THE FAILURE IN LOUISIANA
by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (Liberty Bell, December 1991)
The candidacy of David Duke for the office of Governor of Louisiana aroused ardent hopes in the bosoms of the tiny minority of intelligent Americans who persist in believing that their race is fit to survive. They hoped that he would have an opportunity to use gubernatorial power, such as it is, to encourage members of our race to exercise such rights as they think they still have, and that his electoral victory would stimulate and encourage throughout the country the Aryan minority that is not content with its present status of degradation and servitude. His defeat has disappointed them--disappointed some bitterly.
They deserve our sympathy, but our function here is to inquire what lessons are to be drawn from Duke's failure and perhaps especially from his failure even in the parish that had started him on his political career.
We must assume that Duke received fewer votes than the well-known crook who was his opponent. About forty years ago, a man named Ned Touchstone, who at that time published an excellent little newspaper, The Councillor, was engaged in a vain attempt to arouse a measure of intelligence in a majority of Americans, especially in the South and in his own state of Louisiana, was a candidate for some state office--one concerned with education, as I recall. He was defeated, and in one parish he received fewer votes than the number of persons who had contributed money to his campaign, while his opponent received a greater number of votes than the total of qualified electors in the parish. What had happened, of course, was that the technicians who had wired the voting machines had been overly enthusiastic. I have heard no rumors of a similar stealing of votes this time, so we may assume that while Duke may have received more than the reported 40% of the votes, he received less than 50%, and was really defeated.
We must also assume that Duke wanted to be elected Governor. About a fortnight before the election, I received a telephone call from a sagacious man in Louisiana who confided to me, in strict confidence, his belief that Duke had 'sold out' and was 'throwing' the election. Whether or not that gentleman was right, the character of Duke's campaign and his defeat inevitably aroused the rumors that are even now, on the morrow of the election, becoming rife.
Given the course of events, the suspicions and allegations that Duke did intentionally sabotage his own candidacy can be supported by plausible assessment of the evidence, even if they are entirely wrong. We can neither confirm nor refute them. We have no means of knowing what was in the adyts of Duke's mind, and it would be bootless to speculate. For the purposes of our inquiry, we must assume that he made an honest and serious effort to become Governor of Louisiana.
Our enemies, the rulers of the United States, certainly seemed to believe that Duke was in earnest, might be elected, and might become the leader of a slave revolt. His candidacy released a flood of obloquy of almost unprecedented intensity. The jewspapers throughout the country were filled with purulent pus, as from "Liberal" ulcers that had broken.(1) The War Lord screamed that Duke was a "charlatan," manifestly gabbling with fear that he was not. (And, as usual, Bushy could not resist the opportunity to spit again in the faces of his stupid American cattle by affirming that the measure of intelligence is willingness to believe the Kikes' absurd Holohoax.) Sheenies foamed at the mouth with venom and uttered their usual wails about the evil of 'racism' that questions the immeasurable superiority of their own divinely-ordained Master Race. The professional con men, commonly called politicians, of the so-called Republican Party, which Duke might lead to victory in Louisiana, reviled the man who was, by political tradition, their own candidate. But all this was to be expected. It was a result that is produced automatically whenever there is a danger that the American boobs might come to their senses, and should not detain us here.
(1. Some editors probably are befuddled by the slightly disguised Marxism of the self-styled "Liberals," but most of them are simply like hit-men for the Mafia, doing dirty work for pay. It was in 1914 that John Swinton, editor of the New York Times, told his fellow journalists, assembled in the convention of the American Press Association, that he and they were "intellectual prostitutes," who were employed "to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell their country and their face for their daily bread." Note especially the reference to race, made before the Jews had consolidated their now total control of the American press and other media of communication. The term 'prostitute' is somewhat misleading, since whores do no harm to anyone, except, sometimes, their customers. An editor is better compared to a 'hit-man' for the Mafia or the C.I.A. It is true that he works longer hours than the hit-man, but, in compensation, he does not need to have the degree of courage that is requisite to shoot a man in the back from ambush on a dark night.)
Duke's remarkable success in becoming a serious candidate for gubernatorial power in a populous state is proof, if any be needed, that the only way by which Americans can obtain a chance to vote for a candidate of their own is by imitating the poor boys of the past century who succeeded in attending a circus by finding unguarded places at which they could crawl under the canvas of the tent. Americans who wish to have a candidate of their own must find openings in the fa‡ade of their state's electoral system and crawl through them before the negligent supervisors notice what is being done and close the fissures they should have been guarding.
Duke succeeded in entering politics by finding a parish in which the agents of our rulers were complacent and negligent, assuming that the boobs would be content to be amused and bemused by the usual routine dance-act performed by Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Duke saw his opportunity and crawled under the canvas. He was thus able to procure a nomination in one wing of the ruling party before he could be suppressed.(2)
(2. I described this sequence of events in greater detail in Liberty Bell, February 1990.)
Greater vigilance will doubtless be exercised in the future, but there may still occur some opportunities for boys to crawl into the circus tent. Henceforth, however, they will be very rare. And it is unlikely that anyone can repeat Duke's feat. For reasons which will become apparent below, his campaign will, in all probability, be the last of its kind in this country.
Duke's comparative success should be effective proof--if there is still need of proof that the day dawns in the east--that, as I pointed out in my long article in Liberty Bell, February 1990, attempts to form an American political party are simply nugatory. No "third" (i.e., second) party now has the slightest chance of appearing on the ballot of any populous state--probably no chance anywhere--and hence not even a chance to waste more of its dupes' contributions before undergoing an ignominious and risible defeat at the polls.
As recently as thirty years ago, there was a reasonable chance that a new party might conceivably succeed, but that time is long past: the loopholes in state legislation have been plugged and the composition of the electorate has changed. Today, a projected new party has not the slightest chance of even appearing on the ballot in any state, and the promoters of such illusory parties must know that, if they are sufficiently intelligent to write intelligible letters.
The common excuse that such futile efforts may provide publicity favorable to American interests is, at best, dubious. American media of communication, when not openly operated by Sheenies, are run by the Sheenies' hirelings, and will simply ignore American promotions, or, if compelled to take notice of one, will do so with ridicule and slander.
The election in Louisiana conclusively exposed the sham of opposition between "Republican" and "Democratic" parties, which are merely the two arms of the same feral monster. There can exist in fact between them only so much rivalry and antagonism as exists between your right and left hands. That was made obvious by several recent events, some of which I mentioned in February 1990.
The election in Louisiana was another proof of the solidarity of the politicians who are employed to keep the boobs amused and create an illusion that there are significant political contests.(3) The ruling party could properly be called Communist, if that name had not somehow come to connote the specific trappings of the rulers of Soviet Russia, which were recently discarded so that American boobs would willing finance the same thing under another name in Russia, as they long have done in what was once their own country.(4) Since it will be convenient to have a specific designation of the political party to which our real rulers have ostensibly given political responsibility, it will be well to invent some appropriate designation. Perhaps 'Demopublican' would be a good term. It would have the advantage of calling to mind the 'publicans' who are so uniformly detested in the Christians' appendix to the Jews' popular story-book.
The foregoing reminders of political realities should be supererogatory, but it may perhaps be worthwhile to point out that the realities were again unmistakably demonstrated in Louisiana.
(3. There are, to be sure, personal rivalries within both wings of the ruling party, just as there are rivalries within the Mafia, a similar though much smaller organization. At the lower levels there are real contests between persons seeking employment in the gang by campaigning for some minor office and thus demonstrating their ability to cozen voters. I need not add that there are still some candidates for local offices (mayor, state's attorney, county clerk, etc.) who are sincere in their purposes, are not infrequently elected, and may survive in small towns and thinly populated regions, which the Demopublicans think it not worthwhile to loot on the local level, and are content to plunder on the state and Federal levels.)
(4. As a discerning German writer observed a few years ago, the Americans' habit of lying to themselves enables them to profess horror at Communism in Russia while practising it themselves at home, using a superficially different terminology.)
It is the consensus of quite a few judicious and impartial observers that if the election in Louisiana had been held two weeks earlier, Duke would have been elected, and that if the White people's candidate had been anyone but Duke, he would have been elected on 16 November. I accept that opinion, though with less confidence that is unexceptionable.
It behooves us, therefore, to inquire about the blunders by which Duke may have contributed to his own defeat.
One error, which some observers think to have been of some importance, was inevitable. I trust that henceforth every White man who aspires to lead a political organization, however minuscule, will take it for granted that among his most ardent supporters will be one or more agents of the enemy, who will continuously report to their employers his resources, his plans, and any secrets with which they may have been entrusted, always ready to betray and denounce him publicly when they can do so most effectively.(5)
(5. A decade or more ago, a 'Neo-Nazi' (i.e., intelligent and honest White man) held a convention of his organization to which only a few of his followers came. A friend of mine attended the meeting and tried to estimate the composition of the small audience. His rule is that whenever five men come together to plan for the survival or our race, one will be an agent of the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, keeping watch on the restive cattle, one will be an agent of the Mossad, keeping watch on the watcher, and one will be an opportunist, ready to sell out at the first good offer. The remaining two, he concluded, thus necessarily become babes in the woods. The larger the attendance, the more spies and, if the movement is thought to have any potential, agents provocateurs.)
The one really important and debatable question about Duke's performance is the expediency of his hypocrisy. Did he lose more votes than he gained by his obviously spurious apologies for his past activities and pretence that he regretted his 'youthful mistakes'?
His gravest blunder was his attempt to use religion to entice voters. Today, Christianity in politics, like arsenic in coffee, is never salubrious.
By pretending to have become a Christian, Duke alienated rational men, whether or not they believed him. If they imagined that he had really become superstitious, they thought him to weak-minded to be trusted with a responsible office. If they recognized the pretence as mere bait for voters, they recoiled from a man who was as unscrupulous a liar as ordinary politicians.
Christians, if not simple-minded, naturally suspected the too tempestive 'conversion,' but were, on the whole, even more offended than the sceptics. They found themselves in the same dilemma, and if they were satisfied of his insincerity, they had strong religious reasons for disapproving of such duplicity and even for regarding it as a manifestation and proof of evil intent.
Furthermore, Duke professed to have become, almost overnight, a "born again" Christian, using a phrase that is almost confined to "fundamentalist" Protestant sects.(6) He thus, whether thought sincere or recognized as a pretender, gratuitously offended all Roman Catholics, who, remember, form the majority of the White population of Louisiana. That was like singing "Mademoiselle from ArmentiŠre" or "AuprŠs de ma blonde" at a convention of the League for Sexual Morality. It will not matter whether you are believed to have actually had the adventures described in the later stanzas.
(6. Duke is a man of some education, and it is therefore conceivable, though unlikely, that he privately used "born again" as a sly pun. The phrase obviously is equivalent to 'twice born,' dvija in Sanskrit, and according to the basic religion of India, on which all the many Hindu sects agree, every Aryan is, by definition, dvija.)
The pretence was almost equally detrimental in its effect on Protestants. It was especially offensive to the clergy of the large and established Protestant churches, who have accepted the Marxian Reformation. They are, almost without exception, the knowing or unthinking hirelings of our enemies. They hypocritically profess a religion based on a book they admit to be full of lies, and befuddle their audiences with a glutinous treacle of humanitarian gibberish that conceals the Jews' deadly poison dissolved in it. They vend to their dozing congregations a doctrine of the divinely-ordained inferiority of the Aryan race, and their heroes are such murderers as Mandela, whom they use their dupes' money to subsidize. They dream of seeing gloriously bloody massacres of the White dolts who pay their salaries. At the first suggestion that Aryans are not an inferior species born to serve the Master Race and the anthropoid garbage that God's Race use as one of their principal weapons against us, the venal fakirs in the up-to-date holiness business have fits. They spontaneously go into a haka (haiku), the war dance of the Maoris, howling, leaping, gesticulating, and sticking out their tongues to daunt their adversaries. It was easy for them to expose, in terms of the hokum they were vending, how impious was the spurious 'conversion' that Duke claimed to have experienced.
He fared little better with the "Fundamentalists" whom he evidently most wanted to influence. His brand new coat of many colors served only to antagonize many of them. Some of his erstwhile supporters, who were almost certainly sincere in their devotion to the survival of our race, repudiated and denounced him because he had bought the wrong brand of Jesus.
Christianity has aptly been called a blind denial of reality and a revolt against Nature. It is not remarkable, therefore, that its votaries, with very few exceptions, are incapable of subordinating their emotional fixations to an urgent need to act for the survival of their manifestly endangered and probably doomed race and its civilization.(7)
What can be said to the highly select and mentally alert readers of Liberty Bell cannot advantageously be told to the general public. Various polls indicate that between 80% and 90% of the present population believe, or claim to believe, that somewhere in the welkin above the clouds they have a Big Daddy who might conceivably do something for them sometime. There seem to be no means of determining whether these percentages apply to the Aryans, the valuable part of the population. I should like to believe that their religiosity is less endemic, but I hazard no opinion.
Obviously, it is expedient, it is imperative, for a political candidate carefully to avoid all offense to Christians, and to treat them with the respect they deserve, for most of them are indeed respectable and worthy persons. But it is wildly imprudent to meddle with irreconcilable sectarian differences, and it is sheer folly to court one comparatively small faction at the expense of all the others.
(7. My little booklet, Christianity and the Survival of the West (first edition, 1973; second edition, with new preface and added postscript, 1978; reprinted, 1987; temporarily out-of-print, both in this country and South Africa), was a last attempt to persuade Christians that the survival of our race, including their own progeny, should take precedence over theological beliefs and animosities. A very few, including a few clergymen, understood, but the several publications of the booklet brought me chiefly letters that assured me that Jesus would take care of everything or pointed out that the Roman Catholics are spawn of Satan or revealed to me the crucial fact that we Aryans are really Yahweh's Chosen and the heroes of the "Old Testament"! I vaguely recall a letter of some fourteen closely-typewritten pages that proved that we Aryans belong to the tribe of Manasseh instead of Judah!)
OI! DOSE AWFUL KLUXERS!
One of the youthful misdeeds for which Duke in his campaign ostentatiously professed repentance and contrition was his association with a Ku Klux Klan.
In 1972, as I recall, Duke took over or organized a Ku Klux Klan in Louisiana, naturally appointing himself the Grand Wizard,(8) publishing a little periodical called the Klan Crusader, and issuing a manifesto that won him the public approbation of Mr. Richard Cotten, who was at that time the foremost spokesman of the American cause through his broadcasts over many radio stations, from which he purchased time with funds sent him by his supporters, and who had been able to defeat the Sheenies' Defamation League when it sought to have his broadcasts prohibited as not kosher. Mr. Cotten predicted that Duke was a young man who would go far, as indeed he should with such support.
(8. The rank just below that of Imperial Wizard, who is in theory the supreme director of all Klans, as modern holders of that office never are.)
At one time I took the trouble of ascertaining how many Ku Klux Klans were operating and competing in each of three southern states. I do not recall the total for Louisiana, but it was at least seven or eight and may have been eleven or twelve. Most of them, infiltrated, subverted, and persecuted by the rulers of the United States, ended in bankruptcy, scandal, and loud recriminations, but only a prolonged, difficult, and expensive investigation would fix the gravamen of responsibility or guilt in any one instance.
I do not now remember which Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was Duke's, nor do I precisely recall the circumstances of its dissolution. He was ceremoniously expelled from one of the older Klans that hoped to avoid attention from the poison-pen press. Duke, who was a literate, adroit, and persuasive speaker and writer, sought publicity for his organization, and he certainly alarmed our enemies.(9) A visit to England netted him considerable notoriety on both sides of the Atlantic, since he proclaimed an intent to establish a British branch of his Klan and ostentatiously appeared in its regalia; he was seized and deported by the British police on orders of a government that obviously feared lest Duke might arouse some common sense in the dim wits of its White cattle.
(9. For example, he was the subject of an expert pus-job in the widely-circulated pornographic magazine called Playboy, published by a Kike who attracted some attention with his private 707 airplane, painted black and called "The Flying Whorehouse." The well-compounded slime was entitled "The Buttondown Terror of David Duke," and, to sustain the interest of readers, it was continued through many pages, interlaced with photographs of nude women and of nude men who were exhibiting their penises for the admiration of fashionably-dressed audiences of modernized women.)
After his enforced return to the United States, he came to the conclusion that his talents required a wider scope, such as would be provided by the National Association for the Advancement of White People, which he then founded and continues to head, except in name, and in 1980 he retired from what had been his Klan. He claimed to have resigned in disgust at the stolid stupidity of the 'red necks' who composed most of the membership of the various Klans.(10)
(10. I have a copy of his undated announcement of his resignation. It is dignified, a well-reasoned and cogent analysis of the existing situation, including the effects of the idiotic in-fighting among Klans and of the slime perpetually vomited by the jewspapers, by which many na‹ve Americans are influenced, even today. It transmits the power of his office to his successor, and ends with the pledge, "I will never publicly denigrate the Ku Klux Klan, or its legitimate leaders.")
Duke's withdrawal from his Klan was given other explanations. There was a report that he had been offered $35,000 for the membership list, doubtless by an open or disguised agent of the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, Mossad, or the Defamation League. Whether or not he accepted that offer depended on the source of the report.
I can neither affirm not deny the veracity of a story that was circulated in "right-wing" circles and believed by some unprejudiced observers. It was said that Duke, before his resignation, had arranged a secret meeting with a man named Wilkinson, the head of another Klan. Wilkinson received him in a hotel room and listened to Duke's offer to sell his Klan for a large sum of money. There followed prolonged haggling over the price, during which Wilkinson confined himself to asking questions and making non-committal comments to elicit further proof of Duke's cynicism. Wilkinson finally refused to purchase, even at a 'rock-bottom' price, and Duke then discovered that Wilkinson had treacherously arranged to have the interview recorded on hidden microphones and photographed by a concealed camera. I now regret that I then made no effort to verify the story, which did not astonish or particularly interest me. Had I been younger, I should have deemed the conduct of both men reprehensible and been shocked by it, but I had participated in the John Birch Society until I discovered its secret supervisors and resigned from it, and for more than a quarter of a century I had observed the numerous patriotic and pseudo-patriotic organizations of the "right-wing," most of which sprang up like wild flowers and withered as quickly. Many of these organizations, although purportedly designed to oppose "the Communists" or, more candidly, the Jews, were principally engaged during their brief life in violent polemics against each other, making reciprocal allegations of dishonesty and treason that may or not have been true on both sides. The reported conference between Duke and Wilkinson seemed to me only normal and commonplace in such activities.
Since I neglected to check the story at the time, I can only record my uncertainty and give Duke the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume here that the report was false and proceed on that basis.
Duke could properly have expressed regret that he had devoted so much time and energy to an operation that failed, and, if such was his mature judgement, he could properly apologize for having mismanaged it or having mistaken the conditions and situation at that time and thus misdirected his efforts on behalf of our race. But in his campaign oratory, if he was correctly reported in the press, he confessed to a youthful sin and asked indulgence for it.
Rational men immediately asked themselves the obvious question. Was it a sin to espouse (however unsuccessfully) the cause of the White race? Was it wicked to claim for our race the right to possess, control, and govern for its own advantage the half of a continent it had taken from the savages?(11) If so, then why shouldn't Americans acquiesce in their present slavery and humbly hope their owners will throw them scraps from their table, as promised in the doctrine with which the Ebionites tried to enlist degenerate goyim.(12)
(11. Muddle-headed sentimentalists bemoan such conquests, just as they, under the baton of their Marxist directors, wailed in chorus about "colonialism," since their minds are not sufficiently active to perceive that the only valid titles to territory anywhere in the world were bestowed by conquest and occupation. I have repeatedly offered to believe in the sincerity of the yowling "Liberals" as soon as even one of them has shown that he believes what he says and demonstrates his moral unwillingness to receive what he describes as stolen goods: he will kill his wife and children and then commit suicide, after leaving a will that bequeaths all his property to the nearest Indian tribe. So far, I have not heard of a practising "Liberal.")
(12. Cf. Matth. 15.20-28; Marc, 7-26-28; whence it appears that the famous Jesus, a good Ebionite at that point, was wont to show contemptuous kindness to goyim who humbly confessed themselves to be dogs couched at the feet of the Master Race. Over the centuries, a great many Christians must have cast their eyes on these passages, but the meaning evidently failed to percolate through the scar-tissue that enclosed their encapsulated minds.)
Duke was again impaled on both horns of a dilemma and undoubtedly alienated many of his whilom supporters. If his remorse was sincere, he was no longer their champion; if it was feigned, he was patently dishonest. He probably assumed that they would recognize his recantation as a political subterfuge to fool many stupidly sentimental or brainwashed persons into voting for him, but many of his followers had the Aryan (Nordic) disdain for meanness and deceit.
The question is, did he gain more than he lost by that charade? I do not know the answer, but I am inclined to guess that his duplicity was at least one reason why he was repudiated by a majority of the persons who had made his career possible in the parish that elected him to the legislature.
It is true that the name of the Ku Klux Klan in itself aroused resentment or fear in ignorant minds. The Klan was revived in the 1920s and enlisted a large number of members and sympathizers, chiefly from the unsophisticated lower classes, who, less insulated from quotidian reality than the better educated and more prosperous classes, sensed that their nation was falling under alien domination. The Klan's propaganda was defective. For one thing, they stigmatized and excluded Catholics, carrying on the old British fear of sectaries who were subject to the dictates of an alien and hostile monarch in Rome. That was not unreasonable in the Seventeenth Century, but in the Twentieth it was beating a dead donkey.(13)
(13. It may be relevant to note that Duke's Klan in 1973 specifically admitted Catholics, thus antagonizing some of his competitors. As for the 1920s, one should remember that The Menace and similar rabble-rousing newspapers were still spreading not only sensational stories about the sexual immorality of Catholic clergy and ecclesiastics, which was contrasted with the piously ascetic purity of all Protestants, but especially fantastic tales about Catholic plans for an armed insurrection and coup d'‚tat in the United States. These were credited by ignorant and unthinking persons, much as the Sheenies' Holohoax is accepted today, but they were not so implausible to believing Christians, who, if Protestants, had the highest religious authority for an unshakable conviction that the Pope and all his followers were Satanists, diabolical agents of the supernatural source of all evil.)
The Klan in the 1920s attracted some persons who were not uneducated, but it also attracted opportunists (14) and, of course, enemy agents. There appears to have been some dishonesty, and several officers of the Klan were convicted of real or simulated offenses and imprisoned, but again it is impossible to distinguish, without long investigation, between guilt and the work of clever saboteurs and perjurers. What ruined the Klan in the 1920s was the concerted outpouring of derision and filth by the newspapers. It must be remembered that in that period Americans, although they were beginning to realize that professional liars had herded them like cattle into a war against their own kindred and their own interests, still cherished the illusion that the newspapers were, on the whole, independent and veracious, and they usually believed what they read.(15)
(14. E.g., the Hugo Black who later became a Justice of the Supreme Court. He seems to have been only a scalawag and scoundrel, but there were persistent reports that he had committed several murders and was therefore subject to blackmail by the persons who knew where the bodies were buried.)
(15. There were, of course, a few who knew better. As a youth I was acquainted with a man who had gone to a friend, the editor of the leading newspaper in a fairly large city, and asked why he was attacking the Klan with preposterous piffle that implied that true "Americanism" dictated the repudiation of American principles and denigration of men who, however untutored, were rather courageously affirming loyalty to their nation. The editor's explanation was succinct: "Boss's orders.")
The Klan of the 1920s was really irrelevant to Duke's problem. Instead of defending himself with a suspect repentance, he could have attacked his opponents by merely stating the historical truth that Ku Klux Klan had, in the bitter aftermath of the invasion of the South in 1861, heroically preserved the South from becoming what the scabrous gang of Republicans intended, a vast and stinking slum filled with diseased and mindless mongrels.
I have no doubt but that the shysters of "Education," in the South as elsewhere, had for decades zealously injected hallucinogenic lies into the unformed minds of their victims in the public schools, but the historical record cannot have been entirely effaced.(16)
(16. In the middle 1950s, as I recall, at a reception that followed a lecture on a scholarly subject that I had given in Richmond, I complained to two prominent Virginians that the South had grievously and perhaps disastrously failed to insist that the factual history of the so-called "Civil War" be taught in the schools that were financed by Southern taxpayers. They agreed politely, but without conviction. I was dismayed by the confidence of so many present that nothing untoward could happen in Virginia, where "we know how to manage niggers," although there might be trouble in the raw newer states, such as Mississippi and Louisiana, where the White population lacked the culture, experience, and sagacity of the upper classes in Virginia--a state which, I notice, now has a nigger governor!)
Duke had a perfect opportunity to take pride in the tradition of the Klan. In New Orleans there must still persist memories of the reign of terror when that hapless city fell under the despotic control of General Benjamin "Beast" Butler,(17) a loathsome creature whose crudity made him conspicuous even among the leaders of the Republican Party in 1865. He not only did his best to encourage rape of White women in New Orleans and himself murdered White men of good family, but, having risen from poverty by becoming a very clever and corrupt lawyer, he distinguished himself as a coward, a bogus solder,(18) an utterly incompetent commander, a thief, a murderer, an arsonist, a traitor, a blackmailer, an embezzler, a swindling capitalist,(19) and, of course, a sadist in his relations with women.
(17. I must again remark that by applying the word 'beast,' to such creatures as Butler, we slander and defame all quadrupeds, who are incapable of such depravity and crime. It is only natural that all the fearsome beasts of myth and fiction, from Grendel in Beowulf to Smaug, the dragon in Tolkein's Hobbit, have to be endowed with human characteristics to make them truly evil. Butler's career is reluctantly described by Robert Werlich in his "Beast" Butler, (Washington, D.C., Quaker Press, 1962). Some even more unsavory details could be added.)
(18. He was without military experience, and owed his factitious rank as General to political appointment by the Republican gangsters, most of whom were somewhat less blatant than he in their criminal careers. Some of his concepts of military strategy would have been discreditable in a ten-year-old boy. He, with the approbation of the gangsters in power in Washington, claimed credit for the capture of New Orleans, with which he, cowering in an encampment from which he did not move until after the victory had been won, had nothing to do.)
(19. One of his corporations supplied overcoats to the Northern armies, by arrangement, of course, with the Republican government. His admitted profits were around 65%, and his shoddy overcoats were described, graphically though hyperbolically, by the common soldiers who had to wear them and affirmed that the overcoats would wash off in a good rain.)
Despite all the brainwashing by the hirelings of our vicious enemies, the South cannot have entirely forgotten a pod of venom, called Karl Schurz, that escaped from Germany in 1849 and became one of the founders of the Republican Party,(20) when it, the usual alliance between alien invaders, greedy criminals, and crackpots whose minds festered with righteousness and blood-lust, was organized in 1855 to contrive a wonderfully lucrative and gloriously bloody war. Schurz, who is called a German although the few pictures of him show a remarkable likeness to Leib Bronstein, alia Trotsky, attached himself to Lincoln, for whom he vigorously campaigned, and was, like Butler, later transformed into a General by presidential order.
(20. Even the name was stolen from the American Republican Party, which was then being disrupted by members who stupidly listened to the rant of the Abolitionists.)
This appalling creature proposed a law condemning White women in the South who refused to "marry" (i.e., copulate with) a nigger who tapped them on the shoulder to spend years in prison, unless they were able to persuade a Federal "judge" that they had a valid reason for evading their Christian duty. Even in the emotional frenzy the Republicans contrived in 1865,(21) they did not dare enact this humanitarian law at that time, and it is probably being reserved for inclusion in the "Civil Rights" Act of 1997 or 1998. It is, of course, only a logical and even necessary preparation for the Integration half-witted Americans have been made to want.
(21. The assassination of Lincoln was a political masterpiece, and should be taken as a model by the C.I.A. in its studies of ways to spread "democracy." Its assassination of Jackanapes Kennedy was, by comparison, amateurish. This is not to say that the assassination of Lincoln was perfectly carried out and without some slight slips, which betrayed the plot, but they were probably the result of mere chance and unforseen coincidences. It would be rash to blame Stanton, the Secretary of War who was in charge of arrangements on the spot, for such mischances as Booth's miscalculation in his doubtless practised leap to the stage, which broke his leg and led to a series of other mischances.)
An American in whom manhood is not entirely withered must hang his head in shame as he records the shocking fact that both Butler and Schurz lived to die natural deaths many years later. It was only a matter of course that under the Republican government they both condignly attained various high political offices and dignities before their venom was exhausted in 1893 and 1906 respectively.
The dissolution of the American Republic and the invasion of the South in 1861, with its consequences, enormous slaughter, irreversible genetic impoverishment of the nation, and the devastation of half of the country, must rank as one of the greatest crimes of recorded history, and forever debars Americans from pretending to a moral superiority over Genghiz Khan, Hulagu, Attila, and other barbarians of comparable repute.(22)
(22. Lord Palmerston at first refused to credit the news from across the Atlantic, maintaining (correctly) that a civilized people would be incapable of such outrage. A young man with an interest in historical study could earn high honors by devoting years to research to establish, so far as possible, the r"le of the Sheenies in contriving the "Civil War" from which they so richly profited. He would, of course, permanently debar himself from employment in the fraudulent diploma-factories that are now called colleges and universities.)
The horrors of the subsequent terror of compounded atrocities, called "Reconstruction" with characteristic falsehood, with the unspeakable suffering sadistically imposed on the survivors of what had been the most cultivated and civilized part of the nation by the scabrous gang of enriched but still greedy thieves, hate-crazed lunatics, and disgusting degenerates (23) who ruled the Republican Party, are almost beyond belief. The designs of those blots on humanity were defeated by the heroism of the men who valiantly risked their lives to preserve our race and a vestige of civilization in the Ku Klux Klan and its affiliates. Their memory should be honored by White men everywhere, but particularly in the South, which they preserved.
(23. E.g., the infamous Thaddeus Stevens, a misshapen creature who hated White women and was so degenerate that he preferred to copulate with female niggers, whom he could treat as mere chattel, entirely at his mercy. He is plausibly suspected of having avoided public disgrace as a young man by murdering a negress whom he had made pregnant.)
I cannot but believe that if Duke, instead of behaving in a manner that sometimes reminded one of a small boy whose ball had broken a window, had met the issue openly and honestly, reason and manhood are not so nearly extinct in Louisiana that he would not have received the additional 10% of the White vote that would have given him victory, despite the record marshalling and herding of niggers to the polls.
Such is my belief. I do not live in Louisiana and have not been in that state recently, but I hope that men of discernment who were on the scene and witnessed events day by day will make a reasoned estimate of my conjecture.
NO ONE WINS BY DODGING
Whatever the expediency of paltering about the Klan, one must wonder at Duke's decision not to exploit other issues that could have aroused the support he needed.
The recent "Civil Rights" legislation, intended to ruin every American proprietor of a business, was delayed by a factitious disagreement between the War Lord and the Den of Thieves (24) and thus timed to prevent Duke from exploiting fully its frank proclamation of white Inferiority, but could he not have at least mentioned it effectively on the eve of the election?
The issue could at least have served as a defence against the campaign that was timed for the last fortnight before the election, and which, in the opinion of some observers, was decisive.
(24. It was not signed by the War Lord until 21 November, and until that time there were rumors, believed by the gullible, that he wanted to show mercy to his White subjects. Needless to say, the obscene show put on in the Senate was designed to distract attention from that impending act of undisguised oppression and also from Bushy's disarmament of the United States, perhaps in preparation for a military invasion of this hapless country. The clowning Senators and their stooges in the well-staged debate about a nomination to the Revolutionary Tribunal did engross the attention of placidly feckless Americans and absorbed their interest so completely that even a week later (a long time in American minds) some were still arguing about which nigger lied the most--as though that mattered!)
It is said, I know not how accurately, that many large corporations, which, even if they are still owned by Americans, are by their nature without principle, threatened their agents and employees in Louisiana with a drastic reduction of their staffs and activities or even withdrawal from the state, if Louisiana elected a governor who was not hostile to White men and women.(25) There were certainly very plausible threats of massive reprisals from the Comintern in Washington: Louisiana's mouth would be repelled from the ever-flowing Federal teat, terrorists would be sent into the state further to harass the White subjects, and every form of economic pressure and sabotage would be used to induce general bankruptcy.
(25. One is reminded of the action of the large banks which, in 1940, obtained the Republican nomination for a stooge named Wendell Wilkie instead of a man who would represent American interests, by threatening to call loans or force foreclosures and other forms of economic ruin against delegates at the Republican convention who did not fall into line with the purposes of the war-mongers.)
This campaign of fright was doubtless effective, for, as we all know, the only true god of the Americans is incarnate in the scraps of intrinsically worthless paper they use in place of money, and they have acquired the Jewish habit of doing anything that is not perilous in the service of their god.
That is true, but (a) Louisiana still contains a large number of men and women who own, or imagine that they own, independent businesses; if their attention had been called to legislation that will make their existence impossible, they would surely have been sufficiently rational to want to save themselves; and (b) even the "corporation men," whom some think were the decisive factor, could surely have seen that legislated White Inferiority would eventually put most of them out on the street with nothing to meet the payments on their many mortgages, since they have almost all acquired the American addiction to living perpetually in debt. (And furthermore, as everyone now awake knows, the economic d‚bƒcle is now inevitable and will result in chaos, including the race-war the Kikes have long planned; there is only the question of how long our rulers will delay announcement in order to suck a little more blood from the boobs.)
The boobs in Louisiana were further frightened by threats that New Orleans would be deprived of the profits derived from tourists and the blabber-fests called conventions. The threats were emphasized by reminders of how the filthy little twerps called "Liberals" tried to boycott Arizona, when the Governor of that state had the integrity to refuse to revere the stinking reputation of a liar, thief, and Communist agent named King, whom the C.I.A. used to incite race-riots in many parts of the United States, where pavid governors failed to employ the National Guard for one of the purposes for which it was established.
Duke could have pointed out the obvious fact that the best way to attract tourists and persons who enjoy "conventions" is to make greater provision for their personal safety. I have heard from a man who visited New Orleans a month or two ago before the election and was mugged and robbed by a pair of niggers while he was waiting for a taxicab on a street near the center of the city at ten o'clock in the evening. The first policemen whom he saw while limping back to his hotel (he no longer could pay a cab) were niggers, and he wisely, though perhaps unnecessarily, decided not to risk arrest and further injury. He is not likely--and his friends are not likely--to visit New Orleans hereafter.
Again, since the War Lord had denounced him, Duke could well have called attention to Bushy's treasonable destruction of the nuclear weapons that are our only defence against the major nuclear powers, Russia and Israel.
One could list some minor issues about which Duke was silent, probably to his disadvantage, but what is the use?
If the foregoing appraisal of political realities is valid in its application to Louisiana, there is abundant evidence to show that Duke lost the election through his own blunders, his own tergiversation, perhaps his own pusillanimity. Furthermore, I am reliably informed that he ignored the advice of men of long experience in the politics of Louisiana, but that was only normal. While Duke was still a Grand Wizard, a prominent man in whose judgement I have every confidence had a long interview with him and reported that he had witnessed an "ego-trip" that went far beyond anything he had seen in the various political leaders with whom he was acquainted.
The evidence will certainly convince many of Duke's erstwhile supporters that he made those blunders with malice aforethought, that he was a turn-coat, that he betrayed them.
Before we endorse that verdict, let us remember that, as Aeschylus, Sophocles, Cicero, and Seneca have reminded us, cuiusvis hominis est errare--humanum est. You and I, in our wisdom, would not have made those mistakes--certainly not!--but are we quite fully assured that if we had had the stamina to run for office in this crazed ochlocracy, our flawless judgement would not have erred at some time when we were fatigued and perhaps exhausted by the continual ordeal of public appearances, the constant need for vigilance, and the sheer stress of perpetual concern with all the financial and personal factors that called for decision, and when we were surrounded by the discordant voices of clamorous advisers?
Mistakes are to be expected in every human activity. The question is whether Duke's errors, some in a strategy that must have been planned long before and unhurriedly, were too numerous to admit of that apology. That is a question you must decide for yourself.
I have said that in all probability the election in Louisiana is the last of its kind that we shall see in the United States. It taught Americans a lesson that must have taken many of them by surprise.
On 15 November, the day before the election, the Des Moines Register published the names and location of all the persons in Iowa who had sent contributions, ranging from $5 to $1000, to Duke's campaign fund. As a gentleman who sent me a photocopy from that dirty rag remarked, the publisher of the list "obviously hopes some of these good folk will be visited by thugs--members of a racial minority--and will be beaten and robbed for daring to give money to an anti-establishment candidate." But there is more to it than that.
The contributors are not only singled out for violence by niggers eager to exercise their Civil Rights on the hated race that was so stupid as to let them vote and is now reduced to working ever harder to satisfy their appetites, subject to open threats (as in Milwaukee) that if the boobs don't give them more money, the niggers will start killing the stupid animals.
The contributors are exposed to reprisals from their Jewish masters, probably through attacks on their income and financial assaults on their property, and from Bushy's terrorists, ranging from Infernal Revenue (to which the befuddled Americans subjected themselves with the White Slave Act in 1913) (26) to the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, the C.I.A., gangs of Federal Marshals (who have carried out several successful murders of insubordinate Americans), and the corps of perjurers who can convict anyone of anything.
(26. According to experts, the latest Income Tax Act is full of traps for the unwary, and there is a good chance that anyone who has a decent income and has not employed a competent expert to make out his report to his owners will have inadvertently fallen into some trap when making his way through the bewildering maze of rules, now more complicated than ever, to compute what part of his earnings his masters will permit him to keep for himself.)
I mention the vicious publication in Des Moines because it was the first from which I was sent a cutting, immediately after the election. In Springfield, Illinois, the Journal-Register exposed the vile wretches in its territory who had dared to support a candidate who had not been certified as kosher. I have been promised cuttings from jewspapers in other states, and I think it a safe assumption that in every state journalistic stool-pigeons have put the finger on the Americans in its area who were guilty of entertaining hopes for their own degraded race.
I remains to be seen what reprisals will be visited on the sinners who were disobedient to Lord Bushy and his godly masters. You may be sure that the reprisals will not be reported as such by the press that hopes to see them carried out.
Some of the good people who now find themselves set up as targets are surprised, I am sure. There were unaware of the risk they took when they sent Duke a check of money order. As James Madison pointed out when the short-lived American Republic (1789-1861) was established, "if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood," the result is tyranny, whatever the political theory in vogue.(27)
(27. Sometime in the 1930s the American Mercury published an article on the effects of the Americans' insane multiplication of legislation. If a young man entering a police force at that time had been required to memorize all the laws he was expected to enforce, he would have been able to go on duty for only four or five years before he was retired as overage. Since that time, the boobs have elected crooks to multiply the laws enormously, and today the hypothetical policeman could not complete a fourth of his task before he died of senility. The same is true of all other forms of legislation.)
Americans are so stupid! They subject themselves to every scoundrel who professes good intentions. They nodded with approval when the Federal government tied them down with a law requiring that all contributions to political candidates be reported and identified by the recipients. The boobs were told, of course, that the purpose of the law was to "fight corruption in politics," and could not see that its real purpose was to protect the masters of corruption by exposing the supporters of candidates not endorsed by the Demopublican gang.(28) The same boobs acquiesced recently in a tyrannical law subjecting them to the "search and seizure" so reprehended by the framers of the Constitution. The pretext, of course, was a "war on drugs"--to be waged by the great wholesale vendors of cocaine, heroine, and the like.
(28. The law also limits to a few thousand dollars the amount of contributions by any individual, but you must not suppose that the law hampers the Master Race. Some years ago, Senator Percy, who had been an obsequious "Liberal," was so imprudent as to suggest that there might be a limit to the amount of work Americans are obliged to do for the Holy Land. An irate Sheeny immediately rolled in from California and dispensed cash, officially reported at $1,500,000, but rumored to amount to twice that sum, to teach Percy--and, by example, all Senators who might be tempted to have mercy on the boobs who elected them--that Aryan curs must not bark without permission from their masters. Percy was, of course, defeated in the election. But who would dare be such a vile 'Nazi' as to object to such holy work?)
Hereafter, someone may find, as did Duke, an unguarded spot at which he can crawl under the canvas and into the political circus, but if he does, he can expect no support. Dukes's escapade will have made all potential contributors aware of the danger of sending the candidate a cheque or money order, and few, if any, will be so imprudent as to take such a risk. Some in desperation might think of delivering currency, giving a fictitious address, but even that will not work. As Criminal Politics has repeatedly warned us in recent months, the Federal Reserves' substitute for money is now being printed with an electronically detectable code concealed in the paper. Any scrap of paper marked $100, and eventually perhaps even $20, can thus be traced to the bank that issued it and to the depositor who drew it out, who will be obliged to account for the way by which it got into the hands of a 'Neo-Nazi.'(29)
(29. You must also consider "Social Security," which was devised both to inflict additional taxation (the funds thus collected were, of course, promptly embezzled by the Den of Thieves) and to number the tax-paying animals, whose acts can thus be entered into the vast data base in mammoth computers that keep track of every animal by its serial number. Electronic identity cards are now being tested and improved in Southeast Asia, and when forced on the American boobs will record all of an animal's vital characteristics, including the amount of credit allowed him for permitted personal expenses, which he can use by presenting the card for any purchase, the amount of which will be immediately deducted from his allowance. This governmental "credit card" will replace the Federal Reserve's fake "money," and, of course, provide the data bank with a record of even the slightest movements of the livestock.)
Americans are now being made to perceive what they have done to themselves. They are prisoners in the country that once was theirs. They have enslaved themselves to alien and ruthless masters. They are helpless. They have made themselves helpless. They gayly put the noose about their own necks; they deserve to be hanged. And Jack Ketch is waiting for them.
This article originally appeared in Liberty Bell magazine, published monthly by George P. Dietz from September 1973 to February 1999. For reprint information please write to Liberty Bell Publications, Post Office Box 21, Reedy WV 25270 USA.
Copyright ©1999 Kevin Alfred Strom. Back to Revilo P. Oliver Index