HISTORY
REINTERPRETED

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions,
they don't have to worry about the answers."
Thomas Pynchon

Overview

In "Critical Issues," we briefly looked at some important trends that are wrecking America today. I explained that I am not describing these issues simply to scare people or add to their worries, but rather to help them accurately diagnose the true nature of America's problems.

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.

In "Resolving Opposing Ideologies," we looked at ways to ideologically untangle confusion over the true nature of policy options.

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."

In this section I want to provide an overview regarding the way in which each perspective described in my "Resolving Opposing Ideologies" section helps us to start asking some of the right historical questions. These perspectives are summarized again as follows:

a) Environmental top down (also known as authoritarian modern liberalism, liberal fascism, and "neo-Jacobinism," all of which describes what America has become today)
b) Environmental bottom up (also known as contemporary anarcho-libertarianism, this is a "sanitized," non-racialist, non-ethnic version of the American Old Right)
c) Genetic top down (also known as authoritarian racial nationalism, this includes German national socialism and Zionism.)
d) Genetic bottom up (I call this libertarian racial nationalism. This is also known as 19th century classical liberalism, the American Old Right, and Paleo-Conservatism)
e) Mutualism vs. Parasitism (Productive practices vs. criminality. The latter include political corruption, organized crime, and subversion).

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)
b) Environmental bottom up (anarcho-libertarianism)
c) Genetic top down (authoritarian racial nationalism)
d) Genetic bottom up (libertarian racial nationalism, America's founding ideology)
e) Mutualism vs. Parasitism (Productivity vs. criminality --are criminals winning in America 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.

The history of America is about how whites originally arrived with very little genetic and cultural distance. Originally this was not such a bad thing. However, somewhere in the mid to late 1800's the genetic and cultural distance increased beyond the point of no return, so that the politics of shared physical anthropology shifted over to the politics of greed, envy, and viciously dishonest liberal minority coalition politics.


I would refer the reader to the background that I have already provided regarding this perspective in my "Resolving Opposing Ideologies" section. This was the core perspective of leading classical liberal intellectual and political leaders in 19th century Europe and America. I would include Thomas Jefferson, Henry C. Calhoun, Lord Acton, and British Prime Minister William Ewert Gladstone in this category.

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 Law.

It bears repeating a point I have made earlier, namely that when it comes to defending individual liberty against tyranny, as a practical matter it usually takes a lot more to establish justice than just an aggrieved individual filing a complaint or publishing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. The bad guys may have more financial resources and my file unfounded counter charges to drag out the legal process to harass and bankrupt the complainant (often referred to as "legal terrorism" and "malicious prosecution.") If unethical government officials are involved, they might arrest an individual and even confiscate his property based upon ridiculuous interpretations of the law.

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.

Anarcho-libertarianism is great in theory, but as a practical matter people usually require cohesive racial, ethnic, and religious networks combined with access to private wealth to make a sustainable and effective stand against tyranny. We can look at extreme historical examples such as Cromwellian Roundheads, American revolutionary soldiers, Scottish rebels, and early 20th century Irish Republican Army soldiers and imagine the level of popular and psychological support necessary to maintain their cause as they went hungry while campaigning in the field or watched their comrades get their heads blown off in battle.

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.

When people "achieve independence" and "assert historical soverignty," throughout history they tend to voluntarily group themselves by race, religion, and ethnicity first and foremost before any other category. Historically when they "assert popular soverignty" they usually exercise control over certain levers of power. This includes control of mass media, command of the military, the power to create money, and the ability to enforce borders and negotiate foreign treaties. These types of factors add up to "soverignty" or the capacity of a people to determine their own destiny. Consciousness of race, religion, and ethnicity are vital to give people the will to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to determine their own destiny.

Marxists tend to be rabid anti-racists and anti-nationalists, particularly the international Trotskyite version, so Marxist "collectivism" usually implies teaching people that it is right and proper to confiscate other people's property and redistribute it among people who can be easily mixed up by race and national origin. In contrast, racial nationalists tend to be very respectful of property rights. In fact, racial, ethnic,and heritage consciousness may comprise an intangible form property rights. Racial nationalists are more interested in defending these rights than attacking other people's property rights like the Marxists. Therefore racial nationalism is in many ways the exact opposite of Marxist collectivism.

Another nasty myth promulgated by certain phony patriots and irresponsible anarcho-libertarians is this notion that "nationalism" in general, and "racial nationalism" in particular, automatically means instituting stifling protectionism and high taxes. This may be true if we are talking about certain authoritarian, top down versions of racial nationalism, such as German National Socialism or Zionism. But then again, this also applies to environmental top down neo-Jacobin and Marxist regimes as well, with authoritarian big government serving as the common denominator in both cases. However, this is not true if we are talking about limited government in a libertarian racial nationalist environment. In fact, as a de facto "genetic bottom up" libertarian racial nationalist society in the early 1800's, led by men such as Thomas Jefferson and Henry C. Calhoun, America enjoyed exceptionally low taxes and protectionist tariff barriers by any historical standards.

Yet another myth promoted by phony patriots is this notion that religious conservatism must mean Christian Zionism. In my "environmenal vs. genetics" section, I discuss the concept of the natural religion that has been a small but significant aspect of the American radical right. Among whites, this relates to their indigenous Indo-European religion that has very little if nothing to do with Christianity, Jews, or the Middle East. I also talk about how some early Americans such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were Deists (if even that). Many Christian fundamentalists today do not even view Deists as Christians, much less having anything to do with Zionism. I personally think "religion" can include the capacity to feel inspired to make a great sacrifice for ones people based upon having a godlike perspective regarding their destiny. It can also include having a deep concern for the welfare and survival of ones people, even if one happens to be an atheist or agnostic on a purely theological level. Last but not least, a number of Christians on the right, such as Dr. David Duke, argue in books such as My Awakening and Jewish Supremacism that Christian Zionists are totally out to lunch even within the context of an intelligent interpretation of the Bible.

Last, but not least, libertarian racial nationalism helps us understand the theft of our language. Let us start with the very nature of the deceptions commonly used by our politicians. Deception itself is theft of the truth. Anti-racism is theft of racial identity and cohesion. Affirmative action is theft of meritocracy. Racial integration is the theft of the right of white self-determination. Political correctness is theft of freedom of speech. Anti-discrimination is the theft of the right to protect oneself against miscreants and alien intruders. "Equality" is the theft of the tools of grass roots economic nationalism that whites require to survive as a distinct people and determine their own destiny.

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 world.

Kevin Phillips describes how eastern England, to include eastern English place names, got grafted on to New England. Everything north of the formerly Dutch New Amsterdam (New York) was solidly Anglo-Saxon Puritan, so much so that anti-monarchist Cromwellian ideology never really died out in the colonies the way it did in England. Furthermore, it characterized the leadership strata that included the governor of Massachusetts and the founder of America's oldest university as well as the Salem Witch burners. According to Phillips (p. 32), half of Harvard graduates between 1640 to 1650 went back to England to fight with the Cromwellians.

I have also previously mentioned Dr. Ralph Raico's Mises Institute lecture, where he notes that blood ties and a sense of rootedness were very important in early America. From 1700 to the 1775, there was relatively little immigration, and the American population increased threefold from large families. In other words, having been in North America for at least three generations, Americans really felt that they lived on home turf. In addition, if a British soldier shot an American, it was likely that lots of kinsman around the colonies bled with him.

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:

As 700 British troops marched deeper into the Massachusetts countryside on that fateful day on April 19, 1775 to collect colonial munitions stores in Concord, what they probably thought they saw was a quirky rabble of hick farmers motivated at best to make a few peaceful public gestures of discontent over taxation policies. What they failed to see were long lines of flickering ghosts of Oliver's Cromwell's New Model Army, dressed with buckled hats and musketeer boots and holding pikes and blunderbusses, standing resolutely beside farmhouses, split rail fences, and churches.

Once the shooting started at Lexington, the Minutemen waged a perfunctory, fighting retreat. They fell back to Concord, where Minutemen continued to hesitate and retreat as Redcoats started to come across North Bridge. They certainly had good reason to continue hesitating and retreating, since they were still British subjects. Shooting a British soldier was legally considered every bit as criminal, murderous, and insurrectionary back then as shooting an FBI or ATF agent at a place like Waco, Texas or Ruby Ridge, Idaho woud be considered today.

National Park Service photo of North Bridge reconstruction

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!!!"

We do know that immediately after these exhortations, Ralph Waldo Emersons' "shot heard round the world" was fired. The Minutemen ferociously counterattacked and drove the Brits off the bridge. In fact, the Massachusetts countryside erupted into a hornet's nest. The British troops were driven all the way back into Boston in a running battle with 273 casualties. The insurrection very quickly became a War of Independence that passed a point of no return.

Mural depicting running battle back to Boston
Courtesy Minute Man National Historical Park web site

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.

In addition to looking at the elements of race, religion, ethnicity, long term historical memory, and other factors that aid grass roots cohesion in defense of liberty, we also need to examine how these factors have come together in various episodes in American history to express popular soverignty. This is an area where libertarian racial nationalists part philosophical company with Teddy Roosevelt's treatment of separatism in The Winning of the West. Although Roosevelt was a racialist, he was also a hardcore authoritarian nationalist. While President, he turned the office of the Presidency into a cult of personality and promoted imperialism, even to the extent of running roughshod over Congress in his foreign military interventions. In the Winning of the West, he is lukewarm to negative in his attitude toward Thomas Jefferson and his Kentucky Resolution of 1798 that threatened secession by Kentucky and Virginia over the Alien and Sedition Acts. He is generally hostile to the rich history of American political separatism on the frontier, always claiming that Unionism was the inevitable and only way to go.

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?

We need to return to the question regarding how we distinguish the appearances from the real stuff of effective popular soverignty.

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.

At the other extreme of the spectrum, we see the amazing historical case of elite Jewish interests in the late 1800's who had almost none of the external symbols of national soverignty, yet had already become so powerful in European central banking that they were widely acknowledged to be more powerful than many European monarchs. Even without any of the symbols, the Jews remained stronger than steel in terms of all the grass roots elements of soverignty that I have already discussed, namely racial and ethnic consciousness and cohesion, long historical memory, extensive kinship ties, religious identity, mutual economic support, and myriad other "below the radar" factors. We also see after World War II how these Jewish communities were able to quickly parlay this stealth power into all the tangible symbols of soveriegnty in the form of the Jewish state of Israel. Today these symbols even include hundreds of nuclear weapons in addition to massive conventional military forces.

A key problem for most Americans today is that the real substance of their popular soverignty is being continaully eroded and gutted out from under them with rising debt, loss of manufacturing infrastructure, government invasion of civil liberties, forced racial integration, and myriad other problems. Meanwhile, the national government continually pumps up the external, superficial appearances of soverignty through its spendthrift social programs and grandiose foreign military adventures.

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.

Some hard thinking about where our problems really began

There are two radical lines of analysis that I find really interesting. One is religious, and the other is poltical.

In regard to religion, in my "Resolving Opposing Ideologies" I discuss the natural religion concept. I also talk about Wilmot Robertson's discussion in The Dispossessed Majority regarding how the Protestant Reformation was essentially an effort to exercise grass roots religious popular soverignty on the part of mostly Nordic peoples in the face of religious centrism and absolutism elsewhere in Europe. Going a step further, we might consider how Celts may have lost something valuable when Roman invaders systemmatically killed off Druidic priests. Similarly, Nordic peoples lost something when Christian ideological imperialists savagely repressed their indigenous religion of Asatru. Unlike the Jews, Japanese, and other peoples who have been able to adapt and modernize their indigenous religions, the peoples of Northern Europe were wrongfully cheated out of their indigenous religous heritage when they were forced to submit to a universalistic Jewish-created religion.

I do not claim to know what the right approach is for a natural religion anymore than to Christianity, but I do tend to buy into the saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Therefore, the appropriate way to run a religious service involving a natural religion would probably be to do it exactly the same time-tested ways that services are performed in mainstream Christian churches that make people feel spiritual, decent, respectable, dignified, and otherwises comfortable. Just change a few of the symbols and a little bit of the content of the sermons and theology, but otherwise leave everything else exactly the same, to include the suits and ties.

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.

As another aside, it is interesting how many of the old heroic archetypes have ways of persisting in popular appeal. I think that jitterbug.com writer Kristen Brennan has provided a fascinating online analysis of the relationship between story elements of George Lucas' Star Wars and Tolkien's Ring Series and indigenous Indo-European mythology.

Radical political analysis

We need to ask what is so horribly wrong about our political system that enables the Federal government to keep growing like a cancer and allows it to keep robbing people of more soverignty at a local level. Put another way, what tools of soverignty did Americans unwisely give up at a local level that has unleashed the Federal Frankenstein?

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.

Apologists for the Federalists claim that they were frustrated because only New York and Pennsylvania had paid off their full proportion of the revolutionary war debt and financiers did not like foot-dragging with other states. They felt frustrated dealing with states that "might, maybe, sort of" deliver on their promises to provide funds and troops for wars. They craved a "jump-how-high?" relationship.

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 today.

Hamilton excites quite a lot of speculation among American rightists who believe that he was an ally of British central bankers. Among other things, Hamilton defended Jews in his public life, and grew up on the Carribbean Island of Nevis where there are some interesting circumstantial Jewish connections involved in his background. He went from having little means to acquiring wealth amazingly fast in New York City. In regard to possible English connections, rightists are quick to observe that Cromwell had let Jews back into England following the English Civil War. He had approached the Jews of Amsterdam to help finance the Parliamentary cause. As a Puritan, Cromwell viewed Jews as some kind of righteous "People of the Book" rather than as low cunning aliens. Once back inside England (they had been ejected by Edward I in 1290), Jews used their capital to switch political sides and intermarry with English aristocrats who had sided with Charles I against Cromwell and had fallen into financial ruin. They started to play an increasing role behind the scenes, to include setting up the Bank of England, which remains Britain's privately owned central bank. There is some interesting speculation that they helped warp British mercantilist policy in ways that incited American rebellion. Whether this is true or not, their incredible international financial manipulations through the Rothschilds and other elite Jewish families during the Napoleonic era are well documented and admitted by many Jewish sources.

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.

We might also make an analogy with Dr. Rothbard's lecture on union dynamics. It may be a wonderful thing for workers to exercise their right of assembly and to engage in collective bargaining, but in the long run the greatest factor that pushes up wages are not strikes, but the existence of lots of thriving, competing, prospering businesses in a free market that are creating well-paying jobs. Competition for talent pulls up wages more effectively than they are pushed up by strikes. Similarly, in the long run the best guarantee of liberty is not the willingness of a centralized government to honor its moral obligation to uphold the Bill of Rights, but the ease in which disgruntled citizens can leave to go to another countries that offer better terms. This is what Dr. Ralph Raico calls the "right of exit" in his lectures and what he feels encouraged relative liberty and prosperity amidst many European countries such as Germany, France, and Italy in the late Middle Ages which were divided into dozens of prinicipalities and smaller states. This was also one reason why ancient Greece was divided into many city states.. Americans would have more exit options to deter oppressive government if there were dozens of countries that spoke English with similar cultures and traditions competing with each other in North America than if all Americans are subservient to one centralized government.

Gary North discussed many of the dirty tricks used by Federalists in his article "The Most Successful Fraud in American History" and his free online ebook "Conspiracy in Philadelphia." He accuses James Madison of being the prime organizer of the fraud, and lists twelve counts. The following is his first fraud count:

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.

Therefore, when states had more soverignty rights under the Articles of Confederation, which included setting up checkpoints and collecting tolls and tarrifs along their borders with each other, that may have been a much better system all-considered than what we got in 1787. Today, with Federal income taxes, state income taxes (in copycat with Federal tax monopoly privileges), excise sales taxes, and other taxes --hidden and unhidden-- that climb over 40% of our earnings, we pay a pretty stiff price to keep the pedal to the metal on the Interstate going from one state to another. If it will save us from paying Federal and state income taxes, I will happily brake for Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Idaho, and all other states.

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.

The second issue involves the lack of clear language in the Constitution that favors secession. In my earlier discussion, I talk about how many corporations have successfully used "spin offs" as part of their business plan, and how the UK successfully used a de facto spin off policy with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The lack of a clearly defined secession program created room for the fiction advocated by Abraham Lincoln that the Federal governemnt created the states, rather than the other way around. He used this as a justification to invade the South.

In the peace treaty that ended the American War of Independence, the King of England recognized each state as a separate entity. Language of that era often referred to these united States rather than the United States. Obviously the states pre-existed the Federal government when they were joined by the Articles of Confederation, therefore the Federal government did not create them.

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.

One can easily see how a growing land empire, bought or conquored by an ever expanding Federal government, which increasingly adopted a posture of condescending obligation towards its citizens, created a climate destructive to limited republicanism and individual liberty. I think that one could also see how one of the best ways to try to halt this trend would be to organize some Western territories to show some real independence from the central government. One can only wonder if this was a primary motive of Aaron Burr, an anti-Federalist who had served as Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, when he got charged with treasonous conspiracy as he toured the West after he dueled and killed America's premiere central banking advocate Alexander Hamilton..

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 and West.

A perfect example regarding these types of "abolitionists" comes from the Autobiography of Buffalo Bill. In the late 1850's Buffalo Bill's father got on a soap box and said, "Gentlemen, I voted that it [Kansas] should be a white state --that negroes, whether free or slave, should never be allowed to locate within its limits; and, gentlemen, I say to you now, and I say it boldly, that I propose to exert all my power in making Kansas the same kind of state as Iowa. I believe in letting slavery remain as it now exists, and I shall always oppose its further extension. These are my sentiments, gentlemen, and let me tell you--"

At that point in the speech, a pro-slavery man (meaning he wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories) pulled out a knife and stabbed Buffalo Bill's father. Terribly wounded, his father fled pro-slavery partisans who tried to hunt him down. He later fought for the Union. Buffalo Bill's father did not believe that Negro's are equal to whites, and he did not want Negroes in white territory, but he nevertheless fought for the Union. In fact, in that era, this sentiment was codified into law in many Union states. For example, both free Negroes as well as slaves were prohibited by law from entering the states of Illinois and Oregon in the 1850's.

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.

Interestingly, a number of Union Generals had similar views. General Sherman said that he was fighting to preserve the union, and not to overturn slavery. Quite a few of the white "abolitionists" were scared of giving Negroes equal rights and leaving them embedded in white society, believing that blacks are not only a more backward and primitive race that could only dumb down the quality of democracy, but also for fear of some kind of repetition of the French Revolution in Haiti, where the freed black population ended up killing off all the white people. Dr. Lothrop Stoddard describes that horror in his book The French Revolution in Santo Domingo. Dr. David Duke discusses scientific evidence regarding racial differences in his book My Awakening.

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, in his book The Real Lincoln, talks about how Lincoln played to these sentiments. As a lawyer, Lincoln once served a Kentucky slaveholder who sued to have his runaway slave returned from Illinois. Just before the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln also supported the original 13th amendment, which guaranteed slavery in the South. This was meant as a sop to the South to prevent secession. Lincoln openly stated that he was more interested in the tarriff issue than the slavery issue. He also stated that his career was focused on the "Whig" agenda --which meant protectionist tarrifs, a central bank, and internal improvements-- and which had nothing to do with slavery or racial issue.

In addition to racially conscious whites who existed on both sides of the Mason Dixon line in the abolitionist movements, they also existed in late 19th century organized labor and socialist movements. For example, in the late 1800's Dennis Kearney led a successful organized labor effort to evict incoming Oriental labor and keep California white. Similar efforts wre successful in Western Canada, keeping the West Coast looking mostly European until the 1960's-1970's. Jack London was a prime example of a major champion of socialist revolution who simultaneously embarrassed many members of the world socialist movement with his explicit call to protect white racial interests.

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 again.

English common law

Last, but not least, the English common law deserves mention for the way it traditionally supported grass roots rights white interests. The most obvious protection is the trial by jury. The web site for western Missouri District courts informs us that: :

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:

Thre are many other examples of grass roots protection in the common law. Two which particularly come to mind are habeas corpus and jury nullification. The writs of Habeas Corpus may be issued by a judge to order a prisoner to be brought before the court. This is designed to protect against arbitrary imprisonment. The doctrine of jury nullification enables a jury to refuse to render a verdict regardless of the weight of evidence. This provides protection against unjust laws.

While this system provides many safeguards against tyranny, it presumes a relatively libertarian, homogeneous white society similar to Merrie Olde England with a fairly low crime rate and relatively good relations between the citizenry and their police. It does not work particularly well when you introduce black populations with a crime rate on the order of magnitude of ten to fifty times the white average. Nor is it particularly efficient in handling Jewish, Sicilian, Chinese, Mexican, Vietnamese and other mafias who are often better armed than the police, are often loaded with drug money, and often have the ability to buy off judges and ruthlessly assassinate witnesses.

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 at mises.org

The continuing "greedy white trash" problem in America

ElsewhereI have mentioned Nordic republican experiments, the necesity for "republican virtue," and how an Icelander once referred to his fellow Nordics as "An egalitarian people with aristocratic tendencies." The term "aristocratic" implies a certain nobility of character, and willingness to sacrifice on principle for the common good.

For a republican system to work over the long run, you need a business and financial elite that is fiercely loyal towards protecting the genetic interests of the general population. This implies supporting the indigenous culture and folkways that helps the middle class maintain its cohesion and identity and ability to protect itself from dynamic intruders.

Admittedly, America's pioneers were basically tough, honest, and courageous people. I think this one reason why Thomas Jefferson admired American farmers and pioneers. He was also repelled at the decadence of many European aristocracies.

However, on an ideological level, it is also clear that Americans have had serious problems institutionalizing their grass virtues on a broader social level, and in dealing with sophisticated threats. Among other things, their Jewish-invented Christian religion hurt their ability to understand the alien nature of Jewish infiltration. Their lack of a deep sense of indigenous Indo-European ancestral culture made them more easy to manipulate by alien culture distorters.

Generaly speaking, America has had too many people in its business strata out to get rich at all costs, even if it means importing alien peoples that create toxic effects for future generations. The slavery problem in the early 1800's, the Jewish domination of our media and central bank starting in the early 20th century, and the massive Third World immigration problem we face today are all symptoms of a much deeper problem than any of the aforementioned issues in isolation; to put it bluntly, we have too many white American businessmen and other wealthy, influential people who for all intents and purposes are nothing more than "greedy white trash." They are very short-term oriented. They are all too willing to settle for any hype story that can score them quick bucks. They are out to get the cheapest labor possible regardless of the long term social consequences, whether it involved slaves in the 1800's or illegal immigrants from Mexico today.

Jewish power in America is both a cause and effect. For the past several thousand years the Jews have been despised as one of the most greedy and deceitful of all races of mankind everywhere they have gone in the world. However, Jews could never become so powerful in America were it not for the fact that a large percentage of the white leadership strata share so many of their characteristics. The real white trash in America are not in trailer parks in Appalachia --in fact a lot of those folks are actually very honest and hard-working people-- but rather they sport three piece suits, wear Ivy League rings, and work out of offices of major investment banks and top corporations where they front for the Jews and their New World Order gentile collaborators.

A society that is this greedy simply cannot survive. This is a major reason why America is heading for the rocks.

Summmary remarks on libertarian racial nationalism

One of the biggest complaints about conservatives in America today is that the overwhelming majority of them are too narrowly focused on just a few issues. They tend to miss the broader picture.

Back when I went through basic military officer training, one of the zillion acronyms thrown at us was MOOSE MUSS for the principles of war. This acronym stands for Mass, Offensive, Objective, Surprise, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, and Simplicity. In this case, I am interested in the principle of the objective, namely the idea that if our goals are not realistically defined and comprehensive enough, we will fail to secure victory and may in fact have the tables turned against us by cunning and determined enemies who may ultimately destroy us.

The main objective in libertarian racial nationalism is to secure for ones own people all the critical elements of soverignty. In the case of whites, this necessarily includes protecting white genetic interests. When the local or national government starts working against our full array of soverignty powers, we must stay focused on restoring the full menu until the full menu has in fact been restored. The proof of the pudding that "kosher conservatism" does not work, that is, an approach that selectively focuses on certain limited "conservative" issues while otherwise opposing the open defense of white genetic interests, is found in the plain fact that America no longer works. With its exploding debt and wildly inflating money supply; with its serious structural deficiency in manufacturing, with its overseas military adventurism that place Jewish interests ahead of American interests, and with its out of control Third World immigration that is loading American society with ticking time bombs of social strife everywhere, America is headed towards complete economic and social disaster. This dog don't hunt no more.

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.

...And, incidentally, this is the way it has always been over the last few hundred thousand years. This probably goes back as far as our hominid ancestors who first developed enough cerebral and frontal lobe capacity to incorporate syntax into their language.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.