism and Marxism being too prime examples), and parasitic economic exploitation and consolidation (plutocracy and other forms of monopolistic, anti-chivalrous, criminally-oriented capitalism; for example see Populism vs. Plutocracy by Willis Carto for excellent background on this topic as well as profiles of American libertarian racial nationalist leaders), a number of key questions come to mind. First, what are the raw elements that give rise to "spontaneous order" (a Hayekian libertarian term) on a grass roots level and provide the sinews in the muscle of popular sovereignty? Secondly, how do we distinguish the real substance of popular soverignty from all the smoke and mirrors games that create false appearances and assurances of sovereignty? And lastly, what are the latent viruses that can spring forth when we let out guard down and highjack or destroy our popular soverignty?
As I mentioned in my "Reconciling Opposing Ideologies Section," early American history provides one of the best case study laboratories in world history regarding grass roots soverignty issues. I mentioned how when de Tocqueville visited America in the 1840's, he observed that Americans handled almost everything on a community level and had almost no government by European standards, with ten times fewer bureaucrats per capita compared to France.
In his economic histories of early America, Dr. Murray Rothbard underscores this theme by showing how American pioneers were perfectly capable of spontaneously creating their own properous free market economic systems without any central government regulation and direction whatsoever. However, one point that the anarcho-libertarians underemphasize is the importance of initiative, self-discipline, and competence combined with natural forms of racial, ethnic, and cultural coherence on a local community level to make a laissez faire political and economic order really viable. As one reads American Values Decline, which documents the sorry breakdown in values in various areas of contemporary America, the disturbing thought keeps creeping up "This dog don't hunt no more!" even on a libertarian level.
The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, & the Triumphs of Anglo-America by Kevin Phillips traces the critical ethno-racial-religious bonds involved in the English Civil War, American War of Independence, and the War Between the States. Many historical episodes described by Phillips illustrate the importance of homogeneous racial, ethnic, and religious ties in defense of individual liberty as well as creating the foundation for local community economic prosperity.
Before we can understand early American history, we have to rewind the tape back to at least the English Civil War of the 1640-1650 era. The Parliamentarian cause during the English Civil War had its hard core support in the heavily Puritan areas of eastern England. This was the blondest, most Nordic/Anglo-Saxon Protestant area of the British Isles. It was also very solidly middle class and hence very grass roots and yeomanry in its values and sensibilities. The area was also very entrepreneurial, experiencing a thriving sea trade with the Netherlands and other European countries.
Religion also played a key role. Cromwell's New Model Army went into battle singing psalms in what became the bloodiest war (on a per capita basis) in English history. In addition, Cromwell instituted grass roots meritocratic promotion in his citizen-soldier army that added greatly to its effectiveness.
Whereas before the English Civil War the Royal Navy had become
weak, for example in the English Channel "Algerian pirates,
guided by English renegades, captured 466 English merchant vessels
between 1609 and 1616" (page 22), after Cromwell and his Puritans
took over, all forms of piracy were quickly eradicated in the English
Channel. In fact, both the British Navy and Army went on the offensive
became nearly invincible throughout Europe and other parts of the
One can argue that the American War of Independence started out as a continuation of the English Civil War. According to Phillips, pages 106-107:
Adding to the tension, Americans by North Bridge saw smoke rise over the tree tops from where British where burning supplies in Concord. Many Americans thought the British had set the whole town on fire.
After the British discharged a volley, an American commander turned to his faltering Minute Men and yelled "For God's sake, fire!" Another American commander echoed "In the name of God, fire!!!"
My educated guess is that these exhortations were Puritan codespeak
for "These soldiers of King George III are unspeakably evil
forces of tyranny no different than the royalist forces of Charles
I. Our fight for our rights is now every bit as holy and righteous
as that of our ancestors who served with Cromwell. English Civil
War II has now begun!!!"
Incidentally, there was also an interesting Nietzschean/Darwinian
angle that has also been overlooked by many leftist historians.
According to Theodore Roosevelt in The Winning of the
West, six months before Lexington and Concord, about
a eleven hundred American frontiersmen fought against a somewhat
smaller force of Indians in the wilderness near the Ohio River.
The ultimate aim of the Indians was to clear all Americans out of
the Ohio Valley area and keep Americans east of the Appalachians.
An Indian victory may have cemented
an alliance with the British, who had discouraged western settlement
by Americans beyond the Appalachians. The Battle of the Great Kanawha
(also known as the Battle
of Pleasant Point) ended up being a chaotic soldier's battle
without much command and control and with a considerable amount
of hand-to-hand combat with musket butts, hatchets, and knives.
Although Americans took twice as many casualites (by Roosevelt's
account), the Indians eventually retreated, sued for peace, and
surrendered much of their territory. Major portions of Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Ohio now lay open for settlement. According to Teddy
Roosevelt, Americans viewed this as a great victory and news spread
throughout the colonies. Americans had succeeded where Braddock's
grenadiers and Grant's Highlanders had failed during the French
and Indian War. This was no doubt a gigantic shot in the arm for
the fighting spirit of frontiersmen who hungered for territorial
gain and who also viewed British soldiers as relatively effete.
Some sources call this the real first battle of the Revolution,
since it was recognized as such by a 1906 Act of Congress.
From a libertarain racial nationalist perspective, when certain Kentuckians successfully petitioned to separate from Virginia and then dragged their feet about joining the Union in 1792, when frontiersmen created the autonomous, secessionist State of Franklin in eastern Tennessee in 1784; when Virginia and Kentucky threatened nullification in 1798 of the Alien and Sedition Acts, when President Jefferson envisioned a parallel "Republic of the Pacific" in the Northwest, when New England seriously entertained secession at the Hartford Convention of 1814, when South Carolina successfully challenged Federal tarriff legislation in 1832; when certain Texans in their Lone Star Republic dragged their feet about joining the Union, when Mormons grabbed their guns to oppose Federal invasion during the 1840's during the abortive Mormon War, and when Calfornians rejected the Lincoln's greenbacks dollars to keep their purely gold-based money in the 1860's --the examples go on, but suffice to say that all of these sorts of things were wonderful historical moments, if nothing else to demonstrate magnificent grass roots spirit to assert self-determination.
Perhaps fifty years from now history books will be re-written with
the attitude that the only sad part to all this history is that
nobody actually went all the way to create permanent separate countries
with their own currencies and own border policy. After all, if Thomas
Chittum is correct in Civil War II: The Coming Breakup
of America that America will inevitably fracture,
and furthermore if Hans Herman-Hoppe is corect in Democracy:
The God That Failed that smaller countries tend to
produce more liberty and prosperity, then why was it necessary for
America to take a one hundred and fifty year detour through an imperial
cycle to ultimately get there, to include disastrous experiments
with global imperialism, spendthrift invasive big government, and
forced racial integration and open borders?
Real vs de facto forms of soverienty
Like so many things, "soverignty" can be measured in degrees along a spectrum.
At one extreme, one finds "postage stamp" countries in
places like Africa, the Carribean, and central America that have
all of the superficial symbols of soverignty, but none of the real
substance. They have their own borders, flag, national anthem, currency
notes, military, government offices, post offices and --oh yes--those
beautiful colorful stamps. However, looking behind the scenes, we
usually find on a social and economic level that the people are
relatively inefficient and disorganized by First World standards.
We also discover that things tend to be controlled economically
by mulitnational mining, agricultural, or other types of companies
whose top officers are typically First World citizens . If push
comes to shove, all it usually takes is a regimental landing team
of U.S. Marines to brutally clarify the real world irrelevance of
all the superficial symbols of national soverignty.
De facto republican virtue vs. de facto "enemy aliens."
As mentioned earlier, an important bedrock of populare soverignty is the practice of republican virtue on an individual level.
Just as we have real and phony forms of popular soverignty, we have real and phony forms of "citizenship" as well. If we examine the fundamental ingredients of libertarian racial nationalism and republican virtue, and then look at the exact opposite behavior, we in essence wind up with a checklist for enemy alien activity.
I think it is an interesting intellectual exercise to first create a checklist of "enemy alien" behavior, then look at the behavior of the neocons around Bush, the people who control national media, and ask yourself how many would qualify. Perhaps many of them are more "enemy alien" than the 140,000 Japanese Americans who were put in concentration camps by FDR during World War II.
In his book Rascals in Paradise, James Michener talks about how the black birders (slavers) of the 19th century Pacific would target Polynesians who had been Christianized first to try to use for slave labor before they would ever consider stalking pagans, because the indigenous religionists usually always put up greater resistance and were harder to program into servility. The implications in terms of grass roots racial nationalism should be obvious.
Incidentally, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans
by Dr. Hans Gunther discusses the noble philsophical structure that
got trampled upon by Christian aggressors, and Which
Way Western Man? by William Gayley Simpson examines
the flaws of Christian universalism and mysticism from the perspective
of a former American Christian minister and co-founder of the ACLU
who later turned into an unabashed Nietszchean.
What is really fascinating about this question is how, once we start looking for "at risk" Federal behavior, we keep going further and further back in American history to get at the roots.
We must go back futher than the elite Jewish interests who helped created the Federal Reserve in 1913, who surrounded Woodrow Wilson, and dragged America into World War I, although this turned a horrible trend into a terminal trend.
We must also go back further than the King Lincoln dictatorship that brutally crushed states' rights during the War of Southern Independence, although this certainly turned a bad but reversible trend into a horrible trend.
It turns out that our backward searching investigative time machine does not stop until we come to an abrupt, crashing halt right at time zero, the very moment when the Constitution itself was being drafted in 1787. It also turns out that all our concerns were well known by a group of people called anti-Federalists at the time, some of whom were amazing accurate in predicting what would happen if their concerns were not heeded.
The anti-Federalists included Patrick Henry and George Mason. Many historians also include Thomas Jefferson in this group as well. Unfortunately he was overseas in France as America's ambassador during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. While the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in blocking the new Constitution, they were successful in demanding the Bill of Rights.
According to Dr. Murray Rothbard, most Americans have been seriously misled by establishment historians about the true nature Articles of Confederation. This was the original constitution of the United States of America from 1775 until the Constitutional Convention in 1787
Many Americans today are not even aware that under the Articles of Confederation, America had ten Presidents of the United States who served a one year term each. America's first President of the United States was in fact Samuel Huntington, who served from 177_ to 17_ under the Articles of Confederation. America's first president was not George Washintong, who served two four year terms under the U.S. Constitutin of 1787 from 1788 to 1796.
Dr. Rothbard claimed that the anti-Federalists were right about the Articles of Confederation, namely that there was nothing so broke about the Articles that they needed to be fixed. The Articles had held up well under periods of extreme stress. America had successfully fought the greatest empire on earth. It had endured the hyperinflation of the Continental currency to pay for a substantial portion of the war. Then in the early 1780's, America experienced a sharp recession. However, America had pulled through it and was on the economic mend at the time of the Constitutional convention.
Dr. Rothbard claimed that the Federalists unfairly blamed the recession
on the Articles of Confederation, when in fact the recession was
the inevitable correction of economic distortions caused by inflationary
policies used to finance the war. This natural bust following an
artificial boom would have taken place under any system.
Dr. Rothbard claimed that the Federalists had a more sinister hidden agenda, namely to pattern the U.S. Government off the more centralized British government that Americans had just ejected. They wanted a central bank that would keep America in perpetual debt to provide steady business for the financial elite. They also wanted a strong central governemnt that could engage in steady spending and have the power to strong arm the people and the states to collect on the debt. The main instigators behind this scheme were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
Dr. Rothbard referred to Alexander Hamilton in his lectures as
"the Mephistophelean Character of the American Revolution."
Noah Webster, a contemporary nationalist, called him an "evil
genius." Hamilton's advocacy of a President for life, a
central bank, a standing professional army, and other authoritarian
measures hit a lot of libertarians nerves in his day as well as
According to Dr. Rothbard, the American Revolution was fundamentally a libertarian revolution. Most Americans were happy with the greater decentralization granted under the Articles of Confederation. Knowing this, the Federalists used some dirty tricks to organize their Constitutional convention. Among other things, they used their control of post offices to hold up correspondence between anti-Federalists to delay their ability to organize opposition. They also misrepresented their convention as an effort to amend the Articles of Confederation rather than replace it, and kept the proceedings secret. Last, but not least, they used "anti-Federalists" as a propagandistic label for their opposition. The anti-Federalists were in reality the true federalists, because they wanted to keep a genuine balance of power between the states and a weak central government. In actuality, the so-called "Federalists" such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were in fact authoritarian statists, if not crypto fascists.
There is an excellent book titled The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and Applications by Thomas James Norton that analyzes the 1787 Constitution line by line, and compares many lines with provisions in the Articles of Confederation. However, before we get to that level of minutae, I think that it is important to stand back and ask a very simple philosophical question.
The simple question goes as follows. Which would be better in the long run, to have North America divided into two large countries such as the United States and Canada as it is today, or to have North America divided into sixty or more countries? If you agree with Hans Herman-Hoppe that being divided into sixty or more countries would have been better in the long run, or if you agree with Thomas Chittum's Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America that fragmentation in this direction is now inevitable, then the greater degree of decentralization in the Articles of Confederation was a good thing.
One might also consider the genetic viewpoint, namely that people
of shared race, ethnicity, language, and culture tend to want to
naturally cooperate in shared emergencies and engage in free trade
with each other even if they live across national borders, so why
"force it" with an authoritarian government? Their shared
genetics will tend to band them together anyway when the time comes
without the need for coercive, centrist state structures that might
turn into tyranny.
Patrick Henry boycotted the Constitutional convention, claiming "I smelt a rat in Philadelphia." His speech "A Wrong Step Now and the Republic Will Be Lost Forever" came close to persuading the Virginia legislature not to ratify the Constitution. In his speech he claimed that there was nothing so wrong going on in America that the country required the new agreement. The following are extracts where he condemned the Constitution point blank:
Yes indeed, where is a Congress that can stand up to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that recently gave us the Larry Franklin spy scandal, or restrain King George Bush if he wants to invade one or two or ten or fifty more countries on bogus WMD charges like his invasion of Iraq? Actually the problems with the Constitution became manifest long before today's woes. According to one Mises Institute lecturer, Patrick Henry predicted that if the Constitution was ratified, Viginina would be invaded by Northerners within sixty years. He was off by ten years.
Many libertarians believe that when the states gave up their rights to exclusivly control their own currencies, control their own militaries, control their own borders, and make seperate foreign agreements, they were no longer effectively real states any more. They had been reduced to mere provinces. The "U.S. Constitution" is actually a dishonest title. It should really read "The United Provinces Constitution" of the "United Provinces of America."
Ironically, back in the 1750's and 1760's, many colonies such as Pennsylvnia and Massachusetts had effectively acted like states. After the Constitution of 1787, these "states" had effectively been reduced back to colonies again --of the Federal Government.
In his book The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans, William Everdell observes that during the colonial era Americans had some of the best and most efficient governments they ever experienced in their history. Each colony, which later called itself a state, had run itself perfectly well for nearly a hundred years prior to the American Revolution, and showed every indication of being able to continue to run themselves for another hundred or two hundred years even without the existence of a helping hand from the British Monarchy and Parliament or a U.S. Government. Everdell points out that the colonial legislatures frequently had limited terms, and there was a higher percentage of successful business people and other community leaders relative to the population who directly participated in the legislative process than at any other time in American history. Since participation and voting was restricted to land-owning white males, the quality of government was significantly more serious, honest, responsible, business-like, and efficient compared to what we have today.
In addition, each of the states was hardly bereft of talent to provide their own political guidence; in fact many Founding Fathers were instrumental in creating Constitutions for their own states long before the U.S. Constitution was created. By the end of the War for Independence, John Adams had already created a Constitution for Massachusetts, Thomas Jefferson helped create a Constitution for Virginia, and Benjamin Franklin had a hand in creating a Constitution for Pennsylvania.
In my discussion of the merits of decentralization in my "Reconciling
Opposing Ideologies" section I explain why breaking a country
apart into lots of little countries does not necessarily lead to
more wars and more killing in the long run. I mention historical
examples where fragmentation has resulted in long periods of relative
peace. I also mention Dr. Hans Hermann Hoppe's argument that smaller
countries are better at providing liberty and prosperity, as well
as Dr. Ralph Raico's argument that more countries increase opportunties
for what he calls the invaluable "right of exit," which
in turn provide a very powerful deterrant to tyranny. Last, but
not least, I have discussed Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's argument that
free enterprise methods that involved collecting tolls to build
roads were vastly more effective in the 19th century than government-subsidized
public works operations. Throughout most of the 19th century there
was no income tax, and governments raised their revenues from relatively
modest tarrifs as well as proceeds from land sales.
There are two other really critical issues involving perversion of popular soverignty concepts in American history that need to be addressed from a libertarian racial nationalist perspective.
The first issue involves the failure of states to make a more strenuous
effort to racially and ethnically define themselves. After all,
if Israel can define itself as a Jewish state, why cannot an American
state define itself as being Nordic, Celtic, some Nordic-Celtic
combo, some Nordic-Celtic-Alpine-Mediterranean combo, generalized
white, or whatever? While Benjamin Franklin made an effort to exclude
Jews in the Constitution, as noted in the Franklin prophecy, and
the immigration act of 1792 specifically limited immigration to
Northern Europeans, many rightists felt that next go around (after
the U.S. Government collapses in a hyperinflationary spiral, Mestizos
pull southern California out of the union, and the states are left
to go figure on their own) new constitutional language for whatever
emerges from the rubble is going to have to really be explicit to
try to avoid another 1965 Immigration Reform act fiasco.
However, many libertarians point out that the Western expansion, to include the Louisiana purchase, seduced Americans as well as the Federal Government with dreams of land empire. Teddy Roosevelt points out that while private settlers and frontiersmen acquired Tennessee and Kentucky, much of the territory north of the Ohio River was initially cleared of Indians by Federal troops. Then the Federal Government presented major portion of the Louisiana Purchase territories as another "gift" to American settlers.
These "gifts" of land and protection services later came
with Lincoln's political strings attached. Somehow all of this meant
the Federal government "created" these states. This in
turn supposedly created some kind of indivisible bond of obligation.
Somehow people were no longer allowed to rebel no matter how centralized
and tyrannical the government might become.
Other libertarian racial nationalist themes
Modern liberal historians have also thrown down the memory hole
a significant part of the abolitionist and organized labor movements
of the mid to late 1800's that explicitly defended white genetic
interests in addition to white working class interests, while rejecting
racial "equality." These people tended to view the slavery
issue as a part of a much larger racial issue that involved defending
white society against alien infiltrators into their living space,
while at the same time creating a climate of equal justice and equal
opportunity among fellow whites. The people who held these views
tended to be white middle class and working class people, and they
were very numerous in all areas of the country, to include the South
Conversely, in the South there existed quite a few anti-slavery
societies with their own unique agenda. Many Southern middle class
whites resented the way slaveholders could potentially infiltrate
their occupations and distort the economy. They wanted to simultaneously
free blacks and repatriate them to Africa, which has already been
done on a small scale when blacks were sent to Liberia.
Incidentally, as another interesting twist regarding organized labor, most Americans have this image in their minds that the old South African apartheid system was started by racist Afrikaners. According to the late Dr. Murray Rothbard, this is false. Believe it or not, it was originally started by whites in the South African Communist party who were concerned that blacks would take their jobs away from them.
This reinforces the notion that politics can make strange bedfellows, and sometimes the old labels of "left" and "right" become way too simplistic. Later the character of the South African communist party changed dramatically when Jews stepped in and asserted an anti-white, multi-racial agenda. In more recent times, Jewish communist Joe Slovo served as the brains and chief organizer of the South African communist party that provided a critical platform for Nelson Mandela. The Jewish financier Harry Oppenheimer, whose financial interests (informally dubbed "the Octopus") have controlled much of the South African economy, provided support for these Marxists, demonstrating once again the superficiality of the old "left" and "right" political labels. Many U.S. Christian churches, as well as the U.S. Government with its boycott of South African goods, also ganged up on apartheid and white rule.
Too bad that under black rule South Africa today has become one
more black run disaster, with a disintregrating economy and rising
lawlessness. Egalitarian racial theories stand discredited once
We also learn from this web site that the usual Nordic, Celtic, and other white suspects have been involved in the practice of Grand Juries since ancient times:
Quite a lot has been been written about the continuing perversion
and corruption of our legal justice system in multi-racial, multi-cultural,
blank check pro-Zionist America away from the chivalrous, liberatarian,
equitable, and fact-based, rationalistic spirit of the traditional
Anglo-Saxon system. One good source of insights are the articles
archives of pro-white activist lawyer Edgar Steele at www.conspiracypenpal.com,
whose book Defensive Racism discusses
legal issues from the perspective of protecting white genetic interests.
I have also enjoyed listening to the lecture series on the tragic
and twisted tax law history of America by Charles Adams archived
No one in history has ever operated a sustainable conservative movement that ignored explicit defense of their own genetic interests. This may sound rude and crude and shocking to certain political correctness-brainwashed folks, but that is just the way it is. And, no John Birch, this is not "collectivism." It is, however, an iron law of nature.
We must also always mend our fences on the grass roots level regarding all the ethic, racial, cultural, and religious raw sinews of nationalism. This includes finding ways to help provide mutual economic support for like-minded people (what I call "personal economic nationalism.")
Lastly, if some higher level of government gets highjacked by hostile interests and starts working against us, we have to work that much harder to recreate a "nation within a nation" on a local level that supports our interests.
On the other hand, even if we have a good government that is on
our side, we really need to keep mending our fences on a local level
anyway. This is no different than the way someone who wants to stay
healthy has to eat right and exercise every day whether or not he
is in good shape or is out of shape. It just makes good sense.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.