Part I. Populism


The Disunited States
Political Philosophy
Who’s for Democracy?

‘Populist’ is a word that was coined to designate a political party formed in 1892 to replace the Greenback Party, which had been a somewhat inept political reaction in 1873 to one of the periodic lootings of the United States by the banking system. ‘Populist” was simply a replacement for ‘democratic,’ a word that had been usurped by one of the major political machines, which was anything but democratic, just as its alternate and ostensible opponent was anything but republican. The new party, which drew much of its inspiration from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, demanded coinage of silver as currency, suppression of nationally-chartered banks, public ownership of railroads and other enterprises that are by their very nature monopolies, and, oddly enough, the self-defeating and disastrous measures that eventually became the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments.

The new party, stimulated by a fresh looting of the economy in 1893, became a threat to the Establishment and was neatly destroyed by a standard political trick, when the principal article of its policy was grabbed by the Democratic Party in 1896 to capture most of the new party’s adherents.

Since the dissolution of the Populist Party, the word has been used, often derogatorily, to designate political opinions that are more or less in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson and rely on the supposed will and intelligence of the ‘common people,’ and it always implies some opposition to the vast engine of corruption and tyranny that the American boobs have been taught to call ‘democracy’ and to accept, much as a horse accepts a bridle and bit.

Today, Jefferson is somewhat uneasily revered as one of the Founding Fathers, who are generally accorded a kind of perfunctory admiration, while no one is so indiscreet as to observe that if they had foreseen and thought inevitable what their United States became by 1861, they (including Jefferson) would have torn up Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and urgently called back the British troops.1

It is no exaggeration to say that most Americans know very little about Jefferson’s political philosophy. His biographers waste chapters on such irrelevancies as his preference for informal dress, the furniture of his home, the amount of his debts, and the women whom he did or did not seduce. They commonly pontificate about the impracticality of his policies and apologize for what they call his errors of judgment by saying that he meant well. The harpies of the most diverse political agitations seize upon one or another of his pronouncements which they can twist into an apparent endorsement, by a Founding Father, of their own covert purposes. And American historians, in general, feel obliged to rejoice over what they, by a gross abuse of language, call a Civil War and over the establishment, by outrageous aggression, of an indissoluble Union, cemented by what Calhoun aptly called “the cohesive power of public plunder;” and they measure Jefferson against the ideal of the rotting ochlocracy that replaced the American Republic.

Jefferson was, largely through his own efforts, the best educated of the Founding Fathers. He is the only unquestionable example of an American President who held public office only because he felt constrained by duty to do so. Among the founders of the Republic that was forever destroyed in 1861, a few, we may be sure, had their own logically coherent political philosophy, as distinct from opinions about what was expedient at a given time, but only Jefferson expounded his beliefs with an ingenuous candor throughout his career and without the unexpressed reservations that the others, in greater or less degree, felt obliged to make in their own minds. That Jefferson’s intellectual honesty was often politically disadvantageous to him cannot be denied, but let us not reckon that as discreditable.

The very bulk of Jefferson’s writings, chiefly the 18,000 letters that he preserved for posterity, has made it difficult to obtain an accurate understanding of his thought without the extensive reading of more than forty published volumes of his writings. If we do not do that, we have to look through the bifocal or trifocal spectacles of a dozen of our contemporaries and try to guess which glasses give the least distortion.

The best single book on Jefferson that I know is the recently published work of Dr. Martin A. Larson, Jefferson, Magnificient Populist.2 It is virtually the equivalent of a treatise by Jefferson himself in which he sets forth systematically the whole of his thought on every matter of permanent significance. It is a mosaic of excerpts from Jefferson’s voluminous writings, carefully chosen, classified by topic, arranged chronologically, and presented with only a minimum of editorial elucidation.

The compilation of what is, in effect, a comprehensive treatise by Jefferson himself required discriminating selection and rigorous compression to reduce it to 375 pages. One need not have read everything or even most of Jefferson’s writings to miss some memorable passages, but their substance, I believe, has been preserved in what is included, and we have at last an adequate and fair conspectus of the principles of American democracy as set forth by its founding father.

To this book the reader need bring only such knowledge of history as is, I hope, possessed by everyone who considers himself educated, and such knowledge of the present as is inescapable, if one is not willfully blind. He will derive from it a clear understanding of the intellectual and historical basis of what is now called ‘populism,’ i.e., democracy in the correct meaning of that word, as distinct from its current use to befuddle weak minds.

The Disunited States

The independence of the American colonies was won by a faction of colonists who agreed only on their need to become independent of the British government.3 Having achieved that end, the leaders of the insurgents in the thirteen colonies became the Founding Fathers, but they differed drastically among themselves in what each was determined that independence would mean. They represented a wide gamut of political beliefs that were in fact irreconcilable. Open conflict between the various colonies and within some of them was averted only by temporizing compromises by which each party hoped to gain strength while weakening all others in preparation for a final solution.

The gamut of opinions held by the Founding Fathers may fairly be defined as extending from Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson had a virtually unlimited faith in ‘the people’ (by which he meant the part of the total population that corresponded, mutatis mutandis, to the demos of Athenian democracy) and he regarded Independence as creating thirteen states, allied for the necessary purposes of mutual defense and a common foreign policy, but in their domestic affairs separate nations, in each of which a maximum of personal freedom was guaranteed to each individual citizen and the ‘people’ would determine by majority vote the domestic policies of their own state, subject only to the preservation of that freedom. Hamilton regarded ‘the people,’ that is the whole population, as the belua multorum capitum, and he was most candid when he echoed the dictum of a hundred political philosophers, including among the Colonists, Benjamin Franklin and Gouverneur Morris: “The people, sir, is a great beast.” He regarded Independence as an opportunity to harness and discipline that beast by establishing an aristocracy more cohesive and powerful than that of contemporary Britain4 and using its rule to consolidate the several states into an indissolubly united nation that would become a great imperial power, rivalling Great Britain and winning colonies of its own by extensive conquests in South America.

Perhaps midway in the scale of opinion stood George Washington, who had acquired the prestige, but lacked the wish, to found an American monarchy. He regarded the Republic as a noble experiment that should be given a fair trial, but would probably fail in the end. And between Jefferson and Hamilton there stood scores of prominent men who, largely on the basis of their estimates of what was feasible and most conducive to their own interests, hoped to produce some fairly stable compound of fire and water. They ensured the correctness of Washington’s prognosis.

It is not my purpose to decide which of the antithetical political philosophies was the more correct, or to apply the hazardous test of historical conjectures about what might have been. I shall here use Dr. Larson’s Jefferson only to elucidate the doctrine of ‘populism’ by indicating some of its premises and consequences. I do not pretend to summarize the doctrine itself: it is a coherent and integral whole, and the best summary is Dr. Larson’s book.


Democracy, in the correct, Jeffersonian sense of that word, still exerts a great influence over the thinking of our contemporaries, although no example of it in practice can be found in the world today. It is a theory that was first formulated in the democratic states of ancient Greece and has never been entirely forgotten since that time. It engendered the Mediaeval aphorism, vox populi, vox Dei, which, so far as I know, was first quoted by Alcuin, who ridicules it; and it reappears in hundreds of modern writers who champion, in one form or another, the concept of majority rule. Although now reduced to a mere theory, it still has charms and evokes some odd tendencies in persons who are intelligent enough to discriminate between democracy and the common practice of running herds of biped cattle through polling places and counting their noses.

‘Populists’ must remember, first of all, that Jeffersonian democracy was not intended for Timbuktoo, Fiji, or Erewhon. It was designed for the thirteen colonies that had just won their independence – for a specific people in an historically unique situation.

Those colonies came close to being a nation in the primary sense of that word, a natio; a large tribe formed of persons related by ancestry and birth, i.e., a racially homogeneous people. The colonies had been peopled by Englishmen, Scots (including some from Ireland), Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, and Frenchmen. They were all Aryans and most of them were Nordic. The only racial aliens were the Jews, and at that time there were comparatively few, their depredations were stealthy and almost unnoticed, and their contempt for the stupid Aryans was concealed by their barbaric religion and their habitual whining about “persecution.” Among the leaders of the Revolution, only Franklin seems clearly to have apprehended the menace of the covertly hostile enclave.

To be sure, there were many aborigines on the continent, but they were relegated to the unsettled territories and formed no part of the American population.5 In the colonies, there were numerous Congoids, but they were domestic livestock, and before 1800 very few Americans regarded the animals as dangerous. Even later, many of the most determined opponents of slavery dismissed as emotionally overwrought Jefferson’s prescient opposition to slavery, which he had vehemently incorporated in his draft of the Declaration of Independence.6

Most of the opposition to slavery came from sentimentalists and religious fanatics, whom Jefferson viewed with scorn. His opposition was on practical grounds.7 He recognized the numerous and prolific Congoids as a threat to the racial integrity of the new nation, and he was aware of the potential danger of maintaining in our territory such large and increasing numbers of a biologically inferior and innately savage race. He foresaw that, if emancipated, they would “stain the blood” of our race by copulation with degenerate whites and thus produce unnatural hybrids; it followed, therefore, that “When [a negro] is freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” Jefferson thought it impossible to prevent the eventual emancipation of the slaves in one way or another. “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.8 Disaster could be averted only by exporting the rapidly multiplying anthropoids to Africa or to some nearer and more convenient place, especially the island of Hispaniola after it became available. Jefferson drafted several plans to make that necessary safeguard of American liberty economically feasible, but the tragic blindness of his contemporaries prevented the adoption of any of them.

For Jeffersonian democracy, an independent and racially homogeneous population of Nordics is but the first requisite, for there is great inequality within our race. It is true that Jefferson put into his Declaration of Independence a wild rhetorical flourish, as dramatic as a war-cry, claiming that “all men are created equal.” He was not a moron, and cannot have meant anything so absurd as is sometimes supposed. What he meant was that all Englishmen should be equal before the law. He was reacting against the class structure of English society and an aristocracy, of which the greater part had been created by kings who ennobled parvenus, often for the most discreditable services, so that socially and morally worthless individuals were given special privileges because they were descended from men who had, rightly or wrongly, been elevated to the peerage. Jefferson recognized, of course, the biological inequality of all men: “There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds for this are virtue9 and talents. . . . There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these, it would belong in the first class.”

To ensure the dominance of a natural aristocracy, Jefferson relied on his project of an educational system that would progressively identify the superior men by eliminating at each stage after the very first the innately inferior; a rigorous discrimination would prevent the advancement of men beyond the status for which they were fitted by nature.10 So vital to the survival of the nation did Jefferson consider this system of selection that he, as in his famous foundation of the University of Virginia, believed a strictly secular and cultural education, based on the Classics, history, and science, and excluding all superstitions, should be financed and maintained by taxation. The English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot imagine what Jefferson would have said, had he foreseen the moral and mental rot that made possible the capture of the public schools by the vast gang of swindlers, saboteurs, and dolts that has made of those schools a terrible machine for inculcating the most bizarre and noxious superstitions and deforming the minds of children with what amounts to infantile paralysis of the cerebrum.


The education that Jefferson championed was to be exclusively rational and secular, and, indeed, no other form of public education would be possible in a true democracy.11 That should be obvious, but the intensive lying that has gone on for generations now requires us to stress the obvious.

We may note obiter that Jefferson was a deist in the manner of Graeco-Roman Stoics. He believed, on the basis of the evidence available to him, that the most reasonable explanation of natural phenomena required an inference that the universe had been designed and created by a supernatural Fabricator, who was also the author of the moral laws that must be observed by civilized and stable societies. In the rudimentary state of scientific knowledge in his time, that view was certainly plausible and not improbable.12

The important point is that Jefferson was not a Christian. He regarded Christianity as simply a form of devil-worship, since it venerated the Jews’ ferocious god, “a Being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, and unjust.” That celestial monster, which a “cruel, remorseless, and blood-thirsty race” had created in its own image, made the Christians’ holy book, which details with admiration his appalling criminal record, subversive of all civilized morality.13 That made all of the numerous sects that were hawking salvation to the ignorant almost equally pernicious.14 Jefferson hoped that so immoral a superstition would be obliterated by the increase of knowledge and education; he was once even so optimistic that he predicted that the young men now living in the United States” would reject every form of Christianity except the Unitarian cult, which was a step in the right direction.

In the meantime, Jefferson relied on the frantic competition between the numerous corporations in the holiness business to neutralize the Christian menace to civilization in the United States, since all the factions knew that if any one of them attained political power, all the rest would be among the first to suffer from the pious Christian’s itch to persecute, torture, and kill.15 All beliefs about the supernatural must therefore be considered strictly private and personal matters, the business of no one except the individual who holds an opinion about the unknowable that he may or may not wish to disclose to others. A firm insistence on that principle, Jefferson believed, would prevent the professional holy men from using gangs of fanatics to acquire political influence and power.

Jefferson did have a certain respect for the Jesus mentioned in the “New Testament,” regarding him a Jew who made a manly effort to mitigate the savagery and criminal instincts of the race into which he was born, and to replace their ferocity with an ethical system. That Jesus, he thought, could be used to counteract Christianity, which was really a “counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations,” and to that end Jefferson tried to make a coherent and plausible story of the inconsistent tales in the Christian gospels that are called synoptic. He cut and pieced together from the Greek text the parts of those stories that seemed to him edifying and believable, adding the standard Latin, English, and French translations to form a sylloge, a compendium that could make Christianity innocuous.16 To the doctrine of Jesus, thus purged of absurdities and cruelty, he attributed a “sublime morality,” without himself espousing it: “I am a Materialist; he [Jesus] takes the side of Spiritualism.” Jefferson admired “the purity and sublimity” of the Jewish reformer’s “moral precepts,” but was aware that they contained “Eastern hyperbolism” and, while, elevating reading, could not be taken literally as a practical social system.17 That had to be based on a realistic understanding of human nature and rational regulation of it.

In Jefferson’s times, the Jews could entrust the work of promoting dissension, civil strife, and social fragmentation to the Christian dervishes, whose professional interests required them to keep their followers excited with hatred of the wickedness of their competitors and of all others who impeded the infliction of a tyranny they would call a theocracy, since a competent theologian is like a ventriloquist: he can make his god say whatever he wants. No democracy, indeed, no stable society could survive such disruptive agitation. Pending the decline and eventual extinction of the Christian plague, for which Jefferson hoped, the best that could be done was strictly to exclude the dervishes from political power, and in the meantime to endure “a swarm of insects, whose buzz is more disquieting than their bite.”

Needless to say, no democracy could tolerate such subversive activity as that of the rabble-rousers who are currently working the “Moral Majority” racket and not only fleece the boobs of at least $500,000,000 each year, but also serve as the avowed agents of the Jews’ bandit-state in Palestine.18


A racially homogeneous population and honestly secular government are not enough for a Jeffersonian democracy. It contemplates and requires a population that is predominantly agrarian, dispersed throughout the country on farms and in very small towns. Such was the population in Jefferson’s time, and such he assumed or hoped it would always be. He anticipated the findings of modern biological research, which has conclusively shown that all mammals become neurotic and unstable when crowded together, and that the larger the mammals the greater the derangement that is caused by forced proximity to too many of their own kind, even though they are abundantly supplied with food and protected from every form of molestation.

Men, Jefferson believed, inevitably degenerate when crowded together in large cities and deprived of both the freedom of the countryside and direct contact with nature. In large cities, a majority of the population lives in an artificial environment that is unnatural and biologically dehumanizing, becoming a canaille, a “swinish multitude.” It was only logical for the revolutionary attack on the United States to use financial manipulations since 1918 to deplete the agrarian part of our population and to use open political pressures as soon as a general sabotage of the economy had put securely into power the masters of the loathsome creature called Franklin Roosevelt. Thus was the agrarian part of the population reduced from a majority to a tiny minority in less than sixty years.19

When a population becomes predominantly urban, democracy becomes impossible. Aryans are probably less able to tolerate crowding than other races, and if you wish to restore a democracy, you will have either to disperse the masses of our large cities or disenfranchise them, and it will not be easy to do either in a country that is already fantastically overpopulated. The elimination of other races might suffice to reduce the terrible surplus of numbers, but even that would leave our cities monstrously overgrown. If reduction of the urban cancers involves the sacrifice of some luxuries – and I cannot undertake to conjecture what sacrifices, if any, would be necessary – that is simply the price that must be paid for a healthy and viable society.

I need not add that a democratic government is subject to a natural limitation of size. To ignore that fact is to move into the realm of fairy tales, which commonly depict giants that fascinate children, who do not know that, as a matter of physiological fact, such giants would be unable to move at all. The Federal government would have to be reduced to its original function, that of providing a consistent foreign policy and adequate national defense and of arbitrating between the states, which are otherwise domestically independent.

Jefferson predicted with absolute accuracy that “If this vast country [east of the Mississippi] is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption.’’ He also predicted, “When all government. . . shall be drawn to Washington as the center of power, it. . . will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” But “as oppressive” was the limit of his foresight. In his most gloomy forebodings, he could not imagine the tyranny of organized crime under which the spiritless and spineless Americans now live as they ovinely endure a taxation five thousand times greater, in proportion to income, than the taxation that stirred their ancestors to revolt in 1776.

The District of Corruption is now what Americans have made it. Men and women who still dream that there may be some hope in “their” Congress should read Louis Hurst’s The Sweetest Club in the World (Englewood, N.J., 1982). As manager of the Senate’s exclusive restaurant for many years, Mr. Hurst was able to observe our august Solons while they frolicked and intrigued with their fellows. If you want to influence legislation, don’t waste twenty cents on a letter to the waste-baskets of one of “your” Senator’s secretaries: it will take at least $10,000 to get his attention. The cost of his vote will depend, naturally, on what other bids he receives: $400,000 is not uncommon.20

Although we have no comparable book on the House of Representatives, we may be sure that its members, being so much more numerous, must lead more austere lives and be content with smaller bribes. It is also likely that they, being more penurious, take care to remain sober enough to carry their fees home with them, rather than risk leaving the bag on the luncheon table when they stagger away in an alcoholic fog, as the more merry Senators sometimes do.

Americans who read Mr. Hurst’s book or some other description of the normal functioning of the government they have brought upon themselves will probably complain fretfully for several minutes before they forget about it. They should remember the motto of the gentleman who writes under the name “General R. Never”: it could have been Jefferson’s. “A people deserve whatever they permit.”


One is apt to be astonished by the severity of Jefferson’s strictures on the English. They remind me, mutatis mutandis, of Lord Byron, of whom it has been said that he was never more characteristically English than when he was denouncing his compatriots. Like Byron, Jefferson resented with Anglo-Saxon vehemence certain aspects of contemporary English conduct, and if you examine his utterances with care, you will find that, with the possible exception of certain forms of political corruption, his Anglophobia was focused on just one institution: the Bank of England. In his opinion, it set the precedent, and was the model, for the greatest of all swindles, the emission of paper currency and the creation of a funded national debt.21

Professional economists have long done for the basic questions of monetary systems what Jefferson accused Hamilton of doing: “In order that he might have the absolute government of his [financial] machine, he determined to complicate it so that neither the President nor the Congress should be able to understand it, or to control him. He succeeded in doing this, not only beyond their reach, but so that he at length could not unravel it himself.” Economic jargon is now used to obfuscate what has been aptly called the legalized crime of banking.

Let us horrify the professional by following Jefferson in reducing the problem to its simplest terms and considering them from the standpoint of plain common sense. The first stage in banking, as devised by the Jewish goldsmiths of the late Middle Ages, is quite simple. The banker accepts and promises to guard deposits of real money (i.e., gold and silver) and issues receipts (bank notes) for the deposit. He then supplements his capital (whatever that may be) by lending at usury a large part of the deposits he has received; in other words, he embezzles them, counting, as do most embezzlers, on being able to recoup what he has taken before it is demanded of him and to pocket the profit he has made by use of it. If he has calculated correctly the percentage of his depositors who will ask for their money at a given time in the future and estimated correctly the likelihood that borrowers will repay at the stated times, he waxes fat on the usury and prospers; if he has miscalculated, than he, like any other embezzler whose plans have gone wrong, becomes insolvent and the loss falls on the individuals who trusted the crook with their money.

Since paper receipts are more convenient to handle and send to others than specie, they come to be used in place of the real money, which is therefore left in the hands of the banker, who, it is assumed, will deliver the money whenever his receipt is presented to him. This suggests to him a highly profitable fraud: he issues receipts for money that he does not have in his possession and never had, and by lending these spurious receipts, he collects usury on money that exists only in his imagination. His greed almost invariably leads him to rash optimism and his eventual bankruptcy becomes the more spectacular, although he has usually had the prudence to place his ill-gotten gains in a safer place than his own bank and so can laugh at the indignation of the victims of his swindle.

This second stage represents the normal operation of the banking system during the First Republic, and naturally, aided by the typically American “get-rich-quick” mania, produced the normal “business cycle” of boom and bust, prosperity and recession, that bedeviled the United States from the first.

The third stage was attained when a gang of bankers formed the Bank of England, lent to the British government fictitious receipts for non-existent deposits, and arranged to collect usury in perpetuity by “funding” the national debt thus created. This was in some way convenient for its victims, the nation’s tax-payers,22 but it gave to the bank the backing of the nation’s credit, i.e., its taxing power, which was thus made to guarantee the bank’s notes as an unquestioned substitute for real money. As Jefferson saw, “funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” And even if the paper represents real money, all that can be lent to a government is what has been borrowed from the people, who are thus expected to repay the bankers what the bankers have borrowed from them, and “to fill up the measure of blessing, instead of paying, they [the bankers] receive interest on what they owe from those to whom they owe.” Could anything be more preposterous?

Two attempts to found an American analogue of the Bank of England were short-lived, and it was probably Jefferson’s influence that put an end to both of them, but much the same result was obtained when national banks were authorized to create fictitious money secured by governmental bonds they had purchased with their chits in the first place, and on which they were accordingly paid interest. Thus was the national debt instituted as a permanent swindle and, of course, wars and “emergencies” were devised to increase it as rapidly as was thought feasible. Highly profitable panics, as “recessions” were once called, were arranged under this system, but it was eventually improved.

In 1913, the Jews and their assistant conspirators put over the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax in preparation for the First World War, which had been scheduled for the following year. The boobs, of course, wagged their tails with do-gooding enthusiasm as they stuck their heads in both nooses.

The identity of the real owners of the Federal Reserve is an official and closely guarded secret. I have seen what purports to be a list of the eight owners: seven nests of Jews (Rothschilds, Warburgs, etc.) and, last and perhaps least, the Rockefellers. I have no means of knowing whether this list represents a leak of secret information or a reasoned deduction from fragmentary evidence or a surmise based on the system’s operations. One can only say that the list is plausible: God’s People will not have overlooked so potent a means of herding the livestock on their North American plantation.23

The accomplishments of the Federal Reserve are obvious to everyone. When herds of crazed boobs were stampeded into Europe in a Holy War in 1917, the primary purpose was to help in the systematic destruction of Western civilization, but an incidental benefit was the vast increase in the national debt, thus permitting the Federal Reserve to print bundles of intrinsically worthless paper on which the tax-paying boobs were condemned to pay interest in perpetuity. In 1920, a neat “recession” was ordered, primarily to impoverish the agrarian part of our population, while other sectors of the economy were steered into a delirium of inflation in preparation for the panic and “depression” which the Federal Reserve’s monopoly of the banking system enabled it to make total, thus inducing the Revolution of 1933 so cleverly that the dumb brutes did not even suspect what was being done to them.

During this period, although the nation was obviously bankrupt, since the fraudulent currency could never have been redeemed for the value printed on it, the American serfs were still permitted to have money if they wanted it: so long as only a few did so, they could exchange the paper for gold and silver. The first act of the Revolutionary regime was to steal all the gold in the country (except a few bits of jewelry that the slaves were permitted to retain), and this outrage did hot evoke from the American dolts even so much protest as sheep commonly utter when they are fleeced. The Americans were permitted to have silver for small change until a few years ago, when the last bits of money were taken from the uncomprehending creatures, who, with ovine docility, were content to use in place of money only the paper trash printed by the great counterfeiting ring called the Federal Reserve, which now has them by the neck and will inflate them into undisguised slavery when it is ready for the real crash, which will, no doubt, bring a total prostration, now that the residue which was left in 1930 has been entirely consumed. The Americans will doubtless become as excited and frantic as the jackrabbits on a Texas ranch when the ranchers begin one of their jackrabbit-drives.24

Jefferson, of course, could not have foreseen what the banking swindles have done to us, but he did foresee that the financial manipulations made possible by paper currency and a fraudulent national debt could end only in the destruction of the nation. He urged again and again the simple honesty from which professional economists so loudly dissuade us.

The only currency permitted in a democracy must be real money, i.e., a metallic currency made of the precious metals that have an intrinsic value. He called repeatedly for “the suppression of all paper circulation during peace.” And he gave a conclusive refutation of all schemes of a “managed currency,” including some recent proposals by hopefuls who like to imagine a Congress that could be trusted to do more than joyfully adopt a new method of looting. Jefferson did no more than state an indisputable historical truth when he said of paper currency that “it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.” A paper currency is simply an invitation to swindlers and to counterfeiters, both in and out of government, an invitation that no rational man could expect them to refuse. The only honest currency is real money, the precious metals that have an intrinsic, universal, and, for all practical purposes, fixed value, against which the prices of commodities will fluctuate through the unimpeded operation of the law of supply and demand.

A corollary of honest money is that there must be no national debt, no funded debt of any governmental body. Expenses must be met by taxation, not dishonestly imposed on our offspring by governmental borrowing of fictitious money on which they will pay usury forever. The only exception to constant solvency is for a war, which is an enterprise of the whole nation that will be defended or expanded by it. The extraordinary expenses of the war are to be met by the emission of a paper currency that is to be redeemed in specie at a stated time from the revenue of taxes concurrently imposed to provide for the redemption. So long as the citizens are confident of an eventual victory, the paper currency will circulate at par, given the guarantee of its redemption. In an extreme emergency, such as greatly prolonged war or a national defeat, the paper currency could bear interest, but the interest would eventually be paid to the citizen holding the note, who would regard it as a good investment. There would be no borrowing of worthless paper from bankers for the privilege of paying them interest on what they never really lent.

Such was the monetary policy of Jefferson, who thought that governments should be as honest as individuals were supposed to be so long as we had a recognized system of morality.

Honesty, to be sure, is extremely unpopular these days, and honest money would make it necessary to forego the blessings of a “prosperity” by a continued inflation, which enables clever scoundrels, even outside banking circles, to profit from the stupidity of their exploited compatriots. But if you want a stable democracy, you must be prepared to take it with its disadvantages.

Political Philosophy

A political philosophy (often called “political science” by practitioners who are not averse from verbal trickery) must deal with contemporary realities. If it does not, if it is charged with “ideals,” it is merely a variety of romantic fiction, although it may not be recognized as such.

If we are to estimate Jefferson’s rank as a political philosopher, certain questions obviously pose themselves. I shall state them without attempting to answer them.

1. Did he, a wealthy landowner in whose presence his inferiors were generally on their good behavior, correctly estimate the character of the effective majority of the population of the United States in his time? Or did he have generous illusions about that majority?

2. There is an alternative to that question, viz.: Did he correctly estimate the majority in the states outside New England, so that the Constitution could have been preserved, had the New England states seceded from the Union at the time of the Hartford Convention, instead of deciding to remain in the Union so that they could continue to exploit the other states?

3. If Jefferson did not mistake the character of the majority on which he relied, some other explanation of the failure of democracy must be found. For example, did the innumerable banking swindles that he deplored fatally mislead a population intoxicated with “get-rich-quick” hootch?

4. Another example: Was the really fatal flaw the failure to keep the Christians under control? The First Republic was destroyed by the frenzied hate-mongering of the Abolitionists. A rational opposition to slavery in the United States could be based only on racial grounds and, as Jefferson so often said, implied the deportation of the unassimilable anthropoids from American soil.25 The scurvy crew of rabble-rousers that plagued the northern states, until they created an opportunity for the greed of financial looters and the Jews’ hatred of our race in the invasion of the South they provoked, were only a fanatical and crazed riff-raff. They were a product of the epidemic of religious mania that spread through the country in the 1830s.26 They pretended that their god, the supposed author of their Bible, had forbidden slavery; that was a lie, a brazen lie, and, if they had read their holy book, they knew it; but all witch-doctors know the technique of concealing mendacity and effrontery by shaking their fetishes faster and yelling louder. The Abolitionists’ righteousness was, as we should expect, the product of minds festering with envy and malice and a blood-lust that was at least latent in all of them.27 They were inspired by the success of the great “civil rights” movement in Haiti,28 and they loved their “black brothers” as instruments for the humiliation and destruction of their betters. They naturally wanted to retain on American soil hordes of emancipated slaves for the perpetual affliction of white men who had not been exterminated. American children are now taught to admire those poisonous pests in appreciation of the irreparable calamity they brought upon our nation and race. A judicious historian will wonder why Jefferson’s hope that superstition could be kept within bounds proved vain.

5. Another example: Was there a continuous deterioration of character caused by an influx of undesirable immigrants and the growth of cities with their inevitable rotting of native morality?29 The constant expansion of industry may have been an additional factor. William Gayley Simpson, in his admirable book, Which Way, Western Man?, remarks, “I remember meeting in a little fishing-village of Scotland an 80-year old shoemaker, . . . who, as a man, and even intellectually, would have put to shame most of the finished college graduates I have known. I believe England and Scotland were once full of such men, and this country too a hundred years and more ago. . . . In the final testing it will be found, after all, that machines are no substitute for manhood.” Americans have been taught to shy away from all unpleasant questions, but they cannot be answered by closing one’s eyes and whistling a tune.

Who’s for Democracy?

I have tried, not to give a synopsis of Jefferson’s thought, but only to show what conditions are prerequisite for the democracy he championed. If we wish to institute such a true democracy, we shall have first to create the conditions in which it is possible.

The proponents of democracy will have to begin by deporting, vaporizing, or otherwise disposing of the swarms of Jews, Congoids, Mongoloids, and mongrels that now infest our territory and are becoming ever more numerous and audacious in their unappeasable hatred of us. I cannot suggest offhand a convenient way of effecting that indispensable épuration of the population, but I am willing to believe that it could still be carried out.

Let us assume that you have reduced the population to Aryans, so that we once again have racial homogeneity. Forgive me, dear patriot, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that more, much more, than half of those excellent Aryans will be persons who are now writing checks whenever Falwell and his malodorous kind pitch the woo at the glassy-eyed suckers; who happily pay bureaucrats to harass and kick them or are themselves bureaucrats hired to hector the masochists; who happily send their children into the degradation and filth of “integrated” schools; who, like born slaves, cringe before the goons of Infernal Revenue and hope only to be able to chisel a few bucks here and there without incurring punishment by their owners; who are now determined never to think about the survival of their voluntarily debased and defiled race; who are so lost to manhood that they endure the most abject servitude while keeping their snouts in the swill-troughs, and so lost to common sense that they do not even perceive their servitude. These are the newly freed citizens whom you expect to govern themselves by free elections in which a majority will make an intelligent choice! Are you counting on some miracle of leadership and inspiration that will make men out of mice? Or do you intend to disenfranchise, most undemocratically, the Aryan majority in the hope that they, like men maimed by accident or war, can transmit to their offspring a genetic heritage free of their own deformity, so that a future generation of our race will recover the manhood, the self-respect, the intelligence that their sires of today have so blatantly lost?

I know that what I have just said will send many well-meaning and sentimental Americans into a tizzy or a tantrum. I am sorry, but I remind them that I did not design the universe. I did not create the realities of biology and history. And a would-be democrat, like an elfin princess who marries a mortal, must take the bitter with the sweet.

1  Candid and objective historians will recognize three eras in our history since Independence: The First Republic (1781-1860), during which the United States were governed according to the uneasy compromise embodied in the Constitution; The Second Republic (1865-1932), during which the United States was a unified country, established by outrageous aggression and conquest, but considerable portions of the Constitution were salvaged and remained in effect; and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (1933-?), during which what was left of the Constitution was surreptitiously abrogated and the country progressively prepared for the contemplated merger with the Soviet Union.

2  Not to be confused with the same author’s earlier work, The Essence of Jefferson, which is inferior on several counts. The new volume is published by Robert B. Luce, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland; xxiv + 390 pages; $13.50 plus postage, available from Liberty Bell Publications.

3  Let us not forget that, if words are to be used accurately, the United States were created by the only civil war that has thus far been fought in this country. A civil war is a conflict between factions of the citizens of a given state or territory, and in each of the thirteen colonies such a war was waged between the Loyalists, who retained their allegiance to Great Britain and were supported by British troops, and the Revolutionaries, who sought independence and were supported by France. The latter, thanks to the phenomenal stupidity of the French monarchy (which thereby dug its own grave), were victorious and the colonies became independent. The use of the term “Civil War” in propaganda to designate the invasion and conquest of the Southern States in 1861-1865 is ex post facto and was artfully devised to conceal from the victims of the public schools the actual dissolution of the American Republic and the acts of aggression that made necessary the Southern War for Independence.

4  It must not be forgotten that, second only to French supplies, troops, and fleets, the success of the Revolution in the thirteen colonies was made possible by the activities of many Englishmen, some who, like Burke, held political beliefs that justified the resistance of the colonists, and many who were just traitors, Whigs who, to procure the fall of the “Tory” government and put their faction in its stead, consistently sabotaged the efforts of George III’s ministers to restore order in the disaffected colonies. In Hamilton’s America, as is obvious from his famous Alien and Sedition Acts, such persons, from Burke to the traitors who acted as American spies, would have found themselves in prison and so would persons who publicly expressed sympathy for them. Some would have been hanged.

5  We may note in passing that Jefferson was wildly optimistic about the Indian’s capacity for civilization. As Dr. Larson suggests, he probably drew unwarranted generalizations from a tribe of Indians who were really exceptional, the Cherokees, for whose peculiarities ethnologists have not satisfactorily accounted.

6  For example, Jefferson’s bitter enemy, John Quincy Adams, characterized his condemnation of slavery as “frantic.” Adams had no illusions about Congoids: “I know of nothing more insolent than a black, when he is not speaking to his master and is not afraid of being beaten. It is not even rare to see negroes treat their masters very ill when they have to do with a weak man.” Adams, however, disapproved of slavery on moral grounds and, although he refused to usurp unconstitutional powers when in office, he represented New England, where the iniquity of slavery was keenly perceived when it was no longer possible to profit from it. Near the end of his life, Adams even looked forward to a war of aggression against the South.

7  There was a slight humanitarian element in Jefferson’s attitude. The slaves whom the Congoids sold to entrepreneurs (many, but not all, of whom were Jews) were shipped across the Atlantic packed into slave ships in which they had to exist for weeks and even months in conditions to which Aryans (or, at least, Nordics) would not wish to see any mammals subjected. Jefferson had the strong aversion from gratuitous cruelty to sentient mammals that is characteristic of our race and conspicuously absent in other races. Jefferson was also deeply concerned about the moral effects of slavery on many owners.

8  The Jefferson Memorial is the most beautiful building in the District of Corruption. It is an architectural gem and, what is more, appropriate, since it is what Jefferson himself would have wanted. It is defaced, however, by the inscription on one of the inner walls of the first part of this sentence and the omission of the words I have italicized. It thus defames Jefferson by implication and was, of course, designed to fool visitors who did not know the complete sentence. There is much to be said for the view that “Liberal intellectuals” are compulsive liars.

9  In Jefferson’s time ‘virtue’ still retained its proper meaning, denoting manly excellence, including courage and integrity as shown by both moral and intellectual honesty. It is sad that so useful a word has been perverted by the gabble of Christian propagandists.

10  Needless to say, Jefferson was thinking of public education, and did not attempt to prescribe what should be done in Christian and other private schools, which was properly to be determined by the persons who financed them. Such schools, however, were not to be subsidized by the public, either directly or indirectly (through tax exemptions), and Jefferson probably assumed that their products would be inferior in the measure that they departed from factual education and objective discrimination, either by inculcating superstitions or by coddling the unfit.

11  The use of religious rites to promote national unity, which I mentioned in my long article in The Liberty Bell for May 1982, was innocuous and feasible in a democracy so long as the religion remained “pagan.” In the history of our race, the first to advocate plausibly the use of religion to consolidate a tyranny (a “righteous” one, of course) was Plato, who wanted legislation to compel belief in the gods he imagined and to suppress all dissent by executing atheists (Nomoi 909a), i.e., men too intelligent to believe his revelations and insufficiently hypocritical to feign belief. Plato’s mastery of Greek style and his “idealism,” which the late Professor Ben E. Perry described as “intellectual masturbation,” win him great prestige among educated persons whose imaginations outrun their common sense. It is significant, therefore, that Jefferson regarded Plato as “one of the . . . sophists,” took no stock in his “whimsie” and “mysticism,” and saw that the Platonic writings had been preserved by theologians for the subtle irrationality that could give an intellectual coloring to irrational fantasies. His opinion of Plato was substantially in agreement with the learned Edgar Lucas White in his Why Rome Fell (New York, 1927).

12  The state of the physical sciences in Jefferson’s day is shown by the honor paid to his great friend, Priestly, for such “epochal discoveries” as “dephlogisticated air” (oxygen) and “marine acid air” (hydrogen chloride). The biological sciences were virtually unborn, although the genius of Lord Monboddo enabled him to anticipate some essentials of biological evolution and to take a rational view of human nature and society. So far as I can recall offhand, Jefferson never mentioned Lord Monboddo’s elementary anthropology, but I cannot now take time to peruse the forty volumes, and I may be mistaken.

13  Jefferson may not have distinguished clearly between personal and collective morality. Some observers, e.g., Jack Bays, in a leaflet reprinted in The Truth Seeker, April 1982, believe that reading the Bible, like viewing scenes of violence and depravity on television, incites many impressionable individuals to crimes such as rape, murder, and robbery. Bays amplified the well-known opinion of Mark Twain, who, in his Letters from Earth, was certain that the minds of children, at least, are corrupted and perverted by reading the Bible, with its demoralizing stories of atrocious crimes perpetrated with the approval and collaboration of the Christians’ supposedly omnipotent god. As Jefferson repeatedly observed, the Jews have no conception of ethics and believe that by sexually mutilating their male children and by observing grotesque taboos, such as abstaining from certain kinds of food and defecating and urinating in the ways Yahweh likes to watch, they conciliated that capricious and blood-thirsty god, who thus became their supernatural accomplice and helped them delude, swindle, plunder, and slaughter civilized peoples. Mark Twain was particularly impressed by the episode of the Midianites, who were guilty of having property the Jews wanted. The horde of ferocious bandits poured into Midia in northern Arabia and, with the help of the Big Jew in the sky, defeated the Midianite army. Then they systematically butchered all the men, butchered all the women, butchered all the male children, and then rounded up the female children, most of them impuberate, and, after verifying their virginity, sold them into slavery in foreign brothels. Unlike Christians, Mark Twain felt compassion for 32,000 Arab virgins: “Their naked privacies were probed, to make sure they still possessed the hymen unruptured; after this humiliation, they were sent away from the land that had been their home, to be sold into slavery, the worst of slaveries and the shamefulest, the slavery of prostitution.” After completing this phase of their holy work, the Jews looted and burned the Midianite cities and went home, loaded with spoil and driving the mobile part of their booty, 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 asses; and as they divided up the loot, they exulted in their righteousness, which paid off so handsomely after giving them so much fun. And they had Yahweh’s promise that if they continued to observe his nasty taboos, he would help them subjugate all the other races of the world, as he is obviously doing in Lebanon today, having made their American bondsmen finance them and supply them with weapons.

For a concise but sweeping indictment of Christianity, see the two articles by Ralph Perier in The Liberty Bell for August and November 1980 (reprints are available from Liberty Bell Publications). For a profound and virtually encyclopaedic study of the effect of Christianity on the whole of our civilization, see the magisterial work of William Gayley Simpson, Which Way, Western Man? (available from Liberty Bell Publications). I am here interested only in elucidating the fundamentals of Jeffersonian democracy.

14  Jefferson made a certain exception in favor of the Unitarians, among whom deists could find shelter at the cost of a little hypocrisy. He especially detested the Calvinist cults for their conception of their god as a sadistic and insane beast that created human beings whom he destined for damnation so that he could enjoy’ torturing them forever. It may be regarded as certain that “God-fearing” Christians, living in perpetual terror of that celestial monster, developed psychotic conditions that approximate insanity. It should be noted that there was a high concentration of Calvinists in New England, the region that so balefully influenced all the subsequent history of the United States.

15  The holy men of the various sects could gang up to suppress cults that competed with all of them. They, for example, bullied the legislature of New York into persecution of the Shakers, an act which Jefferson vigorously protested, perceiving the fatal consequences of permitting the salvation-peddlers to influence government.

16  It was to form “an octavo of forty-six pages,” but was not published in Jefferson’s lifetime. It was first printed, so far as I know, in 1904 by the U. S. Government Printing Office for distribution by Congressmen, who were not then so cowed as they now are by the ranting of holy demagogues, and was first published in Volume XX of the Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D.C., 1905). The part in English was recently reproduced as An American Christian Bible (Rochester, Wash., 1982), followed by an essay by Eric Holden, “A New Declaration of Independence,” in which the author tries to revive a Jeffersonian deism and a Jeffersonian democracy. He sharpens Jefferson’s dislike of the professional mystery-mongers and identifies, more clearly than did Jefferson, the activity and purposes of the Jewish Nation: “For three thousand years, it has been a nation of spies and saboteurs, waging undeclared war on all nations with fixed locations. Citizenship in the Nomadic Jewish Nation is prima facie evidence that the individual is an active spy and/or saboteur.” – Jefferson, on the basis of his reconstruction of the character of the Jesus of the “New Testament,” sometimes rather disingenuously described himself as a “true Christian,” meaning that he was a deist who emphatically repudiated the bloody god of the Jews and Christians.

17  Jefferson included in his sylloge the sermon that Perier, in the articles mentioned above, called the Drivel on the Mount, which, if taken seriously, would make impossible an organized society of any kind. He was particularly concerned to exclude, in addition to talk about miracles and the like, such passages as Luke 19.27. That poses a perplexing question. It is not remarkable that most Christian clergymen, like so many others, have been taken in by the Jews’ “Holocaust” hoax, which the Jews are now enforcing by pseudo-legal terrorism, since they consider it especially useful for keeping their Aryan serfs stultified and content, but what is astonishing is that those clergymen, who claim to have read their “New Testament” and to believe it, disapprove of the supposed execution of six million Jews. It is undeniable that those Jews, whether they believed their outlandish religion or were atheists, “would not that” Jesus “should reign over them.” And since Christians claim that their Jesus, after delivering his commandment, flew up to a place in the sky whence he watches everything that happens on earth, he could have enjoyed watching the death-agonies from his vantage point in the welkin as much as when he was on earth and gave the order, “bring them hither, and slay them before me.” It is really remarkable that, so far as I know, no one of the innumerable holy men who are jostling for public attention has thought of praising the Germans for the obedience to Jesus that is reported in the Jews’ fiction. That would not only prove his faith in the “inerrancy” of his holy book, but would surely gain him celebrity and a large following.

18  For a strictly objective and impartial survey of the anti-American work of these despicable shysters, see the article, “The Religious Right and Zionism,” by Dr. Ruth W. Mouly in The Humanist for May-June 1982. She quotes a professedly non-Jewish journalist as saying, “As a gentile American, as a Christian who considers loyalty to God above all human commitments, if the choice ever comes between loyalty to an American government and loyalty to Israel, I have no choice. I must stand by Israel.” Some people criticize the Germans adversely for having interned such traitors in concentration camps in a time of crisis! Dr. Mouly concludes that “The potential of the Religious Right to shape America’s Middle East policy is frightening.” She does not note the impudence of the rabble-rousers’ claim to be “conservative,” but she does quote a boast by the notorious assassin, murderer, and terrorist, Menachem Begin, “We have many friends, we have the Christians of America.” He was probably right; the exceptions to his generalization are politically negligible.

19  According to the American Agricultural News, 22 September 1981, the Federal government in March of that year held 11% of the debts of the remaining farmers, and of this, about 50% was already in default. The periodical suggests that when the Federal government forecloses, it will kick off the former owners and place on the farms credulous young men, who will be so enslaved by debt they will, in effect, work without pay for five years or so, when they can be thrown off and replaced with a fresh lot of serfs. They will, of course, be managed by overseers from Washington while they work. The present interest rates make it impossible for farmers now in debt to the Federal Reserve to survive; their land will probably be taken by the large corporations, many or most of them now owned by Japanese and other foreigners, that have been replacing independent farmers for years, and it will probably be necessary to put white Americans in labor gangs to work properties on which Orientals and mongrels from Mexico would be less efficient.

20  Another measure of the Senate is provided by an incident reported in the Spotlight, 26 December 1981. Many Americans, fondly imagining that they were represented in Washington, wrote to their Senators to protest the use of American resources to enable the Jews in Israel to follow the Mosaic custom and kill the inhabitants of territory in the Middle East that God’s Race was planning to seize. Seventy-two of the Senators fingered their trusting constituents to the Jewish terrorist organizations that exercise surveillance over goyim who become restive. Whether those Senators betrayed their constituents as a courtesy to their bosses or, as an unverifiable rumor has it, were paid five dollars for each letter turned over to the Jews, is necessarily uncertain. What is remarkable is that some Senators were sufficiently honorable to refuse to curry favor or earn pin money, by such treachery.I am reminded of an article that appeared, if I remember correctly, in the last years of Mencken’s editorship of the American Mercury. The author had been for many years a member of the legislature of one of the plains states in the Middle West. He said that he was quite willing to believe that there were legislators who did not take bribes; he, however, had never known one.

21  The history of monetary swindles is long and complex, and obviously lies far beyond the scope of this article. I shall nevertheless mention a little-known detail that may be of special interest to the readers of this periodical. The question of theft on a grand scale by government was, I believe, first raised by the learned Jesuit, Juan de Mariana, in his essay “De monetae mutatione,” which was one of his Tractatus VII, published at Cologne in 1609. Since the Duke of Lerma was outraged by the libellous suggestion that he could be so dishonest as to do what he was actually doing, Mariana spent many years in the dungeons of the Inquisition, from which he emerged only as an old and broken man. (Incidentally, Lerma, who impoverished Spain and enriched himself by financial looting on a then unprecedented scale, was a very pious Christian and eventually became a Cardinal.) Mariana’s younger friend, who became his research assistant when his eyesight began to fail, was the noted Spanish satirist, Quevedo, who came close to identifying international finance as a prime cause of contemporary disasters. In his Hora de todos, he describes a conspiracy between the Jews, the eternal enemies of the nations in which they have lodged themselves, and the crooks who control the financial policies of those nations. – The revolt of the American colonies was primarily caused by British manipulation of their currencies for the benefit of the Bank of England. The crucial importance of this factor was, I believe, first isolated by the American economist, Alexander Del Mar, in his History of Money in America (London, 1899; reprinted Hawthorne, Calif., 1966).

22  This was a minor factor, no doubt, but during the Nineteenth Century “Consols” (i.e., “consolidated annuities,” government bonds that bore no date of maturity) were an eminently safe investment for Englishmen who had relatively small sums to invest or preferred security to a higher rate of return. In this country, government bonds were regarded as a safe investment until the great War Criminal began his usurpation by repudiating the solemn pledge to redeem them in real money and proceeded further to swindle the investors by systematically inflating the currency and making them pay taxes on their losses. The devaluation of the currency naturally enriched the gang that planned it and, notably, Roosevelt’s supervisor, the Jew Baruch, who, according to Col. Curtis Dall in his F.D.R., acquired seven sixteenths of all the silver in the whole world in anticipation of the great act of piracy and thus obtained a profit of 80% in a few weeks. Yahweh created the sheep to be fleeced by the Righteous, didn’t he?

23  Needless to say, many bankers who are caught in the system are personally honest, and that includes some persons who have attained a fairly high rank in the Federal Reserve itself. The late Malcolm Bryan, who grew up in the town in which I now live and is remembered as a man of integrity, became President of the branch of the Federal Reserve in Atlanta, Georgia, and, according to the California Mining Journal, September 1961, told the Senate Finance Committee, “If a policy of active or permissive inflation is to be a fact, then we can save the shreds of our self-respect only by announcing the policy …. We should have the decency to say to the money saver, ‘Hold still, little fish; all we intend to do is to gut you.’”

24  Americans who are interested may obtain a preview of their proximate future from Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints (New York, 1975; paperback reprint, London, s.a. [1980?]) Preparations to hasten that future began with the large-scale importation of Mongoloids from southeast Asia, of whom at least half, according to an intelligence officer who served in Vietnam throughout the phony “war” there, are seasoned killers from the Viet-Cong. This was followed by the intensive importation of savages from Haiti and Cuba and of mongrels (chiefly mestizos and sambos) from Mexico; the influx continues on a large scale, with only token efforts to control it by an Immigration Service that Washington prevents from acting effectively. What is planned has long been obvious, but I was interested in learning from the National Vanguard (January 1982) that one of the most authoritative and expensive business-advisory services ($775.00 per annum) has advised its subscribers that uncontrolled killing, raping, burning, and looting of the white population by its racial enemies will begin in the summer of 1983 as the opening of a “long-term trend of continuing non-white [i.e., anti-white] violence and destruction.” Prudent business men are advised to remove their homes and, if possible, their businesses to regions which the Federal government has not yet saturated with niggers and “Hispanics” (the euphemism which is currently applied to creatures who have nothing Spanish about them except some tincture of blood from the Spanish who conquered the aborigines in Central and South America and copulated with the female natives, and some ability to speak a low and corrupt dialect of Spanish). It is taken for granted, of course, that the only thing for the white rabbits to do is to run, if they have a chance, and to try to find a thicket in which to hide until the governmental beaters drive them out. Although the business-advisory service, if correctly reported by the National Vanguard, does not say so, there are, no doubt, a few Americans who can think of an alternative to running like jackrabbits, but they are wicked “racists” and “neo-Nazis” and ought to be crucified, shouldn’t they?

25  As everyone knows, Abraham Lincoln, who seems to have had a mystic admiration for “the Union,” was not a Christian and could therefore see the implications of an emancipation of the blacks, whom he intended to export to Central America to save the expense of shipping them back to Africa. That, of course, was one reason why he was assassinated as soon as his usefulness was ended. Even the great Liberal and opponent of slavery, Lord Acton, recognized that whenever two incompatible races are present in the same territory, democracy is possible only by the enslavement of one of them. See his Essays on Freedom and Power (London, 1956), especially his “Political Causes of the American Revolution,” first published in May 1861, before the invasion of the South began. He saw, however, that the Republic established by the Constitution had ended in total failure. Noteworthy is his characterization of the moral purpose professed by politicians opposed to slavery: “It adorned cupidity with the appearance of philanthropy.”

26  See Gilbert Hobbs Barnes, The Antislavery Impulse, 1830-1844 (New York, 1933), which clearly shows that the Abolitionists were merely a specialized group of the howling dervishes whose evangelical rant became a national affliction. See also Dwight Lowell Dumond, Antislavery Origins of the Civil War in the United States (London, 1939), and Hazel Catherine Wolf, On Freedom’s Altar, the Martyr-Complex in the Abolition Movement (Madison, Wis., 1952). A few of the rabble-rousers, notably the crazed William Lloyd Garrison, were honest enough to admit that the Bible contained nothing that could be interpreted as a deprecation of slavery.

27  Few, of course, had the courage of the famous homicidal maniac, John Brown, who is now much admired for his blood-thirsty ferocity, but one has to consider objectively only so relatively mild a specimen as Julia Ward Howe to perceive the inner motivation of the agitator’s “righteousness.” She is the author of the words of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” which she adapted, ironically enough, to music by a Southern composer who has been variously identified. It is one of the most terrible songs ever sung. It is a hymn to the bloody Yahweh of the “Old Testament,” and it is inspired by a joyous anticipation of slaughter such as he supposedly inflicted on the Midianites and all other civilized peoples who had property that his pet bandits coveted, “Kill, O Yahweh, kill!” was the exultant cry of Mrs. Howe’s heart, “kill those white women who are lolling in elegant ease with slaves to attend them while I have to be content with hired servants, who are both expensive and likely to become cantankerous or insolent. Kill those white women who are courted by gallant and chivalrous gentlemen while I have to marry some money-grubbing merchant or hypocritically austere holy man and will become as a wife merely his domestic servant. Kill, O Yahweh, kill all those white men and women who are enjoying a spacious leisure and essentially secular culture in a mild and amoenous climate, while I have to live in bleak New England among dour Puritans and cold-hearted profiteers.” That is what Mrs. Howe meant, whether or not she was fully conscious of it, when she cried out jubilantly that Yahweh was “trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.” Kill, O Yahweh, kill! Better yet, help us do it for you!

On John Brown and the conspiracy that financed him, see J. C. Furnas, The Road to Harpers Ferry (New York, 1959). Some of the more coherent writings of the Abolitionists were collected and edited by Louis Ruchames, The Abolitionists (New York, 1963). Note the constant gabble about “sinfulness,” “immortal souls,” and the like.

28  On the extermination of the white race in Haiti by the liberated beasts, see T. Lothrop Stoddard, The French Revolution in San Domingo (Boston, 1914; recently reprinted, s.l. & a.; available from Liberty Bell Publications).

29  Let me give you an example that is both concise and cogent. The death of Edgar Allen Poe in 1849 is a mystery that will never be solved, but what I call to your attention is the conjectural explanation advanced by the physician who attended him as he lay dying, which was accepted by some contemporaries without hesitation: Poe, while passing through Baltimore became intoxicated or was drugged; he was robbed and then put into one of the “tanks” maintained by one of the political parties; in such tanks a supply of men were kept, with liquor or drugs, in a state of semi-conscious abulia while remaining able to stand on their feet when supported by their keepers, who escorted them to each of the polling places in the city and voted them for honest government and righteousness. The point is that in 1849 this procedure aroused no outcry of indignation; it was evidently accepted as a part of urban life; it was just an expedient that helped the honest men of the good party to keep out or throw out the scoundrels of the bad party. Who would be so nice as to object to winning an election for righteous men?

Book ContentsPart II. ÉLITISM
Blog Contents