blueskies
November 11th, 2005, 03:36 PM
by Grugyn Silverbristle
The “negro problem” in America is not altogether different from the “Indian Problem” on this continent. Once again, neither of the peoples involved (negroes or white Americans) wish to entirely amalgamate with the other; and whether the resistance to interracial marriage is greater on the one side or on the other is moot, since what is missing is a mutual agreement to amalgamate. The alternative is rape.
“Multiculturalism” and “Integration” are only states of social transition. A multi-racial society will eventually resolve itself into one of two situations: segregated or amalgamated. Anything “in-between” is inherently unstable.
From the time of the European “discovery” of America -- an event which was historically inevitable -- there has always been a “race problem” on this continent, and there always will be, so long as different peoples continue to live here. So long as there are different races, nations and cultures, these will tend to self-segregate and, whether officially recognized, sanctioned or not, they will always function as separate nations unto themselves.
So, of course, there are deep-rooted problems that need to be worked out, and these all revolve around one central, overriding issue: will the resulting society be segergated or amalgamated? The Constitution had been predicated on the idea that “American” citizenship was reserved for whites, and that Indians and negroes were not, and would not become, citizens. Segregation was, and still is, a viable solution to the race problem, given the precondition that all of the races (or ethnicities) do not wish to entirely amalgamate with the others.
Thus, the “negro problem” could have been (and was, at times) stated thus: “When and how do we recognize a separate 'negro nation' to exist in our midst? What shall be their rights, duties and privileges, and what shall be their restrictions? Where shall they be sovereign, and what kind of constitution shall they have? To what degree (if any) shall they be allowed to participate in our civilization, and to what degree must they learn to civilize themselves?”
In this respect, the “Indian problem” had been much easier to solve: the Indians already constituted and were recognized as separate and independent nations. That situation could be addressed by treaty. It is not a question of whether the treaties themselves are fair or perfected; but rather of recognizing that the problems which arise between our peoples are resolvable by treaty.
The “negro problem” confronted our forefathers with a new paradox. How do you sign a treaty with a nation that does not yet exist? Are the negroes capable of organizing themselves into a political state? Shall a constitution for the “negro nation” be created first, and then the slaves be made citizens as they individually qualify, or do we immediately recognize all negroes as belonging to this “class” from which a political nation will, somehow, be forged? Who will make that choice? By what degrees can a “negro nation” become independent, or shall they forever be wards of the white man? A nation is not created overnight. Even Moses required forty years to forge the Hebrews into a nation ... and, please observe that he led “his people” out of Egypt (supposedly), and that they had clearly chosen segregation ... by leaving!!!
Be that as it may, progress had been made along those lines, in the early 19th century, by the American Colonization Society, Prince Hall Lodge and the various negro churches. In fact the Oklahoma Territory had been created with the thought in mind of making it into a “homeland” for negroes and displaced Indians. Modern readers may wince at the thought, even though we can perceive a similar pattern of events in modern Israel. Is the “race problem” really that different when one considers the Israelis and the Palestinians? Consider it natural law or God's law, as you will, but self-segregation has always been the natural direction of human affairs. This is what the people themselves desire, and someone -- or something, an outside political force -- keeps pushing us toward the destabilizing condition of forced integration leading to racial amalgamation.
And so we find that, in America, peaceful resolution of the “negro problem” was being obstructed by a small group of people who called themselves Abolitionists, and who had decided that racial amalgamation would occur, whether our peoples wanted it or not. Because the Abolitionists and their financiers knew that the people would never willingly submit to this agenda, they had determined to create a Civil War, in order to initiate a program of federal Reconstruction. These people were Marxist revolutionists, and their objective was to first federalize (or centralize) political power in the United States and then, by usurping that power of the federal government, they would force America to go the way they wished -- into becoming a “Melting Pot” for all the peoples of the world. “Our country is the world, our countrymen are mankind!” they proclaimed brazenly from their masthead. This was the beginning of the Marxist Revolution in America -- an event they now pretend never happened! It did. The following confession of the negro-mulatto Marxist, Frederick Douglass, is unusual for its stark nakedness:
“The Civil Rights Bill and the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the proposed constitutional amendments, with the amendment already adopted and recognized as the law of the land, do not reach the difficulty, and cannot, unless the whole structure of the government is changed from a government by States to something like a despotic central government, with power to control even the municipal regulations of States, and to make them conform to its own despotic will.”
Frederick Douglass, in the Atlantic Monthly, Volume 18, p.761, 1866
So, sadly, the Marxist Revolution of 1860 (otherwise known as the “Civil War
So, sadly, the Marxist Revolution of 1860 (otherwise known as the “Civil War”) had succeeded. There was a deep symbolism attached to the inauguration ceremony of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton at the foot of the Lincoln Monument in 1993. Abraham Lincoln had been the greatest war criminal in the history of the United States. The 132 years between Lincoln's baleful inauguration and the onset of the Clinton Administration have witnessed the destruction of our nation, the throwing open of our doors to admit virtually unrestricted alien immigration, the subversion of our institutions and a steady erosion of American ideals, leading to the final capitualtion of our sovereignty as we enter the 21st century. There is an unbroken thread of conspiracy running from the first war criminal to the last.
Why?
The answer is unsettling. There happened to be a fourth nation, who had surreptitiously burrowed into our midst, and whose existence is predicated on their remaining a parasitical state within a state. While pretending to be Americans, their allegiance to us has been subordinated to their ambition for world power. They dwell among us, not as compatriots, but as a separate nation. Whether they came here to conquer, or to coexist, is a lesser concern to us than the damage they have wrought. Whether they are killing us out of love, or hatred, or ambition is moot. They are killing us.
“However, in addition to a persistent concern that America be a safe haven for Jews fleeing outbreaks of anti-Semitism in foreign countries, there is evidence that Jews, much more than any other European-derived ethnic group in America, have viewed liberal immigration policies as a mechanism of ensuring that America would be a pluralistic rather than a unitary, homogeneous society (e.g., Cohen 1972). ...
“More importantly, ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously and/or ethnically homogeneous (MacDonald, 1994; 1998). Conversely, one reason for the relative lack of anti-Semitism in America compared to Europe was that “Jews did not stand out as a solitary group of [religious] non-conformists (Higham 1984, p. 156). It follows also that ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies are more likely to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic and religious homogeneity among gentiles. ...
“Kallen (1915; 1924) developed a “polycentric” ideal for American ethnic relationships. Kallen defined ethnicity as deriving from one’s biological endowment, implying that Jews should be able to remain a genetically and culturally cohesive group while nevertheless participating in American democratic institutions. This conception that the United States should be organized as a set of separate ethnic/cultural groups was accompanied by an ideology that relationships between groups would be cooperative and benign ...
“Kallen wrote his 1915 essay partly in reaction to the ideas of Edward A. Ross (1914). Ross was a Darwinian sociologist who believed that the existence of clearly demarcated groups would tend to result in between-group competition for resources. Higham’s comment is interesting because it shows that Kallen’s romantic views of group co-existence were contradicted by the reality of between-group competition in his own day. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Kallen was a prominent leader of the American Jewish Congress (AJCongress).”
Kevin MacDonald
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965:
A Historical Review
Department of Psychology
California State University-Long Beach
And so, the ancient prophecy has been fulfilled -- “thy seed shall dispossess the nations.” -- and with the completion of that evil plan, all prospects for peace in this land are finished. The peace of servitude, the peace of the tended herd, the peace of down-breeding are all that they offer us. If only the Jews had been as forthright as our Masonic forefathers, the problem could have been resolved peacefully. Just as our forefathers had executed treaties with the Indian nations, recognizing their sovereignty, the Jews should have recognized their own distinctiveness, and sought treaties between our nations. Of course, that might have thwarted their agenda.
Elsewhere, we have argued that the Constitution of the United States of America had been a fraud, and that the true “Law of the Land” had always been the Articles of Confederation. That point is, to a degree, moot. The Marxist Revolution of 1860 had effectively destroyed, not only the Constitution, but also the sovereign states upon which both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation depended. All that remains of legitimate government in America are worthless scraps of paper.
Likewise, every act of “government” in America from 1860 onward has been illegitimate. Every act between 1787 and 1860 remains in question. There is NO legitimacy to ANY level of government in the United States anymore. No, none whatsoever. We are already in a state of anarchy.
Insofar as we still possess remnants of our former nationhood, we have every right to do as we will. It is our right and solemn duty to rule wherever we can. We have the natural and God-given right to secure our homelands wherever we will, and to expel whomever we wish....read more
http://web.archive.org/web/20010725030354/myweb.servtech.com/~grugyn/tlc-63.htm
The “negro problem” in America is not altogether different from the “Indian Problem” on this continent. Once again, neither of the peoples involved (negroes or white Americans) wish to entirely amalgamate with the other; and whether the resistance to interracial marriage is greater on the one side or on the other is moot, since what is missing is a mutual agreement to amalgamate. The alternative is rape.
“Multiculturalism” and “Integration” are only states of social transition. A multi-racial society will eventually resolve itself into one of two situations: segregated or amalgamated. Anything “in-between” is inherently unstable.
From the time of the European “discovery” of America -- an event which was historically inevitable -- there has always been a “race problem” on this continent, and there always will be, so long as different peoples continue to live here. So long as there are different races, nations and cultures, these will tend to self-segregate and, whether officially recognized, sanctioned or not, they will always function as separate nations unto themselves.
So, of course, there are deep-rooted problems that need to be worked out, and these all revolve around one central, overriding issue: will the resulting society be segergated or amalgamated? The Constitution had been predicated on the idea that “American” citizenship was reserved for whites, and that Indians and negroes were not, and would not become, citizens. Segregation was, and still is, a viable solution to the race problem, given the precondition that all of the races (or ethnicities) do not wish to entirely amalgamate with the others.
Thus, the “negro problem” could have been (and was, at times) stated thus: “When and how do we recognize a separate 'negro nation' to exist in our midst? What shall be their rights, duties and privileges, and what shall be their restrictions? Where shall they be sovereign, and what kind of constitution shall they have? To what degree (if any) shall they be allowed to participate in our civilization, and to what degree must they learn to civilize themselves?”
In this respect, the “Indian problem” had been much easier to solve: the Indians already constituted and were recognized as separate and independent nations. That situation could be addressed by treaty. It is not a question of whether the treaties themselves are fair or perfected; but rather of recognizing that the problems which arise between our peoples are resolvable by treaty.
The “negro problem” confronted our forefathers with a new paradox. How do you sign a treaty with a nation that does not yet exist? Are the negroes capable of organizing themselves into a political state? Shall a constitution for the “negro nation” be created first, and then the slaves be made citizens as they individually qualify, or do we immediately recognize all negroes as belonging to this “class” from which a political nation will, somehow, be forged? Who will make that choice? By what degrees can a “negro nation” become independent, or shall they forever be wards of the white man? A nation is not created overnight. Even Moses required forty years to forge the Hebrews into a nation ... and, please observe that he led “his people” out of Egypt (supposedly), and that they had clearly chosen segregation ... by leaving!!!
Be that as it may, progress had been made along those lines, in the early 19th century, by the American Colonization Society, Prince Hall Lodge and the various negro churches. In fact the Oklahoma Territory had been created with the thought in mind of making it into a “homeland” for negroes and displaced Indians. Modern readers may wince at the thought, even though we can perceive a similar pattern of events in modern Israel. Is the “race problem” really that different when one considers the Israelis and the Palestinians? Consider it natural law or God's law, as you will, but self-segregation has always been the natural direction of human affairs. This is what the people themselves desire, and someone -- or something, an outside political force -- keeps pushing us toward the destabilizing condition of forced integration leading to racial amalgamation.
And so we find that, in America, peaceful resolution of the “negro problem” was being obstructed by a small group of people who called themselves Abolitionists, and who had decided that racial amalgamation would occur, whether our peoples wanted it or not. Because the Abolitionists and their financiers knew that the people would never willingly submit to this agenda, they had determined to create a Civil War, in order to initiate a program of federal Reconstruction. These people were Marxist revolutionists, and their objective was to first federalize (or centralize) political power in the United States and then, by usurping that power of the federal government, they would force America to go the way they wished -- into becoming a “Melting Pot” for all the peoples of the world. “Our country is the world, our countrymen are mankind!” they proclaimed brazenly from their masthead. This was the beginning of the Marxist Revolution in America -- an event they now pretend never happened! It did. The following confession of the negro-mulatto Marxist, Frederick Douglass, is unusual for its stark nakedness:
“The Civil Rights Bill and the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the proposed constitutional amendments, with the amendment already adopted and recognized as the law of the land, do not reach the difficulty, and cannot, unless the whole structure of the government is changed from a government by States to something like a despotic central government, with power to control even the municipal regulations of States, and to make them conform to its own despotic will.”
Frederick Douglass, in the Atlantic Monthly, Volume 18, p.761, 1866
So, sadly, the Marxist Revolution of 1860 (otherwise known as the “Civil War
So, sadly, the Marxist Revolution of 1860 (otherwise known as the “Civil War”) had succeeded. There was a deep symbolism attached to the inauguration ceremony of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton at the foot of the Lincoln Monument in 1993. Abraham Lincoln had been the greatest war criminal in the history of the United States. The 132 years between Lincoln's baleful inauguration and the onset of the Clinton Administration have witnessed the destruction of our nation, the throwing open of our doors to admit virtually unrestricted alien immigration, the subversion of our institutions and a steady erosion of American ideals, leading to the final capitualtion of our sovereignty as we enter the 21st century. There is an unbroken thread of conspiracy running from the first war criminal to the last.
Why?
The answer is unsettling. There happened to be a fourth nation, who had surreptitiously burrowed into our midst, and whose existence is predicated on their remaining a parasitical state within a state. While pretending to be Americans, their allegiance to us has been subordinated to their ambition for world power. They dwell among us, not as compatriots, but as a separate nation. Whether they came here to conquer, or to coexist, is a lesser concern to us than the damage they have wrought. Whether they are killing us out of love, or hatred, or ambition is moot. They are killing us.
“However, in addition to a persistent concern that America be a safe haven for Jews fleeing outbreaks of anti-Semitism in foreign countries, there is evidence that Jews, much more than any other European-derived ethnic group in America, have viewed liberal immigration policies as a mechanism of ensuring that America would be a pluralistic rather than a unitary, homogeneous society (e.g., Cohen 1972). ...
“More importantly, ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously and/or ethnically homogeneous (MacDonald, 1994; 1998). Conversely, one reason for the relative lack of anti-Semitism in America compared to Europe was that “Jews did not stand out as a solitary group of [religious] non-conformists (Higham 1984, p. 156). It follows also that ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies are more likely to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic and religious homogeneity among gentiles. ...
“Kallen (1915; 1924) developed a “polycentric” ideal for American ethnic relationships. Kallen defined ethnicity as deriving from one’s biological endowment, implying that Jews should be able to remain a genetically and culturally cohesive group while nevertheless participating in American democratic institutions. This conception that the United States should be organized as a set of separate ethnic/cultural groups was accompanied by an ideology that relationships between groups would be cooperative and benign ...
“Kallen wrote his 1915 essay partly in reaction to the ideas of Edward A. Ross (1914). Ross was a Darwinian sociologist who believed that the existence of clearly demarcated groups would tend to result in between-group competition for resources. Higham’s comment is interesting because it shows that Kallen’s romantic views of group co-existence were contradicted by the reality of between-group competition in his own day. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Kallen was a prominent leader of the American Jewish Congress (AJCongress).”
Kevin MacDonald
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965:
A Historical Review
Department of Psychology
California State University-Long Beach
And so, the ancient prophecy has been fulfilled -- “thy seed shall dispossess the nations.” -- and with the completion of that evil plan, all prospects for peace in this land are finished. The peace of servitude, the peace of the tended herd, the peace of down-breeding are all that they offer us. If only the Jews had been as forthright as our Masonic forefathers, the problem could have been resolved peacefully. Just as our forefathers had executed treaties with the Indian nations, recognizing their sovereignty, the Jews should have recognized their own distinctiveness, and sought treaties between our nations. Of course, that might have thwarted their agenda.
Elsewhere, we have argued that the Constitution of the United States of America had been a fraud, and that the true “Law of the Land” had always been the Articles of Confederation. That point is, to a degree, moot. The Marxist Revolution of 1860 had effectively destroyed, not only the Constitution, but also the sovereign states upon which both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation depended. All that remains of legitimate government in America are worthless scraps of paper.
Likewise, every act of “government” in America from 1860 onward has been illegitimate. Every act between 1787 and 1860 remains in question. There is NO legitimacy to ANY level of government in the United States anymore. No, none whatsoever. We are already in a state of anarchy.
Insofar as we still possess remnants of our former nationhood, we have every right to do as we will. It is our right and solemn duty to rule wherever we can. We have the natural and God-given right to secure our homelands wherever we will, and to expel whomever we wish....read more
http://web.archive.org/web/20010725030354/myweb.servtech.com/~grugyn/tlc-63.htm