Jewish proponents of egalitarian dogma themselves do not believe it

For years they told us it wouldn’t happen. There was nothing to worry about. All the Negro wanted, they assured us, was equal opportunity in the workplace and equal political rights.

By John Altman

The arguments of Southerners and other Americans in defense of racial separation, utilizing the history of nations and the instinctual urges of biology that recognize no color line, fell on deaf or heedless ears. The subverters, the cynical, and the unAmericans among us, of course, knew better.

Now, 60 years after the Brown decision, which initiated the desegregation debacle, it is almost impossible to go anywhere in public and not witness the most flagrant example of race-mixing. A half-century and more of Marxist social science, expounded in treasonous universities and public schools, mandated by a corrupt federal court system, and disseminated by an alien news and entertainment media, has finally produced its chef-d’oeuvre, the racially-mixed couple, strolling hand in hand along chief thoroughfares, and now so commonplace as to elicit hardly the slightest notice. Who is not aware – and made constantly aware – through their TV screens of marriages and other interracial intimacies between wealthy Black celebrities and White women, which conveys the intended message that these are occurrences as common and normal as any other? Not infrequently, the repugnant spectacle is compounded by the presence of a mongrel offspring; and, since the miscegenation laws of the States have been struck down by judicial decree, it is a scene, sad to say, that will be encountered with increasing frequency. It is a human tragedy which, if ignored or unremedied for too long, will have dire consequences for our culture and civilization. But the dupes, liars and traitors of America, caring nothing for this, have had their way.

It was not always so. From the beginning of our colonial experience, long before the advent of the Franz Boas school of equalitarian social anthropology and the socialist faculties of American universities, nearly all Americans believed in the necessity for the biological and social separation of the races. Even if – as most Americans now embrace as an article of faith – our institutions of government rest upon an assumed "equality before the law," yet, absolute, total equality of the races was always and continues to be a hopeless dream. Social equality with the Negro in particular, and political equality hardly less so, were for generations viewed almost universally by Whites in every section of the country with abhorrence and foreboding.

What informed Southerner is not well acquainted with the sentiments of the early national leaders on this subject? Mr. Jefferson had declared that "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." While he hoped for the eventual emancipation of all slaves in the United States, he also believed it absolutely imperative that these with all free Negroes should be deported either to Africa or the West Indies. This, he felt, would serve the purpose not only of their freedom, but for White self-preservation as well. Even Mr. Lincoln, "The Great Emancipator," believed the Negro to be an unassimilable element in American life, and was adamantly opposed to social equality for him. Above all, he regarded sexual mixture of the two races as a calamity. Up until the time of his assassination, he continued to be a strong proponent of Negro colonization.

The reasons for this are not difficult to understand. To earlier generations of Americans, who were busily engaged in carving a civilization out of the wilderness, the very notion of equality was utter nonsense. What could not be lightly dismissed was the accumulated wisdom of the ages confirming the Negro’s incompatibility with the White race, manifested by practically every testimony, evidence and studied observation available. Upon the minds of every thinking and concerned American was the question of what would be the final disposition of the Negro problem. Mr. Henry Clay of Kentucky asked, "What is the true nature of the evil of the existence of a portion of the African race in our population? It is not that there are some but that there are so many… who can never amalgamate with the great body of our population." He, too, was a proponent of their removal and colonization.

And, happily, the early Americans did not have the benefit of the "expertise and insight" of such "celebrated" social scientists and equalitarians of the Boas School as Herskovits, Klineberg and Montagu. Or, as the late British journalist and historian, Ivor Benson, wrote: "…The Boas doctrine is not a matter of science at all… Moreover it could be shown quite easily that all these Jewish proponents of the egalitarian dogma themselves do not believe it, since it is the exact opposite of what is practiced by the community to which they adhere so loyally and uncritically."

And what is the natural corollary of this doctrine? It became apparent in the early years of the 20th century with the publication of the pamphlet, A Radical Program for the 20th Century (1912) by one Israel Cohen, a Jew in England. "In America," he wrote, "we will aim for a subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, we will endeavor to instill in the Whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes.

"We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause." The "cause" becomes quite clear when it is understood that Mr. Cohen was England’s leading Communist theoretician and writer during this time. Could there have been a more clever and diabolical stratagem for the dysgenic destruction of a nation?

The noted Southern author and son of a Virginia Confederate soldier, Thomas Nelson Page, sounded a warning near the turn of the century, when he spoke of "the peril of contamination" and "the evil of race-degeneration from enforced and constant association with ‘a different’ race." Well he knew that the natural evolution and character of a race could not be changed in the space of a few hundred or even thousand years. And who would be so foolish as to tamper with the genetic elements basic to the very existence of advanced cultures and civilizations in the name of "social progress"? But, alas, "Infinitus est numerus stultorum." (Infinite is the number of fools!)

And it is the difference which counts. "Scientifically, historically, congenitally," Mr. Page wrote in his warning to us, "the white race and the negro race differ." He is referring to differences in intellect, differences in behavior, morality, physical characteristics, etc., verified not only by the evidence of our senses and the record of history, but now by the findings of science, much to the discomfort of all egalitarians and Marxists who, with their leveling pseudo-science and propaganda, have done their best in one century to destroy Western culture and civilization. Who but a fool or a subversive now believes the two races to be equal? Unfortunately, they are to be met with bountifully on nearly every American university campus, the sad products of indoctrination by a deliberate, subversive academic agenda. Without a doubt, the propaganda for racial equality is the greatest hoax of the 20th century. Now that it is being conclusively established by credible scholars that heredity, not environment, is the prime determinant of intelligence and its constant variance between the races, both quantitatively and qualitatively, what a vindication of those who for years stood fast in the face of vilification, social and economic reprisal, never doubting for a moment that science was being made the handmaiden of liberal-Marxist ideology!

Political equality for the Negro, likewise, was never contemplated by the Founders and early settlers. The very idea, much less the certainty, of their limited Constitution being construed to justify such things as civil rights acts, affirmative action, quotas and racial integration of State-controlled schools to enforce racial equality would have most certainly disbanded the Constitutional Convention or prevented its undertaking in the first place.

Writing 70-80 years before the age of "political correctness," Mr. Page was nothing if not candid in stating the Negro’s incapacity for enlightened self-rule. He was of the opinion that "the negro race does not possess… the elements of character, the essential qualifications to conduct a government, even for himself," and that "if the reins of government be entrusted to his unaided hands, he will fling reason to the winds, and drive to ruin." Like all of his Southern contemporaries, as well as nearly all the men of talent and genius in our history up until World War I, Mr. Page envisioned the march of Negro progress as a gradual evolutionary process, sustained by a benevolent paternalism, and without which the desired outcome in the interest of both races would be much in doubt. "Where the negro has thrived," he wrote, "it has invariably been under the influence and by the assistance of the stronger race. Where these have been wanting, whatever other conditions have existed, he has invariably and sensibly reverted to the original type. Liberia, Hayti, Congo, are all in one line." Were Mr. Page alive to witness our country today, it is hard to believe he would not have included certain large American cities, including the nation’s capital. He concludes: "To us of the South it appears that a proper race pride is one of the strongest securities of our nation. No people can become great without it. Without it no people can remain great."

That the Negro race has achieved much in this country in the past 139 years is undeniable. The accomplishments and success of many, many individuals of this race have been nothing short of phenomenal. But it should not be forgotten that whatever progress the Negro has made, it has been in a Western culture and setting with all the opportunities and advantages that otherwise would have taken immeasurably longer – if ever – to materialize in his indigenous surroundings. And if the equalitarians were honest, they would admit that the racial and cultural decline that 20th century America has undeniably undergone is due largely to their own Marxist agenda that has heralded the mixing of the races as its centerpiece. How completely at odds with this are the ideas and aspirations of another great Southerner and American – a contemporary of Mr. Page – who at about the same time advised and encouraged both races to live in such a way that "In all things that are purely social we can be separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress." Excepting some plan of voluntary and permanent separation of the races which would be agreeable to both, does not this seem to be the only sensible and practicable course for a stable and prosperous America?

As he spoke of the probable future of the new government, Benjamin Franklin, in the Constitutional Convention, expressed his belief that it would likely "be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." What better way to corrupt a people and their government than through miscegenation and racial suicide? Is there any nation or area of the world containing two such diverse races living in proximity for any considerable length of time that has not experienced a mixture of the two to a degree inimical to one or both? The accomplishments and prosperity of America were not by happenstance. They were the results almost exclusively of the boundless imagination and energy of the White race applied over a 375 year period to the abundant natural resources at hand. The Indians before them had achieved nothing in 25,000 years of occupancy of a virgin continent.

It is the opinion of some that the United States is fast approaching the point of genetic disaster. What are the consequences? A noted contemporary has declared that "We are steadily becoming a people of average, lower intelligence, feebler character and reduced stamina. What we are witnessing is retrogressive evolution, an evolution in reverse, backward and downward. But any people long subjected to such a process must sooner or later fall to pieces from internal weakness and decay, or become the victim of a foreign conqueror."

Do we foolishly suppose that we are not the objects of the most intense scrutiny as to our racial composition and behavior by would-be conquerors? The enemies that we, ourselves, have so foolishly created and supported throughout the world and their treasonous allies among us know only too well that a degenerate, mongrel America, divided against itself, will lack the will and the ability to resist their aggressions. But it need not be. A great nation requires a great people; if we are to be great again, we must regain that position through a racial consciousness, solidarity and integrity.

It was William Penn who said that men generally appear to be "more careful of the breed of their horses and dogs than of their children." An unfortunate truth which points up an even greater truth: that the wellspring of our liberty and prosperity is not in our hallowed declarations and charters, but in our genes.


John W. Altman is a retired teacher of history, having spent twenty years in the White, private school system.

The First Freedom