American racial right American Revolution Americanism Individualism United States

Sam Dickson at AmRen

I am still reading Deschner’s book before publishing, in PDF, the 2022 edition. It is slow work that takes me about a chapter a day.

The annual American Renaissance conference recently took place, from which I would like to quote an abstract of the last of its papers according to the AmRen staff article:

Sam Dickson concluded the conference, as he always does. He said that aspects of our national history are difficult problems for whites. He said the American Revolution may have been a mistake, as it divided the British and American people. He also argued American culture favors too much materialism, opposes the frank and necessary use of state power, and often gives Americans the “easy way out,” of just moving away. Mr. Dickson argued that Americans are the descendants of men and women who uprooted themselves in the name of personal fortune-seeking rather than staying loyal to places their families had lived for centuries. This makes our people dangerously individualist and leaves them with only shallow roots and traditions.

Mr. Dickson argues that this easy-way-out mentality means that Americans have always avoided hard choices. Southern slaveholders were never willing to free the slaves and send them back to Africa to build a nation of their own, even though compensated emancipation and colonization would have cost the nation a fraction of the cost of the Civil War. We must delay hard choices no longer. We need a home of our own. Mr. Dickson said that if whites don’t meet this historical challenge to secure self-determination, our children will pay ever higher costs. There remains only one question: How high a price will we have to pay?

I doubt that anyone at that conference was thinking, when listening to Sam, of prices that reach the fiction of The Turner Diaries

American Revolution John Locke Liberalism Wikipedia

Liberalism, 6

The American Revolution

Political tension between England and its American colonies grew after 1765 over the issue of taxation without representation, culminating in the Declaration of Independence of a new republic.

The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, echoed Locke: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.


After the war, the leaders debated about how to move forward. The Articles of Confederation, written in 1776, now appeared inadequate to provide security, or even a functional government. The Confederation Congress called a Constitutional Convention in 1787 to write a new Constitution of the United States.

In the context of the times, the Constitution was a republican and liberal document. It established a strong national government with clear separation of the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The first ten amendments to the constitution, known as the United States Bill of Rights, guaranteed some of the natural rights liberal thinkers used to justify the Revolution.

American Revolution Autobiography History Jewish question (JQ) Mexico Music New Spain Racial studies

Mexico: The crypto and the mulatto

Here in Mexico, a couple of days ago, after my family celebrated the Day of Independence, I caught my Catholic father and sister speaking in high terms about Miguel Hidalgo, the Catholic priest that in 1810 started the war of independence; and José María Morelos, the mulatto that continued Hidalgo’s anti-white wars. While father and daughter recognized that Hidalgo and Morelos killed lots of Iberian white civilians and “from 20,000 to 30,000 prisoners of war,” they, nonetheless, regard them as “heroes.” In the Mexican wars of independence from Spain of 1810 to 1821 my father and sister could have been confused with Spaniards and, still, like many other Mexicans who could pass as Mediterraneans, they side the crypto-Jew and the mulatto. Why?


The 19th century portraits of Hidalgo are fake. All of them used a man of Austrian origin who posed as the father of the independence. Original reports depict Hidalgo with hooked nose. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans ignore that the Catholic priest Hidalgo was probably the son of Jewish conversos. Even the Mexican Jews, no longer cryptos, acknowledge it: “Two genealogical studies of the eighteenth century, the Archivo General de la Nación de Mexico and the Ramo de la Inquisición, suggest that Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, the father of Mexican Independence, had a Converso background and that Bartolomé de las Casas, a Bishop who fought to free slaves in Nueva España, also had Jewish ancestors.” In case of my family, they are under the naïve impression that both Hidalgo and Las Casas were of pure Spanish origin.

But what about the mulatto Morelos? The 1944 edition of José Vasconcelos’ A Brief History of Mexico that my father read long ago, says (my translation):

For Morelos, for example, to be comparable to Washington, it must be assumed that Washington had decided to recruit blacks and mulattoes to kill the English. Instead, Washington disdained blacks and mulattoes and recruited the English of America, who did not commit the folly of killing their own brothers, uncles, and relatives, only because they were born in England. Quite the contrary, each participant of the American Revolution felt pride for his British ancestry and hoped for the betterment of the English. This should have been the sense of our own emancipation, to transform New Spain into an improved Spain, better than that of the peninsula but with its blood, our blood. The whole later disaster of Mexico is explained by the blind, criminal decision that emerged from the womb of Hidalgo’s mobs and is expressed in the suicidal cry: “Death to the Spaniards!”

So why many Mexicans who physiognomically could pass as southern Italians, Greeks or Spaniards side the mulatto against their blood? Recently, for example, my father’s orchestra composition, La Espada (The Sword), was a success in Mexico City: an homage to the mulatto Morelos (my father has zero black blood by the way).

The music is good—the first ten minutes can be listened in the above clip—, but the libretto is outrageous. The poet Carlos Pellicer (1897-1977) wrote it and my father adapted it for 150 voices and orchestra:

Tú fuiste una espada de Cristo,
que alguna vez, tal vez, tocó el demonio.
Gloria a ti por la tierra repartida.
Perdón a tu crueldad de mármol negro…
Gloria a ti al igualar indios, negros y blancos…
Gloria a ti que empobreciste a los ricos
Y te hiciste comer de los humildes,
Procurador de Cristo en el Magníficat.

My rough translation:

You [Morelos] were a sword of Christ,
once, perhaps, touched by the devil.
Glory to you for distributing the land.
Sorry for your cruelty of black marble…
Glory to you for equating indians, blacks and whites…
Glory to you that made the rich poor
And made the humble eat,
Attorney of Christ in the Magnificat.

When Pellicer said “touched by the devil” he meant the killings of unarmed Iberian whites that the mulatto ordered in cold blood. That’s why Pellicer said “black marble”: Morelos’ appearance was even darker than the Amerind skin! So much that, to avoid being called names, Morelos covered his curly hair—obvious black heritage—with the legendary bandana that adorns his head in every single picture that represents him.

JOSE MARIA MORELOS Y PAVONThe rest of my rough translation of the famed poet needs no explanation. However, as far as I know Catholic Pellicer (whom I met as a child when my family visited him at Tepoztlán) didn’t have black blood either. You can imagine where all of these ethno-suicidal ideas came from: the religion of the inversion of values of these Body-snatched Mexican Pods, my family included.

American Revolution Americanism Blacks Egalitarianism Jewish question (JQ) Liberalism Miscegenation United States

Brad Griffin on the Yankee question

Below, an abridged version of one of Brad Griffin’s recent articles of the “Amurrica Series: Constructive Solutions” at Occidental Dissent (OD), with some explanatory Wikipedia links added:

To my knowledge, OD is the only racialist site in existence that has defined the problem in painstaking detail (see the many discussions about this in our archives) and consistently hammers away at the only solution to the problem.

  • Is the problem simply that Jews are using the blacks to destroy Whites?

Historically speaking, the coalition between DWLs [Disingenuous White Liberals] and blacks goes back to the prewar abolitionist movement, when Northern reformers like William Lloyd Garrison forged the original alliance with free negroes like Frederick Douglass.

Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1843. Starting in 1865, Massachusetts began to lead the nation at the state level by passing comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, or civil rights laws. Blacks were already voters in Massachusetts before the War Between the States.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was vetoed by Andrew Johnson, who was subsequently impeached by Black Republicans in Congress, was the first stab at federal civil rights legislation in American history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases in 1883, attempted to accomplish most of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to do in the twentieth century. The Federal Elections Bill of 1890, which was defeated in the U.S. Senate, was the precursor of the Voting Rights Act.

In the twentieth century, Jewish influence had the effect of exacerbating a preexisting problem: Jews didn’t create the coalition between DWLs and blacks or even set its long term utopian goals of integration and eradicating racial prejudice.

In the late nineteenth century, the Jews came along like Hispanics and Asians would later do after the Immigration Act of 1965. They augmented the leftwing coalition with their wealth and media influence.

Jewish influence was more like, say, a necessary condition of the national triumph of the Left. Just like the rise of the mass media, the GI Bill and higher education, or Allied propaganda in the Second World War.

  • Is the problem the demise of restrictive covenants? Is the problem, say, the entirety of the Civil Rights Movement?

No, restrictive covenants was just one of many “discriminatory barriers” to the advancement of black freedom and equality. The poll tax and the white primary were similarly struck down by the Supreme Court in order to advance Americanism, which is to say, the identification of America (and ultimately the whole world, as it is progressively infected by the disease) with liberalism and democracy.

What was the intention of outlawing restrictive covenants? The intended effect was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Voting Rights Act was to advance black freedom and equality by giving them the right to bloc vote in democratic legislatures.

In the North, restrictive covenants coexisted with a society that had been committed at the state and federal level to the larger project of integration ever since Massachusetts passed the first civil rights law in 1865. Minnesota barred school segregation in 1877. Michigan banned public accommodations segregation in 1885. New York banned public school segregation in 1894.

The demise of restrictive covenants was just the fall of one more domino at the hands of the same constituency of liberal utopian reformers (like the progression of cancer, spreading throughout the body) that had already succeeded in abolishing slavery and repealing anti-miscegenation laws and banning every other form of segregation.

The move into prohibiting “housing discrimination” was natural and consistent with a society already on a trajectory toward supporting affirmative action and banning “disparate impact.” Just like the abolition of slavery, it was one more reform that was consciously implemented to advance the positive ideal of black freedom and equality.

BradThe bottom line here is that there is a constituency in America with a peculiar vision of “Americanism,” which they define as the never-ending ideological expansion of liberty, equality, and democracy, and the eradication of all barriers to these holy utopian ideals (racial, cultural, religious), whether foreign (Nazi Germany) or domestic (Confederacy), which has been driving America’s racial and culture decline ever since the abolitionist movement began in the 1830s, if not since the American Revolution began in the 1770s.

Who is this foe?

There is a long historical arc of racial and cultural decline that stretches from 1776 to 2012. It leapfrogs from one utopian reform to another without missing a beat: revolution to abolition to civil rights to women’s suffrage to world peace to feminism to gay marriage. The same people are usually involved in multiple liberal reform causes.

The instinctive goal of the revolutionary spirit is always to chew up and tear down traditions and established hierarchies, to “liberate” everything in its path, to “level” everything it finds, based on the assumption that nihilistic destruction of the existing social order is inherently good.

For some strange reason, each new utopian reform, each new degenerate movement to destroy the existing social order (whether it be revolution, abolition, civil rights, feminism, or fagging the military), is invariably launched into cultural orbit from the Northeast, and imposed on the holdouts in the rest of the country through the centralization of power in the federal government.

The Northeast never actually wins these cultural debates. Instead, it triumphs through imposing its ideal of Americanism on the rest of the country, usually through control of the centralized government in Washington. Then resistance collapses, submission and demoralization sets in, and we “move forward” to whatever beckons as the cutting edge of degeneracy.

OD is the only racialist website which observes this broad historical pattern, recognizes its importance, draws attention to its existence, and recommends disrupting it through the dissolution of the Union.

If an international border was drawn across the Mason-Dixon line, the cycle would accelerate in the rump of the Union, as it once did during the War Between the States and Reconstruction, because the force that is driving the whole process is and always has been based in the Northeast, and the secession of the South would increase its relative power in Washington.

The dissolution of the Union would fatally weaken the influence of “Americanism” worldwide. It would change the whole international order by fatally undermining Washington in its own backyard.

Alternatively, the preservation of the Union will exacerbate the problem by flooding the recalcitrant areas in the South and West with non-White immigrants dependent on the welfare state, who will politically align themselves with the cultural arsonists in the Northeast, thereby weakening the already diminished and retreating forces of conservatism in the United States.

Dissolving the Union and repudiating Americanism along with its demographic base is the only way to put an end to these never-ending cycles of liberal reform. Nothing else will suffice to arrest and reverse our decline.

Disunion is the solution.