The United States on the Fourth of July 2014, 238 years after its declaration of independence from Great Britain, presents a revolting spectacle. For sheer vileness, the US, with its universal surveillance, police state mentality, hatred of freedom, anti-white discrimination, lawless replacement migration, and torture, matches its fraternal twin and wartime ally Communism, and bastard child, Zionism. It’s as if the Mafia, a comparable criminal conspiracy, had gobbled up the local, state, and federal governments, remade them in its own image, and extended its tentacles globally.
At least the Mafia did not lecture its victims about the virtuousness of evil or the viciousness of good. Unhappily, Americans are subject to endless sermons preached by the scum of humanity on that subject daily.
If you plug “Fourth of July oration” into the Jewish monopoly search engine Google, the top results are Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech inquiring, “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?”
I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
The successful and well-to-do Douglass had a white father (though you can’t tell it from his photograph), married his 20-years-younger white secretary, and maintained a radical Left-wing German Jewish mistress on the side.
Yet things like his 1852 speech are force-fed ceaselessly to a society that worships Jews. The fact is, whites (at least when they aren’t playing the servile sycophant) can’t hold a candle to God’s chosen—the Catholics’ so-called “fathers in the faith”—in the crimes-against-humanity-department. For that matter, Jews played a big role in slavery.
* * *
I harbor no rancor for the American experiment. America was no utopia, but neither was (or is) anyplace else. Utopia has never existed and never will exist. America was a noble endeavor while it lasted.
It is unreasonable to lay at the feet of the founding fathers everything that subsequently went wrong. Things went particularly haywire from the early 20th century on, accelerating greatly in 1933 and again with the Great Leap Backward of the mid-1960s to early 1970s. A fish rots from the head down, so most putrefaction remained invisible to the bulk of ordinary Americans as late as the early 1960s.
In short, America’s founders were responsible for their actions, not everybody else’s. I understand that many object to the Revolution ab initio on philosophical grounds, but that is not my position.
Imagine if history selected you to be part of a body of white men today, with all the differing factions, contradictory convictions, opinions, and values that entailed, and compelled you to collectively devise a just, realistic, workable, non-utopian state (no fantasy or philosophical or ideological castles-in-the-air allowed). You would not get your way in everything, probably not even in much.
Could such a hypothetical group devise something, implement it, and make it work? And in a hostile world?
Then, fast forward 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, 238 years—long after you and everyone else had passed away, new generations had taken your place one after another, each dying in turn, and history (and, assuming a new order and free discussion, incomprehensible technological innovations and vastly changed ideas and values) had radically transformed the world in unforeseeable ways.
Obviously, you would be unable to control what happened in the future, how subsequent generations thought and behaved, or what choices they made, all of which necessarily entailed far-reaching ramifications of their own. It is a very complex process with many moving parts and contingencies.
So, how would you “freeze” your initial, imperfect system (the product of compromise between individuals and factions) to handle everything I’ve mentioned, while simultaneously preserving fundamental values intact?
In an attempt to anticipate such issues, the Constitution was designed with such devices as hybrid representative/deliberative institutions (citizen and elite assemblies, courts, freedom of association, speech, and press), amendability, vertical allocation of power among federal, state, and local units of government, and horizontal separation of powers at the federal and state levels between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. All of this was implemented, not badly, with open consent, among quarrelsome, fractious, socially, economically, and intellectually dissimilar whites in the real world, not simply on paper or in the study, think tank, or secret academic-NGO-government conclave.
I don’t know how to perpetuate a particular form of government or set of fundamental values indefinitely into the distant future, but I am at least aware of the problem. Somehow you must establish not just a successful order, but a workable process or dynamic.
To require more of the founding generation than what it accomplished is unreasonable. Old Europe, and the major overseas colonies (Canada, Rhodesia, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand), fared no better than the US. What happened long after 1776 or 1787 was the responsibility of subsequent generations.
* * *
Many things, of course, did go wrong, notably slavery and immigration.
It is interesting that the litany of complaints brought against the King of England by colonial leaders in the Declaration of Independence in justification of American secession included the charge that “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither . . .”
I have never seen this clause quoted by Leftists, despite the fact that it could easily be manipulated for propaganda purposes (which is how they utilize history). In all likelihood elites have not done so because they are unfamiliar with the Declaration and have not read it.
Confronted with such a provision I would inquire, “What did they mean?” Presumably I would discover a scatter, or range, of opinions among individuals, quite disparate at the extremes but clustering around some central consensus.
My initial hypothesis would be that they had in mind primarily Protestants from the British Isles, mainly England, not Irish Catholics or Northern or Continental Europeans who did not speak English—never mind Latin Americans, Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, and so on.
Benjamin Franklin, for one, presciently envisioned America growing into a great power surpassing even England in strength. Yet he thought this would occur primarily through the natural increase of white Englishmen. As early as 1782 he wrote a pamphlet, Information to Those Who Would Remove to America, attempting to discourage Europeans from immigrating, and in 1751 had penned a trenchant denunciation of England’s habit of exporting felons to America, which he clearly did not want, comparing them to poisonous snakes. (Exporting of Felons to the Colonies.)
I draw attention to this provision of the Declaration only because we know in retrospect that immigration became such an enormous problem, even as early as the 1830s, not that it should have been anticipated in 1776. But if, for some reason, the founders did think too carelessly about immigration, we now know that the mistake must be corrected, not that their beliefs or behavior should be blindly aped despite overwhelming evidence that they were wrong.
The fundamental problem, however, the 80-20 part of the difficulty (again, in retrospect), was the emergence of the Ashkenazim as the dominant race in the West and their monopolization of wholly new forms of mass media of news and entertainment in the early 20th century—a monopoly they exercise to this day. In their hands, control of the media eventuated in control of the democratic process, and curtailment of intellectual inquiry and freedom of speech and association. Ultimately, this proved disastrous for the entire American polity.
People who wave the flag, as well as those who denigrate them, do not grasp that today’s America has virtually no connection whatsoever to the historic American nation. Long ago—in 1917, in 1933, in the late ’60s and early ’70s—there were a series of “revolutions within the form” altering society beyond recognition.
Frankly, pigs scarfing down Nathan’s hot dogs on Coney Island is a more appropriate form of celebration than waving the flag, attending parades, and watching fireworks: Jews degrading and making public sport of Gentiles, an apt metaphor for what the country now represents.
* * *
I stand on the shore of the lake where I spent many carefree hours of my boyhood exploring, playing, swimming, canoeing, fishing, and rafting, and where my father’s ashes were later scattered, gazing across the water at the courthouse spire and little clump of buildings poking above the far-off trees, thinking, You failed.
By which I mean they, my fellow whites, failed. They failed miserably, abysmally, even on the simplest things, and in the most fundamental manner. Was it too much to expect rudimentary decency and justice from them? Was that—is that—too much to ask?
Instead of doing what was right, they did what was wrong, and continue to do it. There is no evil they will not countenance or crime they will not commit as long as it is sanctioned by government. Conformity and blind obedience to perceived authority are their lodestars. About the countless, unspeakable crimes and millions upon millions of victims for whose suffering and deaths they are partly responsible they care nothing.
There is no fundamental moral difference between myself and them. The only thing that separates us are the choices we made: to embrace evil, facilitate it, or to reject it. At least, that’s what I’ve always assumed. William Pierce ultimately deduced that most people really have no moral compass. “Morality” is whatever the culture tells them it is. The same with “evil.”
He believed that part of a racialist’s job is to provide hope (though not false hope) and encouragement, so he gamely tried to explain why such conformity is not altogether bad. But his innumerable references, dripping with sarcasm, to “lemmings,” leave little doubt that he remained unconvinced by his own argument. After all, there is little good one can say about people who mindlessly harm the innocent or eagerly rush over the cliff to their collective doom simply because aliens who hate them tell them to do so.
Pierce was probably correct that the vast majority of whites (really, all human beings) lack a moral compass. At the very least it is overwhelmed by the massive force-field emanating from alien rulers in control of the mass media—a phenomenon new under the sun, historically speaking. The media masters completely dominate the centralized state and culture, including public discourse.
To ignore this reality is to ignore a rudimentary element of power in the contemporary world. It is like ignoring the NSA, the FBI, Homeland Security, the ADL, the SPLC, or antifa domestic terrorists. How can any serious resistance proceed in such a manner?
As long ago as 1841 Thomas Carlyle observed in On Heroes and Hero Worship, “[Edmund] Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”
* * *
Is worse really better, as the old racist adage goes? Well, if it is, things are getting “better” and “better” all the time.
Personally, I think worse is just worse.
1. In 2010 Pope Benedict explained “why he no longer calls Jews ‘our elder brothers’ but rather ‘fathers in the faith,’ stating that ‘the phrase “elder brothers,” which had already been used by [Pope] John XXIII, is not so welcome to Jews.’”
2. “America has experienced what Garet Garrett, following Aristotle, called ‘revolution within the form’—an invisible and unacknowledged change in its basic nature, which few of the ruled realize has changed at all. The revolutionaries realize that their power depends on the illusion of continuity. The overturning of fundamental principles, the destruction of tradition, the creation of new powers—these must all be presented as mere ‘reforms.’” Joseph Sobran, “Not Again!” March 10, 2005.