Jaye Ryan: I am reposting an updated version of this OD classic blog because I plan to discuss Wilmot Robertson’s excellent book “The Dispossessed Majorty” on James Edwards’ The Political Cesspool radio show. Robertson’s analysis of the specific types of White British American/assimilated White American traitors is the best of its kind.
Wilmot Robertson presents five distinct or overlapping types of American racial/political traitors:
1) Pussyfooters – the most common form being cuckservatives
2) Gracchites – Wealthy noble elites leading the non-White mobs
3) Trucklers – lower-class Whites going with the flow for money and power
4) Old Believers/True Believers – they actually believe their bullshit
5) Proditors – those who hate their own people out of pure hate.
Chapter 11 • The Split in the Ranks
Is it not incredible that the largest American population group, the group with the deepest roots, the most orderly and most technically proficient group, the nuclear population group of American culture and of the American gene pool, should have lost its preeminence to weaker, less established, less numerous, culturally heterogeneous, and often mutually hostile minorities?
With all due allowance for minority dynamism and for the variety of causes reviewed in earlier chapters, this miraculous shift of power could never have taken place without a Majority “split in the ranks” — without the active assistance and participation of Majority members themselves. It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind’s greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.
Strictly speaking, as has already been suggested, no one can change or trade his race. This is precluded by race’s all-important physical stratum. But one can lose or give up his race-mindedness, his racial pride, his racism. One can acquire the cultural trappings, the language, and the religion of another race. One can marry a person of a different race and have hybrid children. By taking one or more of these steps, the Majority member withdraws for all practical purposes from his own group and becomes, if not a bona fide, at least an ad hoc member of a minority.
Majority members split their ranks for a multitude of reasons, the chief one probably being ignorance — ignorance of the modern world about them and the ancient world behind them, ignorance derived from an unwillingness or inability to recognize the osmotic influence of race on matters that touch their day-to-day existence. Paradoxically, this ignorance is widespread among the more educated elements of the Majority, for the literate man who reads nothing but nonsense is more ignorant that the illiterate who reads nothing. Prosperity, which increases social mobility while diluting race consciousness, is also an important factor in dividing the Majority from within. Over concern for the material comforts and conveniences of modern technology serves to dull both the reason and instincts. But no matter what the circumstances, those who leave the racial fold weaken the racial fold. It is not so much that there is strength in numbers, as there is weakness in defection. Who exactly are the Majority Splitters of the Ranks? Generally speaking, they can be broken down into five categories.
1. GRACCHITES. The name is derived from the Gracchi, two brothers who, although belonging to one of the great patrician families of Rome, could not feed their soaring ambition sufficiently by remaining in the orbit of their own aristocratic caste. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus found that in times of stress in a relatively tolerant republic a descent of one or two steps in the social ladder was equivalent to an ascent of several steps in the political ladder. Accordingly, they became the standard bearers of revolution and agrarian revolt and were adulated by the plebeians. The Gracchi’s political strategy was by no means limited to stirring up class against class, peasant against landlord, exploited against exploiter. The patricians, the descendants of the Italic invaders, differed racially from the plebs, the offspring of earlier and later immigrants. The Gracchi’s appeal, consequently, was directed to oppressed races as well as to oppressed classes.
In a multiracial state the well-born, ambitious member of a dominant race is constantly tempted to take the Gracchite path to power. It is harder for the patrician to win the respect of the patrician than to win the respect of the plebeian. It is also much easier to give money away than to earn it; to relax discipline than to enforce it; to be a hero to one’s valet than to one’s mirror.
History is full of Gracchites. The list includes famous popes, monarchs and princes. Philippe d’Orleans, who voted for the death of Louis XVI, his own cousin, to curry favor with the revolutionary mob, is perhaps the most notorious case. Teutonic aristocrats like Leo IX, who as pope stirred up the Italian masses against the Holy Roman Emperor, certainly fit the description. So do those kings and reigning dukes who in late feudal times established absolute rule by crushing their fellow noblemen with the help of the bourgeoisie and the urban rabble. A noted 20th-century Gracchite was Prince Valerian Obolensky, who switched his allegiance from the czar to the Bolsheviks and served as a high Soviet official until he was purged by Stalin.
Gracchites have been particularly numerous in the United States since the 1930s. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Averell Harriman, and Adlai Stevenson are three who come immediately to mind. All were born millionaires. All were the scions of well-entrenched Majority families. None was particularly successful in any realm of private endeavor. In their public careers they specialized in catering to minorities, surrounding themselves with minority advisers, consultants and ghostwriters. Their natural stamping ground was the Democratic party, previously described as the party of the minorities. But there are also Republicans who come very close to being Gracchites. Nelson Rockefeller could match his Democratic counterparts in birth, wealth and all the other accouterments of what passes in America for aristocracy, having based his career on a reputation for liberalism, tolerance, friendship for labor and a highly publicized concern for the downtrodden. But since the voter base of the Republican party consists of Majority rather than minority members, the comparison with Democratic Gracchites is only valid when restricted to the Republican Gracchites’ state or city fiefs. In New York, for example, Governor Rockefeller operated almost exactly as President Roosevelt did on the national level, that is, he was dutifully responsive to the will of the liberal-minority coalition. In the field of foreign relations, however, Republican Gracchites are likely to give slightly more consideration to Majority interests.
The Gracchite makes considerable use of the family fortune to attack or undermine the system in which his family prospered. He capitalizes on his aristocratic mien, cultivated voice, and fine manners to charm and win over the proles, much as the polished English actor, who is just another actor in London, “lays them out in the aisles” in the Iowa hustings. Cringing adulation from the lower depths is heady wine to the Gracchite. All this is not to say that Gracchite politics is necessarily or always bad. There may come a time in the life span of every nation when certain issues become so critical they must be resolved even at the risk of revolution or racial conflagration. If no genuine leader can be found in a moment of crisis, as is often the case in a demoralized and decadent society, the Gracchite is sometimes a happier solution than the psychotic nihilist or head-rolling revolutionary. There usually remains at least a spark of feeling in the Gracchite heart for the people on whom he has turned his back.
Gracchites, of course, are to be found in areas other than politics. Marshall Field III, the grandson of the Chicago merchant prince and subsidizer of PM, the defunct minority-oriented New York City daily, was a dyed-in-the-wool Gracchite. So is Michael Straight, son of a Morgan partner, onetime editor and publisher of the New Republic and boon companion of Soviet spies. So is the son of another Morgan partner, Corliss Lamont, the well-heeled apologist and philosopher of Marxism. So is Hamilton Fish III, the onetime publisher of the ultraleft The Nation. There are Gracchite lawyers, doctors, and philanthropists. There are stage and screen Gracchites. There is a surprisingly large agglomeration of Gracchite diplomats. There are numerous female Gracchites, the most notable being the late Eleanor Roosevelt. There are also matrimonial Gracchites — men and women of established Majority families who marry minority members for money, for a racial lark, or for the flattery and attention that social climbers extend to those with taller and leafier family trees.
The Gracchite usually pays a high price for his measure of glory. The adulation and fawning of the mob never quite compensate for the implacable hatred every group reserves for the defector. In war the desertion of a general causes a much greater stir than the desertion of a private. In times of racial troubles the desertion of an aristocrat, the guardian of the race, raises emotions to a much higher pitch than the desertion of a commoner. Not only were both Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus assassinated, so were two later Roman aristocrats in the Gracchite mold, Catiline and Clodius.
The Gracchite, even more than most liberals, has the peculiar habit of fomenting wars, but seldom fighting in them. He loudly denounces the wealth of others, but keeps his own. He sneers at the upper classes, but cannot escape identification with them. He is publicly in favor of integrated schools, but sends his own children to segregated schools. It is probably asking too much of any man, particularly a Gracchite, to practice what he preaches. Giovanni Francesco Bernardone, who became St. Francis after a brief, playboyish stint as the richest young man in Assisi, and Gautama Siddhartha, who evolved from princeling into Buddha, were the rarest of mortals, and certainly no Gracchites. They were humanitarians in the fullest and best sense of the word. The Gracchite’s humanitarianism, however, always seems to be accompanied by an accumulation of power and by a torrential outpouring of hatred upon all and sundry who dare to challenge this power.
What precisely are the Gracchite’s true motives? Is he merely a man whose ambition outweighs his character — one who, in spite of the immense advantages of his birthright, fails to make the first team, and consequently decides to abandon his teammates, go over to the opposite side, change the rules of the game, and try to win anyway? Could it be that fear of competition with his peers is always his greatest concern? Is he not, in the long run, taking out his own failings on his own kind?
2. TRUCKLERS. These are the Majority members who are not born rich like the Gracchites and do not exude any of the aristocratic aroma that delights the olfactory organs of hoi poUoi They come from the middle and lower layers of the Majority. If they are men of wealth — and many are — they made their money themselves, either in business, the professions or, in the not unusual case of Lyndon Johnson, in politics.
Trucklers play an active role in public life and in the formation of public opinion, while at the same time almost formally abjuring their own racial niche in society. The only racism they will abide is minority racism, which they help to cultivate by their zealous interest and meddling in minority matters. But their reasons for playing the minority game are more opportunistic than idealistic. They know from long experience that minority coddling will boost their prestige and respectability, give them a more favorable image in the press and, if they are politicians, bring them more financial support and more votes. They are also well aware of what would happen if they ever associated themselves in the slightest way with Majority racism.
A typical Truckler is the young, naive Majority journalist who, after writing his first important newspaper report or magazine story about some international or domestic event from a purely Majority viewpoint, is one day called into the front office and handed a sheaf of indignant and even threatening letters with fancy letterheads and illustrious signatures. At that moment he can: (1) refuse to be pressured and be discharged on the spot; (2) resign before he is discharged; (3) promise to be more “objective” in the future and keep his job. Having spent a great deal of time and money on becoming a journalist and not wishing to abandon his chosen career before it has hardly begun, he inevitably chooses course (3). He then acquires more “objectivity” by tailoring his writing in such a way as to eliminate further letters and further reprimands. Another Truckler is born.
A second species of Truckler is the young Majority politician or bureaucrat who, during his first stay in Washington or in a state capital, inadvertently makes an off-the-cuff remark critical of some outlandish exhibition of minority racism. Vilified within the hour, he finds himself in danger of becoming a social outcast. He apologizes and never makes the same mistake again. Now he understands the score. Now he will engage the services of a minority adviser to keep him on his toes on minority issues, along with a minority ghostwriter to prepare his speeches. He will thereby avoid the possibility of letting slip any further embarrassing remarks, while at the same time improving his oratory. The dynamic language of minority racism shows up very well in audience reaction, in contrast to the listless, canned phrases of Majority speechwriters.
One of the more curious aspects of political truckling is its dependence on geography. Harry Truman, a chipper haberdasher who fell on hard times and flirted with the Ku Klux Klan, made his debut in politics as a gofer for Kansas City’s corrupt Pendergast political machine. By the time he moved into the White House he was a champion of civil rights. Finally, having retired from Washington and safely back in the Majority-dominated Kansas City suburbs, he heaped vitriolic remarks on the civil rights movement and its leader, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. While attorney general of California, Earl Warren found legal justification for his 1942 roundup and transportation to “relocation” camps of more than 110,000 West Coast Japanese, 64 percent of them American citizens. It was perhaps the greatest mass violation of the Bill of Rights in American history. In Washington, Chief Justice Warren transformed himself into the guardian angel of the Bill of Rights.
Trucklers are not only found in the executive, judiciary and legislative branches of the government. They abound in every bright and dark corner of American life. There are the novelists who are careful to make their minority characters “inoffensive”; the playwrights and scenarists who methodically give their villains Majority pedigrees and physical traits; the businessmen who lend their companies’ names to any number of minority lobbies; the clergymen who preach the righteousness of minority causes and are not averse to making their points by leading violent street demonstrations and sit-ins.
Aware of the immense rewards passed out to the faithful, many Trucklers become full-time minority enthusiasts, for which they not only receive numerous academic kudos and a prefabricated market for their books and articles, but also ready cash. The organizers of minority fund-raisers pay thousands of dollars to prominent Majority speakers. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, Senators Henry Jackson and Robert Packwood, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and a host of lesser Majority notables made sizable grubstakes as the star attractions of Bonds for Israel and B’nai B’rith dinners.
Trucklers frequently render greater service to minority projects than minority leaders themselves. Many legislative Trucklers have been so well trained in racial matters they are often more sensitive to minority concerns than to those of their own constituents. In regard to voter appeal, a handsome, imposing Majority member is sometimes more of a political and social asset to minorities, providing he is properly “sensitized,” than a minority candidate. The latter may lack the clean-cut appearance so handy in attracting widespread support for minority-slanted legislation.
No Majority member is born a Truckler. Truckling is the result of an educational process — sometimes years in the making, some times an overnight conversion — in which the aspiring young politician or professional has drilled into him the contemporary American catechism of success. He learns that he must be tactful rather than truthful, that he may question the non-controversial but not the controversial, that he must sail before the winds of “public opinion” but not head into them. He is taught to fear all the current no-nos as thoroughly as primeval man was taught to fear the taboos of his day.
One can admire a person who, by changing his ideas and principles, risks death, disgrace, or severe financial loss. One reserves the right to adopt a certain skepticism towards those whose ideological skin-shedding, often conveniendy and beautifully timed, makes them rich, powerful, and famous. Perhaps Truckler is too strong a word for those political and moral trimmers who, at least superficially, are performing the age-old trick of sacrificing integrity to ambition. But the Truckler, as here defined, oversteps this common vice. He goes further than making a fetish of self-interest He transcends all the normal bounds of human behavior by putting the interests of other ethnic groups above the interests of his own.
3. PUSSYFOOTERS. These are the Majority members who take no positive action against their own group but seldom, if ever, defend it. They comprise the second and third echelons of Majority leadership — lawyers, doctors, scientists, small-town newspaper editors, professors, teachers, preachers, big and small businessmen, and local, state, and federal officials.
In contrast to Gracchites and Trucklers, who betray and violate Majority interests, Pussyfooters soft-pedal and subordinate them. Immersed in their own day-to-day problems, obsessed with the material aspects of existence, often isolated in areas where the Majority is overwhelmingly predominant, Pussyfooters have less direct contact with minority dynamism and are consequently less concerned about it. When and where they come face to face with minority racists, in social gatherings or in community affairs, instead of standing up for the Majority viewpoint, they simply keep quiet.
Pussyfooters know that something is wrong, but they don’t know what, and they do not have the time, the inclination, the courage or the intellectual initiative to find out. Some Pussyfooters tread softly because they dislike argument; others are fearful for their livelihood. Some are just temperamentally unsuited for the verbal buffeting and hysterical logic-chopping in which their liberal and minority neighbors seek to engage them. As long as they do well economically, as long as their stomachs are full, Pussyfooters may be expected to go on pussyfooting. Only a solar plexus variety of racism is ever likely to rouse them from their racelessness.
But every day countless little social clashes and countless little unattractive slices of American life eat away at the Pussyfooter’s noninvolvement. Every day the Majority assistant manager at the expensive resort hotel welcomes a greater and greater influx of noisy minority millionaires. Every day the Majority artist, poet, playwright, and novelist must cope with an ever growing minority dominance of art, literature, and drama. Every day Majority job seekers and Majority jobholders see their employment opportunities, promotions, or seniority endangered by larger racial quotas for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians and by the extra points spotted to nonwhites in job qualification tests. With crime, riots, reverse discrimination, and illegal immigration on the rise at home, with billions of dollars still being poured into the Middle East each year, minority racism is becoming so shrill even the deaf are beginning to hear.
Hearing, however, is a long way from understanding. Unlike members of the dynamic minorities who seethe and quiver as a single organism at the faintest hint of reducing welfare programs or restoring an America First foreign policy, Pussyfooters continue to drift supinely on the edge of the great social vortex, whirling clockwise or counterclockwise as public opinion dictates.
4. OLD BELIEVERS. The American political tradition is a rare and delicate blend of English whiggery, French egalitarianism, classic Stoicism and social Christianity. This complex doctrinal amalgam was once the exclusive ideology of the American Majority. Today, considerably altered in substance and accorded the name of liberalism, it has been eagerly adopted, if not taken over, by the minorities. Nevertheless, a great many Majority members still call themselves liberals. Those who honestly subscribe to liberalism, not in its perverted modern form, but in its original Lockean, Jeffersonian and Lincolnian version, are here designated as Old Believers. Gracchites and Trucklers are hypocritical, opportunistic, fearful or pseudo-liberals. Pussyfooters are reluctant or fitful liberals. Old Believers belong to the disappearing breed of honest liberals.
Old Believers seldom become particularly prominent or successful in present-day America, for the plain truth is that the liberal establishment cannot stand liberalism in its pure, unadulterated form. Old Believers not only pretend to believe in, but do believe in, the freedom of the printed and spoken word, an intolerable superstition to the mediacrats who have laid down certain critical boundaries for American thought Liberalism is equally intolerable to the politicians and opinion molders whose careers are built on a one-dimensional, one-sided, simplistic view of modern society.
Increasingly out of fashion, Old Believers are currently to be found in small universities, in libertarian circles, or among the non-fundamentalist, nonviolent, non-permissive clergy. The most vocal are often the descendants of families with roots in the New England town meeting or Populist tradition. In general, they are trying to transplant a faded, withered ideology, which functioned adequately under a special set of historical and genetic conditions, to a different age and to an often hostile and alien environment — a transplant that is being continuously rejected by the American body politic. All modern teaching to the contrary, liberalism is not independent of time and race.
Two of the most prominent Old Believers in recent times were Dorothy Thompson, the columnist, and Charles Beard, the historian. The former won nationwide acclaim when she was condemning Nazi persecution of the Jews with Old Testament vehemence. But when, after World War II, she used the same impassioned arguments to denounce the dispossession of the Palestinian Arabs, she lost her most important newspaper outlets and died in Portugal in relative obscurity. Charles Beard, in early New Deal days considered America’s greatest living historian and an exemplar of liberalism, was cast out of the American intellectual community after he had accused President Roosevelt of unconstitutional acts in the handling of American diplomacy and foreign policy prior to Pearl Harbor. The same treatment was extended to the distinguished historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, who committed the unforgivable crime of questioning the Holocaust and accusing Roosevelt of having engineered Pearl Harbor.
Old Believers also come in groups, one of the more influential being the Society of Friends, or Quakers. Practicing almost total religious, political, and social tolerance, and driven by a compulsion for “good works,” the Friends pour their efforts and money (of which they have considerable) into projects which actively promote minority racism, notwithstanding that Quaker doctrine bristles at the very concept of race. The Quakers’ uncritical acceptance of old-line Anglo-Saxon liberalism, as applied to a modern, racially heterogeneous society, has given birth to some strange ideological hybrids within the Quaker community. Drew Pearson, the most vituperative of columnists; Alger Hiss, the most subtle of Communist conspirators; Klaus Fuchs, the most duplicitous of atomic spies, as well as a few of the more notorious Majority members of Marxist terror gangs, had Quaker backgrounds. As huge newspaper headlines have frequently reminded us, the distance between the Old Believer and the True Believer is often but a short step.
Quakers and other Old Believers are to be commended for their unshakable faith in human nature. At the same time they must be sharply criticized for their meddlesome, misdirected charity, and warped compassion that have earned them the name of Bleeding Hearts. In some respects the Old Believer may be compared to the captain of a ship in distress, who, in another century and with another crew, might have counted on his stubborn courage to have piloted his vessel safely into port. Today the prisoner of his own outdated seamanship, he steers blindly from reef to reef.
5. PRODITORS. The fifth and final category of those who have brought about the split in the Majority ranks is unique in that its members are tainted with outright disloyalty — not only to the Majority, their population group, but to America, their nation. The Gracchite or Truckler, while often going against the best interests of the American people, will not knowingly stray into the ignominious realm of high treason. Franklin D. Roosevelt would compromise with Communists, promote them to high office, give them far more than he received at Teheran and Yalta, but he was never one of them. Lesser politicians and public figures pampered them for years but finally denounced them. The Prodi tor, on the other hand, takes a savage delight in severing all his roots, deliberately seeking out and joining his country’s enemies, foreign and domestic, and in the process enthusiastically upending and destroying everyone and everything once closest to his heart and mind.
The Proditor, in short, takes up permanent residence in that far country the Gracchite and Truckler dare not and will not penetrate. Though he may fancy himself a Robin Hood, though he may manufacture the most plausible and idealistic excuses for his great and small treacheries, the Proditor — why be euphemistic? — is a common or, more precisely, an uncommon criminal.
The circumstances which produce the Proditor do not defy analysis. As with the Gracchite, there is often the preliminary personal failure. The subsequent drift into exotic political philosophies is more of an indicator than a cause of the treason to come.
Thomas Paine deserted his wife, then filed for bankruptcy. Next he deserted his country, England, went to America, and after a few years returned to Europe, where he helped to stir up the revolutionary terror in France. In 1796 Paine accused Washington of treachery, a libel which has not shaken Paine from his lofty pedestal in the liberal pantheon, though more recent charges of treason by non-liberals were not received so warmly.
John Brown also went through bankruptcy before he found his true vocation: striving to ignite the Civil War. He first tasted blood during the Kansas land settlement disputes, when he and his four sons attacked five sleeping men in their tents and hacked them to death with swords. At Harpers Ferry he seemed as eager to incite the slaves to revolution and mayhem as he was to free them.
It is inherent in the renegade profession that betrayal is easier the second time around. With scarcely a qualm the defector becomes the redefector; the agent the double agent Almost ritualistically the Proditor makes a new career out of confessing his previous sins and informing against his previous associates.
Whittaker Chambers was perhaps the prime example of the redefector. A sad piece of flotsam as a young man, yet gifted with a certain tasteless intellectuality, he became, in succession, drifter, Marxist, Communist party courier, senior editor of Time, star witness against Alger Hiss, and, in the autumn of his years, author of an agonizing, best-selling confessional. If the theme of Witness had not been so banal, Chambers, a late-blooming Quaker, might have reached the autobiographical heights of a St. Augustine. With tortured introspection and in soap opera detail, he recounted how he first betrayed himself, then his people, then his country, then his adopted country (the U.S.S.R.), and finally his friends.
Oregon-born John Reed, another noteworthy Proditor, actually became a member of the Communist party Executive Committee in Moscow. He died, aged thirty-three, at the peak of the Bolshevik ferment and lies in a grave by the Kremlin wall — 8,000 miles from home, but only a stone’s throw from the bones of Stalin.
More recent Proditors are: Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark, both of whom openly trafficked with the enemy during the war in Vietnam; the Majority men and women who belonged to the mixedrace Symbionese Liberation Army that engaged in murder, mayhem, and kidnapping; the Majority students who belonged to the Students for a Democratic Society, another organization dedicated primarily, not to class war, but to a minority racial ascendancy.
Alger Hiss, who almost deserves a special category of his own, dwarfs all other Majority traitors, past and present, not only in the nature but in the extent of his treason. Benedict Arnold, whose forebears were English, who married a Loyalist, and who betrayed a country that was only a few years old, could not be accused of the higher treason of betraying his racial and cultural antecedents. Aaron Burr f s treason was not total, since it might possibly have resulted in the establishment of an American empire in Mexico.
Alger Hiss, on the other hand, directly served a foreign totalitarian colossus whose political, social, and economic philosophy and military strategy were unalterably anti-American. Although he moved in the highest circles and had received many of the important rewards and honors his country was able to bestow, he put his wide-ranging talents and valuable connections at the disposal of an international complot, whose aim was the destruction or mutation of everything that had made his own success possible. Hiss is the supreme case of the brilliant mind, cut loose from all racial moorings, turning against itself. In his Divine Comedy, Dante reserved the greatest torments for Judas, Cassius, and Brutus, the betrayers of their benefactors. He might have been hard put to conceive of a circle of hell adequate for the likes of Alger Hiss.
All Splitters of the Ranks — Gracchites, Trucklers, Pussyfooters, Old Believers, and Proditors — wound and mortify the Majority less by their activity or passivity, their secret complicity or open collaboration with their adversaries than by the confusion with which they surround the Majority-minority confrontation. The mere presence of a Majority member in minority gatherings or street demonstrations, the mere appearance of a Majority name on the letterhead of minority lobbies or fund-raising organizations helps to disguise the essentially racial character of these groups. Also, by appealing to carefully chosen principles of liberal thought and civility, and to carefully selected tenets of religion and ethics, Majority Splitters of the Ranks are able to pose as the legitimate heirs to the great Western humanitarian tradition. In this guise they can more easily lend the gloss of moral respectability and a sense of Christian urgency to minority Realpolitik.
The number and influence of Splitters of the Ranks will not substantially decrease until the Majority member who encourages, defends, or excuses minority-oriented liberalism and minority racism can no longer make a successful career out of depreciating the Majority stake in American civilization. Until such time, the lower ranks of the Majority will have to carry the main burden of the Majority’s defense, relying chiefly on their instincts, on their unbrainwashed and unbrainwashable common sense, and on their inexpungible consciousness of kind — in other words, on their genetic resources.