Review: Toward the White Republic

Michael O'Meara's Toward The White Republic

(Editor’s Note: I received the long anticipated Fall 2010 “secession issue” of TOQ in the mail today. Over the next week, I will be reviewing the six essays on secession which are included in this volume. I plan to wrap up this series with a culminating essay on secession based on my own thoughts.

If you haven’t already done so, subscribe to TOQ and follow along the discussion. Since Kevin MacDonald took over as Editor, I have received two issues over the last six months. The venerable journal is back on track and remains a “value added” product which is well worth the small cost of subscribing to.)

Michael O’Meara’s prize winning essay “Toward the White Republic” won the 2009 TOQ competition on secession. Thus, it seems appropriate to start the reviewing process here. Last year, I had a few thoughts about “Toward the White Republic” which were largely positive. I’ve since reread the essay with a fresh pair of eyes.

At the outset of this review, I would like to emphasize that I only reviewing the essay.” “Toward the White Republic” has since been expanded into a 160 page book. I haven’t read the book (only some of the essays therein) and this review isn’t a judgement on its content. At some point, I will purchase a copy of the book (you should to) and review the complete volume, but that will have to wait until another day.

As an essay, “Toward the White Republic” can be divided into four parts: a definition of White Nationalism, a history lesson about White identity, a polemic against racial conservatives, and a prescription for action. Last August, I focused exclusively on the “mythic” aspect of this essay, which provoked a series of negative responses at Majority Rights. Today, I will reflect and expand upon the complete product.

Definition

O’Meara begins “Toward the White Republic” with the observation that a terminological change has redefined the pro-White movement. In the 1990s, pro-Whites abandoned “white supremacy” in favor of a rhetorical commitment to “White Nationalism.” Instead of attempting to recapture control of the United States, pro-Whites slowly converged on the ideal of creating a separate, autonomous White ethnostate in North America.

But everyone who subscribes to the “White Nationalist” label hasn’t embraced the revolutionary, separatist project. Some White Nationalists continued to hold out hope that America could be “restored” through the existing political process. These “mainstreamers” advocate working within the system to achieve White Nationalist ends.

O’Meara calls them “racial conservatives.” The Council of Conservative Citizens would seem seem to fit this description. Matt Parrott of Hoosier Nation comes to mind. Yesterday, Parrott advocated “restorationary radicalism” with Kievsky on Radio Free Indiana.

I see nothing to dispute here. If I was forced to split hairs, I would only quibble with O’Meara’s assumption that White Nationalists are synonymous with revolutionary vanguardists. In theory, I see no reason why secession couldn’t be accomplished peacefully through the mainstream political process.

The Velvet Divorce between the Czech Republic and Slovakia is one such example. Québec’s constant threats to secede from Canada is another closer to home.

History Lesson

After defining White Nationalism, Michael O’Meara moves on to explore the historical roots of White identity. He interprets White Nationalism as an American variation on ethnonationalism. Once again, O’Meara is on solid historical ground. This section was easily the most persuasive part of the essay.

What impressed me the most was that O’Meara seems to understand that the emergence of White racial consciousness in America was an organic process, not an imported abstract ideal from Europe. It was a pragmatic response of English settlers to living in an alien environment. White unity was a strategy for dealing with race war with Indians on the frontier and keeping large numbers of negro slaves in bondage.

Hostilities with Britain in the American Revolution and War of 1812, which lingered on into the 1890s, finally killed off the “English” aspect of American national identity. Westward expansion and the absorption of large numbers of European immigrants reinforced White racial consciousness until well into the twentieth century.

Under the Roosevelt administration, the first cracks began to appear in the seemingly invincible facade of White America. This was due less to a Jewish conspiracy than to America’s own geopolitical ambitions after the Second World War.

The Soviet Union challenged American global hegemony with its own version of universalism. In order to counter the success of Soviet propaganda in the Third World, American policymakers began to advocate desegregation; letting a genie out of the bottle which eventually led to the decompiling of White racial identity.

To his credit, Michael O’Meara is one of the few White Nationalists who seems to understand this. Jewish influence played a starring role in the decline of White America, but it was only one factor among many contributing to this result. The perversion of America’s own republican ideals was likewise important.

Polemics

Further into “Toward the White Republic,” O’Meara steps on to much shakier ground, in which he attempts to defend secession and revolutionary vanguardism from its racial conservative critics. Foremost among these, O’Meara takes aim at Sam Francis, who was dismissive of the idea of a White ethnostate.

The first and most common criticism that O’Meara responds to is that a White ethnostate is “a fantasy … pure and folly.” He responds to this line of attack by arguing that the “objective forces” opposing secession are less important than the “subjective will seeking its triumph.” If the will to secession is strong enough, reality will crumple and give way.

This doesn’t strike me as a persuasive rebuttal.

It doesn’t matter how hard you try to bend a spoon with sheer will power, psychokinesis only works in Hollywood movies. In order for White Nationalists to be successful in achieving their revolutionary objective, they will logically have to amass an incredible amount of power and physical force in a circumscribed geographic area, say, the Pacific Northwest, something which hitherto they haven’t shown any signs of doing.

O’Meara himself doesn’t show much interest in the nuts and bolts, the practical, how-to side of revolution either.

Moving forward, O’Meara responds to Francis’s criticism that any call to dissolve the United States will only serve to alienate conservatives and nationalists. His only counter to this argument is “that ship has sailed” and “the flag-waving, Constitution-worshiping types” who “believe there is something sacred about the United States” will “never be mobilized for the sake of racial preservation.”

At the stroke of a pen, Michael O’Meara writes off the 42% of Americans who identify as conservatives, who account for well over 50% of White Americans, and an even larger percentage of Whites in the South and West. Who then is supposed to create the White ethnostate?

The 20% of Whites who are liberal progressives? The remainder of Whites who identify as moderates? They are even less likely than conservatives to be rallied around the ideal of a White ethnostate.

By writing off 90% of White Americans, O’Meara reopens himself to the charge of “fantasy ideology,” or engaging in wishful thinking untethered to political reality.

Finally, O’Meara responds to the criticism that White Nationalists don’t have the military resources to secede and defend a White Republic. He dismisses this line of attack with the argument that Francis doesn’t understand “fourth generation warfare.” The rotten Judeo-American colossus only knows how to defeat standing armies and is incapable of defeating a popular insurgency which would secure Russian support.

This is another criticism which shouldn’t be treated so lightly. It brings to mind the overconfident Confederates (and there were far more of those) who put their faith in King Cotton, Southern chivalry, and British and French military support triumphing over Yankee materialism and numerical superiority. Secession didn’t work out for the Antebellum South and there is even less reason to think it would work out for White Nationalists in the Pacific Northwest.

The fact is, this scenario is based in large part upon the wishful thinking of vanguardist revolutionaries like The Order who were crushed by the authorities within recent memory. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, the Clinton administration used his “domestic terrorism” to demonize White Nationalists and rally public support behind the federal government. The movement had to carry this albatross for years.

This scenario also presumes that the U.S. military is incapable of defeating insurgencies because of the Vietnam Syndrome. Law enforcement alone was capable of defeating White Nationalist insurgents in the 1980s and 1990s. What about the insurgencies that the U.S. military defeated in the Philippines, Nicaragua, or more recently, the Sunni insurgency that Bush and General Petraeus defeated in Iraq?

The U.S. military has devoted enormous resources to counter-terrorism and defeating “fourth generation warfare.” White Nationalists underestimate its resilience at their own peril.

Prescription

When all is said and done, Michael O’Meara’s solution, or the means by which his secessionists are to acquire the White ethnostate, is creating a “physical force wing” of White Nationalism analogous to the IRA and turning “to the methods of Connelly and Pearce.”

A revolutionary vanguard will be created which will be motivated by the mythic vision of a White ethnostate. In other words, O’Meara’s plan is Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet scenario, although credit isn’t given where it is due. This much has been plain (see the talk about surrendering territory) throughout the essay. Everything that is being proposed here is what HAC has been saying for years.

It suffers from the same fatal flaw: Explicit White Nationalists won’t participate in a conference call, have dinner with you at an IHOP, or drink a beer with you at a local bar. The vast majority of them are keyboard commandos and are perfectly content to stay way.

If Explicit White Nationalists can’t handle the softball methods of Matt Parrott, they aren’t about to “turn to the methods of Connelly and Pearce.” We are only fooling ourselves by pretending otherwise. If secession is to be accomplished, it will have to be done in some other way, one that is capable of reaching and mobilizing a far larger number of White Americans behind our revolutionary goal.

The Merits

There is a lot of merit in this essay. I still think the emphasis on myth is vitally important. When I wake up in the morning, I too am motivated by my vision of a White Republic, not by the abstract charts and graphs that are so popular in HBD circles. In this respect, I am not all that different from Michael O’Meara and his vanguardists.

A vision is needed to create evangelists. In my experience, the vision of a White Republic has been sufficient to create lots of evangelists; I have one internet evangelist in particular blowing up my Inbox right now, arguing in favor of the efficacy of ideas.

The weakness of O’Meara’s argument can be traced to means (strategy and tactics), not ends. How do evangelists effectively change the political spectrum? How do we close the gap between reality and our ideals? How do we make progress toward our long term goals? How do we build political power and break out into the mainstream? How do we close the gap between our beliefs and our behavior?

Right now, we aren’t making progress on any of these fronts. In my upcoming essay on secession, I will zero in on this and other issues which I think are important, which I don’t think have been sufficiently addressed here. I will attempt to build upon this idea of a “mythic vision” with the practical ways it can be translated into effective real world action.

About Hunter Wallace 9710 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

14 Comments

  1. The “anti-intellectual” card is always played when someone else criticizes your own favorite intellectuals. It is dishonest because anyone can list far more intellectuals they dislike than the smaller number of ones which they are fans.

  2. “The U.S. military has devoted enormous resources to counter-terrorism and defeating “fourth generation warfare.” White Nationalists underestimate its resilience at their own peril.”

    It’s called bribing the insurgents not to fight American troops. Our newfound success in Iraq is the result of Sunni tribal chiefs turning their guns on Al-Qaeda operatives and a kinder, gentler approach in the occupation of Sunni tribal areas in addition to regular payments to Sunni warlords as already mentioned.

    With the exception of the special forces the regular US armed forces is becoming mongrelized and undisciplined and will be even more so in 10-15 years. A worsening economy could preclude the allocation of necessary resources to fight and defeat a homegrown insurgency wherever it might spring up.

    And for some to boast that returning veterans would be chomping at the bit to murder white nationalist insurgents is at odds with reality. Why did DOHS chief Janet Napolitano label returning veterans as potential right wing, anti-government extremists? A growing number of combat veterans are disillusioned with the district of corruption just as much as we are.

  3. As I noted above, law enforcement alone was sufficient to defeat White Nationalist insurgents in the past. The White masses didn’t rise up in a popular rebellion against the federal government either. Groups like The Order couldn’t even persuade White Nationalists to join their cause.

    This is the inevitable consequence of resorting to violence without popular legitimacy.

    Note: Even the most pathetic, bankrupt tinpot dictators in Africa like Robert Mugabe in Africa still find the resources to prop up the military. In a declining economy, even more Whites will look to the military as a potential employer.

  4. Hunter Wallace says: As I noted above, law enforcement alone was sufficient to defeat White Nationalist insurgents in the past. The White masses didn’t rise up in a popular rebellion against the federal government either. Groups like The Order couldn’t even persuade White Nationalists to join their cause.

    That was in the distant PAST, when the majority of whites still believed in the fedgov and thought that it was on their side. Reagan was in office, there were STILL JOBS around then (outsourcing hadn’t started) and money for the miliary was plentiful (the Cold War)./ As the Tea Party has shown, white support for ZOG has eroded CONSIDERABLY since then though of course that doesn’t translate unto support for WNs.

    Yet.

    Hunter Wallace says: Even the most pathetic, bankrupt tinpot dictators in Africa like Robert Mugabe in Africa still find the resources to prop up the military. In a declining economy, even more Whites will look to the military as a potential employer.

    Well 1) How many white citizens have guns vs avarage Zimbabweans and 2) those ARE nogs we’re talking about so what do you expect? They’re used to having ONE apeman or another lording it over them. When Mugabe dies they’ll just replace it with something else.

    My point is that the Brüder Schweigen acted VERY prematurely in trying to overthrow ZOG way back in the 1980’s, much like the anarchist and Marxist rebels in 19th century Russia did. It was only when the Czarist state was in its death throes at the end of WWI that the Bolsheviks were able to successfully drive the knife in. Similarly, in a scenario where the US/world economy collapses complertely and money is WORTHLESS, a group of organized, motivated white nationalist revolutinaries could find themselves with more popular support than any similar organization today would ever dream of.

  5. Correction: I’ve become more realistic and practical while you have drifted in exactly the opposite direction. Now you are writing for Counter Currents and ranting against the Jews all the time. As recently as 2007, you were on Ian Jobling’s website saying that the Jews are White.

    I have barely changed my position at all in the past year, and don’t rant about the Jews any more than I did when you first encountered me. Given that you’ve virtually dropped the JQ in favor of the WNQ, I can see how you would have that impression. Counter-Currents didn’t exist this time last year, and I reject your notion that it’s a disreputable site.

    Is that right? You’ve written a book called Hoosier Nation and now beat the drum against petty regionalism? I have it sitting right here on my bookshelf. It doesn’t get more provincial than that. When I was arguing in favor of a Southern Homeland, you were advocating a Midwestern Homeland.

    Perhaps you should read it and find that I do advocate for secession and celebrating regional differences, but without creating an “us vs. them” framework among our kindred. “Petty” is the operative word.

    You were also more than willing to divide White Americans along ideological, religious, ethnic, and regional lines. If memory serves, that was your whole rationale for creating “Delightsome” in the first place where you could explore those ideas without having to interact with Nordicists, atheists, anti-Christians, pagans, gamers, and various other types of people you dislike.

    Your memory serves you correctly. I wished to create my own discursive space and I did so. I didn’t try to make out like any of them were the enemy, but simply concluded that I did not wish to share a discursive space with them. The emphasis of the blog hasn’t been on going after any of those groups.

    Back in August, I used to laugh when you would criticize me for arguing for Giles, Johnson, and Linder. I mean, honestly … how many fights did you pick with Scott Locklin, Mark, and Ferdinand Bardamu? How many times did you attack Richard Spencer and Alternative Right?

    My criticisms of Alt.Right were not “fights” or attacks, but criticisms. Neither Locklin nor Bardamu are White Advocates. In fact, Locklin is against everything we stand for and a fair target. My engagement with Bardamu was constructive and effective in spreading our message and we get along fine. I attempted to debate some of the Nordicists, but always patiently and respectfully.

    So you like Pat Buchanan and Geert Wilders now? You also seemed to like the Republican Senators who defeated the DREAM Act … after blasting them just a few weeks before.

    I’ve always liked Pat Buchanan without reservation and have always had a positive (yet qualified) attitude about Geert Wilders.

    I don’t know what Republican Senators you’re talking about, but I reckon I probably blasted them for doing something bad, then celebrated their doing something good.

  6. I have barely changed my position at all in the past year, and don’t rant about the Jews any more than I did when you first encountered me. Given that you’ve virtually dropped the JQ in favor of the WNQ, I can see how you would have that impression. Counter-Currents didn’t exist this time last year, and I reject your notion that it’s a disreputable site.

    1.) I first encountered you when you were a frequent commentator at Inverted World and White America. I knew who you were long before you showed up here. It is undeniable that you have radically altered your position on the Jewish Question.

    2.) It is similarly undeniable that you have shifted more toward the radical camp. Just look at your transition from Ian Jobling fan to Guy White critic. Everyone has noticed this.

    3.) I didn’t say that Counter Currents is a disreputable website. I just think it is surprising and telling that you have chosen to write there given your own stated point of view.

    I thought you were opposed to Neo-Nazism and were for Middle America, Christianity, conservatism, and engaging in mainstream politics. Given your clashes over the issues, I just found it surprising that you would end up there.

    4.) Finally, I haven’t abandoned the Jewish Question. I wrote a blog entry about the Jewish Question last week. It was a response to Phil Rockstroh.

    http://fromtheprovinces.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/the-bigot-whisperers/

    I call attention to the Jewish Question when it is relevant. That is my approach.

    Perhaps you should read it and find that I do advocate for secession and celebrating regional differences, but without creating an “us vs. them” framework among our kindred. “Petty” is the operative word.

    “Sensible” is the operative word.

    Secession is the byproduct of polarization. You don’t get secession without setting up an “us vs. them” dynamic. If you think that the SWPLs are on our side (I say they are not), you are only fooling yourself with a fantasy of White unity that doesn’t exist.

    Your memory serves you correctly. I wished to create my own discursive space and I did so. I didn’t try to make out like any of them were the enemy, but simply concluded that I did not wish to share a discursive space with them. The emphasis of the blog hasn’t been on going after any of those groups.

    So, you are telling me you haven’t gone after Scott Locklin, Guy White, and Ferdinand Bardamu? You are saying that you haven’t gotten into it with the Nordicists and anti-Christians? I can think of quite a few times when you went after them.

    What about the time you responded to Michael Bell or the time you criticized H. Rock White for his position on women? No, you clearly enjoy arguing with people as much as I do.

    Admit it.

    My criticisms of Alt.Right were not “fights” or attacks, but criticisms. Neither Locklin nor Bardamu are White Advocates. In fact, Locklin is against everything we stand for and a fair target. My engagement with Bardamu was constructive and effective in spreading our message and we get along fine. I attempted to debate some of the Nordicists, but always patiently and respectfully.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    I don’t know what Republican Senators you’re talking about, but I reckon I probably blasted them for doing something bad, then celebrated their doing something good.

    That’s a reasonable position.

  7. My transition away from the Jobling camp occurred very shortly after the articles in question. It was indeed a seismic one, but one that occurred well before I started blogging at OD. I still don’t think it’s worthwhile to argue for exclusion of Jews on strictly racial terms, as I still consider them anthropologically borderline between truly White and merely Caucasoid, especially the very Europid specimens from within the Ashkenazi sub-population.

    You imply that I’ve moved toward the neo-Nazi camp, when my articles at C-C are articles like “Democrats: Acting the Fool” and “Americans: We’re Europeans, Too”.

  8. The Order and their paltry ten members wasn’t much of an insurgency and white racialism was confined to the extreme fringes in the early 1980’s. Eventually a snitch close to the group turned them in to law enforcement, so treason from within proved their undoing.

    There’s many more disaffected whites in 2010 and in the coming years than there were in 1982 and I don’t expect that trend to change. Successful fourth generation warfare depends on several preconditions and at this time they don’t exist so it would be sheer folly for anyone to even attempt anything.

  9. I don’t have time to make a proper response to the various implicit criticisms made of my vision here. Let me just go to the heart of the question.

    This question, as I see it, isn’t a matter of vanguardism vs. mainstreamism (as Zeskind has it), but of revolution vs. reform (in the Leninist sense). (In revolutionary periods the revolutionary vanguard becomes mainstream and the mainstream become irrelevant).

    This is the issue that divides HW and myself. He thinks the system can be used to achieved a white ethnostate, I think such a state is possible only on the ruins of the existing order.

    From a revolutionary perspective, this doesn’t mean that facets of the system can’t be used to advance the WN cause or that white conservatives can’t be won over to the revolution, but rather that the system, ultimately, cannot be reformed in ways that support our common goal. Remember, the Fenians were ready to support the Constitutionalists as long as the latter advanced the cause of national independence.

    The important thing in my view is that, for now, we highlight the common goal – an independent, racially-exclusive European America – and relegate our strategic differences, revolution vs. reform, to a secondary order of significance.

  10. If I may respond to Mr. O’Meara, I would point out that it is all well and good to talk about revolution, but what White Nationalists have today is little more than a debating society on the internet. These airy debates have been going on since the mid-1990s when Francis, McCulloch, Hart, and Schiller aired their differences over secession in Amren and TOQ.

    From my perspective, this more than anything else illustrates the sterility of ideas. The fact is, White Nationalists have done little else but argue about ideas for the past sixteen years. I’ve lost count of how many times I have seen hairsplitting debates over subjects like religion and subracial differences in an ethnostate that only exists in our day dreams.

    The problem here is easy to see: what we have are a bunch of atomized radicals distributed across a huge geographic area interacting with each other anonymously in cyberspace. Our radicals are unwilling to take the most rudimentary steps toward organization and power because of fear of the social and economic consequences of White Advocacy.

    White Nationalists have no influence in their communities. Without influence and organization, we speak for no one but ourselves and a few of our close friends, and lack the power to change anything. The root cause of this is an unwillingness to accept political reality and communicate with ordinary people in their own terms.

    I would love to demolish the existing order as much as anyone, but the only way to do that is to lead people from where they are today to where they need to go. In order to do that, you must be willing to start where your audience is now, not from your own radical position, and select tactics appropriate to moving your audience in a more radical direction.

    The American South has seceded once before.

    In that case, it wasn’t a bunch of fringe vanguardist radicals who were propelled into power. Jefferson Davis, a Senator from Mississippi, was the epitome of the Antebellum Washington establishment. Robert Toombs and Alexander Stephens were likewise mainstream politicians. The same was true of Judah Benjamin, John Slidell, Charles Memminger, John C. Breckinridge, etc.

    The real radicals behind the creation of the Confederacy – men like Yancey and Rhett – operated within the political mainstream and spoke for powerful constituencies. The Southerners who rebelled against the Union only did so because they were convinced they were trying to preserve the existing order and were acting on the moral high ground of Christianity and the highest constitutional authority.

    Long before the Confederacy was created, Southerners were convinced that the people convened in a state convention were absolute sovereigns, and had complete power to alter or abolish their governments. Southerners only rebelled through legitimate institutions like their state governments.

    If a ragtag bunch of terrorists had started a rebellion, it would have been crushed without remorse by the same people. Even in the Revolution, Congress was drawn from the upper crust of the colonies – Franklin from Pennsylvania, Adams from Massachusetts, Jefferson and Washington from Virginia – these were all widely admired and respected men.

    I know the temperament of Southerners. If a vanguardist insurrection were started in the South, these would be martyrs for Southern Rights would be crushed and spat upon.

    On the other hand, if the Obama administration were to, say, send troops to Arizona to protect Mexican invaders, and shed the blood of Arizonans defending their rights from hostile foreigners and federal tyranny, something like that could spark a revolution here.

  11. We share the same goal: a White Republic.

    In the South, where my efforts are focused, I am convinced that secession can only come about through a lawful act of sovereignty by a state government. If we want to capture a state government, we have to work within the mainstream, and especially with conservatives who are the White majority. Without their support, a White ethnostate will remain nothing but an idle fantasy.

  12. Michael O’Meara says:
    “This question, as I see it, isn’t a matter of vanguardism vs. mainstreamism (as Zeskind [and “Hunter” have] it), but of revolution vs. reform (in the Leninist sense). (In revolutionary periods the revolutionary vanguard becomes mainstream and the mainstream become irrelevant).

    “This is the issue that divides HW and myself. He thinks the system can be used to achieved a white ethnostate, I think such a state is possible only on the ruins of the existing order.

    “From a revolutionary perspective, this doesn’t mean that facets of the system can’t be used to advance the WN cause or that white conservatives can’t be won over to the revolution, but rather that the system, ultimately, cannot be reformed in ways that support our common goal.”

    Very good nutshell evaluation. Reformers v. Revolutionists is the more accurate description of those divisions of WN struggling to lead the White resistance than is the Jew Zeskind’s and “Hunter’s” Mainstreamers v. Vanguardists. The division among the more revolutionary-minded among us — the so-called vanguardists — can can be better understood if further divided into Biological Racists v. Xian Patriots. Each is quite easily identifiable.

    “Hunter” established ‘Weird Harold’ straw man: “A revolutionary vanguard will be created which will be motivated by the mythic vision of a White ethnostate. In other words, O’Meara’s plan is Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet scenario…Everything that is being proposed here is what HAC has been saying for years…

    “…Explicit White Nationalists won’t participate in a conference call, have dinner with you at an IHOP, or drink a beer with you at a local bar. The vast majority of them are keyboard commandos and are perfectly content to stay way.

    “If Explicit White Nationalists can’t handle the softball methods of Matt Parrott, they aren’t about to ‘turn to the methods of Connelly and Pearce.’”

    Forget Harold Covington. If Michael really wrote that HAC’s co-opted “Butler Plan” is the blueprint for the “WN vanguard,” then that doesn’t sound like the same Michael O’Meara who explained things in terms of Revolutionist v Reformer.

    Pearce? Would that be Biological Racist Dr. William Pierce?

    Wonder what “Hunter” would say if Matt Parrott’s views matured and he were graduate away from being the more entry-level, CoCC “soft ball” reformer to become the more radicalized race-centered revolutionist? That would be the natural path for a stiff-necked, intellectually honest truth-seeker like Mr. Parrott to follow.

Comments are closed.