This article was written after the removal of the monument to President Jefferson Davis and before the removal of the monuments to General P.G.T. Beauregard and General Robert E. Lee.
“A nation’s self-consciousness is possible only through its history.” – Garegin Nzhdeh
The monument of President Jefferson Davis in New Orleans has been removed. Masked construction crews worked to dismantle the monument in the dead of night, guarded by masked gunmen. Just as the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks celebrated their victorious revolutions against France and Russia by desecrating the Cathedral of Notre Dame and dynamiting the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, so the Left is celebrating its victorious revolution against America by destroying historical monuments – starting small with the vulnerable Confederates as an entering wedge, but marching onward from there and never calling retreat. Indeed, the Left fully intends to do figuratively to American history what the Jacobins and Bolsheviks did literally to the Bourbons and the Romanovs.
Jefferson Davis, a hero from the Mexican War, Mississippi planter, and American statesman before he was elected President of the Confederate States of America, died in New Orleans on December 6th, 1889. His funeral procession was the largest ever in New Orleans and one of the largest ever in the South. Among the tens of thousands who lined the streets and paid their respects were many of his former slaves, who remembered their former master and life on his plantation fondly. On February 22nd, 1911, New Orleans dedicated a monument to Jefferson Davis, corresponding with the 50th anniversary of his presidential inauguration. “The South seeking a leader for her highest office, chose him from among her fittest men, a profound student of the Constitution; a majestic creator; in character firm; in judgment sound; in purpose resolute,” read the pedestal of the monument. “His deeds are enshrined in the hearts of the people for whom he suffered, and his deeds are forever wedded to immortality.” On May 11th, 2017, New Orleans removed the heavily vandalized monument, and it is rumored that it will be relocated to a nearby slavery museum to stand forevermore as an object of scorn and ridicule.
General P.G.T. Beauregard and General Robert E. Lee are the next monuments which the black-run city council has marked for removal. The mob, however, is already demanding the removal of all “monuments to white supremacy,” which to them means any monument to a white man or woman. Indeed, anarcho-communists and black nationalists regularly attack not just Confederate monuments, but any monuments to white history – George Washington and Andrew Jackson, of course, but even Joan of Arc (a gift from France to a French-founded city) as well.
Here is what victorious Mordor has in store for vanquished Ithilien:
Die whites die.
Fuck off Nazi scum.
Nazi dicks are as small as their brains.
We can’t get no satisfaction ‘till we take down Andrew Jackson.
Your vote was a hate crime.
Black lives matter.
We ready. We comin’. Take ‘em down.
Fist up, shoot back.
Black people are ungovernable.
Despite these vitriolic, violent hate crimes, Mayor Mitch Landrieu, a sniveling white liberal who makes a career out of pandering to New Orleans’ black majority and lets the radicals set the agenda, remains determined as ever to put a pretty face on the ugly iconoclasm:
Three weeks ago, we began a challenging but long overdue process of removing four statues that honor the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Today we continue the mission. These monuments have stood not as historic or educational markers of our legacy of slavery and segregation, but in celebration of it. I believe we must remember all of our history, but we need not revere it. To literally put the Confederacy on a pedestal in some of our most prominent public places is not only an inaccurate reflection of our past, it is an affront to our present, and a bad prescription for our future. We should not be afraid to confront and reconcile our past.
American history has been rewritten so thoroughly that the South – the oldest and largest of America’s many sub-nations, the mother of many of America’s most famous men and women, and the inspiration of America’s most influential ideas – is nothing more than a “heritage of hatred.” The truth is that the Left is the side defined and consumed by hatred, not the South – a diabolical hatred not just of the South and the Confederacy, but of America and Western Civilization itself. Indeed, it is the Left, not the Right, which is defacing monuments and defiling graves, both of which the UN Convention on Genocide has condemned as “cultural genocide.”
During the Civil War Centennial (1961-1965), the liberal, pro-“civil rights” President John F. Kennedy gave speeches in front of Confederate flags and could make statements such as “whichever side our interests may lie with, or sympathy…” Today, anything short of dancing and spitting and dancing on Confederate graves would be declared treason. Kennedy also spearheaded the commemoration of John C. Calhoun as one of the five greatest Senators of all time, and wrote admiringly of Calhoun – “the revered sage of the South” – in his Pulitzer-winning book, Profiles in Courage. Today, anything short of denouncing Calhoun as a slave-mongering fanatic would be criticized as “racist.”
Bruce Catton, author of The Centennial History of the Civil War (and other classics such as A Stillness at Appomattox and This Hallowed Ground) could write of the Confederacy, “The South wanted its independence: its people, struggling for their freedom, were fighting off invaders.” Of General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, Catton could write, “To the American nation of reunited North and South, it gave a tradition of undying valor and constancy that would be a vibrant heritage for all generations.” Indeed, every word of Catton’s is a painstaking effort to construct one common history for one common country. Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee would have approved. Today, this would be dismissed as “Lost Cause mythology” and “neo-Confederate revisionism,” even though Catton was from Michigan and grew up listening to war stories from Union veterans.
What changed between the Civil War Centennial, when the Confederacy was celebrated, and today, when the Confederacy is condemned?
First of all, the Left politicized American history.
In Weimar Germany, a group of Jewish social scientists at the University of Frankfurt (who became known as “the Frankfurt School”) gathered together to explain the apparent failure of Marxist-Leninist theory. According to Marx and Lenin, the proletariat were supposed to revolt and abolish the state, yet in the great Marxist-Leninist experiment of the Soviet Union, the proletariat had resisted, not revolted, and the state was aggrandized, not abolished. The Frankfurt School believed that Western Civilization was the key bulwark against Communism: cultural and social traditions came before Communist ideology, which was why the proletariat was so resistant and the state so violent. Since the class war (Klassenkampf) between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie had failed to materialize, the Communists’ new front would be a culture war (Kulturkampf) of the fringes against the center. With the objective of undermining Germany in particular and Western Civilization in general, the Frankfurt School drew from Freudian psychology (conceived by another Jewish intellectual for a similar purpose) to develop “Critical Theory,” which intended to “pathologize” Western Civilization.
Patrick J. Buchanan claims that “the Frankfurt School must be held as a primary suspect and principal accomplice” in the death of Western Civilization:
Using Critical Theory, for example, the Cultural Marxist repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. Under Critical Theory, one repeats and repeats that Western societies are history’s greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism, and Nazism. Under Critical Theory, the crimes of the West flow from the character of the West, as shaped by Christianity…Under the impact of Critical Theory, many of the Sixties generation, the most privileged in history, convinced themselves that they were living in an intolerable hell.
The Frankfurt School was thoroughly subversive, of course, and when the National Socialists came into power (an event which only further convinced them of the failure of classical Marxism-Leninism) they were expelled from Germany as enemies of the state. Many members of the Frankfurt School came to the United States, where they infiltrated the Left and began to wage a Kulturkampf on White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) America. Instead of working within the labor movement that men like Samuel Gompers had started and forming it into a revolutionary class, the Frankfurt School mobilized a coalition of aggrieved minorities (increasingly numerous due to mass-immigration) against the white majority. Today, the Frankfurt School is known as “Cultural Marxism,” and in just a few short generations the Kulturkampf has raped and pillaged its way through American identity, institutions, icons, and ideas. That is why, today, Americans are called “Nazis” for having the same opinions not just that their grandparents had, but that were “mainstream” just a few years earlier.
One tactic of Kulturkampf is the politicization of history, also known as “presentism.” According to the Left, history must be held up to present ideological standards and anything which does not fit perfectly must be purged. Of course, today’s sacred cows – absolute racial/social/sexual egalitarianism, a narcissistic and hedonistic individualism, and an adolescent defiance of any sort of tradition or taboo – did not even exist until the 1960s, and were not even widely accepted until fairly recently, so the end result of presentism is the purging almost all history.
Instead of studying history to learn about who we are, where we came from, and why what happened in the past matters today, the Left twists history into narratives to shame any sense of heritage and identity out of the White American majority (racist, sexist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, bourgeois, and so on) and incite minorities to militancy. History is no longer educational, but ideological – indoctrination and radicalization over knowledge and wisdom – and nothing more than a prop in a morality play. The Trotskyite and Maoist “permanent revolution” has been applied to history, demanding continual erasures and revisions of past figures and events, each rewrite more radical than the last. Race, class, and gender have ceased to be interesting fields of historical study and have mutated into insatiable “volcano gods” to which superstitious Americans must ritually sacrifice their history.
The most poisonous aspect of presentism in American history is the morbid obsession with slavery. Slavery fills books, documentaries, and museums: there is not any era of Antebellum American history or any biography of an Antebellum American in which slavery is not featured. The few movies that are made about American history are about slavery or segregation. Although it has been 150 years since slavery was abolished, slavery is routinely cited as a self-evident justification for granting more special privileges to blacks and purging whites from history. The truth is that while American slavery was bad, it was not the nightmare from a hell dimension of popular imagination and reckless revisionism, and was, in fact, the most humane system of slavery ever practiced. Old movies such as “Gone with the Wind” do not “romanticize” slavery so much as they simply contradict the historical hysterics in newer movies such as “Birth of a Nation” (the 2016 fake history of Nat Turner’s slave revolt, not D.W. Griffith’s 1915 masterpiece) Slavery, in one form or another, has been practiced around the world for all of human history. It is unfair and unjust to single out White Americans for slavery, as if it were not something which the entire world had been doing, and it is outrageous to demand that any American history connected to slavery be purged. In fact, whites are the only people in world history who voluntarily abolished slavery – not just in their own countries, but in their colonies as well (another civilizing “evil” of colonialism). Whites should not be expected to flagellate themselves for the rest of time because something bad happened to blacks in the past. Slavery has been dead for quite awhile, and it is long past time that it was buried.
The doomed Confederates in New Orleans illustrate how presentism has poisoned any remembrance of American heritage or assertion of American identity. In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century (not during the 1960s as a protest against civil rights, as the slander goes), Southerners still suffering the effects of the War contributed what little money they could spare to the construction of monuments for the commemoration of Confederate soldiers, Confederate generals, and the Confederate cause. The War – Between the States, of Southern Independence, of Northern Aggression, or whatever you may call it – had proven to be the defining event of Southern history, and so it was only right that Southerners wished to pay tribute the sacrifice and heroism of their people, just as Northerners paid tribute to the sacrifice and heroism of their people. In New Orleans, monuments to President Jefferson Davis (the head of a government of, by, and for the Southern people), General P.G.T. Beauregard (a native Louisianan and New Orleanian), and General Robert E. Lee (a Napoleonic military genius who won the respect of European neutrals and Yankee enemies alike) were constructed in 1911, 1915, and 1884, respectively. Proud of their heritage and identity, Southerners wished (and continue to wish) to honor their heroes for their individual greatness and historical importance. According to the Left, however, because Davis, Beauregard, and Lee sided with slavery and secession back when both were undecided issues, everything great about them must be forgotten, all physical traces of them must be eradicated, and if they remembered at all, they must only be remembered in shame. This is what a warlord does to the people he has conquered, not what a proud, free people do to themselves.
Make no mistake, the attacks on the Confederacy, such as those in New Orleans, have been mere entering wedges for broader attacks on anything and everything white in American history. Andrew Jackson is obviously the next target, having been subjected to hateful attacks which in many ways even exceed the hatefulness of the attacks against the Confederates (who have been accused of racism and treason, but never genocide). “Jeffersonian” conservatives and libertarians who tacitly support the Left’s attacks on Jackson due to their own historical grievances with him are missing the point. They are opening the castle gates to the barbarians, believing that they will be spared and that only their personal enemies will be massacred, but will soon find that they will merely be put to the sword last. The Left is not denouncing Jackson for threatening South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, introducing the spoils system to the executive branch, or any of the other issues Jeffersonians find outrageous, but for the same reason they attack all dead white men: he fails their ideological purity test and thus must be purged.
Conservatives and libertarians who make common cause with anarcho-communists and black nationalists are only making it easier to attack other Americans – including the Founding Fathers and especially their precious Thomas Jefferson. In fact, even abolitionists and suffragettes, once progressive icons, are already under attack for their “paternalistic racism.” John Randolph of Roanoke and John C. Calhoun were Jeffersonians who repeatedly fought with Jackson, but even they would have stood in solidarity with Old Hickory against such enemies – the Nat Turners and John Browns of their day. Remember, despite Jackson’s adamant opposition to disunion, the Confederates still put him on their currency – he was one of them, a Southerner.
The Left’s politicization of history is as ignorant as it is perverse. For example, Christopher Columbus and Andrew Jackson are commonly condemned for their cruelty toward the Indians. In the echo chamber that is the Left, such accusations grow increasingly shrill with circulation, culminating in charges that Columbus and Jackson were sadistic madmen bent on genocide. Columbus’ ruthless suppression of the Caribs was not unlike the many ruthless suppressions of indigenous people by colonizing powers that have occurred for all time all around the world – certainly no worse than, say, the recent Turkish conquest of Byzantium, which was the reason Columbus was seeking an alternative trade route to the Orient in the first place. Columbus’ introduction of the African slave trade to the Americas sowed seeds of destruction – no worse however, than the ongoing Muslim enslavement of Christians in the Turkish empire. Often overlooked in of the African slave trade is the role of Africans in capturing their “brothers” and “sisters” and selling them to Europeans. Yet only Columbus is singled out for hatred as a one-dimensional villain – no historical context whatsoever. Ironically, universal human rights – the very basis on which the Left condemns Columbus, and by extension Western Civilization – is derived from Western philosophy. Bartolome de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria, Dominican theologians and contemporaries of Columbus, drew from Scholastic natural-law philosophy to defend the human rights of the Caribs before the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of Spain.
As far as Andrew Jackson goes, he was a frontiersman who battled Indian forces and massacred Indian villages – not unlike the Indians who battled white frontiersmen and massacred white towns. The American frontier, a treacherous place flowing with blood and raging with fire, forged fierce men like Jackson (who admittedly belonged at the head of an army before the head of the government). The Indian Removal Act, which Jackson signed as President but which was not implemented until after he left office, resulted in the truly terrible Trail of Tears – a much more merciful fate, however, than the wars of extermination which Indian tribes once fought amongst themselves. Like Columbus, however, Jackson is singled out for hatred as a one-dimensional villain – no historical context whatsoever. Once it is seen, the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Left cannot be unseen.
As a part of this politicization of history, minorities have been granted moral authority over the white majority. For far too long, Confederate “heritage defense” activist groups have bent over backwards to prove that they are “not racist” by whitewashing Southern history of its “racism,” condemning modern-day Southern nationalists, and making token minorities their public face. This spectacle is as ineffective as it is pathetic. These activists have a mental immunodeficiency syndrome: they are incapable of comprehending the Sixties-era intellectual and demographic changes which have made the purging of Southern history possible, and since they do not know their enemy, they cannot fight their enemy. However interesting the history of “Black Confederates,” “Cherokee Confederates,” or “Hispanic Confederates,” they are not suitable representatives of the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and Gallic Confederacy. Modern Southerners are not going to win a fight with the Left by rolling over on their backs and exposing their belly, like cowed pups. Indeed, leftists actually murdered Anthony Hervey, a “Black Confederate” protestor for showing up to the “Monumental Dixie” rally in Birmingham, Alabama, with a Confederate flag.
The politicization of American history necessarily leads to the perversion of American history, and ultimately the subversion and degradation of American heritage and identity.
Second of all, Washington, D.C. replaced the American people with immigrants from the Third World.
The United States has gone from a “blood and soil nation” (based on identity and territory) to a “proposition nation” (ideological and borderless). In 1790, President George Washington signed into law the first naturalization act, which restricted citizenship to “free white persons of good character.” From the debates on naturalization in the Constitutional Convention and first Congress, it was clear that the immigrants in question would be, as James Madison put it, “great numbers of Europeans,” whom he described as “the most desirable class of people” and “men who love liberty and wish to partake its blessings.” This racial prerequisite prevailed, more or less, until 1965. Even during the famous “Ellis Island” period of 1890-1924, immigration was still virtually 100% European (mostly from Southern and Central Europe) – and millions of those European immigrants were turned away and sent back.
In 1924, the United States, hoping to undo the demographic changes of the prior three decades (the largest immigration wave at that time) adopted the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act, a law which privileged Western Europe and discriminated against everywhere else. “Our country must cease to be regarded as a dumping ground,” declared Calvin Coolidge, three years before signing the law as President.
Between 1924 and 1965 the Left denounced the United States as “racist,” “xenophobic,” and “anti-Semitic” for restricting immigration to Western Europe. “America’s immigration policy runs counter to the basic credo of the country,” declared the Berkeley sociologist William Petersen, who smeared the laws as “nativist” and “proto-fascist.” The Left also deconstructed American identity and rewrote American history, turning the archetypal American from a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) into an immigrant and turning American history from the history of the conquest of a continent into the history of immigration. “Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America,” quipped the Harvard historian and Zionist Oscar Handlin. “Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history.” Immigration reform was also swept up in the ongoing civil-rights revolution. “Just as we sought to eliminate discrimination in our land through the Civil Rights Act,” declared California Representative Phillip Burton, “today we seek by phasing out the national origins quota system to eliminate discrimination in immigration to this nation composed of the descendants of immigrants”
After generations of intellectual movements and political activists subverting and degrading the United States in this way, Congress passed and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Immigration Act, a law abolishing the restrictions of 1924. Norbert Schlei (a Jewish lawyer who advised the Kennedy and Johnston administrations and wrote the Civil Rights Act) wrote the Hart-Celler Act, which was introduced in Congress by Emanuel Celler (a Jewish lawyer and New York Representative), who had voted against the immigration restrictions of 1924. At the time, proponents of Hart-Celler promised that while discrimination in immigration would be abolished, nothing about immigration would change either qualitatively (i.e. the national origin of immigrants) or quantitatively (i.e. the number of immigrants). “Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same,” promised Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy. “In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.” In a signing ceremony before the Statue of Liberty, President Johnson avowed that the Hart-Celler Act was “not a revolutionary bill” and “will not reshape the structure of our daily lives.”
The most consistent opponents of the Hart-Celler Act were the old-fashioned Southern Democrats – those “liberals” who did a far better job of conserving American ideas, institutions, icons, and identity than any of the “conservative” Republicans have ever done. “The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, and the people of Holland,” complained North Carolina Senator Samuel J. Ervin. “With all due respect to Ethiopia, I don’t know of any contribution that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.” Texas Representative O.C. Fisher warned that the Hart-Celler Act “substantially increases the number of immigrants who will be admitted each year, and it shifts the mainstream of immigration from western and northern Europe – the principal source of our present population – to Africa, Asia, and the Orient.” Florida Senator Spessard L. Holland objected to “throwing open the doors open and equally inviting people from the Orient, from the islands of the Pacific, from the subcontinent of Asia, from the Near East, from all of Africa, all of Europe, and all of the Western Hemisphere on exactly the same basis,” noting that this was a “complete and radical departure from what has always heretofore been regarded as sound principles of immigration.” West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd noted that “every other country that is attractive to immigrants practices selectivity (in favor of their founding nationalities) and without apology,” and simply asked, “Why should the U.S. be the only advanced nation in the world today to develop a guilt complex concerning its immigration policies?”
The quantitative and qualitative differences of today’s immigration with other eras in American history have resulted in disturbing demographic trends. Since the passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, 59 million immigrants have entered the United States, a torrent which is nearly triple the next-largest immigration wave of 1890-1924. While pre-1965 immigration was virtually 100% European, 85% of post-1965 Americans were from the Third World, particularly Latin America. Between 1924 and 1965, immigration (then exclusively European) accounted for about 9% of population growth, but from 1965 to the present, immigration (now predominantly Third-World) has accounted for 51% of American population growth, and is projected to account for 82% through 2055. At the same time, the white birth rate of 1.7 (which is already sub-replacement) is below that of most immigrants, particularly Latinos. In 1960, the United States was 82% white, but today it is only 62% white. If these demographic trends continue – diversity to some, displacement to others – White Americans are projected to lose their majority status by 2055, swamped by Third-World immigrants and their offspring. Unlike pre-1965 European immigrants to the United States, who were fundamentally compatible with European-descended whites and thus assimilated to the culture, society, government, and economy of their host country, post-1965 Third-World immigrants are fundamentally incompatible with whites and are instead assimilating (or “de-civilizing”) the United States to the cultures, societies, governments, and economies of their home countries. In the history of the world, there is simply no precedent for a mass-migration and demographic displacement – both of which have always been the downfall of superpowers – of such scale in such a short period of time. Thus, the original opponents of the Hart-Celler Act share the same miserable fate as the original opponents of the Constitution: totally vindicated in that their worst nightmares all came true.
One consequence mass-immigration is that a large and growing proportion of the American population has no personal connection to and/or emotional bond with American history. American history is meaningless to these people, at best. A large and growing proportion of the American population views American history as just another subject in a textbook, not the story of their people or a patrimony from their ancestors. American history is nothing more than names and dates that these people might have memorized in school. A large and growing proportion of the American population is not descended from the native-born people who made American history happen, but rather the foreign-born people to which American history happened. American history is a source of alienation rather than a source of patriotism to these people. In other words, a large and growing proportion of the American population – and, to be clear, the future majority of the country – has no American heritage and identity. To these people, an American heritage and identity are as foreign to them as their heritages and identities – Mexican, El Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Honduran, Chinese, Vietnamese, Haitian, Somalian, and other such peoples and places – are to Americans.
A people’s heritage and identity are derived from their history. If they do not share a history – the story of who they are, where they came from, what they did, and why it matters – then they cannot share a heritage or identity, either. A common history, however, requires a common people. In the United States, where a large and growing proportion of the population is not descended from American history, preserving that history and protecting it from the Left becomes more challenging under mass-immigration.
Despite the nostrum that “diversity is our strength,” the truth is that diversity dissolves community cohesiveness, which on the national scale results in culture wars, social alienation, political dysfunction, economic waste, and an overall decreased quality of public life. Indeed, the iconoclasm running rampant in New Orleans (and now spreading to other “reconstructed” Southern cities) will seem trivial next to the greater changes that mass-immigration is bringing.
American heritage and identity are not products for sale to the rest of the world. A Third-World immigrant to the United States no more “becomes” American than an American immigrant to Japan “becomes” Japanese – to claim otherwise is an offensive deconstruction of American heritage and appropriation of American identity. To Americans who were born and raised here and whose family history is literally the history of this country, the idea that “anyone can be an American” makes their heritage and identity essentially meaningless. The Left would never dare deconstruct the heritage and appropriate the identity of any other people in the world the way it attempts to deconstruct and appropriate those of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) Americans. Even if American heritage and identity were for sale, however, Third-World immigrants would not be buying: they come to the United States not because they want to be patriotic Americans (as if America were an evangelical religion to which anyone in the world can “convert” rather than a nation with her own people and interests), but to take advantage of stable institutions and abundant economic opportunity, while remaining highly ethno-centric and suspicious of their host country.
Because of the large and growing proportion of immigrants in the country, when the Left attacks American history, it confronts a divided rather than united people – “a tangle of squabbling nationalities,” to quote Theodore Roosevelt’s warning against “hyphenated Americans.” Third-World immigrants have no loyalty to American history – what is it to them, after all? – and so either do nothing about the attacks or join in against their host country. The dwindling majority of White Americans in the country is so ashamed of its history and afraid of accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” that it cannot even muster a united front against these anti-American/anti-white attacks. Thus, when angry, ethno-centric minorities demand the purging of this or that White American historical figure for his or her ideological impurity, they receive a sickening level of support from scared, ethno-masochistic White Americans seeking social approval. American history has been purged in this way for far too long, and the Left will not stop its march to sea, so to speak, as long as its enemies continue their retreat.
White Americans who believe that Latinos, Asians, Arabs, and Africans are going to preserve American history for posterity and protect it from the Left are deluding themselves and disgracing their ancestors. To practically all of these Third-World immigrants, American history means nothing, and to some, it is outright offensive. As the number of Third Worlders in the United States continues to rise and they replace whites as the American majority, American history will simply fade away from private and public life: not only will there be a physical deterioration of parks and museums, of course, but also a mental deterioration of national self-consciousness. Yet it will not be a peaceful, painless death: as the Left carries presentism to its logical conclusion and White Americans shrink in number, the anti-American/anti-white iconoclasm will grow even more galling. Besides, although they are personally indifferent to and/or ignorant of American history, most Third Worlders do bloc-vote for the Left (the party that asks of them nothing and gives to them everything), which makes them at least de-facto accomplices in the Kulturkampf. Indeed, the Hart-Celler Act provided the dying Left with a vital new constituency – Third-World immigrants – and set the Left on its increasingly anti-white/anti-American agenda.
The Left’s purge of American history, with the resultant subversion and degradation of American heritage and identity, is the result of mass-immigration from the Third World. American history – along with American heritage and identity, and indeed the whole American way of life – cannot be preserved for posterity or protected from the Left without the American people.
Thirdly, the American public lost control of their government.
In a recent Louisiana State University poll, 73% of Louisianans opposed the removal of Confederate monuments in New Orleans, including 88% of whites and 47% of blacks. In New Orleans (66% black population) only about 50% supported removal.
Nevertheless, in defiance of the public will, the Mayor and the City Council pushed through the removal of the monuments. “We will no longer allow the Confederacy to literally be put on a pedestal in the heart of our city,” vowed Mayor Landrieu.
In the United States, representative government has long existed in name only. At every level of government, it is pressure groups and special interests which rule, not the public will. Pressure groups and special interests control the parties, the parties control the politicians, and the politicians control the government. The end result is that politicians represent the interests of their party above the interests of their “people” and “place.” As a New Jersey “Know Nothing” put it in 1855, “The national interest is never considered by your real ‘party man,’” but rather “his own success or that of his cabal, as a means for their own advancement in place or in fortune.”
This is why every Republican and Democrat sounds the same as every other Republican and Democrat, and the most interesting politicians are independents (or at least from third parties too irrelevant for the rich and powerful to buy).
Instead of “consent of the governed,” Americans have “government by intimidation and bribery.” The power of pressure groups and special interests over political parties has made a mockery of democracy. Louisianans and even New Orleanians oppose what the government is doing, and yet the government is still doing it. Pressure groups (like “Black Lives Matter” and “Antifa” defacing the monuments with hateful graffiti) create a crisis which distorts public opinion, and special interests (like the anonymous donors financing the removal of the monuments) make the costs of selling out cheap.
Even the “Conservation of Military Memorials Act,” a supposedly “pro-monument” bill just passed by the Louisiana House, fails to protect monuments: it simply codifies a legal process for removing them. If this bill even passes the Senate and is signed by the Governor, which is doubtful, there will still be nothing to stop Louisiana’s many once-white/now-black communities (such as New Orleans) from removing monuments. It is only a matter of time before the monuments to George Washington and Andrew Jackson in New Orleans are also removed.
What changed? Cultural Marxism infiltrated the Left and politicized American history (starting with Southern), thus stigmatizing American heritage and identity (starting with Southern). Mass-immigration from the Third World corrupted American demographics, resulting in the dissolution of American heritage and identity. Corrupt and cowardly political parties killed democracy, reducing the popular majorities against such “cultural genocide” to irrelevancy. We must never give up hope, however, but remain determined as ever to turn back these changes and thus “redeem” our nation from this Second Reconstruction.
It is not enough to blame “political correctness.” Political correctness is an annoying but relatively harmless preoccupation of social-justice warriors. What we are facing is far more sinister: hatred and fear. The Left is not purging Southern history to be “politically correct,” but because it hates and fears all that we are and all that we hold dear. There is no point in trying to reason with leftists, or appeal to their humanity, because their hatred and fear has made them merciless and fanatical – truly, a force of anti-civilizational entropy. The Left is, truly, an American “jihad,” committing iconoclastic acts of “cultural genocide.” Since we are not going to win any leftists over to our side, we must focus on raising awareness among fellow Southerners about how anti-white/anti-American the Left has become in recent years. To do this, however, we must not mince words about “political correctness,” and instead call out this bigotry whenever it rears its ugly head. We must become more aggressive in how we confront our enemies and more populist in how we reach out to our friends.
Whatever we think of Saul Alinsky, his Rules for Radicals is decidedly non-partisan, and simply spells out the meta-politics of a successful movement:
- Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
- Never go outside the expertise of your people.
- Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
- Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
- Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
- A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
- A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
- Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
- The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
- The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
- If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
- The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
- Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Mass-immigration from the Third World and the Left’s attacks on Southern history are inextricably intertwined. To paraphrase John C. Calhoun, “The South will be forced to choose between diversity and her history.” Thus, in addition to raising awareness among fellow Southerners about the hatefulness of the Left, we must also raise a national consciousness among Southerners. It is not enough, as many “Jeffersonians” seem content to do, to defend our Southern heritage and identity by defending the Southern political tradition of small-r republicanism, small-f federalism, and a natural aristocracy (downplaying, of course, the cornerstone of white supremacy). While a beneficial intellectual exercise, this is insufficient for the preservation of our people, and the South’s most precious possession – indeed, the most precious possession of any nation – is not her political tradition, but her people (who are the source, after all, of all her other political and cultural values).
The Southern paleo-conservative M.E. Bradford, writing against President Ronald Reagan’s “amnesty,” noted that American immigration policy had become pathologically altruistic at the expense of the public good – that is, all about the rights of foreigners rather than the interests of the citizens:
We want an easy solution to the immigration problems that we face, one which makes everyone happy, concerning which no one will complain of racial and/or cultural bias. Thus, in the end, we may have no immigration policy at all: or any perception of the difference between guest, interloper, and citizen; or, finally, any country of our own. If unchecked, more and more illegal immigrants will come from Latin America, Asia, and (eventually) other parts of the world—come by the millions, swamp our system of social services, aggravate our employment problems, subvert our political stability, and thereby stir among us the fires of racial hatred which are heating now in Britain and Germany, France and Sweden, and are a danger in most of the world’s developed nations, except Japan. In other words, we will have precisely the sort of situation which the advocates of amnesty insist that they so much deplore out of a conviction that “there are no longer strangers and sojourners,” but only citizens of the global community. If we thus persist, our children in generations to come will marvel at this circuitous sentimentality – and then pay the price of the cowardice which lies at its source.
But if, to the contrary, we would prefer to mean by the word “homeland” something more than a memory, a discursive concept, and a segment of geography (thanks to immigration, all that the Romans understood by patria long before their city fell), then the first order of our business will be to drain the rhetoric of natural rights out of our discussion of what immigration policy we should adopt and enforce. For that rhetoric is appropriate only to an argument from definition, and to a world where God hath not made nations of men, nor appointed “the bounds of their habitation.” Instead our focus should be on the ideas of public virtue and citizenship, of what prospective citizens might bring to their country, and what harm they might do it. For with civil rights go duties, and an obligation to defend the corporate good. That we put first, as prior to other questions, the survival of the homeland should not be a question open to discussion among its sons and daughters – that is, unless the conditions of its survival are shameful.
Given the capture of democratic governments by pressure groups and special interests, we must not rely on the political class for help. Even politicians who counted on our votes to get elected are likely to turn on us in the end. We must take matters into our own hands and take back our governments. The most urgent battle for our heritage and identity – iconoclasm against Southern monuments – is taking place at the local level of government, where mayors and city councilmen are making these decisions. Ideally, we must get elected to these positions (where we can wield governmental power to shield our people and strike at our enemies) but at the very least we must make these local officials heed our voice. For instance, in Thomas Jefferson’s Charlottesville, Virginia, the mayor (a Jewish attorney from New York City) and the vice-mayor (a buffoonish black “educator” who spews profane, derogatory, and illiterate bile on Twitter) are demanding the removal of local monuments to General Robert E. Lee and General Thomas J. Jackson, but gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart (an attorney from Minnesota) has stood like a stone wall in defense of these Virginian heroes.
The Southern paleo-conservative Samuel T. Francis, writing about the purging of Southern symbols from the University of Mississippi – changing the “Rebels” team name, abolishing the “Colonel Reb” mascot, tearing down Confederate flags, and banning the folk song “Dixie” – warned of what happens when minorities take control of the majority’s intellectual, cultural, and political institutions:
Implication One is that when you admit racial and cultural aliens into institutions created by and for people of a different race and culture, you’re going to have problems.
The newcomers don’t feel comfortable…and if they gain power, which eventually they will, they will do all they can to abolish and eradicate those symbols that make them feel like the outsiders they are.
And Implication Two is that it’s not just fairly trivial symbols like Col. Reb, the flags at the football game, the name of the team, and the songs the spectators can’t sing.
It’s everything – everything whites (not just Southerners) ever created and built, from their form of government, to their religion, to their art and entertainment, to what they teach in universities.
Non-whites of all races and cultures are increasingly aware that they just don’t fit in the institutions built by whites, and therefore they demand that these institutions bend to their will.
And the reason they succeed, of course, is that the white leadership of the institutions created by and for whites lacks the brains and the guts to resist.
Secession, of course, is the highest prize, and would cut the Gordian Knot of all the above problems: in a free and independent South, Cultural Marxism would be cast into the light and lynched; history would be de-politicized and resume being educational rather than ideological; mass-immigration from the Third World would not just stop but be reversed; pride in our heritage and identity would be promoted rather than suppressed; all levels of government would be of us, by us, and for us. Even if secession seems impossible at present, remember that the Southern secessionists were kept at bay for generations before a rapid series of explosive events propelled them into power.
“Occidental Dissent,” a website affiliated with the League of the South, explains why we should leave the Yankee Leviathan for the Republic of Dixie:
- We agree with Ron Paul that the Constitution has failed and the federal government has become a consolidated despotism.
- Secession is the ultimate check on the growth of the federal government.
- America has failed as a nation. There is no political cure for a decompiled culture.
- White Southerners are an object of ridicule in America’s national culture…
- White Southerners are a degraded and humiliated minority within the Union…
- Christianity has no future in the United States.
- Conservatives tried to “take back America” and failed. Dixie is not synonymous with America.
- Conservatism is dead in America except as a regional philosophy.
- America has promoted secession everywhere from South Vietnam, South Korea, South Sudan, Kosovo, Taiwan, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, Panama, East Timor, and Ireland to advance its own interests.
- America is becoming California. The financial collapse of California will herald the financial collapse of the United States.
- The blacks were given their chance. We tried for fifty years to create a “post-racial, colorblind society.”
We waged a “War on Poverty” for 50 years and poverty whipped us.
- China hasn’t used violence against Taiwan. Russia hasn’t used violence against Ukraine and Georgia. Even North Korea has restrained itself from attacking South Korea. The United States should live up to the standards of North Korea and allow Texas to secede peacefully from the Union.
- If you can’t leave, you aren’t free.
- The United States is anti-white and anti-Southern.
I am fully aware that some of what I have written here – such as accepting the Left’s frame of reference and engaging it on those terms – may be viewed as a betrayal of the Southern political tradition, which is supposed to be too high-minded for gutter fights with the Left. I am also aware that some of what I have written here may be viewed as a betrayal by “heritage defense” activist groups, which are stuck in the mindset of treating the symptoms (protesting “political correctness” and chanting “heritage not hate!”) instead of curing the disease (raising a national consciousness among our people and taking back political power). What matters most to me, at this point, is defeating the existential threat facing not just our Southern heritage and identity, but Western Civilization itself. In this fight for our very survival as a people, I am willing to pay any price for victory, even if that means fighting fire with fire. As the great Southerner Samuel Houston remarked after laying some hard truths on his fellow Texans, “I can forget that I am called a traitor.”