White Racialism and American Nationalism Pt. 2

Go to Part 1

Some of the people who countersignal the concept of American Nationalism do so because they have an agenda that is entirely different than the majority of what we call the “Alt-Right.”

They either belong to a foreign religion that Americans have never subscribed to in significant numbers, are Southern Nationalists who want to bring back the Confederacy and think Yankees are worse than Jews, will accept nothing less than overt National Socialism, or are only interested in terrorism and violent revolution.

Therefore, it’s becoming clear that it is futile to try and find common ground with these people. They are not, and will probably never be, on the same page as us, and it’s a shame they have caused a debate over whether or not we should consider ourselves American Nationalists to go on for this long.

While most of these people are indeed “pro-white,” that alone is not sufficient to justify a formal alliance when the extent of our differences are considered (though we can certainly have mutual respect with some while doing our own things). At best we will just repeatedly butt heads, at worst they will use our popularity and what we have built for their own personal gain.

Others, I assume, are none of the above, but have been gaslit by those who are. It is for this reason I will address some of the more common arguments put forth against American Nationalism, and further show why I think being anti-American is antithetical to common sense and counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish.

This land is ours.

The more sophisticated of these arguments involves the formulation of a narrative that paints America as having had a Civic Nationalist foundation from its very inception. They claim that America was based on Enlightenment principles that essentially sealed its fate as a multiracial state.

I will not spend much time refuting this, as it seems to come mainly from Southern Nationalists who hate Yankees and are still mad about the Civil War and the destructive racial policies that were imposed on them by the North.

It goes without saying, for those of us without a historical grudge against our own people, that critiquing our Founding Fathers (who were, clearly and demonstrably, white nationalists and traditionalists) as crazy liberals who laid the foundation for the later destruction of their own nation and people is a transparently self-defeating strategy.

When one considers the source, it’s hard for one to believe that this view was arrived at through honest intellectual inquiry rather than a desire to deliberately undercut American identity at its roots, similar to the “critical theory” of the anti-American left that seeks to “deconstruct whiteness.”

The same technique could be used to form a similar narrative against the South (who wanted to import even more blacks prior to the Civil War), or any other white country or area, if one were so inclined, just as it could be used to blame Christianity, rather than the Enlightenment, for our racial decline.

We are not doing that, though, because we consider Southerners, Christians and all whites worldwide as our brothers and see no benefit in tearing down the very people we are trying to save.

Demonizing our history and delegitimizing us as a people is a tactic the left uses to blackpill us into submission – to get us to accept our own displacement. This kind of negativity has no place in a pro-white movement.

We are trying to uplift our people and build better men and give them something to fight for, not fill them with despair.

Though there is much for us to learn from Fascism and National Socialism, the American system wasn’t always the shitshow that it is today. Originally, voting was restricted to educated, land-owning white males over the age of 21 – those who had a direct “stake in society.”

Only about 1.8% of the population are estimated to have voted in the first Presidential election (unanimously for Washington), with a maximum of 6% being eligible at that time.  Jews were excluded.

Even Oswald Mosley – one of our greatest thinkers – wrote that his British Union of Fascists were only against the “perversion of democracy” and that

democracy in its true sense — government of the people, by the people, for the people, as an expression of the natural, healthy will of the people when free from the deception of financial politics — was exactly what we wanted.

The Founding Fathers were only egalitarians in the sense of equality under the law and equality of opportunity, based on the Enlightenment concept of meritocracy. As Mosley explains:

Equality of opportunity is a fundamental thing. Let those rule who are fitted to rule. Let no man rule because his grandfather proved himself fitted to rule. [The Enlightenment] was a revolt against privilege, an affirmation that the man of talent and of capacity should be the man to conduct the affairs of a great nation.

It was only later that “all men are created equal” was deliberately misinterpreted to mean men are equal in ability, or that the races are equal. In the Founding Fathers’ time, blacks weren’t even considered human, much less “equal.” That idea is patently absurd.

The American system as it was originally intended is not at all incompatible with fascism. In fact, there are fasces all over the place in America. They symbolize the Roman concept of “strength through unity,” thus stand as a living testament that the Jewish idea that “diversity is our strength” is what is truly incompatible with Americanism.

Fasces were still being incorporated into architecture well into the 20s and 30s, as many Americans at that time openly admired Mussolini and what he had done for the Italian people.

Fasces in America.

In contrast to the confusing, esoteric gibberish about the Enlightenment that these anti-American racialists push, the Alt-Right generally has a much simpler message: we have a Jewish problem.

That doesn’t mean that we deny having problems of our own, or that Jewish subversion didn’t require already existing flaws in our society. It means that we recognize that a distinct racial enemy has infiltrated every level of our society and has demonstrably – in many cases admittedly – remolded it and reinterpreted our history to suit his own ends.

Even if Jews aren’t the original sickness that is killing our race (maybe that is our individualist nature – who knows), no honest person can deny that they have accelerated it to a frightening degree, and are the ones found blocking the way toward any solution.

There is not a racial disaster in this country since the Civil War in which you don’t see the Jews front and center.

It was Jews who led the Civil Rights movement. It was Jews who invented the concept that “race is a social construct.” It was a Jew who invented the idea of America as a “Melting Pot,” and it was a Jew who invented the concept of “cultural pluralism” i.e. “multiculturalism.”

Jews founded and run the ADL, and they dominate the SPLC and the ACLU.

The Jews have pushed, and continue to push, nonstop anti-white vitriol using their vast propaganda network which includes major publishing houses, academia, the mainstream media and the entirety of Hollywood.

With their hypersensitive racial consciousness they hunt down and enforce political correctness on anyone who even mildly questions them, keeping the populace in a constant state of fear as everyone knows – whether consciously or unconsciously – that if they step out of the bounds of the anti-white, Jewish narrative their reputation and career will be swiftly and ruthlessly destroyed.

This pernicious influence is the number one problem facing our people today, and working to free them from it – rather than merely blaming ourselves for our current predicament – is an act of fierce patriotism and nationalism; an act of love for our race that is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of our Founding Fathers who hated and fought against lies and tyranny with every fiber of their being.

America was by no means “destined” to become what it has become. In fact, there’s every reason to believe that we were well on our way to correcting the racial blunder of the Civil War, had the Jews not repeatedly thrown a stick in our spokes.

The science of race didn’t really come into focus until the latter half of the 19th century, following the theories of Darwin and de Gobineau (which Southern intellectuals, by the way, simply used to make absurd justifications for slavery). Like many of the mistakes of the Founding Fathers, it was an “unknown,” therefore hardly something that can be held against them.

Following the Civil War (for which there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides), Northerners and Southerners alike allied in support of the American Colonization Society, which had been created in 1816 and was initially supported by leading American Founders such as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and James Madison, and which had as its mission sending American blacks back to Africa.

After the release of Madison Grant’s book The Passing of the Great Race in 1916, scientific racism became the dominant view among the American elite. Theodore Roosevelt wrote of it in Scribner’s magazine:

The book is a capital book; in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts our people most need to realize. It shows an extraordinary range of reading and a wide scholarship. It shows a habit of singular serious thought on the subject of most commanding importance. It shows a fine fearlessness in assailing the popular and mischievous sentimentalities and attractive and corroding falsehoods which few men dare assail. It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman; and all Americans should be sincerely grateful to you for writing it.

Its influence reached much further than just America, though. Hitler, for instance, called the book his “Bible.” The seminal chapter in Mein Kampf, “Race and People,” which so much informed Nazi policy, was essentially just a summary of the Grantian worldview.

Around this same time, a black nationalist named Marcus Garvey was making significant headway in America. Garvey, who admired the nationalistic passion of both Hitler and Mussolini, wanted to instill racial pride in his people by leading them toward self-determination. His organization, the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), founded in 1917, boasted 2 million members by 1919, and as many as 6 million by 1926 (when the black population of the United States was no more than 11.5 million).

Madison Grant, whose main mission in life was to secure the existence of the white race, naturally wanted the blacks shipped back to Africa as well, so he formed a strong alliance with Garvey following a back-to-Africa speech Garvey made in Madison Square Garden in 1920.

Garvey originally modeled himself on Theodor Herzl and was sympathetic to Jews early in his career, but he grew increasingly anti-Semitic as he saw the Jews thwarting his mission at every turn.

The radical Jewish-led NAACP, which with their mulatto figurehead W.E.B. DuBois promoted integration over separation, dedicated much of their energy to destroying Garvey (just as Jews would later promote communist integrationist Martin Luther King Jr. over popular black nationalist Malcolm X).

When Garvey had visited NAACP headquarters in 1917, he famously “stormed out” muttering about its being a “white [which he would later realize actually meant “Jewish”] organization.”

Garvey was, unfortunately, eventually destroyed – and his movement rendered stillborn – after being tried and convicted for mail fraud.

The Judge who convicted him, Julian Mack, was the former head of the American Jewish Congress and the Zionist Organization of America. “When they wanted to get me,” Garvey complained, “they had a Jewish judge try me, and a Jewish prosecutor. I would have been freed but two Jews on the jury held out against me ten hours and succeeded in convicting me, whereupon the Jewish judge gave me the maximum penalty.”

Marcus Garvey

Garvey’s meteoric rise is clear evidence that racial self-determination is the natural and desirable state for all peoples, and his downfall shows yet another example of the Jews’ historically being the primary agitators against such an arrangement, even while they hypocritically support their own racially exclusive State of Israel.

Elite American racialists, led by Grant, also desired to deport the Jews, but saw that as a much more difficult task than deporting blacks, given the power that the Jews had already accumulated.

Eugenicist Charles Davenport, in a letter to Grant in 1925, suggested jokingly that he thought maybe it would be best to just incinerate the Jews as the Puritans did the witches, but unfortunately it was “against the mores to burn any considerable part of our population.”

Charles Davenport: Total Shitlord.

Grant’s main nemesis was the Jewish immigrant Franz Boas, who was driven by the fear that race science would lead to increasing levels of anti-Semitism. This fear was not unfounded.

In The Passing of the Great Race, Grant wrote that the Polish Jew’s “dwarf stature, peculiar mentality and ruthless concentration on self-interest” was being “engrafted upon the stock of the nation,” and warned of the consequences of race-mixing as follows:

Whether we like to admit it or not, the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting to the more ancient, generalized and lower type. The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.

This passage was quoted or paraphrased in hundreds of other anthropological and scientific works following the release of The Passing of the Great Race, and eventually helped lead to the “shutting out” of the Jews with the Immigration Act of 1924.

Boas, though, was a very committed and formidable foe, and world historical events would eventually turn things in his favor in a big way – as we’ll see in the third and final part of this article.

Two Models of White Racialism: A Preliminary Exploration of a Changing Morality

kicking_off_black_history_month_with_slavery_is_white_supremacy.jpg_1718483346

By Gil Caldwell

How would white men of previous centuries or even those of earlier decades of the twentieth century view contemporary presentations of the case for racialism? As surprising as it may seem to some, in all probability they would have seen recent racialist apologetics as hopelessly infected with many of the central assumptions of multiracialism. This is due in no small measure to the fact that, although it may be possible (albeit rare) to dissent from widely accepted public policies, it is far more difficult to reject the assumed and often unstated philosophical assumptions of the age. This presents racialists with a particularly difficult task. Conceding their opponents’ core beliefs before engaging in theoretical battle is akin to wrestling with a handicap: all right for legendary wrestlers like Haystacks or Andre, but poor strategy for lesser men.

For example, in the past half-century we have seen a consistent movement away from the advocacy of segregation (which was always far from “separate but equal” in reality), apartheid, colonialism, and general political disenfranchisement of nonwhites, toward the far less harsh positions of racial separatism (including acceptance of “black nationalism”) or the “level playing field” of the libertarian minded.

Continue reading

Jack London: An American Racialist

london-jack-older

“The proper function of man is to live, not exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.”

Although at the time, he probably didn’t realize it, Jack London would come to fulfill his own words during a life full of adventure, controversy and undeniable tragedy. Jack London was an adventurer stuck in a world of convention. He was the successor to a long line of Aryan warriors, intellects, and conquerors. In his 1914 novel, The Mutiny of the Elsinore, he wrote “I know, now, that my forebears were Vikings. I was seed of them in their own day. With them I have raided English coasts, dared the Pillars of Hercules, forayed the Mediterranean, and sat in the high place of government over the soft sunwarm peoples.” Such Racial awareness as this is extraordinary no matter in what time it manifests itself. What made Jack London special, as you will see, was his ability to express in words what had taken centuries to ingrain in the Aryan soul.

Jack was born out of wedlock to Flora Wellman and Professor William H. Chaney on January 22, 1876 in San Francisco, California. Flora, the estranged, somewhat rambunctious daughter of a wealthy Eastern family, would never marry Chaney. When Jack was eight months old, Flora married a working-class-man by the name of John London. He would be the only father Jack ever knew. His early years were filled with poverty. As a thirteen year-old, he worked along children of six and seven in a pickle cannery for 10 cents an hour, often sixteen hours a day. These early experiences would fuel his life long hatred for capitalism. He eventually quit his job and become an oyster pirate, sailing his own ship. Always the restless wander, at age 21 he set sail for the Klondike with the hope of striking it rich. His experience in the Klondike, though rather miserable, would greatly influence his later literary work.

Continue reading