Categories
American civil war American racial right Amerindians Blacks Miscegenation Racial studies Slavery United States

American racial history timeline

Or:

On Jared Taylor’s cherries

The Cherry Picker
William-Adolphe Bouguereau
(1825-1905)

His site [American Renaissance] is a valve escape for semi-normies to release their frustrations in a comfortable and safe way. —Jamie

This is a reply to ‘What the Founders Really Thought About Race’ by Jared Taylor, a classic American Renaissance article of February 17, 2012 republished yesterday on AmRen.

If there is one racialist who can be considered a patriot in the traditional sense of the word, he is Jared Taylor. Unlike the traditional sense, I prefer to say Your race is your nation, which means that the history of Sweden or Germany should be as important to the white nationalist as the history of his home country.

But Taylor cherry-picks historical facts that seem to put the history of the US (not of his race, his real nation) in a benign light. That’s why in yesterday’s article he said: ‘Today’s egalitarians are therefore radical dissenters from traditional American thinking’.

The truth is that there have always been egalitarian fanatics in his country, as we shall see.

The best way to answer Taylor is to quote his pal Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, who in 2008 and 2009 made a very long list of American racial history that is worth quoting, in abbreviated form, as I do below adding some comments of mine, including a few sentences in square brackets and emphasis in red letters. (*)

Griffin’s long list provides context to the subject of Taylor’s recent article, and demonstrates that the granddaddy of the Alt-Right, as Greg Johnson once called him, carefully cherry-picked some historical facts to provide an idealised picture of the US:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

American Racial History Timeline

1550

The term ‘negro’ enters the English language from Spanish. (Jordan, 61)

1600

The term ‘mulatto’ enters the English language from Spanish. (Jordan, 61)

1619

Twenty blacks brought by a Dutch ship to Virginia. Some blacks had arrived even earlier. (Davis, xi)

1637

Pequot War in Massachusetts. (Jordan, 68)

1638

First negroes arrive in New England aboard the slave ship Desire, perhaps as slaves. (Jordan, 67)

1652

Rhode Island outlaws slavery but the law remains a dead letter. (Jordan, 70)

1661

Maryland criminalizes intermarriage between white women and negro men. (Brown and Stentiford, 533)

1662

Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)

Maryland passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)

1676

Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia. (Klinker and Smith, 10)

1681

Maryland passes another anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)

1688

Four Quakers sign antislavery petition in Germantown, Pennsylvania. (Davis, xii)

Virginia Assembly declares that free negroes ‘ought not in all respects to be admitted to a full fruition of the exemptions and impunities of the English’. Variations of this guideline are accepted in every colony. (Jordan, 123)

1691

Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law that prohibits all interracial liasons. (Jordan, 80)

Virginia requires manumitted negroes to leave the state. (Jordan, 124)

1692

Maryland passes an anti-miscegenation law.

1700

Negroes are now commonly being treated as chattel slaves. (Jordan, 44)

In the Southern colonies, free negroes are unable by law to testify against white persons. In New England, free negroes can testify against anyone. (Jordan, 123)

1705

Virginia Assembly declares negroes ineligible to hold public office. (Jordan, 126)

Virginia writes its slave code. Free negroes from raising their hand against whites. (Jordan, 73) Slaves forbidden to carry firearms, teaching slaves to read a crime. (Brown and Stentiford, 223)

Massachusetts adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)

1712

Slave uprising in New York City. (Davis, xii)

1715

North Carolina and South Carolina bar negroes from the polls; North Carolina does not continue the prohibition after the 1730s. (Jordan, 126)

North Carolina adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)

1717

South Carolina adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)

1722-1740

South Carolina requires free negroes to leave the colony unless permitted to do so by special act of the assembly.

1723

Virginia bars negroes from the polls. (Jordan, 126)

Virginia prohibits manumission [the act of freeing slaves by their owners] of negroes. (Jordan, 124)

1726

Pennsylvania adopts an anti-miscegenation law.

1739

Stono slave rebellion in South Carolina. (Davis, xii)

1741

Slave conspiracy uncovered in New York City. Many hanged and burned at the stake. (Davis, xii)

1745

Massachusetts prohibits negroes from participating in a government lottery [an electorate system] . (Jordan, 130)

1750

British government sanctions slavery in Georgia, prohibited in 1735. (Davis, xii)

Georgia adopts an anti-miscegenation law after negroes are admitted into the colony. (Jordan, 139)

1758-1776

Quakers begin pre-Revolution antislavery agitation. (Jordan, 271)

1760

The [Newspeak] word and concept of ‘prejudice’ comes into circulation in the years after 1760. (Jordan, 276)

1761

Georgia restricts suffrage to white men. (Jordan, 126)

1762

Virginia disenfranchises negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

1763

The first known Asians arrive in the United States when a group of Filipinos known as the Louisiana Manila Men developed settlements in Louisiana. These individuals fail to attain U.S. citizenship, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 only granted citizenship to free whites. (Brown and Stentiford, 48)

1769

Virginia establishes castration as the penalty for convicted black rapists of white women. (Jordan, 473)

1770s

Denial of negro mental inferiority becoming common place in antislavery circles. Benjamin Franklin thought Negroes ‘not deficient in natural understanding’, though Alexander Hamilton seemed less certain when he remakred that ‘their natural faculties are perhaps probably as good as ours’. (Jordan, 282)

1770

Delaware forbids negroes from administering corporal punishment to whites. (Jordan,131)

1773-79

New England slaves petition legislatures for freedom. Increasing numbers of antislavery tracts are published in America. (Davis, xii)

1774

Rhode Island prohibits slave trade. (Jordan, 291)

Rhode Island raises a separate battallion of negroes to fight in the American Revolution; Georgia and South Carolina hold out to the end. (Jordan, 302)

1775-1783 – American Revolution

Negro soldiers participate in virtually every major military action of the American Revolution. (Litwack, 12)

George Washington orders recruiting officers not to enlist ‘any deserter from within the Ministerial army, nor any stroller, negro, or vagabond’. (Klinker and Smith, 17)

5,000 negro soldiers participate in the American Revolution. (Brown and Stentiford, 281)

1775

Lord Dunmore, royal governor of Virginia, promises freedom to any slaves who desert rebellious masters and serve in the king’s forces, an offer taken up by some eight hundred blacks. (Davis, xii)

The first secular antislavery organization is founded, The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes. (Jordan, 343)

Maryland and the Northern colonies do not officially bar negroes from the polls until the Revolution. (Jordan, 126)

1776

Declaration of Independence describes Indians as ‘merciless Indian Savages’. (Nugent, 4)

Thomas Jefferson’s indictment of slavery is removed from the Declaration of Independence out of fear that the Southern colonies, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would refuse to sign. (Brown and Stentiford, 462)

Thomas Paine publishes incendiary [egalitarian] pamphlet Common Sense. (Nugent, 7)

1777

Vermont’s constitution outlaws slavery. (Davis, xii, Jordan, 345)

1779

Thomas Jefferson’s revisal of the laws of Virginia calls for banishment of white women who have mulatto children: ‘If any white woman shall have a child by a negro or mulatto, she and her child shall depart the commonwealth within one year thereafter. If they shall fail so to do, the woman shall be out of the protection of the laws, and the child shall be bound out by the Aldermen of the county, in like manner as poor orphans are by law directed to be, and within one year after its term of service expired shall depart the commonwealth, or on failure so to do, shall be out of the protection of the laws’. (Jordan, 472)

Editor’s note: Note that this is very different from killing those who mixed their precious blood, as the Iberian Visigoths did before Christianity brainwashed them.

1780

Pennsylvania adopts a gradual emancipation law [in this context, emancipation was any effort to procure economic, social or political rights / equality to Negroes].

(Davis, xii, Jordan, 345)

Revolutionary era constitutions of Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia exclude negroes from the franchise. (Jordan, 412)

An estimated 200,000 to 250,000 Indians are living east of the Misssissippi. By 1780, almost all Indians have been pushed west of the Appalachians. (Nugent, 10)

1781-1782

Thomas Jefferson writes his Notes on the State of Virginia. [Among other topics, he wrote extensively about slavery, his dislike of miscegenation, justifications of white supremacy, and his belief that whites and blacks could not co-exist in a society in which the latter were free.]

1782

Virginia legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 574)

1783

In Massachusetts, the case of Commonwealth v. Jennison is interpreted as removing any judicial sanctions for slavery. (Davis, xii)

Kentucky and Tennessee no longer seriously contested between whites and Indians. (Nugent, 48)

1784

The Pennsylvania Abolition Society is formed. (Davis, xii)

Connecticut and Rhode Island enact gradual emancipation laws. Congress narrowly rejects Jefferson’s proposal to exclude slavery from all Western territories after the year 1800. The New York Manumission Society [to abolish slavery] is organized. (Davis, xii)

1785

The New York assembly passes a gradual emancipation bill which would have barred Negroes from the polls [voting in today’s vocabulary] and from marrying whites, but the state senate objected to the intermarriage clause because ‘in so important a connection they thought the free subjects of this State ought to be left to their free choice’. The New York assembly voted again to keep the anti-miscegenation clause, but ultimately receded on it. (Jordan, 741-472)

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton [an American revolutionary, statesman and founding father of the United States of America] chair the New York Manumission Society. (Litwack, 14)

1786

In Massachusetts, an act of 1786 voids marriages between whites and Negroes. (Jordan, 472)

Massachusetts legislature votes to expel all negroes who are not citizens of one of the states. (Litwack, 16)

1787

Thomas Jefferson publishes Notes on State of Virginia, endorses racialism, negro intellectual inferiority, and calls for the colonization of free blacks to their native climate. (Jordan, 547)

The Constitution Convention agrees to count three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation; to forbid Congress from ending the slave trade until 1808; and to require that fugitive slaves who cross state lines be surrendered to their owners. The Continental Congress enacts the Northwest Ordinance, prohibiting slavery in the territories north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi rivers. (Davis, xiii)

The U.S. Constitution specifically excludes Indian nations from inclusion in the American political system. Classified as foreign nations and ‘Indians not taxed’, the Constitution gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction for dealing with Indian tribes. (Brown and Stentiford, 579)

U.S. antislavery movement becomes interested in vindicating Negro mental equality in reponse to Jefferson’s racial theories in his Notes on the State of Virginia. Equalitarianism will become a standard theme of abolitionist literature during the 1790s. (Jordan, 445-446)

South Carolina bans slave importations. (Jordan, 318)

All the states have by now banned the slave trade. (Jordan, 342)

Northwest Ordinance prohibits slavery in the Northwest Territory. (Jordan, 322)

Delaware legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

 
1789-1797, George Washington Adminstration

1789

An ‘Address to the Public’ by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, signed by its president, Benjamin Franklin, declared that the chains which bound the slave’s body ‘do also fetter his intellectual faculties; and impair the social affections of his heart’. (Jordan, 447)

William Pinkney, a famous Maryland state legislator, attacks slavery by arguing that Negroes and whites were ‘endued with equal faculties of mind and body’. He goes on to state that Negroes are ‘in all respects our equals by nature; and he who thinks otherwise has never reflected, that talents, however great, may perish unnoticed and unknown, unless auspicious circumstances conspire to draw them forth, and animate their exertions in the round of knowledge’. (Jordan, 447)

1790

New Jersey passes a law that allows all ‘qualified’ inhabitants to vote. (Keyssar, 54)

Quakers and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society petition Congress to use its fullest constitutional powers to discourage slavery and slave trade; the petitions evoke angry debate and attacks on petitioners by congressmen from the Deep South. (Davis, xiii)

Charles Crawford attacks Jefferson’s racialism in his Observations Upon Negro Slavery.

The first federal naturalization law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, restricts American citizenship to ‘free white persons’. (Jordan, 341)

An estimated 61 to 66 percent of Americans are of English origin and between 80 and 84 percent of English-speaking origin. (Jordan, 339)

Maryland legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

1792

Virginia legislature specifically declares castration to be a permissible punishment for any slave ‘convicted of an attempt to ravish a white woman’. (Jordan, 473)

Gilbert Imlay attacks Jeffersonian racialism in his A Topographical Descritpion of the Western Territory of North America. (Jordan, 441-442)

Virginia slave code restricts the right of free negroes to purchase servants only of their own complexion. (Jordan, 407)

Congress passes a federal militia law which includes only ‘white’ men. (Jordan, 412)

Delaware disenfranchies negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

1793

Congress enacts a fugitive slave law. (Jordan, 327)

Virginia prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

1794

Congress passes a law forbidding Americans from participating in the international slave trade. (Jordan, 327)

1795

Before the mid-1790s many states extended to negro slaves the right of trial by jury in capital cases. Racial attitudes begin to harden again about ten years after the American Revolution. (Jordan, 403)

Treaty of Greenville. Indians cede title to 3/4ths of the future state of Ohio. (Nugent, 44)

1795-1808

Decline of the first antislavery movement. (Jordan, 348)

1796

Maryland legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)
 

1797-1801, John Adams Adminstration

1797

Connecticut adopts another gradual emancipation law. (Litwack, 3)

1798

Rhode Island passes a law that bans interracial marriage between blacks and whites. (Jordan, 472)

Kentucky legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

1799

New York adopts a law for gradual emancipation. (Davis, xiv)

Kentucky disenfranchises negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

1800-1860

Until the post Civil War-era, Northerners draw a sharp distinction between negro civic equality, of which they approved, and political and society equality, which they did not. (Litwack, 15)

1800

Rhode Island legislature declares no paternity suits could be brought by Negro women against white men. (Jordan, 472)

South Carolina outlaws residence of free negroes. (Jordan, 399)
 

1801-1809, Thomas Jefferson Administration

1801

Tennessee legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

Maryland statute disenfranchises negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

1802

James T. Callender makes his famous charge in the Richmond Recorder that it was ‘well known’ that Thomas Jefferson kept Sally Hemmings, one of his slaves, as a concubine and had fathered children by her. (Jordan, 465)

Editor’s note: If true, Jefferson deserved the punishment the Visigoths used for those who committed the sin against the holy ghost (miscegenation).

Georgia relinquishes claim to Alabama and Mississippi in exchange for a promise by the Jefferson administration that the federal government would seek voluntary removal of Indian tribes within her boundries. (Howe, 256)

1803

South Carolina reopens the slave trade. (Jordan, 318)

1804

Clement Clarke Moore, a New York scholar of Hebrew with Federalist sympathies, attacks Jefferson’s racial views in his Observations upon Certain Passages in Mr. Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, Which Appear to Have a Tendency to Subvert Religion. (Jordan, 442)

1805

Yet again, both houses of the Virginia legislature adopt resolutions calling for the removal of free Negroes. The resolution of 1805 instructed Virginia congressmen to press for a portion of the Louisiana Territory for settlement of free Negroes. (Jordan, 565)

Virginia revises penal code and abolishes castration. (Jordan, 473)

1806

Hudgins v. Wright, the court decides that three generations of women with straight black hair were Indian, not black, and therefore free. (Brown and Stentiford, 535)

Virginia restricts the right of masters to manumit their slaves; free blacks must leave the state within one year. (Jordan, 574)

Ohio already prohibiting permanent residence of Negroes. (Jordan, 575)

Georgia enacts a mandatory death penalty for any Negro raping or attempting to rape a white woman. (Jordan, 473)

1807

Slave trade abolished in the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xxxix)

Maryland prohibits permanent residence of free negroes. (Jordan, 575)

Louisiana prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)
 

1809-1817, James Madison Administration

1810

Reverend Samuel Stanhope Smith attacks Jefferson’s racialism in his An Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species. He argues in a Boasian vein that the Negro skull and intellect has been deformed by his harsh environment. (Jordan, 443)

Proportion of Free Negroes:

Delaware: 75.9%
Maryland: 23.3%
Virginia: 7.2%
North Carolina: 5.7%
South Carolina: 2.3%
Georgia: 1.7% (Jordan, 407)

All Southern and two Northern states pass laws either restricting immigration of free Negroes, banning it altogether, or requiring emigration of emancipated slaves. (Jordan, 410)

1811

Delaware prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 220)

1812

Louisiana admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 70)

Louisiana disenfranchises negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

James Madison’s war message references Indian attacks along the Northwestern frontier, ‘the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers: a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity’. (Nugent, 82)

1812-1814, War of 1812

Negro soldiers participate in the War of 1812. (Brown and Stentiford, 281)

1813-1815

Creek War. (Nugent, 117)

1814

Treaty of Fort Jackson. Creeks are forced to cede much of their land in Alabama and Georgia. (Nugent, 227)

1814-1838

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, North Carolina and Pennsylvania prohibit or drastically restrict voting by negroes. (Jordan, 414)

1816

Bishop Richard Allen founds the African Methodist Episcopal Church. (Brown and Stentiford, 252)
 

1817-1825, James Monroe Administration

Under the Monroe administration, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun encourages gradual resettlement of Southern Indian tribes across the Mississippi. (Howe, 255)

1817

New York adopts a law that frees all remaining slaves in 1827. (Davis, xiv)

Indiana passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

1818

Illinois abolishes slavery. (Litwack, 3)

1818-21

The Missouri Crisis, followed by the Compromise of 1820 and further debate over Missouri’s constitution, which restricts entry of free blacks and mulattos. (Davis, xiv)

1819

Adams-Onís Treaty. Acquisition of Florida by the United States. (Nugent, 96)

Appropriation from the Monroe administration supports the American Colonization Society. [The American Colonization Society (ACS), originally known as the Society for the Colonization of Free Coloured People of America until 1837, was founded in 1816 by Robert Finley to encourage and support the migration of free blacks to Africa.]

1820

By 1820, free negroes could not exercise certain rights and privileges guaranteed to American citizens and aliens. (Litwack, 33)

American Colonization Society makes its first attempt at African colonization by settling 86 negroes and their families on Sherbro Island off the west coast of Africa. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)

Editor’s note: In a futuristic, post-Christian Western civilization that complies with Nietzsche’s revaluation of all values, these pious measures will be deemed unnecessary.

1821

American Colonization Society establishes the colony of Liberia on the west coast of Africa. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)

1822

Mississippi prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

1824

Ohio state legislature passes a resolution proposing African colonization linked with gradual emancipation. The resolution is soon seconded by seven other free states and Delaware. (Howe, 265)

Elizabeth Heyrick anonymously publishes the pamphlet Immediate, not Gradual Emancipation. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)
 

1825-1829, John Quincy Adams Administration

1825-1842

Indian Removal in the Old Southwest (Five Civilized Tribes) and Old Northwest (Shawnees, Sac and Fox, Potawatomies, Miamis). In 1825, the War Department estimated that more than 50,000 Indians were in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. By 1838, more than 80,000 Indians had been removed to Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. As of 1855, only 8,500 Indians lived east of the Mississippi. The Old Southwest together with Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana were basically Indian free by 1842. (Nugent, 229)

1825-1830

The first minstrel shows appear. (Howe, 639) [The minstrel show was a form of racist American entertainment developed in the early 19th century. Each show consisted of comedy sketches, variety acts, dances and musical performances depicting people specifically of African descent. The shows were performed by mostly white people wearing blackface or make-up to play the role of black people.]

1826

North Carolina prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Florida Territory prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

1827

Gradual emancipation comes to an end in New York. Slavery abolished. (Howe, 174)

Founding of America’s first negro newspaper, Freedom’s Journal. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Several slave states begin to invest in Liberia. They organize themselves independently of the ACS and established colonies in an effort to transport free negroes to Liberia. Approximately 11,000 negroes relocated before the movement ended. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)

1828

Moses Elias Levy, the most prominent Jewish abolitionist in the United States, publishes his Plan for the Abolition of Slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Abolitionist Benjamin Lundy begins publication of his newspaper, The Genius of Universal Emanicpation. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)
 

1829-1837, Andrew Jackson Administration

1829

Illinois passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

1830

By 1830, whether by legislative, judicial, or constitutional action, negro slavery had been virtually abolished in the North. Of the 3,568 negro remaining in bondage, two-thirds resided in New Jersey. (Litwack, 14)

1831

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, John Marshall rules that the Cherokees are a ‘domestic dependent nation’, not a sovereign state. (Howe, 355)

William Lloyd Garrison begins publishing The Liberator, an abolitionist newspaper, in Boston. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

After 1831, abolitionists would vigorously denounce colonization [i.e., sending blacks to Africa]. (Litwack, 27)

Before it is crushed, Nat Turner’s Rebellion leads to the death of sixty whites in Southampton County, Virginia. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Tennessee prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

1832

Following the Nat Turner slave rebellion, Virginia debates colonization of slaves and free blacks abroad. Both sides in the debate agree that Virginia should be a ‘white man’s country’. (Howe, 326)

Founding of the New England Anti-Slavery Society (NEASS) in Boston. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Alabama prohibits immigration of free negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Formation of racially integrated Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

1833

American writer Lydia Maria Childs publishes An Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

The American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS) is founded in Philadelphia; the group favors the immediate emancipation of American slaves. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

1834

Massachusetts repeals its anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

1835-1842

Second Seminole War. (Howe, 516)

1835

The word ‘white’ is added to North Carolina’s constitutional requirement. (Keyssar, 55)

An extensive postal campaign by the American Anti-Slavery Society uses the postal system to send abolitionist literature throughout the country and especially into the south. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French traveller in the United States of the 1830s, publishes his Democracy in America, in which he calls slavery ‘evil’.

1836

Anglos outnumber Hispanics ten to one in Texas. (Howe, 660)

Battle of the Alamo. (Howe, 665)

Texas independence declared. Anglo-Texans almost exclusively Southerners and wage race war against mestizos. Northerners regard Texas as an outpost of slavery. Their opposition prevents the annexation of Texas under the Van Buren administration. (Howe, 665-666, 670)

Founding of the New York Committee of Vigilance, one of the most radical negro abolition societies in the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

In its decision on Commonwealth v. Aves, the Massachusetts Supreme Court sets an important precedent by declaring that slavery cannot exist in Massachusetts except as it is regarded by the U.S. Constitution; thus, any slave brought to the state was immediately freed and the only slaves that could exist in Massachusetts were fugitive slaves whose return was mandated by the federal Fugitive Slave Act. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)
 

1837-1841, Martin Van Buren Administration

1837

An angry mob in Illinois murders abolitionist publisher Elijah P. Lovejoy as he attempts to prevent destruction of his press. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

1838-1839

Deporation of Cherokees to Oklahoma. (Howe, 416)

1838

David Ruggles publishes the first negro magazine in the U.S., the Mirror of Liberty. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

1839

Texas ethnically cleanses Creeks, Cherokees, and other Indians from east Texas. (Nugent, 155)

Formation in the United States of the antislavery Liberty Party. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

Abolitionists Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimke Weld, and Sarah Grimke publish their antislavery pamphlet, American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

1840

Brothers Lewis and Arthur Tarpan found the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

 
1841-1845, John Tyler Administration

1841

Former president John Quincy Adams delivers final arguments before the Supreme Court in defence of the thirty-four negro captives from the Amistad. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Amistad captives were never legally slaves and thus are free to return to Africa. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1842

The Anglo-American Webster-Ashburton Treaty establishes the Africa Squadron, an American naval squadron charged with patrolling the west coast of Africa to intercept any American vessels illegally engaged in the slave trade. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1843

4,291 American negroes have settled in Liberia; over ten thousand more would come before the Civil War. (Howe, 262)

Reverend Stephen Symonds Foster publishes The Brotherhood of Thieves, or a True Picture of the American Church, a searing indictment of American evangelical Christians for their complicity in the sin of slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1844

Ralph Waldo Emerson gives an important speech, commemorating the tenth anniversary of emancipation in the British West Indies, affirming the human dignity of negroes. (Howe, 625)

1845-1855

New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin reaffirm racial exclusion of negroes from the polls in constitutional conventions or popular referenda. (Keyssar, 55)

1845

Former slave Frederick Douglass publishes his influential Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

Abolitionist Lysander Spooner publishes the first part of his famous work, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery; the second part of the work appears in 1847.
 

1845-1849, James K. Polk Administration

1846-48, Mexican War

The Mexican War leads to the annexation of much Western territory, including California, thereby igniting much controversy over the expansion of slavery. (Davis, xiv)

1846-1847

Wilmot Proviso passed repeatedly by the House of Representatives. Called the ‘White Man’s Proviso’, Wilmot’s declared purpose was to ‘preserve free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and own color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings free labor’. Endorsed by ten Northern state legislatures. (Howe, 767-768)

1846

War breaks out between the United States and Mexico. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1847

Former slave Frederick Douglass publishes the first issue of his abolitionist newspaper, North Star. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

Liberia, the West African colony of resettled negroes, becomes independent. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

1848

Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is signed, ending the Mexican-American War and transferring large tracts of territory from Mexico to the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii) Mexican Cession of the American Southwest. (Nugent, 187)

The first women’s rights convention held in the United States, the Seneca Falls Convention, meets in Seneca Falls, New York. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

 

1849-1850, Zachary Taylor Administration

1850s

Martin R. Delany leads a ‘Back to Africa’ movement.

1850

The federal census first begins taking note of mulattoes. (Brown and Stentiford, 534)

Origin of ‘separate but equal’ doctrine in Robert v. the City of Boston. (Brown and Stentiford, 106)

With assistance from other abolitionists, illiterate former slave Sojournor Truth publishes her memoirs, The Narrative of Sojournor Truth: A Northern Slave. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

In a speech delivered on a debate on the Compromise of 1850, Senator William H. Seward speaks of a ‘higher law’ beyond the Constitution, i.e., God’s law, that demands no compromise with slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

1851

New Iowa constitution omits its anti-miscegenation clause. (Farnam, 216)

Indian Appropriations Act.

Former slave Sojournor Truth delivers her famous speech, ‘Ar’nt I a Woman?’, at the women’s convention in Ohio. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

1852

Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes her controversial novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

1854

Founding of the Republican Party. (Brown and Stentiford, 678)

Escaped slave Anthony Burns is arrested in Boston under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; despite demonstrations on his behalf, Burns is returned under guard to Virginia, although Boston abolitionists later purchase his freedom. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

1855

Only five states do not discriminate against negroes in voting rights: Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.

These states contain only 4% of America’s free black population. Negroes also prohibited from voting in U.S. territories. (Keyssar, 55)

1856

American pacifist Elihu Burritt publishes A Plan for Brotherly Co-Partnership of the North and South for the Peaceful Extinction of Slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

Abolitionist John Brown and his sons murder five proslavery settlers at Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas in retaliation for the sack of Lawrence. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

1857

George Fitzhugh publishes his most famous proslavery volume, Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

Hinton Rowan Helper publishes his controversial book, The Impending Crisis of the South and How to Meet It, which decries the economic effects of slavery on the South and vehemently attacks the region, the Democratic Party, and negroes. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

1858

Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois. (Davis, xv)

1859

Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species. (Howe, 466)

1860

436,000 slaves in Mississippi. Negroes account for over 55% of Mississippi’s population. (Brown and Stentiford, 536)

November 6 – Abraham Lincoln becomes the first Republican elected president. (Zuczek, xlix)

December 20 – South Carolina secedes from the federal Union. (Zuczek, xlix)

1861-1865, American Civil War

Abraham Lincoln declares the Civil War a ‘white man’s fight’ and says that no negroes, free or slaves, would be accepted into the Union forces, but reneges on his policy in 1862 due to mounting losses. Negroes fight in segregated units under white commanders. (Brown and Stentiford, 282)
 

1861-1865, Abraham Lincoln Administration

1861

January-June – Ten other slaves states secede from the Union. (Zuczek, xlix)

Jefferson Davis begins his term as president of the Confederate States of America, whose constitution gave recognition and protection to ‘the institution of negro slavery’. (Davis, xv)

1862

Battle of Antietam, Maryland, between Generals Robert E. Lee and George B. McClellan gives Lincoln encouragement to issue Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. (Davis, xv)

1864

The term ‘miscegenation’ appears for the first time in an anonymous pamphlet, Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro. (Brown and Stentiford, 526)
 

1865-1869, Andrew Johnson Administration

1865

Civil War ends; slavery officially abolished (Thirteenth Amendment); KKK formed.

January 31 – Congress passes the Thirteenth Amendment, which will formally abolish slavery in the United States. It is sent to the states for ratification. (Zuczek, li)

April 14 – President Lincoln is shot while watching a play at Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C. (Zuczek, li)

South Carolina – Miscegenation Statute prohibited marriage between a white person and a person of color. (Jim Crow History.org)

1866

June 13 – Congress passes the Fourteenth Amendment and sends it to the states for ratification. (Zuczek, lii)

1868

South Carolina – Barred school segregation (Constitution). All public schools and universities to be free and open to all persons regardless of race or color. (Jim Crow History.org)

End of Indian Wars on Southern Plains. (Nugent, 229)

July 28 – The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified, granting equal protection under the law to all American citizens. It also confers citizenship to every person born in the United States, including former slaves. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiii)

1868-1871

The South is swept by a wave of Ku Klux Klan terrorism. (Keyssar, 105)

Civil Rights Act of 1871 (‘Ku Klux Klan Act’).
 

1869-1877, Ulysses S. Grant Administration

1869

February 25 – Congress passes the Fifteenth Amendment and sends it to the states for ratification. (Zuczek, liv)

South Carolina – Barred public accommodation segregation (Constitution)
Gave all classes of citizens without regard to race or color equal access to public, legal and political privileges. Included the right to intermarry. (Jim Crow History.org)

1870

Black men (and ostensibly other male ethnic/racial minorities) officially given voting rights with the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment

California finally recognizes Mexican-Americans as citizens. (Howe, 810)

1871

Mississippi – Barred anti-miscegenation (State Code), omitted miscegenation or intermarriage statute. (Jim Crow History.org)

1874

All of New England has outlawed de jure segregation in schools. (Fitzgerald, 171)

June – Appearance of White League in Louisiana, terrorist organization aimed at overthrowing Republican Kellogg. (Zuczek, lvi)

August 30 – White League murders Republicans in the Coushatta Massacre. (Zuczek, lvi)

1875

Rough beginning of the Jim Crow Era.

1876

July 7 – Hamburg Massacre in South Carolina, as election campaigning puts Republican negro militiamen against white conservative gun clubs. (Zuczek, lvii)

September 16-19 – In South Carolina a three day, countywide killing spree conducted by white gun clubs earns the name the Ellenton Riot; ends with direct intervention by U.S. infantry units. (Zuczek, lvii)

October 16-17 – White attack on a Republican meeting, called the Cainhoy Riot, leads Grant to send more federal troops to South Carolina for the election. (Zuczek, lvii)
 

1877-1881, Rutherford B. Hayes Administration

1877

The Compromise of 1877 removes the last of the federal troops from the former Confederate states. Reconstruction ends, but the Jim Crow period is not underway fully. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiii)

End of Reconstruction.

1877-1965, Jim Crow America

1878

Mississippi – Education (Statute) prohibited teaching white and black children in the same school. (Jim Crow History.org)

1880

Mississippi – Miscegenation (State Code) revised state code to declare marriage between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes or persons of one-quarter or more Negro blood as ‘incestuous and void’. Penalty: Fine up to $500, or imprisonment in the penitentiary up to ten years, or both. (Jim Crow History.org)

In re Camille, federal district court in Oregon denies citizenship to a half white/half Indian man on the basis of race.
 

1881, James A. Garfield Administration

1881

Tennessee enacts the first law requiring racial segregation on public trains. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiii)
 

1881-1885, Chester A. Arthur Administration

1882-1900

1,700+ negroes lynched in America. (Blum, 3)

1882

The Chinese Exclusion Act drastically limits the number of Chinese immigrants to the United States and requires all Chinese residents who leave the United States to reapply for reentry. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiii)

1883

Pace v. Alabama, Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Alabama’s anti-miscegenation law. (Brown and Stentiford, 535)

1884

Elk v. Wilkins, Supreme Court rules that Indians, as tribal citizens, were not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment and were not citizens of the United States. (Brown and Stentiford, 580)

Arkansas – Miscegenation (State Code). All marriages of white persons with Negroes or mulattoes declared illegal. (Jim Crow History.org)

1885

Florida – Miscegenation (Constitution) ‘forever’ prohibited marriages between whites and blacks, or between a ‘white person and a person of Negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive’. (Jim Crow History.org)
 

1885-1889, Grover Cleveland Administration

1886

Surrender of Geronimo and the Apaches ends the Indian Wars in the Southwest. (Nugent, 229)

1887

Disenfranchisement of native Hawaiians. (Nugent, 264)
 

1889-1893, Benjamin Harrison Administration

1890-1910

Blues, ragtime, and jazz develop in Southern cities, particularly New Orleans, as the most popular music forms amongst negroes. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiv)

Franz Boas’s anthropological work eventually developed the notion of culture as distinct from race. (Brown and Stentiford, 529)

1890

The Indian Naturalization Act grants U.S. citizenship to Indians in certain areas under certain conditions. (Brown and Stentiford, 580)

In re Hong Yen Chang, federal district court in California denies American citizenship to Chinese on the basis of race.

1892

April – In response to anti-negro violence and the rise of lynchings across the South, negro journalist Ida B. Wells begins an anti-lynching crusade that grows to international dimensions. (Zuczek, lix)

The Geary Act extends the Chinese Exclusion Act and required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year at hard labour. In addition, Chinese were not allowed to bear witness in court, and could not receive bail in habeas corpus proceedings. (Wikipedia)
 

1893-1897, Grover Cleveland Administration

1894

In re Saito, federal district court in Massachusetts denies American citizenship to the Japanese on the basis of race.

In re Po, federal district court in New York denies American citizenship to Burmese on the basis of race.

1895-1900

An average of 101 negroes are lynched per year. (Klarman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, 3)

1895

South Carolina – Miscegenation (Constitution) prohibited marriage between a white person with a Negro or mulatto, or a person who had one-eighth or more Negro blood. (Jim Crow History.org)

1896

Mississippi – Education (Statute) separate districts established for the schools of white and black children. (Jim Crow History.org)

The Democratic Party triumphs in the South by promising white supremacy at the polls. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiv)

1897

In re Rodriguez, federal district court in Texas denies American citizenship to Mexicans on the basis of race.
 

1897-1901, William McKinley Administration

Spanish-American War, 1898-1899

Acquistion of Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. (Nugent, 240)

1898

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Supreme Court rules that the U.S. government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even someone of Chinese ancestry. (Oyez)

1899

In re Kanaka Nian, a federal district court denies citizenship to native Hawaiians on the basis of race.

December 18 – Supreme Court, in Cummings v. Richmond County (Georgia, declares segregation in the schools is legal under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Zuczek, lix)

1899-1902, American-Filipino War

1900

Race riot in New Orleans is sparked by a shoot-out between the police and a negro labourer. Twenty thousand people are drawn into the riot that lasted four days. (Brown and Stentiford, xxiv)

Race riot in New York City. (Brown and Stentiford, 128)
 

1901-1909, Theodore Roosevelt Administration

1901

Alabama – Miscegenation (Constitution) declared that the legislature could never pass any law authorizing or legalizing ‘any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro’. (Jim Crow History.org)

Between 1901 and 1947, the California state government enacted laws that created segregated communities for ‘Asian Americans’. (Brown and Stentiford, 49)

1902

Thomas Dixon, Jr. publishes his response to Harriet Beecher Stowe, The Leopard’s Spots: An Historical Romance of the White Man’s Burden, 1865-1900, a best-selling novel which introduces readers to the Negro Problem and trauma that the North inflicted upon the South during Reconstruction. (Brown and Stentiford, 237)

1904

Race riot in Springfield, Ohio. (Brown and Stentiford, 128)

Congress bars Chinese immigration with amendments to the Chinese Exclusion Act. (Brown and Stentiford, 53)

Kentucky passes the ‘Day Law’ which requires racial segregation of all public and private schools. (Brown and Stentiford, 438)

1905

The Niagara Movement forms. An organization of black intellectuals who opposed Booker T. Washington and his Tuskegee Machine, the Niagara movement promoted negro political equality and voting rights. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

1906

Founding of U.S. based journal, Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

Rumours of negro assaults on white women lead to a race riot in Atlanta. The riot claims the lives of 25 negroes and one white. Hundreds are injured. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

Editor’s note: Compare it to the way today’s Britons react—like lobotomised eunuchs—when hundreds of pubescent English roses are raped by Orcs.

1908

Louisiana – Miscegenation (Statute). Concubinage between the Caucasian or white race and any person of the Negro or black race is a felony. Penalty: Imprisonment from one month to one year, with or without hard labour. (Jim Crow History.org)
 

1909-1913, William Howard Taft Administration

Federal patronage of negroes sharply curtailed under President Taft. (Brown and Stentiford, 679)

1909

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is founded in New York City. Some of the members of the Niagara Movement contribute to the founding of the NAACP. The board of directors of the NAACP includes several white progressives. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

1910-1930

‘Great Migration’ of 500,000 negroes to the North. (Gilmore, 17)

1911

Franz Boas (Jew) publishes The Mind of Primitive Man, a turning point in anthropological thought, ushering in the notion of cultural relativism and the ethnological method. (Brown and Stentiford, 529)

1912

First International Conference on Eugenics. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)
 

Woodrow Wilson Administration, 1913-1921

1913

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) formed.

Massive expansion of federal government with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which formed the IRS.

U.S. v. Sandoval, Supreme Court describes American Indians as ‘essentially, a simple, uninformed and inferior people’ incapable of exercising the privileges of citizenship. (Brown and Stentiford, 581)

Florida – Education (Statute): Unlawful for white teachers to teach Negroes in Negro schools, and for Negro teachers to teach in white schools. (Jim Crow History.org)

1914-1918, First World War

World War I engulfs Europe, and involves much of the world through colonial empires and alliances. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

1915

Texas – Miscegenation (State Code): The penalty for intermarriage is imprisonment in the penitentiary from two to five years. (Jim Crow History.org)

Lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia. (Gilmore, 197)

Film director D.W. Griffith adapts several novels by Thomas Dixon, Jr. into the nation’s first modern motion picture, The Birth of a Nation, which depicts the Ku Klux Klan as heroic defenders of white womanhood and civilization. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

Editor’s note: Again, compare it to the worst generation of whites since prehistory.

Rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan in Stone Mountain, Georgia. (Brown and Stentiford, 239)

1916

Founding of U.S. based journal, Eugenical News. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

Madison Grant publishes The Passing of the Great Race. (Brown and Stentiford, 562)

1917-1920 First Red Scare (widespread anti-Jewish sentiment because they are correctly associated with Communism and revolutionary activities).

1917

Buchanan v. Warley, Supreme Court invalidates laws requiring racial segregation of neighborhoods. (Brown and Stentiford, 114)

First use of ‘racialist’ in the English language. (Online Etymology Dictionary)

1919

Race riots across the nation claim more than 200 lives. The biggest riot is in Chicago. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv) Race riot in Charleston, South Carolina; in Longview, Texas. (Brown and Stentiford, 128)

‘Red Summer’ – an estimated 25 race riots in the United States. (Brown and Stentiford, 128)

1920

The Nineteenth Amendment passes, granting the right to vote to women. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

Lothrop Stoddard publishes The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
 

1921-1923, Warren Harding Administration

1921

Second International Conference on Eugenics. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

A race riot in Tulsa, Oklahoma, nearly wipes out the entire negro area, including the ‘Black’ Wall Street. (Brown and Stentiford, xxv)

Arkansas – Miscegenation (Statute) prohibits cohabitation between whites and blacks and defines the term ‘Negro’ as any person who has any Negro blood in his veins. (Jim Crow History.org)

Editor’s note: The right way to define him: the zero-drop rule.

1922

Henry Ford’s The International Jew published.

Ozawa v. United States, Supreme Court confirms the policy which refused American citizenship to Japanese immigrants. (Brown and Stentiford, 401) Editor’s note: The US wasn’t crazy a hundred years ago!
 

1923-1929, Calvin Coolidge Administration

1923

Rosewood Massacre in Florida. (Brown and Stentiford, 304)

Dyer federal anti-lynching bill defeated by Southern opposition in Congress. (Brown and Stentiford, 197)

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, Supreme Court rules that Indians (subcons) are not white and denies citizenship to ‘Indian-Americans’.

1924

Immigration Act of 1924 restricts immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. (Brown and Stentiford, 53)

1925-1935

American Communists alone arguing for complete equality of the races. (Gilmore, 4)

1925

Psychologists begin to attack the concept of inherent mental differences between racial groups. (Barkan, 5)

1926

Arthur Estabrook and Evan McDougle publish Mongrel Virginians: The Win Tribe. (Brown and Stentiford, 275)

Corrigan v. Buckley, Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of racial covenants. (Brown and Stentiford, 720)

1927

Supreme Court rules in Lum v. Rice that ‘separate but equal’ applies to Asians and is within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th Amendment. (Brown and Stentiford, 235)

1928

Founding of U.S. based journal, Eugenics: A Journal of Race Betterment. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

The Ku Klux Klan makes a large march down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. (Brown and Stentiford, 445)

Anti-lynching bill dies in Congress. (Brown and Stentiford, 256)

American communists continue their campaign against segregation. The national platform of the CPUSA includes calls for full racial equality, the abolition of Jim Crow laws, enfranchisement of African Americans, integration of schools, juries, unions, and the military, a federal law against lynching, the end of chain gangs, and equal job opportunities and pay. (Brown and Stentiford, 177)
 

1929-1933, Herbert Hoover Administration

The crash of the stock market reveals serious problems with the American economy. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)

1930s

‘Raciology’ a vanishing vocation. (Barkan, 4)

Editor’s note: This is why the text by a Spaniard on racial classification is so important in my collection of essays (The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour). Raciology is a science that no longer exists in today’s ethnosuicidal West.

1930

The Hays Code prohibits depictions of miscegenation in Hollywood films. (Brown and Stentiford, 533)

Editor’s note: The prohibition was forgotten some decades later, within my lifetime. I still remember an episode in the late 1960s when Captain Kirk kisses a mulatta in Star Trek: the first time ever we saw such a thing on TV!

1932

Third International Conference on Eugenics. (Brown and Stentiford, 530)

First use of ‘racist’ as a noun in the English language. (Online Etymology Dictionary)

Franklin D. Roosevelt is elected president. His promise of a New Deal and a ‘Black Cabinet’ in 1933 attracts many negro voters to the Democratic Party. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)
 

1933-1945, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration

1933

NAACP begins its legal campaign to desegregate education. (Gilmore, 2)

1936

Pearson v. Murray, Maryland Supreme Court orders the University of Maryland Law School to admit negro students. (Brown and Stentiford, 112)

Jesse Owens wins four gold medals at the Summer Olympics in Berlin. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)

1937

Death of Madison Grant.

1938

The American Anthropological Association unanimously passes a resolution condemning racism. (Gilmore, 199)

1939-1945, Second World War

1939

Television is introduced to the American public at the New York World’s Fair. (Brown and Stentiford, 770)

Thomas Dixon, Jr. publishes his final novel, The Flaming Sword, which claims communism and miscegenation threaten to destroy America. (Brown and Stentiford, 239)

1940s

The University of Pennsylvania, the most racially egalitarian university in 1946, boasted only 40 negroes out of an institutional enrollment of 9,000. (Brown and Stentiford, 595)

1941-1945, Second World War (U.S. involvement)

The United States joins the Allies and wages war against the Axis Powers of Germany, Japan, and Italy in World War II.

1942-1945

Discrimation and internment against some Americans of Italian and German descent.
 

1945-1953, Harry Truman Administration

1945-1947

Note of the Editor: A true Holocaust perpetrated by the Allies against the Germans: the best-kept secret in modern history (pace Jared Taylor, the Nazis, not the American founding fathers, were the true defenders of the Aryan race).

Cold War, 1947-1991

1947

President Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights issues its 178-page report, ‘To Secure These Rights’. The report calls for laws requiring states to end discrimination in education, mandating a ban against discrimination in the armed services, laws to guarantee fair employment practices for blacks, federal prohibition of lynching, repeal of poll taxes and other discriminatory voting restrictions, denial of federal grants when discrimination in evidence, an expanded civil rights division at the Justice Department, creation of permanent civil rights commissions at the federal and state levels, specific federal ban on police brutality, and enforcement of a Supreme Court decision against restrictive real estate covenants. (Roberts and Klibanoff, 38)

1948

President Harry S. Truman orders the desegregation of the U.S. military with Executive Order 9981. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)

Perez v. Sharp, California Supreme Court strikes down California’s anti-miscegenation law. (Brown and Stentiford, 397)

1950s

The first segment of the Civil Rights Movement is underway by 1954.

Emergence of rock and roll music.

1950

Henderson v. United States, Supreme Court abolishes racial segregation in railroad dining cars. (Roberts and Klibanoff, 49)

Thirty states still have anti-miscegenation laws on the books. (Brown and Stentiford, 503)

Ralph Bunche becomes the first negro to win the Nobel Peace Prize. (Klarman, From Jim Crow, 3)

1952

The McCarran-Walter Act lifts the ban on Asian immigration established by the Asian Exclusion Act. (Brown and Stentiford, 54)
 

1953-1961, Dwight Eisenhower Administration

1954

The Supreme Court decides for the plantiffs in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education. The ruling makes illegal segregation and discrimination in the nation’s public schools. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvi)

1956

Gayle v. Browder, Supreme Court outlaws segregation in all public transportation. (Brown and Stentiford, 615)

1957

Allen v. Merrill, Indians gain the right to vote in Utah. (Brown and Stentiford, 581)

Clash in Little Rock, Arkansas, over the desegregation of Central High School. President Eisenhower dispatches federal troops to keep order and enforce desegregation. (Schuman et al, 54)

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 pledges the federal government to prosecute abuses of negro civil rights. (Brown and Stentiford, xxvii)

1958

Cooper v. Aaron, Supreme Court rules unanimously for integration to proceed immediately at Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas. (Brown and Stentiford, 186-187)

1959

George Lincoln Rockwell founds the American Nazi Party.

1960s-present

Editor’s note: Whites adopt anti-Nazism as their new religion and, throughout the entire West, hand over the zeitgeist of their culture to their ancestral enemies, the Jews.

1964

Civil Rights Act.

1967

Loving v. Virginia – miscegenation effectively legalized across the U.S.

1971

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) formed.

2008

First black president elected in the United States.

2020

BLM riots are officially the most costly manmade damage to American property in history.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: On The Unz Review, Robert Morgan commented today:

C.T.: Since you specialize in debunking what the racial right has to say about Lincoln, I’d like to hear your opinion on a classic American Renaissance article, republished this day in Jared Taylor’s webzine… Although I am not an expert in American history, I have the impression that he is telling things in a very biased way.

You’re right. A charitable way to put it is ‘biased’. I’d state more directly that it’s a package of lies designed to mislead. Take his statement that Jefferson freed no slaves. That’s just false. In his will he freed children of Sally Hemings, a quadroon who was his dead wife’s half sister and almost certainly his mistress. He was likely the father of those children.

Then we have Taylor’s telling of Jefferson’s supposed horror of race mixing. LOL! If he thought it so horrible, why did he engage in it?

He predictably mentions the American Colonization Society, but ‘forgets’ to tell his readers that it was in the ACS Charter that any ‘colonization’ [deportation in today’s vocabulary—Editor’s note] of negroes was to be on a voluntary basis only. Needless to say, the idea that all the negroes were going to leave voluntarily always was a joke. Perhaps some American Christians, who also claim to believe absurdities such as corpses coming back to life, were stupid enough to believe this would happen, but intelligent people such as the first few American presidents must have always known it was a ludicrous expectation.

He also brings up the Naturalization Act of 1790, which allowed only whites to become naturalized citizens, without explaining that naturalization was only one way for people to become citizens. Plenty of non-whites were made citizens by treaty, for example in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, when the USA acquired lands from Mexico. Also, at the time the Constitution was being written, free negroes had already been allowed to become citizens in several of the 13 original states. Later Constitutional Amendments after the Civil War gave national citizenship and the vote to all of them.

He repeats the Kevin MacDonald spin on the 1965 immigration reform, without telling his readers that the 1924 Act it rescinded allowed for unlimited immigration from anywhere in the Western hemisphere. Imagine, if that provision had remained in force, every negro in Haiti and Brazil would now be living in the USA!

He quotes Henry Ward Beecher in one of his speeches collected in the book Patrtiotic Addresses:

Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: ‘Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them’.

But he again leaves out a crucial detail, namely that H.W. Beecher too advocated only a voluntary departure of the negroes. Beecher goes on to say that to even think of forcing them out for the benefit of whites would be a sin! (LOL, gotta love these Christian loonies!)

All in all, the article is just typical Jared Taylor BS. Since he makes his living from his website, I can only surmise that he thinks telling his readers what they want to hear increases donations.

At AmRen’s comments section, yesterday a commenter criticised Taylor’s article with these words: ‘Blah, blah, blah: Dissecting a speech [Lincoln’s] and a movement whose very purpose was intended to bring about abolition, the author will slice and dice the words until they are shown to mean Abraham Lincoln had the very opposite purpose in mind. But that’s what liberals do: lie’.

_________

(*) Brad Griffin’s sources:

David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Winthrop D. Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968).

Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites: And the Betrayal of Democracy (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1995).

Howard Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan, Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations, Revised Edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997).

Categories
American civil war Blacks Slavery Transvaluation of all values

Confederate Cassandra

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery…

If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. By the time the North shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that? It is not a supposable case…

War will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back… We will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which abolition will bring upon the white race…

We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa… Suppose they elevated Charles Sumner to the presidency? Suppose they elevated Fred Douglass, your escaped slave, to the presidency? What would be your position in such an event? I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.

Speech of Henry Lewis Benning to the
Virginia Convention
, February 18, 1861.

Categories
American civil war Blacks Deranged altruism Slavery

Negrolatry’s religious roots

Left, image of carpetbagger scene in Gone with the Wind, a war that occurred at a time when there was no mass media owned by Jewry, no kike educational establishment, and before mass immigration of Jews even began.

There are polls on Twitter asking what is the cause of the negrolatry with options to answer but no option mentions Christianity. But yesterday there was an exchange in Unz Review that throws light on the subject:

Mark Tapley said: You always drag Christianity into everything…

Robert Morgan replied: Understanding that Christianity is the origin of white people’s delusion of racial equality is essential. It doesn’t require me to “drag in” anything. Anyone who has an understanding of the history of the nineteenth century in America will understand the importance of the Christian fanaticism that characterized it. Of course, that obviously doesn’t include either you or your buddy Johnny. These religious revivals, known as the “Great Awakenings”, were closely bound up with abolitionism.

The white people today who are getting on their knees in front of negroes and literally licking their boots are the spiritual heirs of these Christian fanatics, whether they know it or not.

Mark Tapley said: None of the northern troops would have fought to free black people that they cared nothing about one way or the other. Christianity was not a factor or an influence on the War.

Robert Morgan replied: This is just wrong, whether you are speaking from ignorance (most likely) or are just lying. America was an intensely Christian nation at the time, and slavery had been a hotly contested issue from the founding of the country on up to the outbreak of war over it in 1861. There had always been a deep strain of Christianity-inspired anti-racism that characterized its political life, and it continues today. In fact, five of the thirteen original states in early America had already granted citizenship and the vote to negroes.

There’s quite a bit of interesting history involved with this discussed at considerable length in the Dred Scott case from 1856.

Categories
Blacks Child abuse Feminism Pseudoscience Psychiatry Slavery

Abusive parents and psychiatrists: a criminal association

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of my books:
 
 

Modern psychiatry pushes us in one direction—toward blaming the victim and exonerating the adult authorities. It’s the easy way out for all of the adults, including the child abuser; but it’s a disaster for the child.

—Peter Breggin [1]

The biggest surprise I ran across while reading Thomas Szasz and Jeffrey Masson was the discovery that, since its beginnings, psychiatry has sided parents during conflicts with their children; and it has sided them independently of the moral or sanity of the parents. In the 17th century the admission regulations to two French insane asylums for minors stipulated that:

Children of artisans and other poor inhabitants of Paris up to the age of twenty-five, who used their parents badly or who refused to work through laziness, or, in the case of girls, who were debauched or in evident danger of being debauched, should be shut up, the boys in the Bicêtre, the girls in the Salpêtrière. This action was to be taken on the complaint of the parents. [2]

In the same way, in the 18th century parents could appeal to the king for the purpose of, by means of a lettre de cachet confining a rebel child in the Bastille. [3]

In the 19th century the same situation shows up in America. In 1865 the Boston Times Messenger described the McLean Hospital as a ‘Bastille for the incarceration of some persons obnoxious to their relatives’. [4]

This bizarre history could be comprehended if we see psychiatry from an unfamiliar viewpoint: not as psychiatry presents itself, an objective science, but as an extralegal system of penalties which, since its origins, has allied itself with the status quo. And this doesn’t refer only to the alliance of psychiatrists with parents, but with husbands in other times. In America’s 1850s, for instance, Illinois commitment statute indicated:

Married women… may be entered or detained in the hospital (the state asylum of Jacksonville) at the request of the husband of the woman… without evidence of insanity required in other cases [my italics]. [5]

In the 20th century psychiatry gained even more power and influence in Western civilization. It converted itself into a big psycho-pharmaceutical industry, which acts within the tough arena of the market and the laws of supply and demand.

The key word is demand. When family problems arise the parents, and only the parents, have the economic means to hire professionals. Thus, from its origins it has been very convenient for these professionals to see family problems as medical problems, and they have deceived themselves to see such problems that way. Paediatrician Robert Mendelssohn observed: ‘teens are Big Business for psychiatrists’.[6] Psychiatry is not oriented to defend teenagers during family problems. That would put psychiatrists in conflict with the parents, the source of income of the psychiatrist. Paul Fink, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), put it bluntly: ‘It is the task of APA to protect the earning power of psychiatrists’.[7]

That psychiatrists have played the role of lawyers for the parents and the status quo can be seen with extraordinary transparency when studying the psychiatric labels in the 18th and 19th centuries. A few examples will illustrate this point.

When slavery was legal in the United States, Dr. Samuel Cartwright discovered that slaves who ran away from their masters suffered from drapetomania, a disease that only afflicted blacks who had ‘an insane desire to run away from their owners’.[8] Other blacks suffered from the medical disease dyasthesia Aethiopica, which pathological symptom was ‘paying no attention to property’. Benjamin Rush, the father of American psychiatry also discovered various nervous diseases. He called one of them anarchia, and defined it as ‘the excess passion for liberty’. At present Rush’s portrait continues to deck out the official seal of the American Psychiatric Association.

In 19th century-Europe the situation was no better. Women who didn’t comply with the role assigned to them were labelled folie lucide in France and moral insanity in England and its equivalent labels in Switzerland and Germany. Many were confined in insane asylums prompted by their husbands, fathers or brothers. Indeed, in the 19th century women were the main targets of organised psychiatry (just as in the 20th and the 21st centuries children and teenagers are once more the main target). Jeffrey Masson disclosed testimonies of some of the victims of these mercenary inquisitors: women that managed to escape the asylums and exposed both their families and the psychiatrists. One of these, Hersilie Rouy, committed as a result of a dispute with her brother, testifies in a book published in 1883 in Paris that:

For fourteen years I have lived under incarceration that cut me off from the real world, took away my civil rights, deprived me of my name, took away everything I owned, destroyed my entire existence without even being able to say why. [9]

Incidentally, I am not using these examples to promote feminism or anti-slavery for American blacks. I believe in patriarchy—but in a patriarchal society not based on the pseudoscientific claim that the liberated women in the 19th century suffered from a biomedical disease and that therefore should be ‘treated’ by MDs. This is analogous to the pseudoscientific claim in our century that boys who don’t pay due attention in the traditional school system have a brain disease that must be treated with Ritalin. The same could be said about runaway black slaves: punish them if you want but do not invent spurious diseases. Otherwise, such pseudoscientific diagnoses and empowering of the medical profession beyond its limits will metastasise into the white community with dire consequences.

Another piece of information that shocked me while reading Masson and Szasz was that since those times there has not only been an association between abusive parents and husbands with psychiatrists, but another alliance between psychiatrists and the state. For instance, after escaping and publishing her book Rouy appealed the French Ministry of Justice. Yet the ministry sided the psychiatrists:

Our doctor who knows more about it than we do has the conviction that she is mad and we bow before his infallible science. [10]

The case of Hersilie Rouy was not the only one that Masson disclosed in his investigations, but the pattern is very similar: young women perfectly sane diagnosed as suffering from ‘moral insanity’ in spite of the fact that the doctors acknowledged that there wasn’t anything wrong with their intellects. This is why the condition was named folie lucide in France (literally, lucid madness).

Another curious psychiatric label for unmarried ladies of the high society that had fiancés of lower status—and here I cannot help reminding the film Titanic—was nymphomania.[11] In some cases these ladies were confined in their bloom of youth to be liberated old to homes for the aged. Following next I quote an excerpt from a letter of Dr. Massini to Dr. Binswanger to confine Julie La Roche to an insane asylum in Switzerland:

In mid-January she ran off from there, supposedly with her brother, but in fact with the adventurer von Smirnoff, and suddenly appeared in Basel, presenting him as her fiancé. Here of course the relationship was nor approved…

All of this leads me to conclude that Miss La Roche, who is otherwise a thoroughly lovable girl, is heading toward ‘moral insanity’, which makes medical supervision advisable… She will surely attempt to escape, perhaps at the least pretend to commit suicide. It will therefore be necessary to put her in charge of incorruptible guards who will watch over her very closely… I do not believe that Mr. La Roche ever mistreated his daughter. [12]

It could be thought that these are relics of a barbarian psychiatric past already surpassed that have nothing to do with our civilised age. This was La Roche’s testimony:

My father abused me in a terrible manner… after he had thrown a sharp object at my head with such force that my face was covered with blood, to which a deep wound testified. There are witnesses to all these events.

One day in Saarburg, where we returned after our marriage [with von Smirnoff], and where I had to remain in bed, we were surprised by the police and then by my father. Though sick, I was dragged off through storm and rain by Mr. La Roche [her father]. My marriage certificate, everything was in vain. With court transportation, I was taken to Kreuzlingen, which is a private insane asylum (as can be ascertained by looking it up in any directory). There, on the first day, I was diagnosed as melancholic and insane.[13]

Like Hersilie Rouy, La Roche managed to escape. Thanks to this she left us her testimony, originally published in the Swiss newspaper Thurgauer Tagblatt. And just as the Rouy case, the united psychiatrists faced the exposé. Julie La Roche never was vindicated before society. On the contrary: the newspaper where her testimony appeared had to publish a shameful recantation stating that La Roche suffered, in effect, from moral insanity.[14]

The labels of the 19th century were not always invented to cause stigma on second-class citizens, sometimes they were invented to avoid stigma in the favoured classes. For instance, when a daughter of a high-born family stole something and was arrested, a psychiatrist was asked to diagnose that the poor girl suffered from kleptomania, an illness which symptom was an uncontrollable compulsion to steal.[15] Thus the law was outwitted and the spoiled daughter could return home. But like the stigmatising labels, it’s notorious to see how authorities used to go into open-handed complicity with psychiatrists to avoid, or to cause, social stigma.

These diagnoses—‘drapetomania’, ‘dyasthesia Aethiopica’ and ‘anarchia’ for blacks (anarchia, the disease invented by the father of American psychiatry was applied for whites as well), and ‘folie lucide’, ‘nymphomania’ and ‘kleptomania’ for women—seem ludicrous nowadays. Values have changed so much that the essentially political character of the labels and the role of psychiatrists as agents of the system and the affluent classes is visible from every point of view.

However, regardless of the obscure technicalities of present-day labels, which makes more difficult for the layman to detect the trick, the situation at present continues to be basically the same. The concealed objective of psychiatry has always been control, especially control of the most vulnerable members in society. That this policy persisted in the 20th century can be heard from the cynical statements of Francis Braceland, who was president of the American Psychiatric Association during the hippie movement in the 1960s:

It is a feature of some illnesses that people do not have insight into the fact that they are sick. In short, sometimes it is necessary to protect them for a while from themselves… If a man brings his daughter to me from California because she is in manifest danger of falling into vice or in some way disgracing herself, he doesn’t expect me to let her loose in my hometown for that same thing to happen. [16]

I could not say it more plainly. Notice how the thoughtpolice have not changed since the 17th century when they sent these ‘daughters in danger of falling into vice’ to the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris. Again, I am not against disciplining a spoiled brat. I only take issue with the immense danger of inventing pseudoscientific diseases that the medical profession should treat as if they were ‘illnesses’, often against the will of the ‘patient’.

Something similar could even be said about quite a few cases diagnosed as ‘schizophrenia’. Below, a quotation from the brochure Schizophrenia published in 1998 by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship of England:

How do families react if a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister develops schizophrenia and becomes odd and unpredictable? They may regard the change in behaviour as rebellious, perverse and unacceptable without at first realising that it is due to mental illness. [17]

This brochure, destined to the masses, expresses more clearly the behavioural criterion for schizophrenia than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM, the ‘Bible’, so to speak, of the psychiatrists.[18] The brochure does not ask how the adolescent sees his parents. It does not ask, for instance, ‘Is your mother so reluctant to her “psychological childbirth” that she treats you like a little boy?’ ‘Is she possessive, tyrannical and harass you often?’ Or ‘Is your father a passive fellow who always obeys your mom?’

Psychiatrists would never do a brochure for youngsters who cannot remunerate them. Those who wrote the brochure, the official psychiatric associations in England, have had ears exclusively for what the parents say, who are euphemistically called ‘the family’. It doesn’t even occur to them that the adult child’s version exists, or that his or her rebelliousness may be justified. The equation: rebellious, perverse, unacceptable is schizophrenic reminds me that during Brezhnev’s ruling the political dissident’s rebelliousness, an unacceptable perversity for Russian authorities, was officially considered a symptom of schizophrenia.[19]

The English brochure is most perverse when advocating the idea that ‘they may regard the change in behaviour as rebellious without at first realising that it is due to mental illness’. In other words, adolescent rebellion is, by definition of the most reputable associations of English psychiatry, an illness, schizophrenia or schizoidism; the feminist liberation of the 19th century was an illness, moral insanity; the anxiety of the black slave to escape was an illness, drapetomania. All these illnesses require medical intervention, which frequently ends up in incarceration without legal trial. The same brochure says:

People with schizophrenia do not always realise they are ill and may refuse treatment when they badly need it. In these circumstances, the Mental Health Act in England and Wales [enacted in 1983] and similar legal arrangements in other countries, permit compulsory admission to hospital. [20]

Take notice that this is a brochure published in 1998, and that they gave it to me in 1999 in a ‘mental health’ course in England’s Open University.

In essence, psychiatry has not changed since the 19th century, only the social values have changed. Psychiatrists have behaved, and continue to behave, as agents of the current status quo: be it slave-owners at the south of the United States, bourgeois parents that abhor the plebeian affairs of their liberated daughters, or harassing mothers that do not tolerate any rebelliousness in their children.

More direct evidence that an alliance exists between parents and psychiatrists, an alliance not declared to the public, has been exposed by a man who defrocked himself from the lucrative profession of psychoanalysis and that I have already quoted: Masson. In Final analysis he says:

‘When a child manifests gross pathology…’ these words startled me into consciousness. They were enunciated, for emphasis, very slowly, and in a booming voice. There could be no doubt about it, the department chairman was a fine orator. He had acted on the stage. His voice, his urban wit, his friendliness, his poise, his great knowledge of literature were all admirable. He laughed a great deal. He liked to make jokes. You had to like him.

But you did not have to like what he said. And I did not. What was it to ‘manifest gross pathology’? In this case, an eight-year-old boy was the ‘identified’ patient. The word ‘identified’ was a popular and venerable psychiatric term. He had been ‘identified’ as the patient by his mother and father, simply because he was not doing well at school, he had few friends, and he was a ‘problem’ at home. How was this, I wondered at the time, ‘gross pathology’? Where was I? I was at grand rounds.[21]

‘Grand rounds’ was the visit of psychiatric wards in the city of Toronto during Masson’s training for an analyst. The hospital staff met and a senior psychiatrist presented a case of one of the hospitalised ‘patients’. As Masson observed, this was humiliating for the patient:

It soon became apparent that every presentation of therapy was only good as the intellect and heart of the presenter. You did not, you could not, learn about the patient, but you learned plenty about the presenter… So here was a department chairman talking about still another ‘patient’, Jill, nineteen, ‘who was admitted to the hospital with a schizophrenic psychotic decompensation’.[22]

The department chairman who presented these cases was a respected psychiatrist who believed in electroshock. Masson continues:

How did we know, for example, that somebody was ‘sick’? It was simple: they were brought to the hospital. The chairman made it clear that a person who had been ‘identified’ as a patient by the family, was, in fact, disturbed in a psychiatric way. People apparently did not err when it came to making these kinds of home diagnoses. Thus, he told us, speaking of the ‘maladjusted’ (a medical term?) child, that we should accept

that the ‘identified’ patient is ‘sicker’ than the others. A study by S. Wolff (in the British Journal of Psychiatry) lends support to the family’s identification of its most disturbed member as the ‘sick one’…

To me, this was suspiciously convenient for the psychiatrist. What gave the psychiatric community this power? [23]

Who gives psychiatry these inquisitorial powers against children and teenagers? Society and its laws, of course; the state, our very culture! (Remember the epigraph of this book, ‘To commit violent and unjust acts, it is not enough for a government to have the will or even the power; the habits, ideas and passions of the time must lend themselves to their committal’, wrote Alexis de Tocqueville.) Masson is the only former analyst of the world that has dared to expose in his writings what happens in the ‘indoctrination process’ of this ‘semi-secret society’ as he calls the formation of psychoanalysts.

Another piece of evidence that there exist a criminal association of parents and psychiatrists is suggested by the fact that American psychiatry, represented by the American Psychiatric Association, has entered a collaboration with the National Alliance on Mental Illness. NAMI is formed by parents that, like Julie La Roche’s father, want to undertake psychiatric action against their offspring. NAMI’s position has been so extreme that it has even come to harass those psychiatrists who are not practitioners of the bioreductionist faith. [24]

It’s important to know that this alliance between tyrannical parents and psychiatrists is a very old story, and that it continues without serious challenge in our societies.

________

[1] Peter Breggin, Toxic psychiatry: why therapy, empathy and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the ‘new psychiatry’ (St. Martin’s Press, 1994), pp. 269 & 315.

[2] Quoted in Thomas Szasz, The manufacture of madness: a comparative study of the Inquisition and the mental health movement (Syracuse University Press, 1997), p. 14.

[3] Ibid., pp. 48f.

[4] Ibid., 308.

[5] Ibid., p. 307.

[6] Toxic psychiatry (op. cit.), p. 298.

[7] Ibid., p. 360.

[8] This, and the following diagnoses, appear in Mind games (op. cit.), p. 105.

[9] Quoted in Jeffrey Masson, Against therapy: emotional tyranny and the myth of psychological healing (Harper Collins, 1997), p. 57. The alliance between parents and psychiatrists is exposed in chapters 1, 5 and 6 esp.

[10] Ibid., p. 60.

[11] Roger Gomm, ‘Reversing deviance’ in Tom Heller (ed.) Mental health matters (The Open University, 1996), p. 80.

[12] Against therapy, pp. 70f.

[13] Ibid., pp. 72f.

[14] Ibid., p. 76.

[15] Mental health matters, p. 80.

[16] Quoted in The manufacture of madness, pp. 46f.

[17] Schizophrenia (National Schizophrenia Fellowship & Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1998), p. 12.

[18] Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).

[19] Thomas Szasz, The therapeutic state (Prometheus Books, 1984), p. 223.

[20] Schizophrenia, op. cit., p. 9.

[21] Jeffrey Masson, Final analysis: the making and unmaking of a psychoanalyst (Harper Collins, 1991), pp. 48f.

[22] Ibid., pp. 50f.

[23] Ibid., p. 51.

[24] Toxic psychiatry, pp. 425f.

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Degeneracy Egalitarianism Evropa Soberana (webzine) Geography History Jerusalem Jewish question (JQ) Judea v. Rome (masthead of this site) Nero Slavery

Apocalypse for whites • XXIX

by Evropa Soberana

 
Christianity takes hold outside Judea
As soon as the Jews learn about the events in Rome with the Christians, they begin to plan an uprising and, perfectly coordinated, rebel throughout the Roman Empire. Thus, in the year 66, in a rapid and well-planned coup d’état, they put to the knife all the non-Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem except the slaves. Nero uses his legions to crush the revolt harshly in the rest of the Empire, but in their capital the Jews become strong. In the year 68, just as General Vespasian left to take Jerusalem, Nero is mysteriously murdered.
Vespasian, then, becomes emperor and sends his son Titus to the front of the X Legio, with the aim of crushing the Jews. The year 70 Rome triumphs; Jerusalem is devastated and sacked by the Roman legionaries and it is said that in the process a million Jews died under Roman arms (only in Jerusalem the town had accumulated, during the siege, three million Jews). This year 70, fateful, traumatizing, outrageous and key for Jewry, sees the enslavement and dispersion of Jews throughout the Mediterranean (Diaspora), greatly enhancing the growth of Christianity.
There are successive emperors (Trajan, Hadrian) very aware of the Jewish problem, who do not pay much attention to Christians, mainly because they are too busy with the Judaic puzzle in ‘holy land’, repressing the Jews again and again, without destroying them completely.
In this time, the new religion grows little by little, gaining followers among the enslaved masses thanks to its egalitarian ideology and also in high positions of the administration: among an increasingly decadent and materialist bureaucracy. Christianity glorified misfortune instead of glorifying the struggle against it; considered suffering as a merit that dignifies itself and proclaimed that Paradise awaits anyone who behaves well. (Remember how the pagans taught that only fighters entered the Valhalla.)
It is the religion of the slaves, and they willingly subscribe to it. Early Christianity played a very similar role to that of the later Freemasonry: it was a Jewish strategy dressed up using weak and ambitious characters, fascinating them with a sinister ritualism. The result was like a communism for the Roman Empire, even favouring the ‘emancipation’ and independence of women from their husbands by capturing them with a strange and novel Christian liturgy, and urging them to donate their own money to the cause (a scam quite similar in its essence to the current New Age cults).

This map in Spanish shows the extension of Christianity around the year 100. The Roman Empire is represented in a lighter shade than the barbarian territories. Note that the areas of Christian preaching
coincide exactly with the densest Jewish settlement areas.

It is at the beginning of the second century that the figure of Christian fat cats called ‘bishops’ begins to take on importance. Saint Ignatius of Antioch wrote in the year 107, in the most corny way: ‘It is obvious that we must look to a bishop like the Lord in person. His clerics are in harmony with their bishop like the strings of a harp, and the result is a hymn of praise to Jesus Christ of minds that feel in unison’. St. Ignatius is captured by the Roman authorities, and thrown to the lions in 107. (It is interesting to pay attention to the names of the preachers, since they always come from eastern mestizo and Judaized areas; in this case, Syria.)
Around the year 150, the Greek Marcion tries to form a kind of ‘de-Judaised’ purification in Christianity, rejecting the Old Testament; giving pre-eminent importance to the Gospel of St. Luke and adopting a Gnostic worldview with Orphic and Manichean airs. This is the first attempt of reform or Europeanization of Christianity: trying to deprive it from its obvious Jewish roots.[1] Marcion’s followers, the Marcionites, who professed a Gnostic creed, are classified as heretics by mainstream Christianity.

This map shows the general expansion of Christianity in 185. Note the great difference with respect to the previous map and note also that the area most influenced by Christianity is still the Eastern
Mediterranean: a highly Semitic zone.

Sometime after the year 200, in view of the incorporation into Christianity of great new masses that did not speak Greek but Latin, a Latin translation of the Gospels began to circulate in most western Christian centres.
The emperor Diocletian (reigned 284-305) divided the Empire into two halves to make it more governable. He keeps the eastern part and hands over the western part to Maximian, a former comrade in arms. He establishes a rigid bureaucracy, and these measures smell like irremediable decadence. Despite this, Diocletian is a just and realistic veteran. He allows its Christian legionaries to be absent from pagan ceremonies, provided they maintain their military discipline.
But this was precisely the trickiest issue, where the bishops insolently defy the authority of the emperor. Diocletian, however, is benevolent and only one Christian pacifist is executed. However, he now insists that Christians participate in state ceremonies of a religious nature, and the Christian response to this decision is growing pride and arrogance, with numerous revolts and provocations.
But even at this point, Diocletian renounces to apply the death penalty, contenting himself with making slaves of the rebels that he captured. The answer to this are more riots and a fire in the imperial palace itself, and provocations and Christian insolence occur throughout the Empire. But the most Diocletian does is to execute nine rebellious bishops and eighty rebels in Palestine, the area most troubled by Christian rebellions.
One of these rebels was a spawn named St. Procopius of Scythopolis. To get an idea of which kind of creature Procopius was, let’s see the words of a contemporary, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea: ‘He had tamed his body until turning it, so to speak, into a corpse; but the strength that his soul found in the word of God gave strength to his body… He only studied the word of God and had little knowledge of the profane sciences’. That is to say, this sub-man was a sick body and a crushed and resentful spirit, moved away from all the natural goods of the world, and who only knows the Bible and the speeches of the bishops.
In the beginning Christianity was nourished of similar men: Jewish practitioners of an asceticism bordering on sadomasochism who turned their bodies into a wreck, and their spirits into tyrannical and resentful shepherds.
Despite the softness of these persecutions, Diocletian goes down in history as a monster thirsting for Christian blood (history is written by the victors). The certain thing is that, after emperor Diocletian’s reign, Rome entered frank decay.
 
____________________
[1] Note of the Editor: In our times, adepts of Christian Identity also desperately try to square the circle by claiming that Aryans descend from the biblical characters.

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Evropa Soberana (webzine) Jerusalem Jesus Judaism Judea v. Rome (masthead of this site) Miscegenation Slavery St Paul

Apocalypse for whites • XXVII

by Evropa Soberana

 
A Jewish sect appears
The story starts in the year 33: the date on which a Jewish rebel named Yeshua or Jesus, who had proclaimed himself the Messiah of the Jews and King of Israel, was crucified at the hands of the Romans. In this first expansive phase of Christianity, Sha’ul of Tarsus (for posterity, Saint Paul), a Jew with Roman citizenship of Hellenistic and cosmopolitan education, although brought up under the most recalcitrant Jewish fundamentalism, takes on special importance.
At first, this character had been dedicated to persecuting Christians (which, let’s not forget, were all Jews) in the name of the authorities of official Judaism. At a given moment in his life, he falls off the horse—literally, it is said—and tells himself that a doctrine that has had such a hippiesque effect among the Jews themselves, would cause a terrible devastation in Rome: hated to death by both he as almost all the Jews of his time.
After his great revelation, Saint Paul decides that Christianity is a valid doctrine to be preached to Gentiles, that is, to non-Jews. With that intelligent diplomatic skill for business and subversive movements, St. Paul establishes numerous Christian communities in Asia Minor and the Aegean, from which the ‘good news’ will be hyper-actively preached.
Subsequently, numerous preaching centres are founded in North Africa, Syria and Palestine, inevitably going to Greece and Rome itself. Christianity ran like wildfire through the most humble layers of the population of the Empire, which were the most ethnically orientalised layers.
It then passes to the Roman Empire through the Jews, headed by St. Paul, St. Peter and other preachers. Its nature, based on the sinister Syrian-Phoenician mysteries that presupposed the sinfulness and impurity of the being who practiced them, is attractive to the immense mestizo masses: Rome’s slaves.

Note of the Editor: See my hatnote to Kriminalgeschichte 47. These are the type of mudbloods and sandniggers that composed the first Christians. The image is taken from funerary portraits of faithful resemblance to Greek-speaking people residing in Egypt. The portraits survived thanks to the dryness of the Egyptian climate. Although it is impossible to say who these men or women were, all were early Christians according to the book where I scanned the image (page 109 of an English-Spanish translation of After Jesus, 1992, The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.).

______ ______

The first Christian meetings in Rome are carried out secretly, in the underground Jewish catacombs; and in the Jewish synagogues Christian discourses and sermons are delivered: very different from those that will take place in later Christian Europe.
St. Paul’s speeches are political cries: intelligent, virulent and fanatical harangues that urge the faithful to accept Jesus Christ to achieve redemption. The book of John of Patmos[1] is a mixed incendiary formula like delirious visions of the Apocalypse, the fall of Rome or Babylon, the New Jerusalem, the slaughter of the infidels, the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven, the eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, the horrendous condemnation of pagan sinners and all those strange oriental ideas.
Another key point that must be recognised as very skilful by the first preachers was to take advantage of the affinity for the poor, the dispossessed, the abandoned, the vagabonds and those who cannot help themselves; and the establishment of institutions of charity, relief and assistance. All this is clearly a forerunner of the social fighters that we see today, and that had never been seen before in the pagan world. It is easy to see that these measures had the effect of attracting to themselves all the scum from the streets of Rome, in addition to preserving and increasing it.
Since its members refuse to serve in the legions and pay homage to the emperor, Christianity is immediately persecuted by the Empire in an intermittent and sporadic manner. Although the Roman persecutions have been greatly exaggerated by the victimisers, the moderate oppression suffered by the Christians was essentially for political and not religious reasons.
The Roman Empire always tolerated different religions, but its authorities saw in Christianity a subversive sect, a cover of that Judaism which had caused so many headaches in the East. Moreover, the Roman politicians of the time did not even distinguish between Jews and Christians, and not without reason saw in Christianity a tool for the revenge of the Jew against Rome, since they considered Christianity as a religious movement of many from the heart of the Jewish quarter (Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots).
 
_____________________
[1] The words in this paragraph have been modified by the Editor.

Categories
Ancient Rome Architecture Art Aryan beauty Christendom Constantine Ethnic cleansing Evropa Soberana (webzine) Hadrian History Jerusalem Jewish question (JQ) Judaism Judea v. Rome (masthead of this site) Slavery

Apocalypse for whites • XXIII

by Evropa Soberana

 
Consequences of the Palestinian revolt
The revolt had paramount consequences both for Rome and for Jewry. To begin with, the Roman losses were such that, in addition to Hadrian’s refusing to say in the military offices to the Senate that everything was going well, he was the only Roman leader in history who, after a great victory, refused to return to Rome celebrating a triumph. Titus Vespasianus had only rejected a crown of laurels in his day; Hadrian took it to the next step.
However, if the Roman losses were considerable, the Jewish losses were huge. According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, 50 cities and 985 Jewish villages were completely destroyed—and they were not rebuilt—and hundreds of thousands of Jews sold as slaves throughout the Empire.
It is not surprising that the Talmud called this process ‘the war of extermination’, and that it even made outrageous statements to mythologize the conflict, such as ‘Sixteen million Jews were wrapped in parchments and burned alive by the Romans’ (Gittin, 58-A). The Jews, in any case, were definitively deprived of the will to rise against Rome by force of arms. On the other hand the Jewish threat, which had caused so many headaches to Rome, was going to increase throughout the Mediterranean due to the greater extension of the Diaspora and the ideal breeding ground that this meant for the expansion of another anti-Roman rebellion: Christianity.
The conditions of the defeat imposed on the Jews were even harsher than the triumph of Titus in the year 70. As measures against the Jewish religion, Hadrian prohibited the Jewish courts, the meetings in synagogues, the Jewish calendar, the study of the religious writings and Judaism itself as a religion! He executed numerous rabbis and burned masses of sacred scrolls at a ceremony on the Temple Mount. He tried to eradicate the very Jewish identity and Judaism itself, sending them into exile, enslaving them and dispersing them away from Judea. This persecution against all forms of Jewish religiosity, including Christianity, would continue until the death of the emperor in 138.
Furthermore, in another attempt to obliterate Jewish identity and dismantle its centre of power, the eastern provinces were restructured, forming three Syrian provinces: Syria Palestina (named in honour of the Philistines: a people of European origin and enemies of Jewry who had inhabited the area); Phoenicia under Roman rule and Coele-Syria.
In the new territorial order decreed by Hadrian, Judea became Syria Palestina, and Jerusalem was turned into Aelia Capitolina: a Greek and Roman city in which the Jews were proscribed. The three Syrias form the Levant: an extremely active and conflictive strip in history, to this day. From there came the Neolithic, the Phoenicians, Judaism and Christianity, and practically all the civilizations of antiquity, creating an ethnic chaos that always ended up in conflicts. Centuries later, these areas would see the establishment of European Crusader States.
As for the city of Jerusalem, Hadrian carried out with it the plans that had unleashed the revolt: the Jewish capital was demolished and destroyed, and the Romans ploughed over the ruins to symbolize its ‘purification’ and its return to the earth. Hadrian finally built the projected Aelia Capitolina over the ruins, introducing a new urban planning, so that even today the old city of Jerusalem coincides with the one built by the Romans.

In the centre of the city a forum was established, which contained a temple dedicated to Venus. In the place of the temple Hadrian had two statues erected, one of Jupiter and another of himself, although he respected the Wailing Wall.
Also, next to Golgotha, where Jesus was crucified, Hadrian placed a statue of Aphrodite. This was intended to symbolize the triumph of Rome over Orthodox Judaism and over Christianity, considered a Jewish sect like so many: another sect that in Rome was persecuted without distinguishing it from official Judaism. For the Greeks and Romans, the statues of their gods were representatives of the divine, solar, luminous and Olympic spirit on earth, while for the Jews, including the Christians, nothing stirred their stomach more than a naked, strong statue, beautiful, of Nordic features and invincible aspect.

To top off the de-Judaization of the city, Hadrian prohibited any Jew from settling in Aelia Capitolina, on pain of death. (This law would only be revoked two centuries later by Constantine, the first Christian emperor.)

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Constantine Destruction of Greco-Roman world Evil Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Slavery

Kriminalgeschichte, 31

Below, abridged translation from the first
volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte
des Christentums
(Criminal History of Christianity)

 
Christian family life and rigours of criminal practices
The first Christian emperor, in addition to revealing himself as a great military leader, was consistent in the application of capital punishment, also emulated in this by Catholic theologians of all times, not excepting ours. In the year 310, the son of St. Helena [Constantine], is still assured by Christian historians of the second half of the 20th century that ‘few of his successors reached his political and human greatness’ (Baus) and that ‘in his private life he did no secret of his Christian convictions, leading an exemplary Christian family life’ (Franzen).
He had his father-in-law, Emperor Maximian, hanged in Massilia (Marseille) after which all the statues and images that represented him were destroyed.
He ordered to strangle his brothers-in-law Licinius and Basian, husbands of his sisters Constantia and Anastasia; in 336, he enslaved Prince Licianus, son of Licinius, who was then flogged and murdered at Carthage in 326.
He made Crispus, his son (from his spouse Minervina shortly before marrying Fausta) be poisoned along with ‘numerous friends of his’ (Eutropius); incidentally, a few months after the Council of Nicaea in which the symbol of faith was promulgated.
And finally, this paragon of human greatness accused of adultery with Crispus his own wife Fausta, mother of three children and two daughters, who was shortly before recognised on coins as spes reipublicae(hope of the State); although nothing was demonstrated. She was drowned in a bath and all her properties of the old Lateran district adjudged definitively to the Pope.
‘Exemplary Christian life’, indeed (Franzen above)!
The Byzantine historian Zosimus, a diehard pagan whose well-documented history of the emperors is, together with Rerum gestarum libri XXXI of Ammianus, our main source of information on the events of the 4th century, claims that after the liquidation of his son and his wife the unpopularity of Constantine in Rome had become so great, that he preferred to change residence.
The decline of the Law became more acute during these 4th and 5th centuries of our era. The classical mentality of the pagan era was displaced by the vulgar right of the late Roman era and the legislation fell ‘to a level of unscientific primitivism’ (Kaser), which justifies the assertion of Jerome, doctor of the Church, ‘aliae sunt leges Caesaru Christi…
During the republican period, the death penalty, although not formally abolished, was severely limited in its application. Under the Caesars, the tolerance was even greater. The emperor sanctioned, with the death penalty instead of the traditional exile, the publication of anonymous libels, and ordered that the tongue be ripped off from the slanderers, ‘the greatest plague of human life’ before executing them.
Constantine criminalised the kidnapping, until then a private crime. So that he not only condemned to death the abductor, and in a horrible way, but also the bride if she had consented; and also those who had acted as mediators, casting molten lead in the mouths of the slave owners and burning the slaves alive.

A modern depiction of Constantine

Shelley wrote: ‘The punishments promulgated by that monster, the first Christian emperor, against the pleasures of forbidden love were so unutterably grave that no modern legislator would even consider them against the worst crimes’. Constantine also authorised the interrogation through torture during the trials, ‘the methods envisaged were of extraordinary cruelty’ (Grant).
And if Diocletian forbade parents to sell their children as slaves, Constantine allowed it in cases of grave necessity and provided that it was made under a repurchase agreement. If a slave took liberty on his own and took refuge among the barbarians, once captured, they cut off his foot and sent him to forced labour in the mines, which almost always amounted to a death penalty.

Categories
Hypatia of Alexandria Pedagogy Science Slavery

On Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”

In these hard days for me I’ve tried to distract myself with my favorite television series when I was much younger: the thirty episodes of The Champions and the thirteen of Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

Since I wrote about the former I’ve changed my mind. For example, I now see with respect the efforts of the late Alexandra Bastedo, one of the stars of The Champions, to create an animal sanctuary in West Sussex, England. The Champions was a detective fiction series in the late 1960s, but the anti-Nazi propaganda that appears in at least five episodes was something that I did not give importance to as a child.

The fame of The Champions in the late 1960s and early 70s pales compared to the fame of the series of scientific dissemination Cosmos a decade later. Sagan was of Jewish descent, something I did not know when, at the 1994 conference of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in Seattle (known in that year as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) I met him personally and shook his hand. Then I was as liberal as Sagan. Now I am a national socialist, so in my recent revisit to Sagan’s famous series I have new eyes.

In the final episode of Cosmos Sagan could not resist talking about the progress of liberating women, and that a new planetary consciousness was being created (referring in part to liberalism and progressivism). He criticized the ethnocentrism of Plato and Aristotle, who spoke of “the barbarians” when humanity is one for a hypothetical enlightened extraterrestrial. More than once in the series Sagan spoke of slavery as a cancer, sometimes giving the impression that it was the cause of the decline of the Greco-Roman world.

He mentioned the word racism as a bad thing, and in two of his programs they filmed a room with American children of all races: something inconceivable when Sagan was a kid. In Cosmos Sagan chose a negress kid for a lesson during that class of integrated children contemplating photos of the planets. Speaking about humanity in general, he or the producers inserted images of the people of India and colored children while Sagan’s voice in off described the high virtues of mankind: as if the colored were legitimate representatives of the white man’s will to decipher the universe.

There is a more general criticism I can elaborate about Cosmos. Since I loved the series in the early 1980s, when I liked science-fiction and the themes of space, I have changed radically. Now, like Nietzsche, I believe that we must be faithful to the Earth.

Most of Cosmos is an introduction to astronomy. But what good is studying the stars of the firmament when the Aryans, deceived by movie stars, commit ethno-suicide? The science that children and adolescents should know in this dark age should not be Byzantine but relevant. Children, adolescents and young people, as Bastedo saw well, should watch over the well-being of our cousins. In addition, whites must recognize the 14 words. Arthur Kemp summed up very well what the focus of knowledge should be on a Red Ice TV interview. The focus must be on history, more specifically, on how interbreeding has been the nemesis of the West throughout the millennia.

When I finished seeing Cosmos in my mature age it occurred to me that, if I had a young son, I would edit it by censuring not only the liberal propaganda, but most shots about astronomy with the exception of what Sagan calls the Cosmic calendar. That would mean significantly reducing the Cosmos series to practical and positive terrestrial messages, and the youth could see it in a couple of programs.

The recent events in my life have turned me into a priest of what I have now baptized as “the four words,” which I will explain in future articles. For the moment it is enough to say that in a future school, the priest of the 4 and 14 words could show the children these scenes taken from Cosmos:

From episode 1, what Sagan says about Eratosthenes and the beautiful ancient city of Alexandria.

From episode 2, what he says about a majestic tree (an oak) and man: we are related.

From episode 3, one of my favorite scenes of Cosmos: the recreation of the life of Johannes Kepler.

From episode 4, dedicated to the planet Venus, I would only rescue how some westerners self-deceived themselves by speculating there must be dinosaurs on Venus just because they saw through the telescope that it was covered in clouds.

From episode 5, dedicated to the planet Mars, I would only rescue something very similar: how the astronomer Percival Lowell self-deceived himself into believing that there were canals constructed by Martians.

From episode 6, the magnificent staging of the enlightened Netherlands in times of the densest darkness in large parts of Europe.

From episode 7, Sagan’s presentation of Democritus and Pythagoras, and his criticism of the latter’s mysticism.

From Episode 8, what Sagan says about Leonardo da Vinci but not what he says about Einstein. (Only the biographers of the future will be able to conclusively show whether or not this Einstein Jew stole his discoveries from white scientists.)

From episode 9, the didactic presentation of the periodic table of the elements.

From episode 10, only the recreation of the scenes of astronomer Milton Humason in his observatory.

From episode 11, the introduction to the science of the human brain, including the shots inside a cozy library.

From episode 12, the recreation of the life of Champollion, including his travel to Egypt.

From episode 13, what I consider the most important of the series: the tragedy of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the horrible murder of Hypatia by St Cyril’s mob. This is something that those white nationalists who cling to the religion of their parents do not dare to see.

A DVD containing this highly edited version of Cosmos could be educational for a young mind who wants to get initiated in the mysteries of the world and science. This would be for home-schooled kids of course: not for the kind that will protest Richard Spencer at Auburn tonight.

Categories
American civil war Axiology Blacks Deranged altruism Jewish question (JQ) Mainstream media Robert Morgan / Jack Frost Slavery

It’s Christian ethics, stupid!

Once more, Jack Frost hits the nail in his endeavors to educate pro-whites who ignore that Christian morality has been more a primary causative factor of white decline than Jewish subversion. At The Occidental Observer Frost has responded to a commenter:

____________________

“Well, I think that if nothing else, the Jewish infrastructure ensures that there are lots of jobs and financial incentives to going along with their program. Non-Whites will not be immune to that.”

Non-whites don’t need incentives to hate whites. This is the same error that Christian conspiracy theorist Alex Jones makes. Jones’ constant refrain is that, but for the instigation of the globalists (who promote racial antagonism in a sinister “divide and conquer” strategy, of course), the races would naturally exist in a state of harmony and universal brotherhood. Because his almost all white audience has been steeped in Christian BS their whole lives, they already “know” this to be true and so they buy it.

Beyond this though, it seems to me the whole “incentive model” is taken from animal studies and is really an explanation that explains nothing when it comes to human behavior, which is made much more complex by an ability to foresee consequences that is vastly more advanced than in other animals.

Example 1: One incentivizes a rat to run a maze by rewarding him with a food pellet. Over time, you train the rat to do this, so in a sense, it’s fair to say your incentive is the cause of his maze-running behavior.

Example 2: You are walking down the street, see an attractive woman, and you incentivize her to have sex with you by offering her $50. At this point, she has a choice. She can either take you up on it or slap your face and walk away. Clearly, if she takes the money in exchange for her services, she’s a whore. But she might have done it for free, in which case she’d be only a slut. On the other hand, maybe she’d have done it anyway, but decided to take the $50 just because you offered it and it might come in handy later. In any case, whether she takes the money or not, nothing can really be said from this about questions of causality or morality. Your offer of $50 didn’t cause her to become a whore, if that’s what she is. Conversely, if she slapped your face and walked away, your offer of $50 didn’t in any way cause her virtue. In fact, it’s quite conceivable she might actually be a whore, but thought your offer was too low.

In the same way, Jewish incentives can’t meaningfully be said to cause any white (or even non-white) actions. Unlike in animal studies, with humans there is in fact almost never any way to distinguish between voluntary cooperation and caused (i.e., incentivized) behavior.

“We cannot determine these questions without further information, but what we can determine is that such incentives sway at least some people who would not otherwise have acted in the same manner.”

That seems reasonable, but still, you are assuming what you are setting out to prove. I can reduce it to this: Because human motivations are complex, much more so than with animals, there’s no way to ever be completely sure if something is done for an incentive or for other reasons. With the rat experiment, you can show causality because if you stop giving the reward, eventually the maze-running behavior will be extinguished. With humans, it’s much more complicated. They might, and in fact, in the case of sex, doubtlessly would, find other reasons to continue the behavior even if the incentive were not offered. To tie it in a little better to Kevin MacDonald’s remark, if a white man takes a job working for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is he doing it for the money and prestige (i.e., incentive), or because he actually believes in racial and sexual equality? Or both? Or neither? From the outside, and in fact, even from the inside (one’s insight into even one’s own motivation may not be perfect) I don’t see that there’s any way to say for sure.

“In this case we know how politicians (and others) behaved in the past. We know that since the rise of Jewish power, they have come to act in a dramatically different manner. We know about the control of information and we know about the system of incentives / disincentives. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to deny the causal relationships here.”

The main problem with this narrative isn’t merely that it’s an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, but that it contradicts history. The biggest boost toward legal and social equality with the white man the negro ever received was during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Whites did this on their own, in the absence of modern mass media and the modern educational techniques, and before Jews even began arriving on these shores in any great numbers. This again points up the importance of worldview, since this first step in the direction of equal “civil rights” for everyone, regardless of race, was framed and justified in terms of Christian morality. A great many of the most prominent Abolitionists were Christian religious fanatics.

“We shouldn’t forget that it is not just the incentives / punishments that are in play here, there is also the power of Jews to control the flow of information upon which individuals rely to form their own world views. This is at least as important as the incentives / punishments in my opinion.”

Worldview is in fact much more important and more powerful than a system of incentives because it is logically prior to any such system. Worldview establishes a system of value that determines what can be used as an incentive and what can’t. For example, it determines whether money or race is considered more important. Someone who truly puts race first can’t be “incentivized” with money.

It’s not clear that Jews control white worldviews though, unless you want to allow that they’ve been in control of whites for two thousand years or more. A difficult position to maintain! In any case, to eliminate Jewish influence you’d have to go all the way back to pre-Christian times.

“In fact, the subject of abolition of slavery is not even relevant to subject here.”

I think the setting of negroes on equal footing with whites by means of a war that cost hundreds of thousands of white lives is extremely relevant. What it shows is that whites are quite willing to impose racial genocide upon themselves without any help from Jews.

“It has been well established that if you can control the information that people are exposed to, you can to a large extent mold their opinions and world view.”

Your argument here is tautological. If you can control people, then you can control them. Yes, that’s true, but so what? Information about Jews is widely available. That’s not the problem. The problem, from the white point of view, is that people overwhelmingly reject both racism and anti-Semitism. They just don’t agree with you. It doesn’t necessarily indicate they’re being “controlled”. If you have ever managed to persuade anyone to see the Jewish question your way does that mean that you’re now controlling them? The question you’re not coming to terms with is, how do you distinguish between someone who simply doesn’t agree with you from someone who is being “controlled”? If the problem is only lack of information, then it should vanish as soon as you supply the missing information. But it doesn’t.

“Clearly using their control of the money and media has been used to transform the culture and the society. It has been used to mold public opinion by altering the worldview of millions of Whites (and non-Whites).”

After the Christian takeover of white civilization, the philo-Semitic, anti-racist worldview of Christianity has never been altered by Jews. There’s been no need. The program it set forth has just been carried out and refined over generations by willing participants.

“It seems a reasonable and logical assumption that if one can control these environmental factors, that one can affect the worldview of an individual or even an entire society. ”

If you can control people, then you can control them? Again, a tautology. But I’m not persuaded that anyone really controls the worldview of a whole society or can dictate a change in it. There’s such a thing as reality, after all, and instinctive drives, such as the will to live, and to procreate. Surely that must count for something. Everyone has immediate and unrestricted access to the world itself through their own senses. They can see what is going on.

“I have held positions in the past based upon my exposure to mass media that I have since repudiated when I discovered that the ‘facts’ upon which I had based those opinions were not true.”

Again, the issue you are avoiding is how to tell the difference between someone honestly disagreeing with you and their being “controlled” to disagree. Also, I have to ask, what accounts for your peculiar immunity from this seemingly omnipotent Jewish “control”? Why is such immunity not more widespread? Why doesn’t merely informing the vast majority of people of the “facts” as you see them change their minds on the Jewish question?

“This is precisely what is happening to us. We are being domesticated and if we are to do anything more than allow ourselves to be herded to our fate, we need to understand what is happening, what the processes at work are and who is driving this.”

I agree that people are being modified genetically by civilizational processes; “tamed” if you want to put it that way. But most whites see civilization as a good thing and are willing participants. If they’re wronged or damaged, rather than killing someone in a duel, they sue. If a relative is murdered, rather than starting a clan-based vendetta, they let police and the courts handle it. Just as with the use of birth control to lower the white fertility rate below replacement level, this is not something Jews are doing to white people. They are doing it to themselves.

“If control of the flow of information and a structure of incentives designed to encourage anti-White behavior are not effective, then why all the hand wringing about Jewish control of media and the monetary system?”

I hate to break it to you, but not many white people are actually worried about this, Bob. They approve of the status quo, and in fact it would be impossible to run such a vast and complicated panopticon without the approval and active participation of white people.

“In fact, why are we all wasting our time trying to provide an alternative worldview to our fellow Whites at all if our information is not going to have any effect on their worldview?”

I think you’re confusing worldview with mere political opinions. They’re not the same thing at all. That’s why trying to build a political mass movement through “education” is a waste of time, in my opinion.

All attempts at educating white people out of their Christian worldview of universal brotherhood and racial / sexual equality have failed, and I believe this is because worldviews don’t so much depend on facts as determine what is regarded as a fact. They provide the framework for interpreting reality; for saying both how the world is and how it ought to be. They aren’t political opinions, but lay the groundwork for those opinions by defining what is permissible and what isn’t.

A shared worldview among the citizenry is essential for the smooth functioning of society. That’s why the state puts such emphasis on assimilating elements within it that don’t necessarily accept the standard list of Christian values: non-violence, anti-racism, respect for authority, belief in the value of work, and of the sacredness of human life as opposed to that of animals; belief in a uniquely human free will, a just God and fair dealing, equality, sin, forgiveness, redemption, the importance of being “moral”, etc.

toms cabin

Even a fellow like you, who thinks he is above being “controlled”, has actually accepted it, as your denunciation of slavery showed. In the Civil War you’d have been an abolitionist, fighting against your own race! Yet imagine what chaos would reign if people rejected all of these values, or simply forgot about them! Only at that point could you say they have changed their worldview. Of course, such a change would probably make civilization as we know it today impossible.

Christianity is a very good religion if you want to build a race-neutral technological civilization, but, as history has shown, it is quite inadequate to the task of preserving race.

“It shows nothing of the kind, unless of course you buy into the propaganda that the war was waged to end slavery. This is something that we know to be untrue. We need only look at the contemporary writings of Lincoln and others who were directly involved in the decision to wage that war.”

It’s something that you think you know is untrue, for reasons that are entirely unclear to me. What about the songs the soldiers would sing before marching into battle? Read the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic some time, replete with Christian religious imagery, and the telling phrase “let us die to make men free.” Or how about that other popular ditty, John Brown’s Body:

Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage
whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

Or read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which sold more copies in its day than any book except the Bible. These are facts that are very hard to explain unless abolitionism had a great deal to do with the war.

“The truth is that mistrust of Jews and belief in racial separation were the norm just a few generations ago. The average White American in the 1950’s would find nothing controversial about most of the views expressed here on The Occidental Observer. Why have they come to reject ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘racism’?”

Please think about what you are saying. The average white American man of the 1950s had just returned from crushing racist, anti-Semitic Nazi Germany, and he was mighty damn proud of himself for doing so, Bob. If anti-Semitism and racism had not already been so unpopular, there would probably not have been a war at all. Stateside, the races were still segregated compared to today, but much less so compared to slave times. There has been a slow but steady progression in integration and race mixing over time, just as always happens in any society in which two races live together. It has happened throughout history all over the world, even in places with no Jews. It’s part of the civilizational process.

“If the world was populated by philosophers and people with the time and inclination to research these things and sort them out for themselves, then your point would be valid, but it is not. Most people are busy trying to live their lives. They don’t expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy fact checking and researching ideological questions. They form their worldview based upon the culture within which they are immersed, the indoctrination they have been exposed to and the information that is spoon fed to them by the mass media.”

In that case, a well-informed fellow like you should be able to cure their ignorance very quickly, Bob. But the puzzling thing is, you can’t. All such efforts have failed, even by people far more eloquent than either of us, and even by those with far more prestige and power.

“Insofar as the domestication of Whites goes, if you think that the future we are facing is just the evolution of civilization, then you have completely misunderstood what I am saying.”

I think I’ve understood you perfectly. I just disagree with you.

“I do appreciate your contribution and your efforts certainly do cause me to think about things from different points of view. Thanks.”

Likewise, Bob. I appreciate your efforts too. Even when we disagree, they challenge me and help me tighten up my thinking.