The following is Neil Kumar's keynote Confederate Memorial Day address, given at the Fayetteville Confederate Cemetery in Fayetteville, Arkansas, for the Southern Memorial Association of Washington County.
Good morning! Thank you for being here on this hallowed ground to honor our Confederate dead, and for allowing me the honor of being your speaker—and, I should add, for considering my candidacy as your next Representative in the United States Congress.
This cemetery is a special place; there aren’t many like it. On the God-forsaken battlefields across the riven South, our ancestors were left unburied, their bones bleaching in the unforgiving sun. Others lay in shallow graves, their remains picked over by thieves and rooting swine. Local memorial associations raised what little money they could to provide for their burial. Northern groups had to be depended upon to return the proper remains from faraway Gettysburg; true to their character, Yankee jackals engaged in a profitable traffic in false “remains.” Very few of our fallen heroes’ bodies ever made it back home.
In order to properly remember our Confederate dead, we have to remember why they died. Why did they give everything that they possessed, and charge so bravely into the mouth of Hell itself? The Confederacy was the canary in the coalmine for Western Civilization. Had our ancestors been victorious, none of the evil which has corroded and swept our nation away would ever have happened.
Rather than speak of the War for Southern Independence, I am going to talk to you today about Reconstruction. Why? The seeds of our present condition were sown in the Reconstruction era. All of our forefathers’ worst fears came true in those years following their struggle. As General Richard Taylor put it, “The world cannot properly estimate the fortitude of the Southern people unless it understands and takes account of the difficulties under which they labored. Yet, great as were their sufferings during the War, they were as nothing compared to those inflicted upon them after its close.”
We can name three Reconstructions, all with the same aim: the annihilation of the true America. In the First Reconstruction, the States of the former Confederacy were reduced to total bondage. The Second Reconstruction occurred through the 1950s and 60s, as the Federal government used the “Civil Rights movement” to eradicate the last vestiges of identity which the South had still clung to. The Third Reconstruction is what we are now experiencing; when they drove Old Dixie down, they also dug Old Glory’s grave.
It is difficult to describe the state of the South at the Surrender in any meaningful way which would allow us to comprehend the total despair and utter devastation which faced our ancestors—but I will try.
As Yankee soldiers returned home to parades and banquets, emaciated, malnourished Confederate veterans hobbled home for hundreds of miles, crippled, maimed, and wounded, primarily on their bare feet and in tattered rags, the bits and pieces of their garments strung together by string, twine, and even thorns. Anxious mothers, wives, and sisters searched the lorn face of each grey ghost as he limped by, praying that it would be the face of a lost loved one. Sometimes, the Federals provided transportation for their paroled Confederate prisoners, by packing hundreds like sardines into condemned vessels which sank, or putting them in trains which were “accidentally” derailed. In areas rife with guerrillas, like the Ozarks, returning veterans faced lynching.
It is misleading to say that our Southern heroes were returning “home,” for they really returned to a smoldering ruin, smoke still billowing from the ashes of what had been the greatest civilization ever known to man. Their bountiful, verdant Dixie had been transformed into an apocalyptic wasteland; the blood-soaked roads were lined with the rotting carcasses of the hogs, horses, cattle, and other animals which the Yankees had gleefully slaughtered, the overwhelming stench of death suffusing the putrid air. As one veteran wrote of his return through Arkansas: “Desolation met our gaze. Abandoned and burned homes, uncultivated land overgrown with bushes; half-starved women and children; gaunt, ragged men, stumbling along the road…trying to find their families, and wondering if they had a home left.”
The War had been particularly depraved in the Ozarks, a no-man’s land of near-total anarchy; unspeakable atrocities were committed, including the wholesale rape, torture, and massacre of untold scores of women, children, and the elderly. As one Ozarker wrote in 1863, “No guerrilla warfare ever carried on in Mexico or any of the South American republics has been fraught with more evils than that now waged upon us in Northwest Arkansas. Theft, plunder, arson, murder, and every other crime of the black catalogue have lost their former startling significance of horror by their daily occurrence amongst us. If we hear that one of our neighbors has been murdered, his house burned and family left to freeze and starve to death for the want of clothes and food, it is soon forgotten by us.”
Moving through Huntsville and the ruins of Bentonville, even the battle-hardened General Jo Shelby was shaken, writing: “In many places for forty miles, not a single habitation is to be found, for on the road we met delicate females fleeing southward, driving ox teams, barefooted, ragged, and suffering even for bread.” Writing from Fort Smith in 1865, a Union commander wrote that several thousand families in the area “have nearly all been robbed of everything they had by the troops of this command, and are now left destitute and compelled to leave their homes to avoid starvation.”
A Northerner who had visited Chicot County before the War had described the area as “the richest, fairest, and most productive” in Arkansas. With plantations “like a continuous garden,” it was “the most beautiful spot for a home I have ever seen in any country, and as rich as beautiful.” The same man returned in 1872, and found it “a gloomy place,” still in ruins: “Homes are desolated, buildings gone to decay, stock all gone, land grown up in weeds, almost every White woman in the county gone, White men afraid for their lives and getting away as fast as possible, every plantation for sale at a fraction of its former worth, a large portion of the cotton crop still in the field, wasting in the wind…not a smiling face seen.”
Everything which could not be picked up and stolen by marauding Yankees had been destroyed. Few homes survived, but rather “lonesome smokestacks surrounded by dark heaps of ashes and cinders, marking the spots where human habitations had stood.” These chimneys were known as “Sherman’s Sentinels,” giving rise to the cruel joke that “Southerners had a peculiar custom of building chimneys without houses to go with them.” No infrastructure remained: factories, railroads, levees, wagons, bridges, steamboats, docks, cotton gins, schools, courthouses, all gone. Arkansas didn’t have regular mail reestablished until July, 1867. The Federals had desecrated and defiled Southern churches with a special kind of delight. Estimates of the total damage in today’s money go well over one hundred billion dollars.
Homes that still stood had been despoiled. Here, the losses were incalculable; think of those things which can never be replaced: “The only photograph of a child who had died, a crib built by an expectant father, blankets knitted by loving hands—the cherished mementos of life.” When one woman returned home, “her heart leaped when she saw picture frames piled in the corner, but sank again when she realized that the faces had been torn out and destroyed. All the sundry nothings that gather dust and warm the heart, the trinkets that young girls hide in bureau drawers, the watches passed from fathers to sons—all were gone, and they would never be recovered. These were just drops in a vast sea of destruction.”
A Union officer described the new Southern domestic scene: “Window-glass has given way to thin boards, in railway coaches and in the cities. Furniture is marred and broken, and none has been replaced for four years. Dishes are cemented in various styles, and half [of] the pitchers have tin handles. A complete set of crockery is never seen, and in very few families is there enough to set a table…A set of forks with whole tines is a curiosity. Clocks and watches have nearly all stopped…Hairbrushes and toothbrushes have all worn out; combs are broken…Pins, needles, and thread, and a thousand such articles, which seem indispensable to housekeeping, are very scarce. Even in weaving on the looms, corncobs have been substituted for spindles. Few have pocketknives. In fact, everything that has heretofore been an article of sale at the South is wanting now. At the tables of those who were once esteemed luxurious providers, you will find neither tea, coffee, sugar, nor spices of any kind. Even candles, in some cases, have been replaced by a cup of grease in which a piece of cloth is plunged for a wick.”
The Federals had systematically destroyed the South’s agricultural resources: our ancestors were left without seed, farm equipment, barns, or fences. Orchards ruined, fields fallowed. Millions of animals had been mercilessly slaughtered: cattle, hogs, sheep, horses, mules, chickens, domestic pets, everything killed and left to rot wherever it fell. Arkansas lost more than half of its animals. What few farm animals did remain were subject to nightly thefts by roving freedmen. Remember, too, that statistics are merely abstractions: If each of two farmers has a horse to plow with, and one loses his, to say that the supply of horses is reduced to fifty percent scarcely conveys the plight of the farmer who cannot work the land.
The Yankees got what they wanted. There was no meat. The crops failed. Once-prosperous women and children, their breadwinners either in the grave or otherwise incapacitated, were reduced to begging for tiny morsels of food. Hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of Southerners existed in a state of famine. Many thousands starved to death. Rolling epidemics of cholera and smallpox compounded the tragedy. In the Ozarks, much of the population scavenged in the woods, subsisting on greens, slippery elm bark, and roots. The Federals made great fun of a new pastime, popular among the garrisons: tossing bits and pieces of hardtack into large assemblages of starving Southerners and watching them fight over their refuse. Northern tourists visited the South on “pleasure parties” to leer at the abject misery of the once-proud Southern people.
How did the supremely righteous United States government respond to the suffering of the Southern people? In 1865, the Yankees disbanded the Confederacy’s relief agencies, which, as pitiful as they were, had been the only thing keeping many poor Whites from starvation. Even the laws providing wooden legs for crippled veterans were abrogated; this, when there were nearly fifty thousand Confederate amputees, when, in some communities, over a third of the returning veterans lacked a limb. The Army even revoked the pensions of Confederate veterans who had prior American military service.
All financial aid, both from the government and from private charities, went directly to freedmen; while black children tramped happily to school, White women and children hitched themselves to plows, lacking mules. It “was no strange thing to see little White boys driving a plow when they were so small [that] they had to lift their hands high to grasp the handles; or little White girls minding cows, trotting to springs or wells with big buckets to fill, bending over washtubs, and working in the crops.” As General Richard Taylor observed, “The land was filled with widows and orphans crying for aid, which the universal destitution prevented them from receiving. Humanitarians shuddered with horror and wept with grief for the imaginary woes of Africans; but their hearts were as adamant to people of their own race and blood. …Blockaded during the War, and without journals to guide opinion and correct error, we were unceasingly slandered by our enemies, who held possession of every avenue to the world’s ear.”
Confederate stocks, bonds, and currency were unilaterally declared to be worthless. This, combined with the unlawful emancipation of the slaves, representing over thirty billion dollars of accumulated capital, left the South entirely bankrupt. The two to five million bales of cotton which had survived the War represented the only hope of salvation, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. For this very reason, cotton was ruthlessly and systematically targeted for seizure. Almost all of it was stolen.
Treasury agents who started their appointments bankrupt left as millionaires. Anything that could be made to bear the taint of service to the Confederate cause was subject to seizure; so, if an Army officer or Treasury agent deemed something as Confederate property, it was taken. Any property, including land, that was not presently being occupied at whatever time a Treasury agent came calling, was deemed “abandoned,” and taken. The Army often seized the local tax rolls, totted up the taxes back to 1861, and demanded immediate payment from bankrupted civilians whose currency and bonds had been deemed worthless. Failure to pay meant confiscation.
The United States was determined to squeeze blood from the Southern turnip, instituting a property sales tax of 25%, plus a shipping tax, plus a revenue tax. Cotton was subjected to a $12.50 per bale tax, over 20% of its worth, plus an additional three cents per pound tax, amounting to another 19%. This cotton tax reaped the U.S. Treasury $68,000,000, a sum far greater than the entire expense of the first three years of Reconstruction and vastly greater than the sum of all relief measures, public and private, for the destitute South. There was, of course, no similar tax on Northern agricultural products, which were subsidized, like Northern fishing bounties, so this cotton tax also amounted to an export duty.
As Southern property values collapsed by as much as 75%, taxes were jacked up exponentially, with the express purpose of forcing landowners to forfeit their holdings. In Sebastian County, taxes were increased elevenfold. Land worth $50 an acre sold for $3-$5. Estates worth $24,000 sold for $80—the value of the taxes. In this manner, vast swathes of the South—millions of acres, hundreds of plantations—were stolen for pennies on the dollar. In Arkansas, a book of 228 pages was required to list all of the lands for sale due to delinquent taxes.
Carpetbaggers from the North descended as a swarm of locusts, picking the carcass clean of what little the War had left. The best Southern land was devoured by Yankees, including millions of acres of our virgin timberland, almost none of which exists anymore, clear-cut to feed Northern furnaces. Our abundant natural resources, our very birthright, the inheritance of generations yet unborn, were raped and murdered. As one Little Rock woman wrote, “The Federal Army robbed my children of their rights before they were born. The Old South, with all its resources, was theirs by inheritance, but, in lieu of its advantages, they have been made a part of the brick and mortar worked into the building of a New South.”
The North thus riveted even tighter upon the South the colonial status under which it had long suffered: Southerners were forced to beg for Northern capital, lent at usurious rates as high as 60%, such that desperately-needed Southern income was transferred North while the South was prevented from accumulating its own capital.
Their world had been so completely eviscerated that many Southerners envied the dead. Their entire world had been put to the sword and then to the torch, their tear-dimmed eyes blinded in a vortex of ash. As one man wrote, “Those who strew flowers over the graves of departed heroes will feel that the quiet dreamers in the dust are far happier than those who still walk the rugged paths of a distracted world…For them the wreath of wild flowers, for us the crown of thorns.” A Texan disconsolately noted that it “would have been far better for us had our whole people been exterminated, fighting to the last for their rights.”
It is difficult to fully grasp the abyss that our ancestors faced, to realize what little promise life held for these men whose nation had been taken away. Many simply sat down and died, succumbing to unfathomable grief. Addiction and suicide were common. Tens of thousands of orphans wandered the land; in Fort Smith, children staggered through the streets drunk, bottles in hand. Northern liquor companies set up shop all over the South, opiates available at every corner store.
The term “Reconstruction” was a sick joke, implying that things in the South would be put back as they had been before the War; in reality, of course, Reconstruction was merely a continuation of the War, waged now against a defenseless, prostrate, defeated people. By the first Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, the States of the fallen Confederacy were divided into five military districts, placed under total martial law. Arkansas and Mississippi constituted the fourth. The citizens had no civil recourse to this oppressive military despotism. The chief task of the military was to run totally fraudulent, illegitimate elections — Sound familiar? —wherein any Confederate sympathizers were disfranchised.
Because essentially all of the Whites in a given area had served in or otherwise supported the Confederacy, this meant that the Whites could not vote. Keep in mind that the South had lost between a third and a half of its adult male population; Arkansas lost half of its White population, with many counties, including Benton, Washington, and Madison, losing over half of their populations. Two to three generations of our best and brightest had been snuffed out in the prime of life. In other words, its breadwinners, its ablest leaders, were either gone forever or foreclosed from office, leaving only the worst part of society eligible for office. As a result, the military-installed Reconstruction State governments were made up of Carpetbaggers—who had in most cases never even been to the States they were now supposed to govern—followed by Scalawags and blacks.
The Reconstruction constitutional convention of Arkansas was known as a “bastard collection whose putridity stinks in the nostrils of all decency.” Carpetbaggers held the Governorship under Powell Clayton of Pennsylvania and Kansas, both U.S. Senators, two of three Representatives in Congress, and so forth, all the way down through the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at the State, county, and municipal levels. Even the Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court was openly for sale. This State was even more corrupt than it was under Bill Clinton—and that’s saying something.
These Reconstruction governments were outrageously corrupt; at a time of pestilence, famine, and crushing destitution, these wretched hyenas engorged themselves. In Jefferson County, for example, the salaries of county officials increased by as much as 20 times. Faulkner County was created solely so that Governor Clayton could award new patronage offices. Millions of dollars in grants were awarded for railroads which were never built. In total, Arkansas spent well over twenty million dollars at the time—with only $100,000 of public improvements to show for it. More champagne was consumed in the dilapidated State Capitol in Little Rock than anywhere else in America.
By the time the Radicals left Arkansas, most of her counties were bankrupt, and the State debt neared $16,000,000. In 1860, Arkansas ranked 19th in the nation by per capita wealth; by 1880, she was 43rd; by 2018, she was 49th. Again, though, these are statistics. How fared the people? A combination of spring floods, midsummer drought, and armyworm and cutworm infestations ruined the harvests of the next several years, marking the beginning of a cycle of debt which would go on for generations, as cotton prices collapsed.
The Southern people faced another threat: that of the freedmen. Roving gangs of blacks roamed the countryside and looted, raped, burned, and murdered with impunity. The only legal authority was the Radical-controlled U.S. Army, and a large portion of the black criminals were enlisted men.
There are countless reports of black soldiers forcing their way into homes, or lying on the roads or in the fields in wait, gang-raping White girls as young as five years old. For the first time, rape became a common feature of Southern life. Women and children lived in constant fear, only leaving home if they had to. Small-scale race wars occurred in Crittenden, Lafayette, Pope, and Yell Counties, with the worst of the violence in Chicot County.
Of course, this epidemic of black crime was covered up by the Northern press, which instead printed fabricated and exaggerated accounts of White resistance. As one woman put it, “In full-volumed indignation over lynching, the usual course of the Northern press was to…lose sight of the crime provoking it. It was a minor fact that a woman was violated, that her skull was crushed or that she sustained other injuries from which she died or which made her a wreck for life—particulars too trivial to be noted by molders of public opinion writing eloquent essays on ‘Crime in the South.’”
Newspapers regularly ran columns headed “Southern Outrages,” and every conceivable mistreatment of blacks by Whites was represented as taking place on a large scale. For ten years following the war, Union “witnesses” fed false atrocity tales to the Northern public; Harper’s Weekly even published sketches of sinister Southern women wearing necklaces made of Yankee teeth, of desks constructed of skeletons, of cups fashioned from skulls.
You see, the lying press has always been the enemy of the people. This atrocity propaganda was utilized to justify the Federal government’s increasingly repressive measures against the South, carrying on the long tradition of stigmatizing the South as an ultraviolent, backward, reprobate society in dire need of punishment and re-education. This is the same genocidal rhetoric that we can see issuing forth today from every power center in this country.
Arkansas suffered one of the most violent Reconstruction periods in the entire South, with the worst abuses of the era taking place during a reign of terror from November, 1868, to March, 1869, known as the Militia War, an event all the more incredible for how utterly forgotten it now is.
Nature abhors a vacuum; action lusts for reaction. Suffering under an immeasurable array of humiliations and cruelties at the hands of an occupying force which declared open season on their families, White Arkansans finally fought back—this resistance often took the form of the Ku Klux Klan, an indispensable, heroic organization at the time of its formation. It was against this backdrop that the Militia War was born.
A major precipitating event was the October, 1868, assassination of Radical U.S. Representative James Hinds, a despicable New York Carpetbagger and the highest-ranking government official to be slain in any State during Reconstruction. Though the Klan was scapegoated for the murder, many speculated—not without considerable evidence—that the murder was committed on the orders of Hinds’s main political rival, Governor Powell Clayton, serving the double purpose of inflaming Northern opinion against Southern Whites.
Governor Clayton set in motion a plan to wage war upon the people of Arkansas. Through an agent in Detroit, Clayton purchased an arsenal, including 4,000 rifles, 400,000 cartridges, 1,500,000 percussion caps, and more, arranging for its shipment to Arkansas by way of Memphis. This arsenal, mind you, was even larger than that which had been furnished General Zachary Taylor for his invasion of Mexico.
Before Clayton’s shipment arrived at Memphis, however, a Democratic newspaperman learned of it, and widely publicized it, warning that the arms were “to be placed in the hands of the negroes of Arkansas…for the purpose of shooting down inoffensive citizens. …Woe to the steamboat that prefers such freights as swords and guns to plows and pruning hooks.” Due to an immense public outcry, the boat lines that usually operated to Little Rock refused to handle the cargo, forcing Clayton’s henchmen to charter a private steamer.
Hardly had the steamer set out for Little Rock when it was set upon by a band of Memphis Klansmen, disguised as river pirates. They overtook the vessel, boarded it, broke open the crates, and tossed the guns into the depths of the mighty Mississippi. Clayton, needless to say, was livid, but for two reasons: first, at the loss of the arms for his mercenary army; second, at the loss of the profit he had expected to make from selling the guns to the State. The invoices, you see, had been altered to show a cost of $35,000, instead of the actual cost of $15,000.
Rather than call for Federal troops, Clayton organized his own army. On November 4, 1868, he declared martial law in the counties of Ashley, Bradley, Columbia, Craighead, Greene, Lafayette, Little River, Mississippi, Sevier, and Woodruff, to which Conway, Crittenden, Drew, and Fulton counties were later added. The targeted counties all lacked the influential newspapers that cities like Little Rock, Fort Smith, Helena, Fayetteville, and Pine Bluff had.
The counties were divided into militia departments. The militiamen, mostly black vagrants and criminals, numbered over two thousand, and pillaged their way through the State for the next four months, preying upon the White citizenry, looting, imprisoning, raping, torturing, murdering, and burning in a gruesome saturnalia from the fiery pits of Hell itself. Radical Phillips County Representative Joseph Brooks, who would go on to lead one faction of the Brooks-Baxter War, wanted to reduce Arkansas to “a waste-howling wilderness” from the Missouri line to the Red River, “until we shall not have a habitation here, except for moles and bats.”
D.P. Upham, the bestial militia commander of the Northeast, was a penniless Massachusetts Carpetbagger. After failing in business in New York, he followed his friend, Alexander Shaler, to Arkansas, settling at DeVall’s Bluff, where Shaler was stationed as a Yankee cavalry officer. There, Upham quickly became one of the wealthiest men in the area. The secret to his success? His friend, Brigadier-General Shaler, had control over the leasing of “abandoned” lands and the granting of business licenses. Through Shaler, Upham thus secured exclusive rights to operate saloons and purchase cotton, which were activities under U.S. Army supervision. Upham sold these rights to Northern investors in return for ownership interests in each enterprise. He talked his brother into coming to Arkansas, too, and the two of them bought up vast tracts of land that the Army had stolen from their rightful owners. Cases like this occurred in the South over and over again.
Upham, in his own words, believed that Southern Whites should be exterminated, noting: “There is no other way, as I told Governor Clayton, nothing but good, healthy, square, honest killing would ever do them any good.” Clayton, Upham continued, “agreed with me exactly.” From his base at Augusta, Upham’s militia went to work, focused on murdering as many people and plundering as much property, from livestock to money, as it could.
These monsters ran down and shot to death any citizens whom they encountered alone, men, women, and children of all ages and conditions. Countless Arkansans had their homes and businesses looted and incinerated, their barns emptied, their fields stripped. Hundreds of families already near starvation yet again lost all of their earthly possessions. People were dragged from their homes and tortured to death in front of their families; the militiamen often extorted ransom money from their victims and then killed them anyways. Prominent citizens who dared even mildly criticize the militia, from schoolteachers to physicians, were summarily executed, their corpses tossed into the White River. Even a British officer, traveling through Arkansas for his health, was slain.
Confederate veterans met with the most brutal treatment; hundreds of them organized under a former officer and alleged Klan leader, Colonel A.C. Pickett. As Pickett and his men prepared to attack Upham’s headquarters at Augusta, Upham took fifteen leading citizens hostage and promised to kill them and raze the town. Reluctantly, Pickett called off the strike, and Upham ransacked the town anyways.
Meanwhile, Clayton’s men worked much the same carnage in the Southwest. At Center Point, a force of five hundred militiamen converged from three directions and fired indiscriminately into the crowd of concerned citizens. In an all-too-common incident in Sevier County, black militiamen invaded the home of a Mr. Brooks and forced him and his children to watch as they gang-raped Mrs. Brooks.
A Crittenden County woman echoed the near-universal recognition that the Federals, the Carpetbaggers, the Scalawags, and the freedmen who served as their blunt instruments, all were the “emissaries of the Evil One.” Indeed, no thinking man could look at the unforgivable crimes committed against our people and fail to see the hand of Satan. As Christ, through the Apostle Paul, warned us: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
That very same Satanic evil afflicts us today. Just as our forefathers faced the end of all that they had ever known and loved, so too do we. General Lee is reported to have said that, had he “foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.” Imagine what our Confederate heroes would do now, in our stead.
We know how they responded to another totally illegitimate election, 160 years ago. Demon though he was, at least Abraham Lincoln was mentally competent, rather than a human sock puppet for demons unknown, like our current “President.” Our people have been reduced to a new kind of slavery, under a Regime more than ten times as repressive as that which our forefathers gave their all to defeat. The majority population of our nation is slandered and dehumanized at a fever pitch which worsens by the hour. Millions of aliens pour across our wide-open border every day, replacing us in the nation that our fathers built.
Gaze long and hard at these graves. Read the names of these eternal heroes. We have failed them. We surrendered our liberties in the name of an exaggerated “pandemic” without putting up any resistance whatsoever. We allowed the rulers of the darkness of this world to make serfs of us all. The opioid plague has killed almost one million Americans in 20 years, with Arkansas one of the hardest-hit States in the nation. There’s a sodomite pride parade in Bentonville tonight, where children are going to be exposed to sex perverts at a drag show.
What would these men buried here think of us? Could they forgive us for squandering the centuries-long inheritance which they bled themselves dry to transmit to us? Is it too late? Almost—but not yet. We can still take back that which is rightfully ours. The first step in our counterrevolution must be to remember who we are. That, above all, is why all of us are here on this June morning in the twilight of our civilization.
As General Richard Taylor so eloquently reminded us, “Traditions are mighty influences in restraining peoples. The light that reaches us from above takes countless ages to traverse the awful chasm separating us from its parent star; yet it comes straight and true to our eyes, because each tender wavelet is linked to the other, receiving and transmitting the luminous ray. Once break the continuity of the stream, and men will deny its heavenly origin, and seek its source in the feeble glimmer of earthly corruption.”
So, my fellow Arkansans, my fellow Americans: Remember who you are. Remember the suffering endured by those who came before. Remember that, though Heaven is far away, Hell can be reached in a day. Until Christ returns, no one is coming to save us. This nation is ours, and ours alone, to save. Let us take back our homeland, occupied since 1865. Take courage, and be of good cheer, for we will overcome this world.
Avary, Myrta Lockett. Dixie After the War: An Exposition of Social Conditions Existing in the South, During the Twelve Years Succeeding the Fall of Richmond (Doubleday, Page, & Company, 1906).
Bowers, Claude G. The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln (Literary Guild of America, 1929).
Coulter, E. Merton. The South During Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (Louisiana State University Press, 1975).
DeBlack, Thomas A. With Fire and Sword: Arkansas, 1861-1874 (University of Arkansas Press, 2003).
Dunning, William A. Reconstruction, Political and Economic: 1865-1877 (Harper Torchbooks, 1962).
Fleming, Walter Lynwood. The Sequel of Appomattox: A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States (Yale University Press, 1919).
Goodrich, Thomas, & Goodrich, Debra. The Day Dixie Died: Southern Occupation, 1865-1866 (Stackpole Books, 2001).
Harrell, John M. The Brooks and Baxter War: A History of the Reconstruction Period in Arkansas (Slawson Printing Co., 1893).
Henry, Robert Selph. The Story of Reconstruction (Konecky & Konecky, 1999).
Johnson, Ludwell H. North Against South: The American Iliad, 1848-1877 (Foundation for American Education, 1993).
Moneyhon, Carl H. The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on Arkansas: Persistence in the Midst of Ruin (Louisiana State University Press, 1994).
Simkins, Francis Butler. A History of the South (Alfred A. Knopf, 1963).
Smith, John I. Forward From Rebellion: Reconstruction and Revolution in Arkansas, 1868-1874 (Rose Publishing Company, 1983).
Staples, Thomas S. Reconstruction in Arkansas, 1862-1874 (Columbia University, 1923).
Taylor, Richard. Destruction and Reconstruction (Time-Life Books, 1983).
Thomas, David Y. Arkansas in War and Reconstruction (Arkansas Division, United Daughters of the Confederacy, 1926).
Dear Mr. McMillon, Mr. Penner, and the Walmart Board of Directors,
On behalf of the people of Arkansas, I appeal to your patriotism, to your oft-stated love of our great State, and to your heritage, and call upon you to mandate that, within ten years, every product sold in Walmart stores nationwide must be made in America. This “Made in America” mandate would unilaterally force every company on earth that wishes to do business with you to move its production facilities—and all of the jobs that accompany them—back to America, where they belong.
Walmart is singularly able to do this; you wield immense power, with more wealth than most sovereign nations possess. Walmart has created much of this wealth at the expense of the American working class, by choosing to do business with companies that have outsourced American jobs to the Third World, where they can pay their employees slave wages, rather than the decent wages that our fellow citizens deserve.
Each Chinese ship that enters American harbors, laden with cheap, low-quality goods, carries baggage immeasurable in numbers on a balance sheet; no, those Chinese ships sag with a different freight, the weight of millions of unrealized American Dreams, hundreds of emaciated communities, and hundreds of thousands of wasted, shattered lives.
The sellout of our country to China has produced an incalculable toll of human wreckage, not the least of which is the opioid crisis which has raged for the last two decades, killing 850,000 Americans. Few States have suffered more than Arkansas; not only is our State consistently ranked as one of the poorest in the nation, but she has also suffered the third largest increase in the White mortality rate in the country in those same decades.
I do not lay the blame for all of this solely at your feet; but I do lay the solution at your feet. If you institute this “Made in America” mandate, you can singlehandedly bring those jobs back. Walmart is uniquely able to save this country—the nation that you claim to love and to be a part of. You can, in one move, regenerate American manufacturing. No business would dare defy you. Your customers, myself included, would love you with undying devotion. You would go down in history as the men—and the company—that saved America from its death throes.
Though your low prices would certainly increase as a result, your customers would happily pay them in exchange for an economically secure America—and, of course, your working-class customers would be more able to pay for your American-made goods with their long-lost jobs restored to them. Your competitors cannot hold a candle to you, and your customers would never shop elsewhere again.
Remember who you are, and where you came from. Sam Walton never lost sight of that heritage; I suspect that this is the reason that he chose “Made in America” as the title of his autobiography. I, and the people of Arkansas, place our destinies in your hands. Will you rise to the occasion and make history? Is Walmart an Arkansan company, and an American company, or has it forever lost its identity in an impenetrable haze of numbers? Arkansas was once known as the land of opportunity. A Walmart “Made in America” mandate would make it that again.
The year is 2030.
We must celebrate Winter Holiday alone. General Fauci just discovered COVID-666, the thirtieth new strain since the New Normal began; every death on planet earth is attributed to this deadly new variant, just as they have to the other strains every year since Year Zero (formerly known as 2020).
Alone in our climate-friendly shipping container homes, we wear goggles, gloves, and masks. Between bites of our climate-friendly dinner of mashed beetles, we replace our masks. Things will be different when we “flatten the curve,” or when there is a new vaccine, unless the Regime isolates a new strain. Then it’s back to the drawing board.
Occasionally, we can communicate virtually with coworkers—when the climate-friendly rolling blackouts aren’t in effect. We have no “loved ones.” Everyone over the age of sixty lives on COVID reservations in total isolation, and children under the age of eighteen live on government campuses to keep them safe from the pandemic.
A black transgender Santa Claus adorns the wall, next to the Winter Tree decorated with condoms and topped with abortion clamps. “Christmas” is an archaic and offensive term, banned about six years ago along with the racist, misogynistic, anti-Semite that it celebrated, “Jesus Christ.” We only know what the Ministry of Truth tells us, because those nasty Bibles were burned about five years ago.
For dessert, we have our choice of weekly ration from the Ministry of Health. Most of us choose the opioid mixture. If we’ve exhibited no willful behaviors for the past year, and if we’re in compliance with this week’s vaccination requirements, we might be allowed access to the pornography viewer. It was once called a “television,” but its new name reflects its purpose.
The next day, we will get back to work. Nothing has been open for years now, so we don’t ever need to leave our container homes.
It’s a wonderful life.
With The Transgender-Industrial Complex, Scott Howard has given decent, red-blooded Heritage Americans one of the most important books of the 21st century. It is a dizzying tour-de-force, a missile bursting overhead, a fire-bell in the night which defies summarization and simply must be read by every good American left in our fallen, prostrate nation. In The Transgender-Industrial Complex, Mr. Howard has succeeded in naming names, in documenting each and every government, NGO, “nonprofit,” globalist organization, and individual responsible for funding and promoting the grotesque psychosis known as “transgenderism.” Far from the grassroots phenomenon it is presented as, transgenderism is an organized conspiracy with billions of dollars and decades of planning under its belt.
As aforementioned, this book must be read in order to fully understand the enormity, the gravity, of what we face. Think of any powerful institution, corporation, or person—what or whomever you just thought of is almost certainly in this book, or at the very least is scarcely one degree of separation away. An example that might surprise my fellow Arkansans is the Walton Family Foundation and Walmart, Inc. Several names from my alma mater, the University of Chicago, are among this legion of the damned, one of whom I actually have a personal connection to. The Transgender-Industrial Complex is a veritable who’s who of the international ruling class.
One of the most crucial things that we must understand is that it is the same Satanic cabal of the same demons in human skin that is behind not only transgenderism and organized sodomy, but all of the other issues which afflict our people, including infanticide, the Great Replacement, the opioid epidemic, feminism, the growing effort to legalize pedophilia, and the New World Order writ large. Transgenderism is merely yet one more of the social engineering weapons presently engaged in leveling all that stands in the way of the Regime, a Regime which appears to be in the final stages of something darker than we have ever seen, a Regime whose character is fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-White, and anti-human.
The uniquely pernicious feature of transgenderism is its aggressive attack on nature itself; as Mr. Howard puts it, “The intent is clear: to serve as a potent means of propaganda and mind control; to demoralize, weaken, and dumb down the population to make them more compliant; to create a new ‘victim class’ for political exploitation and to further splinter the family and atomize the native population; and to produce new ‘markets’ for increased profit. Some of the worst excesses are very obviously done for sport or out of malice, showing that…it is a rejection of natural law, representative of the advanced decay of a civilization being eaten alive from the inside-out, spreading its diseased anti-morality across the globe. It is, in no uncertain terms, pure evil.”
Transgenderism is “the ultimate form of gaslighting. If you can get a population to accept multitudinous genders when in reality human beings are sexually dimorphic, you can get them to accept anything, even eating maggot sausages to delay the carbon-induced apocalypse. It serves other purposes, too, such as the humiliation and degradation of an occupied state’s population, the literal mental retardation of the affected population, and the added consumer economy windfall produced by people ‘switching genders’ and ‘identifying’ with consumer goods that have been linked to this political/lifestyle/identity choice. It is materialistic, hyper-individualistic, and also totally at odds with reality…surgical modifications and hormones and lies do not undo nature.”
Mr. Howard traces the historical development of this plague in the West, noting its cross-pollination with other Leftist causes célèbre. Of course, Big Gay paved the way for the last decade of transgender victories over traditional America in a sort of mission creep, perhaps better described as a Trojan Horse. Just as the Egalitarian Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s paved the way for the anti-White Regime now in place, as the Communist sex maniac MLK’s so-called “colorblindness” rapidly morphed into the proto-genocidal rhetoric of “Kill the Boer” that we now hear day in and day out from the ruling class. So, too, Big Gay; slogans like “love is love,” in tandem with Big Law, Big Media, and Big Tech, forced sodomite “marriage” upon America, just as we are now told that we must let “trans kids” simply “be themselves.” Ah, yes, how could we stifle little Billy if he wants to castrate himself? That would be bad parenting.
Remember: Sodomite “marriage” was “a sustained, coordinated, and well-funded campaign to manufacture an issue, wear the traditional institutions down, and ultimately impose an agenda through a combination of dubious legislation, judicial activism, bureaucratic machinations, executive fiat, media manipulation, academic indoctrination, mass marketing, and social pressure…It should be clear that love has nothing to do with it: it’s a calculated agenda designed to bend people to the will of the Establishment.” Did anyone expect, even a decade ago, “that we would soon be discussing ‘trans women’s periods’ about hairy men in wigs in mainstream society with a straight face? That people of indeterminate gender who pose spread-legged with splotches of blood on their pants-crotches and hashtag their ‘activism’ on social media would be heralded as the epitome of ‘stunning and brave’? That it would be considered a human right for sex predators to declare themselves another gender in order to use the little girls’ room?”
Quite rightly, Mr. Howard focuses much of his book on what is being done to the weakest members of our society: our children. Transgenderism is well understood at this point to be a textbook social contagion; that is, a sort of viral meme that clusters in friend groups. Parents across the country have seen the pattern all too many times: their child becomes withdrawn, watches YouTube “transition videos,” spends their time on Tumblr, and comes to believe, spurred on by and immersed within an organized network of transgender activists, that they are themselves transgender. It spreads to the rest of the child’s friend group, and, where it doesn’t, the child eliminates the normal people from their life. The links between homosexuality and pedophilia are well-known and little-acknowledged; the same holds for the cult of transgenderism. Our children are being groomed by predators of the most depraved kind.
In 2009, the number of transgenders in America was estimated to be between 115-450,000, or 0.04-0.15% of the population—and growing each and every day. Another 2011 study put the number at .3%, an estimate that increased to 0.6% in 2016. This doubling of self-identifying “trans” people certainly seems to suggest that “the spike can be largely attributed to massive social-reprogramming efforts and incentives for becoming or identifying as transgendered.” The number of the damned continues to metastasize, particularly among our youngest generations, with the number of “trans”-identifying high school students estimated to be at around two percent. More ominously, one recent study purportedly found that twenty percent of respondents aged 18-34 identified as “LGBTQ,” as opposed to twelve percent of respondents aged 35-53 and seven percent of those aged 52-71. Is this because there are more people “born that way” now? Of course not.
Children are bombarded with homosexual-transgender propaganda at home, with their friends, and at schools, aided by a legion of thrilled school nurses, “guidance counselors,” librarians, “pediatricians,” and “child psychiatrists.” Though hard to estimate, parents play a significant role—particularly single mothers. Many of these parents, all of whom should be prosecuted for child abuse, are “incentivized to claim their children are transgender for reasons related to social attention and/or approval and to foster a sense of belonging.” In other words, hip, trendy Leftists virtue signal and compete in the grievance Olympics by saddling their children with debilitating mental illnesses. “Oh, your kid was adopted from Haiti? My kid is trans.” A significant number of these parents, Mr. Howard points out, are also certainly suffering from Munchausen by Proxy syndrome, where mothers harm their children for sympathy and affection.
The State of Washington is now setting up “school-based health centers” where children as young as thirteen may receive “medical treatment,” such as infanticides and gender reassignment pharmaceuticals and surgical operations, without parental consent or notification. School libraries are inundated with books targeted at children, presenting “transitioning” as a virtuous path to self-fulfillment. Thousands of schools across the country, at every level of “education,” have chapters of the GSA Network, formerly the Gay-Straight Alliance and now the Gender and Sexualities Alliance Network. This organization is supremely well-funded, boasting over four thousand chapters that produce “educational” propaganda and indoctrinate children in depravity and self-mutilation. Curricula incorporate homosexual-transgender indoctrination all over America and Europe, funded and promulgated by governments, NGOs like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and the international corporatocracy.
Mr. Howard devotes an entire chapter to one of the most disgusting propaganda and grooming/recruitment vehicles of the homosexual-transgender agenda: Drag Queen Story Hour. These “events,” typically occurring at public libraries and targeted specifically at young children, “feature provocative dancing and BDSM accoutrements such as dog collars; one event featured a drag queen spreading his legs to a group of children, revealing his naked genitalia under a short skirt, and another in Texas was run by a pair of convicted sex offenders…Said one drag queen, ‘We are trying to groom the next generation.’ Indeed.” Drag Queen Story Hour, of course, is flush with cash, funded by familiar villains: the American Library Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, Planned Parenthood, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, along with an almost infinitely long list of other fiends. DQSH also enjoys State support: The city of Spokane, Washington, employed two SWAT snipers and dozens of police officers to protect the pedophiles from a crowd of concerned mothers.
When parents refuse to go along with the ritual mutilation of their children, the Regime prioritizes the homosexual-transgender agenda. A Hamilton County, Ohio, judge gave custody of a “trans” teenager to his grandparents, taking him away from his own parents because they dared to stand up against a team of “doctors” at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital that urged the boy to surgically “transition.” In 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court held that judges can overrule parents on so-called “treatment” for “trans children.” An exemplary case is the tragic saga of James Younger. In 2016, his father, Jeff Younger, initiated divorce proceedings against his wife, Anne Georgulas, a—get this—pediatrician, who was damned and determined to “transition” the then four-year-old James into a girl named Luna. James Younger, it must be said, does not want to be “Luna,” and it is all a project of “Doctor” Georgulas’s deranged mind. In August, 2020, a Leftist judge (redundant, I know) gave Georgulas full, sole custody of James and his medical care.
Of course, the annihilation of the family is the entire point of the “family law” system, as Stephen Baskerville so brilliantly demonstrated in his landmark study, Taken Into Custody. Transgender activists make it their mission to alienate confused children from their loving, concerned families; as College of Charleston professor “Veronica Ivy/Rachel McKinnon” said in a YouTube video on Mother’s Day 2017, if their parents “abuse” them by refusing to accept their new “gender identity,” “it’s okay to walk away…you can find what we call your glitter family. Your queer family.” Make no mistake: The Regime is your “glitter family.”
The LGBT “movement,” Mr. Howard observes, “masquerades as an organic progression of morality toward the heights of tolerance and goodness, while simultaneously destroying any concept of real love or virtue.” This full-scale war on “heteronormativity” began in the universities, where the “assumption” that nuclear families of loving, committed couples raising healthy children together is best for those children and for society is “problematic,” and it must be challenged, nay, dismantled—just like the “patriarchy” and “white supremacy,” etcetera. America’s most “prestigious” universities and research institutions are houses of horror, and should be given the Magnus Hirschfeld treatment.
Consider feminism, the organized drive to deprive women of satisfactory lives, devoted to “campaigning for men masquerading as women and vice versa if they’re not doing the bidding of global capital and conflating empowerment with being either a cog in the corporate machine or becoming glorified prostitutes.” The demonic forces behind feminism “have always viewed the ideology of feminism as highly useful for a variety of reasons, ranging from women as wage depressors and tax cattle to weaponizing them against men and the structure/strictures of traditional society…its mainstream form has always been that which is most advantageous to the ruling class.” This is the essence of transgenderism, to prey upon the vulnerable, “breaking them down and re-forming their identities in the desired image.”
Along with reorienting the foundations of the mind comes the fracturing of the personality, and real psychosis. It is a fact that somewhere between 52-82% of transgenders have at least one DSM-listed mental illness in addition to their gender dysphoria—as Mr. Howard notes, “Happy, well-adjusted people do not join cults.” On the back-end, the transgender suicide rate, even after complete surgical “transition,” is variously estimated at between 18-45%, with most above 30%. Predictably, the rate of “desistance,” or “growing out” of transgender feelings, averages at around 80%.
Why are our children being targeted as the human guinea pigs for sick experimental “medical” procedures? For the same reason they are targeted by pedophiles: because they represent all that is good, innocent, and wholesome in our degraded, despicable society. According to the American Psychiatric Association, children who have just learned how to speak, scarcely two years old, are able to “choose” their “gender identity” and “consent” to irreversible, life-destroying operations and pharmaceuticals, such as hormonal “puberty-blockers” known to interfere with the pituitary gland and thus stunt organ and brain development and growth and cause low bone density, infertility, and IQ, memory, and verbal skill damage. In fact, Lupron, manufactured by AbbVie, is the single most prescribed puberty-blocker being used on children, despite never having been approved by the FDA for that use. Lupron has over 25,000 adverse reports to its name, including 1,500 deaths.
If a girl “identifies” as a boy, she may be prescribed these “puberty-blockers” in order to “prevent her from going through the natural human process of development,” and she would then be prescribed testosterone in an attempt to make her “become” a boy. As one endocrinologist notes, girls are given ten to forty times their normal amount of testosterone, rates similar to the amount of estrogen given to “transitioning” boys. “When people are given far more of the opposite sex hormone than their bodies can handle, they are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular death, deep vein thrombosis.” In America, the age threshold for taking cross-sex hormones was lowered to twelve, and one National Institutes for Health study recommended that the bar be lowered again to eight. To call this child abuse, Mr. Howard writes, “is the understatement of the century. There is nothing stunning and brave about this; it’s sick, and people are profiting from it.”
Transgenderism is big money for Big Pharma; Lupron alone costs almost a thousand dollars a month. Male-to-female genital surgery ranges from twelve thousand dollars for a “penile inversion” to 28 thousand for a “rectosigmoid transfer,” whereby surgeons extract rectal tissue to “construct a vagina.” For female-to-male surgeries, the range can be from six thousand dollars for a mastectomy to over eighty thousand for “the construction of a penis capable of achieving erection and permitting a person to urinate while standing.” These are just the surgeries, excluding the cost of the hormones, the puberty-blockers, the plastic surgery, the new outfits, and so forth. Mr. Howard makes the biting observation that “you can actually compare prices online to find the cheapest vaginoplasties.”
Mr. Howard raises a chilling, often-overlooked issue—the proliferation, often via biomagnification, of mind-altering pharmaceuticals in the water supply:
Given what we know about our ruling class, it’s probably also in the public water supply, as most wastewater-treatment systems aren’t designed to remove hormones, antidepressants, and other drugs, and furthermore, a docile population is an easy population to control. So is a sick one, which the reorientation of the medical system to treatment rather than prevention with the embrace of pharmaceutical and surgical interventions concurrent with an intentional marginalization of homeopathic medicine and a neglect of nutrition attests to. The proliferation of harmful chemicals in our environment is also depleting the soil and making us profoundly sick, and the nature of food production has seen the nutritive quality of food decline in conjunction with our health. Still, they wouldn’t intentionally poison us, would they?
The man-made and destroyed environment of modernity, he continues, “is weakening our immune systems and both suppressing testosterone and elevating estrogen in men, which in turn also produces a weakened immune system. Perversely, the entire medical establishment claims that high testosterone in men causes immunosuppression and dumbs you down, when the opposite, as always, is true.”
It bears repeating that the LGBT agenda is not an organic, grassroots “movement,” but rather a revolution from above, “a behemoth so vast and insidious that its breadth cannot be fully described.” This swarm of locusts devouring our nation from within is damned—literally—and determined “to undermine the host societies and transform them into something wicked, decadent, and broken.” The propaganda machine works synchronously with the other tentacles of the anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-national, and anti-natal New World Order, each indistinguishable from the other as “reflections of corruption, the marshaling of the disintegrative and corrosive death-forces against those of light and life.” This is “the product of a few wealthy and powerful people, mostly of one ethno-religious group and/or sexual proclivity or proclivities forcing the issue.” Indeed, I would be remiss not to point out that a central finding of The Transgender-Industrial Complex is the unmistakably heavy predominance of Jewish Leftists (including “neoconservatives”) in the funding and dissemination of the homosexual-transgender agenda.
Assemble the puzzle: “viral memes and thought contagions, the ubiquity of support and increasingly incentivizing of ‘trans’ by every significant and many insignificant institutions, the role of technology and social media in isolation and recruitment/grooming, various social pressures, the breakdown of the family and other institutions that provide stability and meaning…we see once again a deeply-enmeshed set of conditions that work synergistically in spreading and amplifying harmful beliefs.” Mr. Howard describes how “the forces of dissolution and decay marshal their ill-gotten power against the world, treating us as ‘human resources’ to be exploited and sucked dry before discarding the husk. In the ultimate irony, we are left asking where the humanity is in this system—a system that channels the energies of something much darker, a system that goes beyond political or even racial or religious quarrels to the heart of something cosmic.”
I experienced a sinking feeling throughout the book, which continued to accelerate the deeper I got. Consider the “human right” of “sex ed,” now mandated in elementary schools across America, the “mandated requirement in this ludicrous, insane, and dehumanizing system run by sociopaths who believe that man may defy the rules of nature—may be above nature—and that we are all infinitely malleable to be molded into the crude and broken shapes of their choosing. Their vision of progress signals the realization of man’s triumph over any and all limitations, a vision that imbues them with the arrogance of believing they can dictate the terms to all life on earth and stay the forces of nature. They truly believe they can live forever through manmade means and bend reality to their will, assured in what is to them the incontrovertible truth that they themselves are not just godlike, but are actual gods. In truth, they actually resemble demons.”
A man called Ray Caruso recently left this comment on a piece on Counter-Currents: Leftists “are malignant nihilists who take the side of evil, destruction, falsehood, ugliness, and filth on all issues, all the way, all the time. They are bad people. The cause of their state of being is spiritual, not biological. They hate God, wish [that] there were no God, and want to set themselves up as gods, which is why having the power of life and death over the unborn, the elderly, and the frail is so important to them…Instead of godhood, they will get slavery, of which iceberg the…Great Reset is [but] the merest tip. The problem is that they will drag the rest of us into their scheme, like they have dragged us into their previous destructive schemes, and they will murder those of us who resist. No coexistence with them is possible; it’s us or it’s them.” That about says it all.
Mr. Howard closes The Transgender-Industrial Complex with a powerful call to action: “Righteous fury and indignation, the cleansing which must surely take place for us to survive, will have its share of ‘evil’ of a kind, but it is not evil as such. It is the capacity for retribution, for violence, to kill to survive, that is harnessed for the good of life itself that is eminently necessary…The lover of life is the one who will kill for it, and for his kith and kin, especially his progeny, which is to say that he will have transcended the materialist illusion through his bloodline and his people, using the tools available to him to restore something that is at once new and eternal, particular and universal, reflecting Truth and Order…We are now faced with a choice: live--really live—in accordance with nature and cosmic principles, or die ignominiously in darkness.” As Revilo Oliver wrote, “What do we owe the rest of the world? Nothing, absolutely nothing…This is our country. He who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose—nay, it is our duty to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity--it is our duty to use all feasible means to destroy him.”
I ask: What kind of demonic, disgusting, vile, suicidal, Satanic society allows—no, encourages—its children to be brainwashed into psychosis and genital mutilation? Is the “conservative” Supreme Court going to stand in the way? How about Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, whom the cocktail conservative class has declared to be the defenders of Western civilization? Of course not. What a sick joke that is. The Georgia Senate runoffs will not stop this. The Republican Party cares more about the prosperity of its foreign donors than its voters and countrymen. The GOP will never lift one finger to save us. We are merely grist for the mill. They’re going to “hold the line” against the totalitarian Left? Get real.
Let us not lose hope, though; the Regime is not bulletproof. It is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but rather arrogant, glutted, and unprepared to face a real threat, because it hasn’t faced one in a tragically long time. Patriots, I repeat: read Scott Howard’s excellent book, a magnificent addition to the corpus of literature documenting the dark, cloven-hooved track of the Enemy through our nation. How much more humiliation can we take? I pray that the answer reveals itself soon. Of one thing, I am certain: this is not a part of the normal historical cycle. No, it is something else entirely, something far darker. They really are out to get us. Remember each and every name listed in The Transgender-Industrial Complex. It might come in handy someday.
It is often said that the Left is an ouroboros, a circular firing squad, a purity spiral that will eventually disintegrate amidst savage infighting. This is probably true, but they will remain united so long as there exists one unreconstructed white man in America—and probably as long as there exist any whites in America. The situation most closely approximates the temporary coalescence of the disparate elements of the postwar American Right against the Soviet menace; as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, a brief internecine battle resulted in the neoconservatives, scarcely a generation removed from their Trotskyist fathers, hijacking the Right for their own nefarious ends.
The Enemy sees in black and white, with no gradations; take the ongoing censorship of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage, for example. The book demonstrates that the burgeoning phenomenon of transgenderism among American youth is a textbook case of social contagion, but its argument is painstakingly limited only to argue that more scrutiny be given where children entertain these life-ruining decisions. Ms. Shrier is most emphatically not anti-transgender; in fact, she supports the barbaric practice of “gender reassignment surgery” for adults. That she raises concerns that children are making these decisions with nothing but encouragement from adults who should know better has made her a figure of hatred from the unhinged Left. Even the slightest divergence from the present and ever-shifting orthodoxy is enough to garner “undesirable” status.
Further fueling the new Bolshevism is the knowledge that, at least for the time being, the footsoldiers of the corporatocracy can operate with near-total impunity. Middle-American patriots are a stateless people, with little to no representation in our government. Each spot of hope, such as the Barr/Durham probe of the Russia hoax, is eventually dashed as yet another Deep State cleanup operation. Until the entire federal bureaucracy is purged, this will continue.
I remain very optimistic that President Trump will emerge victorious from this color revolution, surely the most brazen coup attempt in American history. What comes next? Another four years of a ceaselessly shrieking media parroting the party line that Donald Trump is “illegitimate.” At first glance, this seems like nothing new. Far from it—indeed, the new “illegitimacy” is something else entirely.
For much of President Trump’s first term, the totalitarian Left had an external bogeyman in which it could invest all of its bile: Russia. Yes, the ruling class certainly disgorged its seething contempt for the common Middle-American man, a hatred which has festered for decades. Yes, this revulsion from above often translated into savage violence from below, directed at Trump supporters and other whites who do not hate themselves by the coalition of the damned that now constitutes the Democrat Party.
Yet in all of this, Leftist leaders still indulged in false appeals to the Constitution, presenting themselves as the true guarantors of a mythical, egalitarian Founding woven by neoconservative court historians, with American history rewritten as a long march toward sodomite marriage, transgender children, and the replacement of the Historic American Nation.
Now, assuming that the coup is defeated, these Leftist appeals to an ahistorical, bastardized Constitution will stop. The external “Russia” will now be directed inwards, fully at the American patriots who voted for Donald Trump and at the system of government that arrested their Great Reset—at least for now. The bastard “Constitution” will cease to be the valiant barrier to a foreign actor, and the real Constitution will be the menace that must be annihilated. Thus, I suspect that the ruling class will drop all pretense of its independence from the terrorists of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, and begin to call and act more forcefully for the destruction of our nation and its people.
Remember: The Enemy already tells us that we are an “illegitimate” people, that we do not belong here, that this is not our nation anymore, that it was never ours. Native Europeans are told the same in their home countries. Where, then, are whites supposed to go? The answer requires no divination. The new Bolsheviks will take their coming defeat as proof that they must escalate their tactics. There will be blood. Meanwhile, the liquidation of the benighted, deplorable American kulak rolls on.
The Leftist political violence that has engulfed the disintegrating American nation for much of the past year traces its origin on the North American continent to the infernal life of the original American terrorist, John Brown. Like the terrorists of today who prey upon ordinary, everyday patriots, John Brown enjoyed the financial and media support of all of the leading lights of the North, who hailed the murderous maniac as a hero of “the people.” The grisly career of John Brown began in 1856, with the massacre of five innocents along the banks of Pottawatomie Creek as part of the paroxysm of violence known as Bleeding Kansas, and met its end with the abortive raid at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.
The cabal that armed, financed, and advised the terrorist was the Secret Six: The Unitarian (i.e., apostate) “Reverends” Theodore Parker and Thomas Higginson, the physician Samuel Howe, the industrialist George Stearns, the “social scientist” Franklin Sanborn, and the multimillionaire Gerrit Smith, the profligate heir to a partner of John Astor. These wealthy, influential, and—above all—fanatical abolitionists were animated by one purpose: to destroy the South and remake it in their image. When their efforts led “not only to bloody murder, but to a great…war, they were praised as patriots and humanitarians…But they really contemptible men who hired an assassin, armed a murderer, supported secret crime in the name of compassion, and dealt their country a terrible blow while claiming the motives of angels.”
The Northern Milieu
Religious apostasy combined with political fervor in the North to forge the new faith of militant abolitionism. New England was long a hotbed of heresy, as the grandchildren of the Puritans drifted into Unitarianism, denying the divinity of Jesus Christ and openly scorning the inerrancy of the Scripture, deconstructing the Word of God into tattered “mountains of footnotes, denials, and arguments.” Abolitionism infused with Unitarianism cloaked itself in the language of Christian rhetoric, in which slavery was rendered a “sin,” and Southerners incorrigible, unrepentant “sinners,” fit for nothing short of the fires of Hell.
The “Reverend” Theodore Parker, so far afield that even the theological liberals of the Boston scene ostracized him, began delivering heretical sermons at the Melodeon theater; his “Free Church” attracted hundreds of attendees every week, including Samuel Howe, his wife Julia Ward, and future Radical Senator Charles Sumner. In May, 1854, Parker, Howe, Thomas Higginson, and several others, including Wendell Phillips, orchestrated a violent, frenzied mob and led an assault on the Boston Courthouse to attempt to free a fugitive slave who had just been arrested. The men put their considerable oratorical skill to raise the temperature. Phillips cried, “The question is…whether Virginia conquers Massachusetts!” Parker continued, “Fellow subjects of Virginia!” The crowd echoed with resounding shouts of “No! Never!” A Court officer was murdered in the melee that ensued.
The destruction and reconstruction of the South, the last bastion of traditional America, became a crusade of religious dimensions. The South simmered “under a wave of denigration that issued from hundreds of Northern presses and hundreds more lecture platforms. The South’s culture and religion were denied, its classes mocked, its heritage and accomplishments ignored. Millions of Northerners regarded the South as a region of nightmare and evil.” Southern anger rightfully increased in proportion with “a Northern barrage that insisted the South revolutionize itself, dislocate its economy, and change its pattern of relations between the races—all to please the consciences of men in another region who would suffer no pain, loss, or change of status.”
The Constitution, abolitionists held, “was a lawyer’s contract that claimed no higher moral law than its managers, who represented themselves as reflecting the will of the people. Since such a will was undefined and indefinable, lawyers made up the rules and procedures of government as they went along, within limits that were often ignored, slyly subverted, or poorly guarded.” Though this is a salient point, especially with regards to the past century of constitutional abrogation and subversion, the abolitionists, just as Leftists today, really meant that the American system of government was ripe for the picking by anyone who cared to seize the initiative.
With the Kansas-Nebraska Act, in which the Missouri Compromise was overturned in favor of the principle of determining the status of slavery in the new territories on the basis of popular sovereignty, the Yankee Eli Thayer organized the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society, the first of many organized bodies with the goal of pumping Northerners into the new State in order to use “squatter sovereignty” to ensure that Kansas would be a “free” State. Senator David Atchison, in large part responsible for moving Senator Stephen Douglas and President Franklin Pierce to support the Act, was understandably furious at the abolitionists’ brazen efforts to subvert the legislation that he had crafted so painstakingly.
Senator Atchison thus organized the Southern response, emulating the very tactics of their Northern adversaries. Missourians began inundating Kansas in order to seize the territorial government first. Due to their geographic proximity, they initially succeeded, though Kansas would eventually be officially admitted to the Union as a “free” State in early 1861, after the South had withdrawn its leaders from the Yankee Congress—and after Northern immigrants demographically overtook the Southern settlers, with Yankees constituting nearly ninety percent of the new settlers by 1857. For now, at least, Southerners overwhelmed the territorial elections, treating the event as a classic “romp, complete with rallies, buckboards, costumes, whiskey, shooting matches, and…parades. In the process, the thousands that poured across the border whooped and shouted…and defied…the territorial Governor to undo the election results.” Even without the invasion from Missouri, the Southern contingent would have won, having settled Kansas first.
The stakes of this conflict cannot be overstated; as immigrants filled the North, as the North conquered the West, as Northern industrial capitalism burgeoned, Southerners bore witness to their declining influence in the corridors of power. If more “free” States were admitted, “the precarious balance of power maintained since the Missouri Compromise of 1820 would tilt, and the South would inevitably become helpless against Northern votes.” Dixie thus moved inexorably “toward the condition of a garrison state in its own nation.” Senator John C. Calhoun understood that any shift in power against the South would be accompanied by a reinterpretation of the Constitution, the emancipation of slaves, and “the overthrow of Southern whites.” He warned that “in the hours of abolitionist triumph, the blacks would be raised to favor, office and power. The South would then become the abode of disorder, anarchy, and wretchedness.” It would not be long before Reconstruction proved the prescience of his dire warnings.
Northern abolitionists believed that only one avenue was left to their dark designs: political terrorism. There was precedent: within eight months of the launch of William Garrison’s Liberator, Nat Turner led his horde to massacre at least 57 whites in Southampton County, Virginia, shocking Southerners to their core at “the realization that men of their own race, in their own country, would consign them to death at the hands of another race.” By the 1850s, abolitionists had begun openly calling for Southern blood, “for sacrifices in the name of liberty” and in the name of their heretical god. The leaders of the Emigrant Aid Society, an umbrella organization with innumerable branches, started funneling arms into Kansas. Naturally, the territory rapidly degenerated into horrific violence that lasted for years thereafter. As George Stearns said, “A revolution was what the country needed.”
Enter John Brown. On a dark midnight in May, 1856, Brown, four of his sons, his son-in-law, and two companions butchered five innocent settlers and ruined the lives of the widows and orphans they left behind. As they slank from cabin to cabin, slicing their victims’ dogs to pieces as they went, they announced themselves as “the Northern Army.” James Doyle was shot point-blank in the face, his corpse badly mutilated just after he fell. His son, William, was stabbed in the face, slashed over the head, and shot in the side, while another of his sons, Drury, was beaten and hacked to death, losing his fingers and arms in the process. His head was cut open, and he was stabbed and hacked at long after death.
At the next cabin, Brown and his men dealt a similar death to the elderly Mr. Wilkinson, as Mrs. Wilkinson begged for her husband’s life. At the James Harris cabin, which its occupants had left unlocked, this being a safe community, Brown’s bastards awoke the men with swords at their throats, hissing, “The Northern army is upon you.” Here, they took one man to the Pottawatomie and sliced him to death. One blow of the saber severed his left hand, save for a strand of flesh, as he raised it in futile defense. His skull was opened in two places, “and he fell headlong into the shallows…the chilly waters of the river gradually carried away part of his brain.” Though the murders of these innocents made no secret of their acts, nary a one of them was ever brought to justice for their crimes.
The Pottawatomie Massacre was committed amidst a highly organized and coordinated plot to drive Southern settlers from Kansas. The Emigrant Aid Society accelerated its arms shipments, with Gerrit Smith publicly urging a “real war upon the Missourians.” In the summer of 1856, a series of savage attacks against Southern settlers erupted, their homes plundered and razed, their livestock stolen or slaughtered, their families humiliated and exterminated from the crimson plain. The guerrilla war was waged under cover of night, where “settlers were forced to declare for North or South—often before men whose purposes were hidden until after the declaration was made.”
Of course, such organized violence “could not have been possible, nor could it have proceeded, without a covering legend by Northern newspapermen, who shrouded its significance from the nation. That legend was woven and spread by a small coterie of rabidly abolitionist journalists in the territory,” who wrote florid tales of a fabricated “reign of terror” by Southern “Border Ruffians” against “Free-State” settlers. The propaganda was widely disseminated across the North, generating “a great wave of anger and indignation. It succeeded in etching an ineradicable image” of Southern barbarity. Beyond its imaginative mendacity, however, the real significance of the fiction is that “it appeared just before the opposing forces launched a real reign of terror.” Abolitionist agents-provocateur seeded the Northern presses with an endless stream of falsehoods, including numerous accounts which excused John Brown’s Pottawatomie murders by ridiculing the five victims as having gotten precisely what they deserved.
The Road to Harpers Ferry
In 1847, a decade before Pottawatomie, John Brown met Frederick Douglass for the first time, at Brown’s home. After “a long preamble in which he cursed slaveholders as bitterly as a black man,” Brown elucidated his mission to the black leader. Essentially, Brown planned to marshal an army in the Southern heartland whose numbers would be supplemented by fugitive slaves. When Douglass inquired as to how Brown’s army would subsist, the terrorist replied: “Upon the enemy. Slavery was a state of war, and a slave had a right to anything necessary to his freedom.” This anticipated the later sermons of Theodore Parker, who would argue that slaves had a “right to kill” for “freedom.” When Douglass raised still more issues of practicability, Brown expressed the utmost confidence, yet happily conceded that “if the worst came, he could but be killed, and he had no better cause for his life than to lay it down in the cause of the slave.” Douglass spent the night contemplating Brown’s words. Like most abolitionists, Douglass expounded a policy of peaceful resistance; in Salem, Ohio, however, after his night with John Brown, the black leader said openly, for the first time, that slavery “could only be destroyed by bloodshed.”
After Pottawatomie, the terrorist embarked upon a fundraising tour, visiting, among others, Ohio Governor Salmon Chase, who gave Brown not only money, but a letter of endorsement. Brown made his way to Gerrit Smith, and then to his old friend, Frederick Douglass. The murderer petitioned the Secret Six—Howe, Higginson, Parker, Sanborn, Smith, and Stearns—for thirty thousand dollars to arm and provision a force under his command to “fight for freedom” in Kansas. Parker, and likely his comrades as well, saw in Brown great potential as an experiment: “I doubt whether things of this kind will succeed. But we shall have a great many failures before we discover the right way of getting at it. This may well be one of them.”
Near the dawn of January, 1857, the Massachusetts Kansas Aid Committee met, voting to give Brown two hundred rifles stored in the cellar of the Reverend John Todd in Tabor, Iowa, plus four thousand ball cartridges and over thirty thousand percussion caps. Shortly thereafter, Brown sat for a meeting with Senator Charles Sumner. In New York, the terrorist appeared before the National Kansas Aid Committee, which, despite giving him a significantly cooler reception than he had had in Boston, cautiously endorsed his conspiracy to raise an insurrectionary army and attack the South. His plan now fully in motion, the fanatic charged ahead with more fundraising.
Brown spent a night with Ralph Emerson and Henry Thoreau, regaling the transcendentalists with the tales of his exploits in Kansas. Later, Emerson recalled that Brown had said that he “believes in two articles…the Golden Rule and the Declaration of Independence…Better that a whole generation of men, women, and children should pass away by a violent death, than that one word of either should be violated in this country.” With the enlistment of these literati in his program of carnage, John Brown “entered the literature of the nation—as a hero.” The writers gave Brown a donation, as did the railroad magnate John Forbes. On another trip, Brown called upon Douglass again, honing his plans in Douglass’s guest room.
Thomas Higginson needed no convincing, and began his own fundraising drive for Brown’s army. As Higginson remarked, “I am always willing to invest in treason.” Franklin Sanborn, for his part, only disagreed with the use of the word “treason,” declaring, more aptly than he could have known, that “the Union is evidently on its last legs, and Buchanan is laboring to tear it in pieces. Treason will not be treason much longer, but patriotism.” Speaking before the American Antislavery Convention in New York, Higginson declared that “the question of slavery is a stern and practical one. Give us the power, and we can make a new Constitution…how is that power to be obtained? By politics? Never. By revolution, and that alone.”
On March 5, 1858, Brown met the Secret Six in Boston. All of the men “had grown absolutely bloodthirsty…they cheerfully contemplated the shedding of innocent blood.” As Gerrit Smith wrote Representative Joshua Giddings, “The slave will be delivered by the shedding of blood—and the signs are multiplying that this deliverance is at hand.” Representative Giddings and Senator Sumner were not the only politicians involved in the proceedings, for Sumner’s senior Massachusetts Senator, Henry Wilson, was also aware of Brown’s bloody scheme. In fact, the two were observed dining together on at least one occasion.
When Samuel Howe introduced the terrorist to his young bride, Julia Ward, he praised Brown as a “very remarkable man…who seemed to intend to devote his life to the redemption of the colored race from slavery, even as Christ had willingly offered his life for the salvation of mankind.” Howe went so far as to give Brown his own rifle and two revolvers. Around this time, the Howes visited Charleston, South Carolina, as guests of Frank Hampton. Frank’s brother, Wade, graciously received the Howes at his mansion as well. In the face of the planter’s Southern hospitality, Dr. Howe was “stricken to think that war could sweep down on such people”—especially when Wade Hampton assured him, “We mean to fight for it.” Franklin Sanborn, fellow member of the Secret Six, wrote that “it shocked Howe to think that he might be instrumental in giving up to flames and pillage their noble mansions.” Howe cannot have been too concerned about the fate of the Hampton family, though, for his bloodlust was unslaked.
Brown’s army now numbered 21: sixteen whites and five blacks. As his preparations continued apace, he stoked the passions of his men by serving them a ceaseless barrage of pseudo-Biblical exhortations about “purging the land with blood.” In time, Virginia was selected as their staging area. Though he had originally planned to launch his attack on July 4, 1859, his preparations were not completed in time. By mid-August, he and his followers were established near Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Brown met with Frederick Douglass once more, detailing his plan to seize the Federal arsenal and raise a servile insurrection against the whites. It bears repeating that, though the conspiracy in all of its details will never be fully illuminated, it is clear that the entire network of Northern abolitionists was intimately intertwined, and that practically every abolitionist leader was aware of and—whether tacitly or openly—endorsed John Brown’s program of mass murder.
On Sunday, October 16, 1859, Brown and his army shifted into action. They entered Harpers Ferry and captured several hostages, while a second group abducted Lewis Washington, a descendant of the American Cincinnatus, plundering his home for good measure. Among the family heirlooms stolen were a pistol that had been given to our first President by the Marquis de Lafayette and a dress sword given by Frederick the Great of Prussia. Brevet Colonel Robert E. Lee and Lieutenant J.E.B. Stuart were dispatched to Harpers Ferry, where, within less than 36 hours, Brown’s attempt at fomenting a mass slave insurrection was brought to its ignominious end. By the final assault, ten of Brown’s terrorists were killed, with another seven later arrested and executed. One Federal soldier was killed, as were six civilians, including Mayor Fontaine Beckham. Though John Brown did not accomplish his mission on that October day, the war that he had hoped to spark was little more than one year away.
The Canonization of a Killer
Almost as soon as the debacle at Harpers Ferry was done with, the Secret Six got to work destroying any material evidence linking them to the terrorist. Several conspirators fled the country. One of Brown’s “soldiers,” Francis Merriam, managed to escape the raid, and was put on a northbound train by Henry Thoreau himself, traveling under the name “Mr. Lockwood.” John Brown’s carpetbag, recovered by the State of Virginia, contained several documents directly implicating Frederick Douglass, Gerrit Smith, and Representative Joshua Giddings. Senator James Mason and Governor Henry Wise, both of Virginia, as well as Representative Clement Vallandigham, the future Copperhead leader, knew full well “that Brown was a creature of the Emigrant Aid Society, of New England, of Ohio abolitionists, and of other Republicans. They sought to get him to admit these connections, and expose his sources of guns, pikes, money, and men. Brown said he acted alone. But the South…knew better.”
Indeed, “the North could not admit what John Brown could not admit. As in the case of the Pottawatomie murders, Northern newspapers and their readers began to avert their eyes and to deny the evidence.” The significance of the attack, as well as that of the lives of those innocents so ruthlessly slain, was minimized, while Brown’s “glorious goals” were incessantly lionized. In the South, however, Harpers Ferry was seen for exactly what it was: proof positive of the widely-held Northern desire “to see the whites of the South massacred…to impose a new morality.” As the murderer’s trial approached its inevitable conclusion, “the Northern press began an idealization unprecedented in the history of the nation. George Washington had never enjoyed such a press; Lincoln later would not be so well treated. Until Brown’s time, no American—including the heroes of the Revolution—had enjoyed such a steady series of admiring descriptions and slanted reportage as the terrorist received in the North.”
Ralph Emerson declared that “Brown was a hero of romance and seems to have made this fatal blunder only to bring out his virtues. I must hope for his escape at the last moment.” Brown was “the Saint, whose fate yet hangs in suspense, but whose martyrdom, if it shall be perfected, will make the gallows as glorious as the Cross.” After the execution, Thoreau outdid his friend, continuing the preposterous Unitarian heresy, writing that it was Brown’s doctrine “that a man has a perfect right to interfere with force with the slaveholder, in order to rescue the slave. I agree with him…Some eighteen hundred years ago, Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are two ends of a chain which is not without its links. He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an angel of light.”
When Brown was executed, Colonel J.T.L. Preston shouted from atop his horse: “So perish all such enemies of Virginia! All such enemies of the Union! All such enemies of the human race!” Meanwhile, rallies of hundreds and thousands met, cannons fired, and church bells tolled across the North, mourning and commemorating the killer’s “martyrdom.” Wendell Phillips captured the Northern mood well: “The lesson of the hour is insurrection. Insurrection of thought always precedes insurrection of arms. We seem to be entering on a new phase…Virginia is a pirate ship, and John Brown sails the seas as a Lord High Admiral of the Almighty, with his commission to sink every pirate he sees…Harpers Ferry is the Lexington of today.” Southerners “were first amazed and then driven into fury by the Northern elevation of John Brown. Revelations that his raid had been incited, financed, and armed by famous persons in the North, and that other Northerners rose to praise the terror he created, imbued the people of the South with fear—and with a rising realization that something new and dangerous in racial conflicts was upon them.”
Southerners saw Harpers Ferry as the harbinger of doom that it was. Naturally, a siege mentality finally cemented itself in the South. The people of Dixie stood alone; the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court had proven that the institutions of the Union were unable to stymie the rising tide of blood, unable to quiet the voices of demons such as Representative Giddings, now publicly and gleefully looking forward to the time “when the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns and cities of the South, and blot out the last vestiges of slavery,” unable to muzzle William Garrison, who had, at the time of the Kansas troubles, called for the shooting of all slaveholders, and said, “Who will go for the arming of our slave population?” The ferociously violent orations of William Seward, of Emerson, of Thoreau, of Phillips, and of Sumner, the subsidized distribution of Hinton Helper’s The Impending Crisis of the South, the lunatic sermons of a bastardized faith, and an endless mudslide of Yankee vitriol “were a virtually unanswerable argument that the North was preparing to destroy the white South, in the name of the blacks.”
John Brown’s body was honored--worshipped might be more accurate—in several Northern cities on a multi-day funeral procession. In New York City, his Southern coffin was exchanged for one of Northern wood. For the duration of the tour, “the North indulged in a frenzy of mourning far greater than any ever before seen. Its intensity rose like a rocket on the day of Brown’s hanging, and remained high over the Northern skies for weeks. Buildings in Cleveland were draped in black; black-bordered poems and elegies appeared in newspapers; sermons were preached in hundreds of pulpits; rallies, demonstrations, and special prayer meetings were held.” In Concord, for example, Emerson, flanked by Thoreau and Amos Alcott, “presided over a ceremony in which poems and elegies were read, and a dirge, composed by Sanborn, was sung.” In hamlets, towns, and cities throughout the North, “militia assembled to fire salutes into the air while church bells tolled, as though for the passing of a great and revered national leader.” Soon, Julia Ward Howe would write “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” to the tune of “John Brown’s Body.”
John Brown’s body lies not buried. He marches now every day across our whilom land. His eyes blaze in the sallow, sunken face of every single Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” terrorist now working to destroy the American nation. Their spirit, the very same miasma that bestowed purpose upon Brown’s miserable shambles of a life, is captured no more wholly than by Ralph Emerson’s sneering words: “If it costs ten years, and ten to recover the general prosperity, the destruction of the South is worth so much.”
What will it take for my fellow Arkansans to stand up against betrayal after betrayal by our Republican officials? Governor Hutchinson has decided that he is an autocrat, unilaterally decreeing that we wear demonstrably worthless masks. Doubtless, he’ll try to make the “vaccine” mandatory too. Our Governor also took it upon himself to staff an again totally unnecessary “police reform committee” with “Black Lives Matter” black supremacists whose goal is the total abolition of our police. The Governor isn’t alone, though.
Representative French Hill, of our Second Congressional District, recently voted with the Democrats to whitewash — or should I say blackwash — the U.S. Capitol by removing all traces of Southern heroes, including statues of any man who served in the government or armed forces of the Confederate States of America. That’s not all: the bill that Representative Hill has voted for will also remove statues of John C. Calhoun and James Paul Clarke, a former U.S. Senator and Governor of our great State of Arkansas.
Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton just voted to pass the new National Defense Authorization Act and thereby strip the names of Confederate officers from military bases. Who are they going to name them after now? Al Sharpton, as President Trump jokingly suggested? Harriet Tubman? John Brown? Nat Turner? Denmark Vesey? Toussaint Louverture? The Marquis de Sade? To Senator Cotton’s credit, he did weaken this legislation from its initial form, though this is not the point. To put the icing on the cake, Arkansas Republicans led by the Governor and State Senator Jim Hendren are pushing through our first “hate crime” statute. “Hate crimes,” of course, are selectively-enforced weapons used to punish thoughtcrime. How can the State criminalize an emotion? Does “hate” make a crime worse, somehow? Of course not.
On the second morning of September, construction crews removed the Confederate monument that has rested for 112 years at the heart of the town square in my home, Bentonville, in Northwest Arkansas. Through some positively sinister chicanery, “Black Lives Matter” financier Walmart and its personal County Judge, Republican Barry Moehring, forced the United Daughters of the Confederacy to remove the monument. The public was told, in a bald-faced lie, that this was the decision of the UDC. Our Republican officials promised us for years that no action would be taken on our monument without a vote.
All of this merely scratches the surface. By these actions, Arkansas Republicans are legitimating the lies that underpin the entire 1619 Revolution underway in our dying nation. They are tacitly endorsing the wanton destruction of our culture and our history. Why should we let them pretend any longer that they have our backs, that they give a lick about our Southern heritage, about our American heritage? We cannot afford to send any more treacherous, spineless cocktail “conservatives” to represent us. They don’t. They represent our dispossessors. It’s time that we remind them whose State they live in.
Why did the United States Constitution fail? That it has failed is beyond doubt, as is the how, the method by which it was subverted and enervated; the question of why, however, remains open to debate. Did the Constitution fail because it was “open to interpretation”? If so, if its Framers truly meant for it to be “interpretable,” why was there no expressly delineated methodology for doing so? If one asserts, against the great weight of historical evidence, that the Framers did intend for our Constitution to be malleable to the ephemeral whims of our inferiors, one must still ask precisely how that interpretive work was to be done. The American “Right” answers the interpretability and malleability questions with an emphatic yes, and posits an equally emphatic “original intent” for its preferred rule of interpretation. This textual originalism has always been my approach, but it is almost as compromised as the laissez faire “living Constitution” perversion.
The Constitution was perfectly suited for the Anglo-American colonist-turned-citizen, the virtuous Christian man, and fell apart when God was removed and the Anglo-American disenfranchised through egalitarian mass democracy. Then, the Constitution was readily abused. Could the Constitution have been made “abuse-proof”? No more than a people can be made immune to the evil which stains their nature. The Founders acknowledged this in their recognition that a Constitution can only be as good as the people it purports to represent. Does this necessarily mean that the Constitution carried within it the seeds of its own destruction? Could it have been any other way? Aside from reserving American citizenship to “free white persons” in the very first session of Congress in 1790, the Founding generation did not feel it necessary to take any meaningful steps to ensure that their nation would remain the morally virtuous, white, Christian country that it was. They undertook no “citizen-building” program as they built the nation. Why? They didn’t need to. Though they had their concerns, there is no way that they could have predicted the decline and fall of their proud people into a subjugated heathenism.
i recently wrote a treatise on what I have termed the foundations of the Egalitarian Regime. On two installments, the same brilliant comment was left by H.V. Traywick, Jr., an excerpt of Hamlet, Act V, Scene I. Hamlet asks Horatio, “Is not parchment made of sheepskins?” Horatio answers, “Aye, my Lord, and of calfskins, too.” Hamlet concludes, “They are sheep and calves which seek out assurance in that.” I can picture in all too vivid relief the dark, irradiated wasteland that “the United States” will be in a decade or less, with a few surviving soot-stained former Republican legislators muttering to themselves, “At least we still have the Constitution.” What is the point, the purpose, of this exercise, of undertaking an exploration of what its Framers intended their Constitution to mean? What is the point of demonstrating that each daily depredation on our liberties is unconstitutional? In other words, who cares? Who is listening?
We have allowed unaccountable, virtually omnipotent kritarchs (whose power, mind you, comes only from our subservient refusal to challenge their atrocious usurpations) to unilaterally declare what is or is not “constitutional,” based on a bastardized version of “precedent.” The cocktail “conservatives” who parrot the originalist line today simply uphold the last eighty years’ worth of patently unconstitutional Leftist rulings, while the rest of American history is jettisoned into the ether. We have allowed our Constitution to become nothing more than meaningless, shapeless putty in the hands of demons. Again, the Constitution failed. The Founders placed their Republic into the hands of fools who proved themselves incapable of keeping it. The only possible purpose that I can see for investigating and illuminating the original intent is that Americans — specifically, white, conservative Americans — still at least nominally proclaim to revere the Founders and the Constitution. What will they do with this knowledge? If experience is any predictor, nothing.
Aside, though, from that one limited purpose, it has proven to be sickeningly ineffective to illuminate the original intent, at least for the purpose of using it to prove the egregious fraud and hypocrisy of the ruling class. Why is originalism an ineffective response to the destruction of America? Simple, really. Because the Enemy no longer even makes the pretense of claiming that it is the guarantor of the original Constitution. The Enemy is an acolyte of William Lloyd Garrison, who called that document “a covenant with death” and “an agreement with Hell.” The Enemy does occasionally claim that they represent the ideals of the new Constitution and the fictional egalitarian “founding” which they promulgate, but it does so while castigating the real Founding and demonizing the Founders and the Framers, effectively writing them out of history. When it thus contends, the Enemy claims to be the true standard-bearer for an “American” ideal that never existed, the guarantor of a “founding” wholly divorced from the Founders, the Constitution merely a vehicle easily altered and dispensed with, each new depredation celebrated as another step along the inexorable march toward the fulfillment of this ever-changing egalitarian myth that American history has been recast as. What good does wringing our hands and pulling out our hair over original intent do when the original America is precisely what the Enemy has sworn to annihilate?
Originalism is a failure, just as our Constitution is a failure, just as the polity soon to be formerly known as the United States of America is a failure. Our response to our cultural genocide and physical dispossession cannot be to cling to a document which was eviscerated in 1865 and whose last remnants disintegrated through the first half of the twentieth century. Our response to ubiquitous calls for our deaths cannot be to wave a piece of paper around as if has magical properties. The Enemy has tossed the exsanguinated Constitution into the Valley of Gehinnom. If the reader believes that lawyers will save him, one hour in a law school will suffice to disabuse him of his hope. The Constitution is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the struggle now in its nascency. We cannot return to the Republic any more than we can turn back time itself. Even if we could, we shouldn’t, for relying on the same Constitution which allowed itself to be penetrated is suicidal. What we can do instead, though, what we must do, is begin to plan for what comes next. Before even this can occur, though, we must take a good, long look in the mirror. We are to blame for the Hell that has been wrought of this land that once was ours. We must change ourselves before we can recapture our degraded nation from the talons of the ascendant Satan gorging himself on our ruin.
“Hate Crimes” and the Thirteenth Amendment
So-called “hate crimes” are manifestly unconstitutional, for they are irreducibly thoughtcrimes. How can an emotion or a feeling so nebulous as “hate” be criminalized? “Hate crimes” are the bloody shirt of Black Lives Matter and other “minority” power organizations, and, just as Civil Rights, seek not to dissolve hierarchy, but rather to generate and enforce new hierarchies. A “hate crime”, which of course is rarely enforced against the thousands of murders and other crimes committed by “minorities” against whites solely because they are white, is a declaration which posits that “minority” lives simply matter more. Is a murder any more or less a murder because it was committed against a black rather than a white? Of course not. To create a new category of “hate crime”, akin to the fallacious doctrine of “hate speech” which conflates thoughtcrime with physical violence, is to state that a crime is somehow more invidious because it was committed with a motive that the Regime deems improper. The first federal “hate crime” statute was included in Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permitting federal prosecution of “whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with…any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been” engaged in any of six defined protected activities, which encompass most human activity. In 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama enacted the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”, attached as a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010. This law, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 249, expanded the aforementioned provision by defining “hate crimes” as not only “offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin”, but also “offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” The circumstances which activate the statute were just as, if not more, comprehensive as the Civil Rights Act had been. Leaving aside the fact that Matthew Shepard was killed as the result of a drug feud, not because of his proclivity for sodomy, this law is even more ominous in its ramifications than the first federal “hate crime” statute had been. The expanded law has been challenged twice to date; the first challenge was dismissed, and the second occurred in United States v. Hatch, wherein the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a man’s conviction under the statute, citing Supreme Court precedent involving the Thirteenth Amendment. From whence did Congress’ power to create “hate crimes” arise?
The Thirteenth Amendment states very simply that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”, and that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” That is it — slavery and involuntary servitude. Some judicial revisionists have argued that a handful of members of Congress appealed to the Thirteenth Amendment ban on “slavery” for their constitutional authority to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but this was vigorously opposed. The Radical Senator Henry Wilson said that the Thirteenth Amendment “was never understood by any man in the Senate or House to confer upon Congress the right to prescribe or regulate the suffrage in any State…If [that] had been supposed…the Thirteenth Amendment would never have passed the Congress, never have received the sanction of the States.” Republicans generally agreed that suffrage was not a “natural” or “fundamental” right, and emancipation was targeted only at the vitalization of fundamental, not political rights. In fact, Berger noted that “considerable impetus to the Fourteenth Amendment was given by [Representative] Bingham’s insistence that there was no constitutional authority for the Civil Rights Bill and that an Amendment was required…the fact that Congress went on to enact the Fourteenth Amendment refutes the view that the Thirteenth Amendment was conceived to be ‘open-ended’, to authorize legislation going beyond emancipation.”
Following a by now all too familiar course, the Supreme Court expanded the Thirteenth Amendment by reading into it nonexistent language. The Civil Rights Cases deemed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional with respect to its attempt to apply the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to allow blacks “equal enjoyment” of public accommodations, i.e., private businesses and individuals. Justice Bradley wrote that Congress had the power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by passing “all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States”, “for the obliteration and prevention of slavery with all its badges and incidents.” The Thirteenth Amendment was drafted to “eradicate all forms and incidents of slavery and involuntary servitude”; unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, which could only be employed against State actors, the Thirteenth was necessarily targeted at private actors. Bradley did, however, make sure to state that “it would be running the slavery argument into the ground to make it apply to every act of discrimination which a person may see fit to make as to the guests he will entertain, or as to the people he will take into his coach or cab or car, or admit to his concert or theatre, or deal with in other matters of intercourse or business.”
Indeed, Bradley expressly restricted his unnecessary “badges and incidents” conception. He wrote that “when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights…are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men’s rights are protected. There were thousands of free colored people in this country before the abolition of slavery, enjoying all the essential rights of life, liberty, and property the same as white citizens; yet no one, at that time, thought that it was any invasion of his personal status as a freeman because he was not admitted to all the privileges enjoyed by white men, or because he was subjected to discriminations in the enjoyment of [public accommodations]. Mere discriminations on account of race or color were not regarded as badges of slavery.” The Court affirmed this again in Plessy v. Ferguson, where Justice Henry Brown dismissed the idea that segregation conflicted with the Thirteenth Amendment. In his words, “that it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment…is too clear for argument. Slavery implies involuntary servitude — a state of bondage; the ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the labor…of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person [and] property…A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races — a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color — has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or reestablish a state of involuntary servitude.”
The Court injected a world of new meanings into the Thirteenth Amendment in 1968 with its decision in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company. The Court, after a duplicitous and cherry-picked account of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments’ legislative histories, held that it was a “badge or incident of slavery” for a party to refuse to sell his home to blacks because of their race, conferring extensive deference upon Congress to define “badges or incidents of slavery.” Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “Surely Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation. Nor can we say that the determination Congress has made is an irrational one.” He continued that a man would be “reduced to slavery” if he was barred from purchasing any property on account of his race. The right of “property” guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and its constitutional vehicle, the Fourteenth Amendment, was construed to mean that blacks had the right to purchase anything that a white might be able to. This is, as we have seen, completely contrary to the explicit statements by the framers in the Thirty-Ninth Congress; however, assuming that Bradley’s “badges or incidents” expansion of the Thirteenth Amendment is valid — which it is most certainly not — this construction of the fundamental “property” right is at least grounded in some form of rational logic.
As the adage goes, if you give a mouse a cookie…The Court’s holding in Jones, giving Congress the power to “rationally” define the “badges or incidents of slavery”, was a foot in the door through which the deluge now pours. As aforementioned, the newest version of the federal “hate crime” statute was challenged in United States v. Hatch, where the Tenth Circuit upheld a man’s conviction for branding a swastika on the arm of a developmentally disabled Navajo man under the statute, affirming that indeed, Congress has the power to pass legislation targeted at whatever it chooses to define as the “badges or incidents of slavery.” The Tenth Circuit concluded that Congress’ authority to enact the “hate crime” statute rested on the Thirteenth Amendment, and that “Congress rationally determined that racially motivated violence is a badge or incident of slavery against which it may legislate through its power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment.” Does that seem “rational” to you? The judiciary has presupposed that one must be “irrational” to argue otherwise. It is worth noting the logical contradiction whereby the Thirteenth Amendment, in its new “badges or incidents” expansion, has been applied to “all races, not just those that had been subject to slavery in the United States.” And so, we are presented with yet another example of the fact that whatever the Regime wishes is “constitutionalized” by reading new doctrines into old words with highly limited meanings; the framers of these Amendments, along with the Framers of the Constitution, shudder in their graves.
We have now traced the Egalitarian Regime to two of its three major foundations, only to find that those foundations are cracked, poured in quicksand. The basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which reorganized American society, was a facially fraudulent misconstruction of the word “commerce”, whereby everything that might conceivably have some relation to economic activity was deemed to fall under the power of Congress. In other words, the Civil Rights Act was then and is now unconstitutional. Congress had no power to enact it. The basis of Brown v. Board of Education, which transformed American life and by any honest analysis destroyed the American public-school system, as well as Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and essentially every single “legal” achievement of Regime goals, was an equally specious, though more elaborate, judicial revision through “interpretation” of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is itself unconstitutional. As we have seen, even if we were to put aside the fact of its unconstitutionality, the uses and meanings to which the Amendment has been put are nakedly the opposite of what its framers intended. Our nation was thus stolen from us while we slept. We enacted no constitutional Amendment to initiate these enormous changes in our lives; indeed, the Regime used the judiciary to do so specifically in order to circumvent that amendment process. We have simply taken it on faith that the Supreme Court has the power and the intention to divine “what the Constitution means.” In reality, the Regime has rewritten the United States Constitution, such that it no longer retains any semblance of its original meaning. It is our solemn obligation to interrogate the source of the powers claimed. We may now conclude that there isn’t any. Now is the time to take back our Constitution, and thus to take back our nation — this is the first step in dismantling the Egalitarian Regime.
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton assured us that our fears of the judiciary were mislaid, unfounded even. He wrote that “whosoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Little could Hamilton have imagined the megalomaniacal judiciary or Congressional dereliction of our present state.
He continued, “This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power [The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: “Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.”]; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that ‘there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’ And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”
Hamilton wrote, “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.” He emphasized that, “until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.” Hamilton appears not to have even entertained the notion that the very Article V amendment process he alluded to here would be circumvented by the judiciary. He appears not to have anticipated that the very meaning of “fundamental” would be revolutionized, nor to have asked, “Who watches the watchmen?”
We must note that judicial review is not the same thing as judicial revision. Judicial review was formulated in very narrow terms, only “as a means of policing the constitutional boundaries, the ‘limits’ of a given power.” Judicial review was not conceived of as a “license to supersede the exercise of power by the other branches within those boundaries. In fact, judicial participation in legislative policymaking was unmistakably excluded” by the Founders. The Court is not empowered to “strike down” anything at all. Indeed, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Edmund Randolph’s “Virginia Plan” called for a “Council of Revision” of legislation, where the President “and a convenient number of the National Judiciary” would “examine every act of Congress and by its dissent…constitute a veto.” Aside from Randolph, George Mason, James Wilson, and, perhaps most importantly, James Madison, each supported the proposal. Despite the influence of these luminaries, the Framers rejected the proposal “for reasons that unmistakably spell out the exclusion of the judiciary from even a share in policymaking.” Nathaniel Gorham stated that “as Judges, they are not to be presumed to possess any peculiar knowledge of the mere policy of public measures.” Elbridge Gerry concurred, noting that “it was quite foreign from the nature of ye office to make them judges of the policy of public measures…It was making Statesmen of the Judges; and setting them up as the guardians of the Rights of the people. He relied for his part on the Representatives of the people as the guardians of their Rights and Interests. It was making the Expositors of the Laws, their Legislators which ought never to be done.” Charles Pinckney wholeheartedly opposed “the interference of the Judges in the Legislative business.” Rufus King agreed that, as “the judges must interpret the Laws, they ought not to be legislators.” We could go on, as the examples cascade. Plainly, Berger concluded, “the Framers refused to make the judiciary ‘law-givers’, even to the extent of allowing them to share in the legislative making of law, let alone finally to decide on policy, an exclusively legislative function. They drew a line between the judicial reviewing function, that is, policing grants of power to [e]nsure that there were no encroachments beyond the grants, and legislative policymaking within those bounds.”
The notion that judges could make law as an instrument of social change was “altogether alien to colonial thinking.” The idea that the “fundamental” law was alterable by the judiciary was diametrically opposed to the Framers’ very intent in creating a “fixed Constitution.” Chief Justice Hutchinson of the Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote quite presciently in 1767 that “the Judge should never be the Legislator: Because then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.” Edward Gibbon agreed that, indeed, “the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny.” Similarly, Lord Camden wrote that “the discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants…In the best of times it is often…caprice — in the worst, it is every vice, folly, and passion, to which human nature is liable.” Berger stated that it was evident that “no one remotely intimated that there would be judicial power to rewrite the Constitution. Nothing could have been better calculated to defeat ratification than a claim of judicial power that would leave the States altogether at the mercy of the federal courts.” Indeed, Justice James Iredell wrote of the Framers that, “having ‘smarted’ under the ‘omnipotent power of the British Parliament’…we should ‘have been guilty of…the grossest folly’ had we ‘established a despotic power among ourselves.’” As Berger remarked to this, “if this could be said of a legislature that could be turned out of office periodically, constitution-makers were even less ready to entrust unlimited power to an untried, unelected judiciary appointed for life.”
Justice William Douglas wrote in his Flast v. Cohen concurrence that “when the Court used substantive due process to determine the wisdom or reasonableness of legislation, it was indeed transforming itself into the Council of Revision which was rejected by the Constitutional Convention.” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Osborn v. Bank of the United States that “judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature.” In Kamper v. Hawkins, Judge James Henry of the Virginia Supreme Court wrote that “the judiciary from the nature of the office…could never be designed to determine upon the equity, necessity, or usefulness of a law: that would amount to an express interfering with the legislative branch…[N]ot being chosen immediately by the people, nor being accountable to them…they do not, and ought not, to represent the people in framing or repealing any law.” In Ware v. Hylton, Justice Iredell declared that “considerations of policy, considerations of extreme magnitude” were “certainly entirely incompetent to the examination and decision of a Court of Justice.”
For most of its first 150 years, the Court was content with its negative “boundary-policing” function. Berger stated that “it fell to the Warren Court to initiate policy when the legislative and executive failed to act, to take the lead in deciding what national policy ought to be. But the failure of Congress to exercise legislative power does not vest it in the Court.” The Court began to conceive of itself as the “national conscience”, the “moral voice” of America; as Berger sardonically remarked, “If Frenchmen would not be free and virtuous voluntarily, then [Robespierre] would force them to be free and cram virtue down their throats.” Berger asserted that there was “not a shred” of evidence to even remotely suggest “that the Founders contemplated that judges would serve as arbiters of morals. Their function…was merely to ‘construe’, to ‘interpret’ laws, not to infuse them with moral content. Having rejected judicial participation in policymaking, the Framers were little likely to embrace judicial supervision of morals. What ground was there for attributing special competence to judges in the field of morals?” Thomas Jefferson said it best: “I cannot give up my guidance to the magistrate, because he knows no more the way to Heaven than I do, and is less concerned to direct me than I am to go right.”
Those that argue for the fictional power of judicial revision often cite Chief Justice Marshall’s notorious dictum in McCulloch v. Maryland, that “this provision is made in a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” As Berger put it, “Commentators at a loss to justify judicial arrogations fall back on” and have an “incantatory reliance on” this concept of the “living Constitution.” Berger argued that, to the contrary, Marshall’s words “have been removed from context…he flatly repudiated the revisory power…attributed to him…this was merely a plea for some freedom in the ‘choice of means’ to execute an existing power, not for license to create a fresh power at each new crisis.” James Madison was among the army of men who assailed McCulloch, rejecting “the replacement of the amendment process by judicial revision as an ‘assumption of powers never meant to be granted.’” To Madison’s quite valid charge, Marshall replied that the phrase “does not contain the most distant allusion to any extension by construction of the powers of Congress. Its sole object is to remind us that a constitution cannot possibly enumerate the means by which the powers of government are to be carried into execution.” Marshall asserted that the exercise of the judicial power to decide all questions “arising under the Constitution and laws” of the United States “cannot be the assertion of a right to change that instrument.” In other words, Marshall was really making an argument with reference to the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of Article I, Section VIII; we must add to Berger’s argument, though. What is “necessary and proper” in the execution of Congressional power presumes that Congress has the power to act in the first place. Furthermore, Marshall’s expansive reading of “necessary” is the opposite of what the Framers intended; the antonym of “necessary” is “unnecessary”, meaning that “necessary” is employed restrictively, as in, “absolutely crucial.”
In fact, even what Marshall did intend is still ominous, for herein is the creation of “incidental or implied unenumerated powers”; this concept of “implied enumeration” is oxymoronic to the extreme, one of the first doors, if not the first, through which the Tenth Amendment was abrogated. President Andrew Jackson saw this and rebutted Marshall’s “construction” in his 1832 veto message, blocking the re-chartering of the second Bank of the United States. President Jackson wrote that “mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered well settled…The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both…Thus may our own powers and the rights of the States, which we cannot directly curtail or invade, be frittered away and extinguished in the use of means employed by us to execute other powers…There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils only exist in its abuses…Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves — in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.” In any case, Chief Justice Marshall did not advocate for judicial revisionism; as Berger said, “If the Constitution is to be altered by judicial fiat, let it not be under seal of a reading Marshall himself repudiated.”
Some may read the foregoing discussion and respond, “Okay. I see what you mean, and I understand everything. But…so what?” So what? As Lord Chief Justice Denman wrote, “The practice of a ruling power in the State is but a feeble proof of its legality.” Thomas Cooley wrote that “acquiescence for no length of time can legalize a clear usurpation of power.” We have by now proven that often, what the judiciary cloaks in the garb of “constitutionalism” is manifestly unconstitutional. Berger forcefully and wonderfully argued that “it is never too late to challenge the usurpation of power; one gains no title by prescription against the government, still less against the sovereign people. Power reserved to the [States] by the Tenth Amendment cannot be taken over by ‘squatter sovereignty.’…Usurpation—the exercise of power not granted—is not legitimated by repetition.” Dante observed that “usurpation of a right does not create a right.” To disavow and correct past depredations “is to pledge anew to abide by the Constitution, which the Justices are sworn to support.” Under our Constitution, a systematic delegation of limited and reserved powers, “the burden is on a claimant to point to the source of his power — failing which, it is a usurpation.” The Founders were essentially united in their belief in “a fixed Constitution of unchanging meaning. They accorded an inferior place in the federal scheme to the judiciary, deriving from suspicion of innovations by judges theretofore regarded with ‘aversion and distrust’…They were attached to the separation of powers and insisted that courts should not engage in policymaking but act only as interpreters. Above all, judges were not to act as revisers of the Constitution, for that function had been reserved to the people themselves by Article V, the provision for amendment of the Constitution.” Berger asserted that, “until the Court candidly discloses…that it is ‘making new law for a new day’, the people can hardly be held to acquiesce in what they have not been told. They have been told that the Court speaks with the voice of the Constitution; they are constantly told that ‘the Constitution (not the Justices) requires.’ And that cannot be converted into ratification of progressive judicial violation of its limits.”
In Eakin v. Raub, Justice John Gibson wrote that “precedents ought to go for absolutely nothing. The Constitution is a collection of fundamental laws, not to be departed from in practice nor altered by judicial decision, and in the construction of it, nothing would be so alarming as the doctrine of communis error, which offers a ready justification for every usurpation that has not been resisted in limine…the judge who asserts [the right of judicial review] ought to be prepared to maintain it on the principles of the Constitution.” As we have touched upon, the very idea of following “precedent” is a sick illusion. How can we refer to our inexorable motion ever farther away from the Framers’ design as “precedent”? The very nature of “precedent” is meant to reinforce the permanent truths, the bedrock upon which our society is founded; the precedential nature of constitutional jurisprudence is inherently traditionalist and originalist. Continuing headlong into the night, deeper and deeper into the slough of despair, continuing to travel down the wrong path, cannot be following precedent. A return to precedent has to be a return to the Founding. The Constitution is the embodiment of “fundamental choices that have been made by the people, and the task of the Courts is to effectuate them, ‘not [to] construct new rights.’ When the judiciary substitutes its own value choices for those of the people it subverts the Constitution by usurpation of power. No dispensation was given to the Court to step outside its powers; it is no less bound by constitutional limits than are the other branches…it was clearly excluded from participation in the making of policy, the function of the legislature…we need to be rid of ‘the illusion that personal power can be benevolently exercised.’”
Berger brilliantly quipped, as to the distinction between review and revision, that “plainly a power to sell a mule does not authorize sale of the barn.” The judicial review that was provided for by the Framers is wholly different creature than the mutant bastard masquerading as judicial review that we are yoked to today, judicial revision. Policing the delineated boundaries of a fixed Constitution is nothing like rewriting and extraconstitutionally “amending” the Constitution. With each step away from the Framers’ design, with each new abrogation of the separation of powers, the Supreme Court has “engaged in a dazzling display of seemingly free-hand constitution-making without apparent concern for the intention of the Constitutors.” The judiciary has thus claimed for itself a panoptic power as “a catalyst of social change with judges acting as planners and even managers of large-scale intervention in social and economic life.” The Court proudly proclaims that it simply knows better than we mere serfs. We are neither credentialed nor imbued with the deep sense of “morality” that historical accident has conferred upon them. Judges, Berger wrote, “are not oracles who, indifferent to the passions of the time, divine the true meaning of the Constitution. What a judge is ‘really discovering…are his own values.” Justice Jackson admitted in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that “we act in these matters not by authority of our competence but by force of our commissions.” Berger described with aplomb the doctrine of judicial revisionism laid bare: “Baldly stated, if a result is benign, ergo it is constitutional; the end justifies the means. Against the ‘consequences’ of repudiating unconstitutional decisions…should be weighed the cost of countenancing undeniable judicial arrogations of power, the Court’s operation as a continuing constitutional convention. The view that it is too late to effectuate the unmistakable intention of the Framers is tantamount to claiming that long-standing usurpation confers title. But squatter sovereignty does not run against the people. No one, the Court declared [in Walz v. Tax Commission], ‘acquires a vested interest or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use.’”
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Constitution is solely to be construed in conformance to the “safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people at the time of its adoption — a meaning to be found in the explanation of those who advocated it.” In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall asked the imperative question: “Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution…if that Constitution forms no rule for his government?” Berger emphasized, as we examined in the light of Chesterton’s “democracy of the dead”, that “our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us and then to future generations. It is a coherent succession.” Similarly, Edmund Burke wrote that society is “a partnership not only by those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” The words within the original Constitution, and those within each appended Amendment, are fixed with unalterable meaning at the very moment that they are written, adopted, and ratified. Justice James Wilson believed that “the first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” In Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall wrote that if a word “was so understood…when the Constitution was framed…[t]he Convention must have used it in that sense.” In Eisner v. Macomber, Justice Holmes declared that any Amendment must be read in the “sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption.”
In the debates of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment bequeathed us “a transcript of their minds.” The evidence overwhelmingly compels us to conclude that the Amendment was meant only to ban judicial and statutory discrimination with respect to the specifically enumerated “fundamental” rights, each of which carried its own fixed meaning — life, liberty, and property. The unanimous Senate Judiciary Committee Report, signed by the Senators who had voted for the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth, or “Reconstruction” Amendments, stated thus: “In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result which was intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which should give the phrase…a meaning different from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution in any other particular.”
The amendment process outlined in Article V is the exclusive means by which the Constitution may be altered, “under the long-standing maxim that to name a particular mode is to exclude all others.” Amendments were designed to be extremely difficult to achieve, because of the sheer gravity of the task undertaken; it is imperative that this is so, for the alternative is the perpetual revolutionary Year Zero that the Regime has inculcated. Elbridge Gerry confirmed this, stating that “the people have [directed] a particular mode of making Amendments, which we are not at liberty to depart from…Such a power [to alter] would render the most important clause of the Constitution nugatory.” Gerry, along with many of the other Framers, believed that it was self-evident that “an attempt to amend” the Constitution by any other means “may be a high crime and misdemeanor”, i.e., an impeachable offense. Alexander Hamilton agreed, declaring that “judges who usurped power, for example, exercised a power withheld…could be impeached.” Wise words. Kritarchy far exceeds the boundaries of “good behavior.” Judicial contravention of the will of the people is an assault on our nation; merely take the issue of obscenity as an example—as the result of the Court’s obscenity rulings, unsupported by popular mandate or historical precedent, “the nation is deluged by a flood of blatant pornography and filth that the people are powerless to deal with.” From whence, then, does this assumed power of the Court to jettison Article V and “impose a solution on the people that confessedly could not have obtained their assent” arise? This inquiry is one of the most important tasks we may embark upon, for, as John Adams said, “A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the Constitution…[is] absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government…The people…have a right to require of their law givers and magistrates an exact and constant observance of them.”
Power lusts for power, as the horizon endlessly recedes. Berger remarked that “it is axiomatic that all wielders of power, judges included, ever thirst for more.” James Madison understood this, that “power is of an encroaching nature…it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” Thomas Jefferson affirmed that “it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power…In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” At the Virginia Ratification Convention, Francis Corbin said that “liberty is secured…by the limitation of [the government’s] powers, which are clearly and unequivocally defined.” In the First Congress, James Jackson emphasized that “we must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government.” The Founders all of a piece shared a commitment to written limits on power. Any and every exercise of power absolutely must be predicated on a concrete source, which can only ever be the fixed meaning of the Constitution. Berger explained that the Constitution was written “to make certain that men in power would be governed by law, not the arbitrary fiat of the man or men in power”, “according to the ‘law of the land’, not by the ‘law of judges’…Our system is committed to ‘equal justice under law’, not to ‘Justices above the law.’ They were not authorized to revise the Constitution in the interests of ‘justice.’”
As Jefferson wrote, “I had rather ask for an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. If [power is boundless] then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no other than the definition of the powers which that instrument gives.” That “definition” was concrete and eternal, “to be read in light of the explanations made to those who ratified the Constitution.” Following the logic of originalism, Justice George Sutherland asserted in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell that “the whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent, of its framers and the people who adopted it…As nearly as possible we should place ourselves in the condition of those who framed and adopted it.” The Court’s contention that favored policies are “constitutional”, and disfavored “unconstitutional”, is a substitution of its value choices for the choices carefully made by men far greater than we; it is the epitome of folly, tearing asunder “the basic principle of government by consent of the governed…No power to revise the Constitution under the guise of ‘interpretation’ was conferred on the Court; it does so only because the people have not grasped the reality—an unsafe foundation for power.”
Judge Learned Hand called attention to the sordid fact that judges “wrap up their veto in a protective veil of adjectives such as…‘reasonable’, ‘inherent’, ‘fundamental’…whose office usually…is to disguise what they are doing and impute to it a derivation far more impressive than their personal preferences, which are all that in fact lie behind the decision.” Berger noted that, just “as in the case of the Chinese ‘mandate from heaven’, we learn a right is ‘fundamental’ only after the Court attaches that label.” Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 25 that “every breach of the fundamental laws…impairs the sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breasts of the rulers towards the Constitution.” President George Washington, the American Cincinnatus, said it best in his Farewell Address: “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an Amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”
The judiciary now governs on behalf of the Egalitarian Regime as a panel of self-appointed Platonic Guardians with a narcissistic savior complex. As Justice Hand said, the Supreme Court cloaks its own whims and fancies for the “self-evident” beliefs of the Founders, a totemic appeal to an historical precedent that simply does not exist. Robert Bork, erstwhile Supreme Court nominee, said that the Court “regularly insists that its results…do not spring from the mere will of the Justices in the majority but are supported, indeed compelled, by a proper understanding of the Constitution…Value choices are attributed to the Founding Fathers, not to the Court.” As Bork observed, “The way an institution advertises tells you what it thinks its customers demand.” Donald Santarelli, Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Nixon Administration, spoke quite candidly on this matter: “The Constitution is flexible…Your point of view depends on whether you’re winning…The language of the Constitution is not at issue. It is what you can interpret it to mean in the light of modern needs. In talking about a ‘Constitutional crisis’ we are not grappling with the real needs of running the country but are using the issues for the self-serving purpose of striking a new balance of power…Today, the whole Constitution is up for grabs.”
Berger wrote that “to thrust aside the dead hands of the Framers is to thrust aside the Constitution. The argument that new meanings may be given to words employed by the Framers aborts their design; it reduces the Constitution to an empty shell into which each shifting judicial majority pours its own preferences.” “Constitutional law”, the cuckoo bird masquerading as the Constitution, is “given a ‘new look’ when a Warren succeeds a Vinson…The changes can be fateful. Vinson ‘held fast to the position that the judiciary should not be an aggressive instrument for invalidating school segregation.’ He was succeeded in the midst of the desegregation case by Warren, and…’in conference at least three Justices came close to dissenting until their new Chief put on all the pressure he could wield.’…Citations can be multiplied. Should what is ‘socially desirable’ for a nation of [350 million] people turn on such accidents? Should grave national policy be the sport of circumstance?” In Oregon v. Mitchell, Justice John Harlan II wrote that, “when the Court gives the language of the Constitution an unforeseen application, it does so…in the name of some underlying purpose of the Framers…[T]he federal judiciary…has no inherent general authority to establish norms for the rest of society…When the Court disregards the express intent and understanding of the Framers, it has invaded the realm of the political process to which the amending power was committed, and it has violated the constitutional structure which it is its high duty to protect.” Berger made the quite terrifying observation that “what the ‘national conscience’ is at any given moment depends on shifting personnel and the nature of the appointees. The replacement of one or two Justices may result in a complete reversal of the prevailing conscience, as when Warren succeeded Vinson. How can we put our trust in a conscience that changes color with every judicial succession, itself subject to shifting political winds?”
The Fourteenth Amendment has thus been replaced in the night with an alien body snatcher. Undeniably, its framers excluded both suffrage and segregation. “Incorporation” of the Bill of Rights against the States was not contemplated. The Amendment, as an embodiment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, was confined exclusively to the protection of the specifically enumerated “fundamental” civil rights of life, liberty, and property, against statutory and judicial discrimination by the States. The framers deliberately withheld “federal power to supply those rights where they were not granted by the State to anybody, white or black.” “Privileges or immunities”, “due process of law”, and “equal protection of the laws” were not “conveniently vague” “majestic generalities”, but were rather carefully chosen terms of art that expressed these limited aims; we must also remember that the framers were not motivated by abolitionist ideology, or even by anything resembling the egalitarianism and Civil Rights mania with which they have been retroactively imbued. As Berger put it, “Given the clarity of the framers’ intention, it is on settled principles as good as written into the text. To ‘interpret’ the Amendment in diametrical opposition to that intention is to rewrite the Constitution. Whence does the Court derive authority to revise the Constitution? In a government of limited powers, it needs always be asked: what is the source of the power claimed?” Justice Iredell confirmed that any law, or any government action at all, “not warranted by the Constitution…is bare-faced usurpation.” The Court has battered the Fourteenth Amendment far beyond the assumption of powers “not warranted”; the litany of ends to which the Amendment has been put “represent the arrogation of powers that the framers plainly excluded. The Court…has flouted the will of the framers and substituted an interpretation in flat contradiction of the original design”, which was to leave States’ Rights intact.
Chief Justice Warren’s chilling assertion that “we cannot turn back the clock”, Berger remarked, “rejected the framers’ intention as irrelevant. On that premise the entire Constitution merely has such relevance as the Court chooses to give it, and the Court is truly a ‘continuing constitutional convention’, constantly engaged in revising the Constitution, a role clearly withheld from the Court. Such conduct impels one to conclude that the Justices are become a law unto themselves.” Judge Hand wrote that “if we do need a third [legislative] chamber it should appear for what it is, and not as the interpreter of inscrutable principles.” Berger asked, “How long can public respect for the Court, on which its power ultimately depends, survive if the people become aware that the tribunal which condemns the acts of others as unconstitutional is itself acting unconstitutionally?” Not long. Merely witness the political spectacle surrounding the Court today, as well as the ubiquitous habit of Americans to appeal to the Constitution; we deify the Court, hanging onto every last word as the Word of God. Indeed, Gerhard Casper noted that the “American concept of the legitimacy of government is closely tied to the Constitution [“the secular equivalent of the Bible”]. Its limitless manipulation may endanger the very legitimacy that has been the greatest accomplishment of American constitutionalism.” We cannot afford to “tolerate the spectacle of a Court that pretends to apply constitutional mandates while in fact revising them in accord with the preference of a majority of the Justices who seek to impose their will on the nation.” Berger admonished that we must not let it be said of us as Gibbon said of Rome, that “the image of a free Constitution was preserved with decent reverence.” The Western tradition does not blindly uphold “precedent” simply for the sake of precedent, but rather “seeks to rectify, not to build upon, mistakes.” As President William Taft urged us in 1911, “Make your judges responsible. Impeach them. Impeachment of a judge would be a very healthful thing in these times.”