The following is an explanation of why anti-integrationists in the South lost; because they attempted to use Civic Nationalism and ran away from hard racial science and National Socialism. Their concern with optics and their fear of being too radical should serve as an example to us today, as the southeastern region they tried to represent becomes New Afrika. Fortunately, the leading Southern Nationalists of our time have radicalized relatively recently to full blown White Nationalism, and have, after initially refusing to answer the Jewish Question, thankfully done an about face towards naming our primary enemy. They now understand, as previous well-intentioned segregationists did not, that arguments based on Constitutionality or States Rights are just negotiating with your executioner over which arm the lethal injection is going into.
by Paul Jones
When I was a teenager living in Los Angeles, California in the early Sixties, I used to listen some to a black radio station D.J. named the Magnificent Montague. He became famous for his shouting out while a song was being played, “Burn baby, burn; don’t throw any water just let it burn.” When the Watts riots broke out on Aug. 11, 1965, lasting five days with 35 dead and $40 million dollars of property destroyed, the black rioters and looters who threw firebombs at white owned businesses used the same words as they set stores on fire.
He also tried to inspire black youth by reading biographies of black Congressmen and governors who had been elected in the South during Reconstruction, a time when most white, Southern males had been proscribed from voting. However, the picture he painted of the black politicians was a lot different than the reality of what took place during that time, as was brought out by Claude Bowers in his classic book, “The Tragic Era,” in which he showed the corruption and evil of the period that led to bankruptcy and chaos in the states controlled by black elected officials and their white Scalawag and Carpetbagger handlers. (On a side note, the Magnificent Montague converted to Judaism later in his life.)
In a similar way to what Montague was trying to do for black youth, I think that the white young people of today should learn more about the great Southern, white politicians during the time of de jure segregation in the South who were active when the Second Reconstruction of the South was taking place from 1945 to about 1965. The mostly Jewish led and directed Civil Rights movement, at least as far as the legions of leftist lawyers were involved, effectively overturned and eradicated the so-called Jim Crow laws, but until they finished the job there were many brilliant white Southerners who fought against the changes going on-the problem was they were always fighting with “one hand tied behind their back.”
I previously wrote an article about Herman Talmadge, Governor of Georgia and later senator during that period, but now I’d like to hold up as a model James Eastland, Senator from Mississippi. After graduating from the University of Alabama, he studied law in the office of his father, who was a district attorney in Scott County, Mississippi, and James was later admitted to the bar in 1927 and practiced law in the state. He served in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in 1941 and again from 1943 until his resignation on Dec. 27, 1978.
In order to give some idea of his thinking, I will quote from a speech he made in the U.S. Senate on May 26, 1955 that was recorded in The Congressional Record. In it, he tries to show the Communist background of the persons used as “scientific authorities” to justify the Supreme Court’s decision declaring segregated schooling no longer Constitutional in Brown v. Board of Education the previous year.
He states: “Mr. President, somewhat more than 1 year ago I pointed out in an address on this floor that the Supreme Court had been indoctrinated and brainwashed by left-wing pressure groups, that indeed members of the court were influenced by and were guilty of grossly improper conduct in accepting awards and emoluments from groups and organizations interested in political litigation before the court and bent on changing and destroying our American way of life.” Eastland goes on to specifically name groups considered to be Communist fronts and how individuals such as Gunnar Myrdal of Sweden, who wrote the influential “An American Dilemma,” which highly influenced the Supreme Court’s decision, were associated with these. He makes the lawyerly argument as a Strict Constructionist that it is unheard of for courts to do other than to consider law cases and appeal results themselves as a basis for a decision and states that the only time this has been done before by western legal systems was during the time when National Socialism ruled Germany.
But here’s where Eastland, and so many other honorable Southern, white politicians and thinkers of the time fell short. They tried to lambast the Nuremberg laws in National Socialist Germany as a way of somehow gaining support for continuance of legal segregation of blacks and whites in the South. So Eastland goes on to say in his speech, “Mr. President, my information is that the one time when the high appellate court of any major western nation has resorted to books and words of agitators to sustain its decision was when the high court of Germany sustained Hitler’s racist laws.”
Eastland equated Germany’s high court sustaining of its racial segregation laws based on “books and works of agitators” to the U.S. Supreme Court’s use of experts and books in its decision of Brown v. Board of Education that declared to be unconstitutional laws of legal segregation of the races in the South. So if it was legally wrong for the highest court in Germany in the 1930’s to declare the Nuremberg laws to be constitutional within the German legal system, then following this logic so-called “experts” who denounced segregation of the races in the South should not have been allowed to influence the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 1954. However, by attacking Germany’s “racist” laws of the 1930’s Eastland could no longer take the high moral ground, but left his whole position open to attack. Just as books like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” by Harriet Beecher Stowe undermined the South’s case for upholding the institution of slavery before the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, so too moral and psychological arguments could be used to attack Segregation laws in the South that Eastland and others were trying to defend. As mentioned in the novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” how could the South sustain its system of segregation of the races when it had been part of the national moral crusade by the United States to defeat National Socialist Germany in W.W. II?
So while admiring the eloquence and fighting spirit of Eastland and many others in the Southland who were fighting to maintain its traditions, and recognizing that their characters were head and shoulders above the likes of later Scalawags like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, they had no chance against their opponents with the tactics they tried to use involving simply more technical legal positions such as States Rights and a failure to uphold previous Supreme Court decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that said “separate but equal” segregated facilities for blacks and whites were allowed under the Constitution.
The only way to have had a chance to win would have been to use “books and words” of experts on their side who had conclusively proved that there are significant racial differences between blacks and whites related especially with intelligence and that showed an average 15 point I.Q. gap that justified “separate, but equal” schooling between the races. U.S. Army tests and studies of differences of average I.Q. between whites and blacks had conclusively shown this gap and possibly an expert witness to counter Gunnar Myrdal, like Carleton Coon, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the book, “The Races of Europe” in 1939 and not a disciple of the Franz Boas School of Anthropology, could have been used by lawyers defending the South’s position when Brown v. Board of Education was being argued before the Supreme Court in 1954.
But no, this argument couldn’t be used since to point out significant racial differences would have made such politicians and defenders of Southern tradition appear to look too much like the “evil” Nazis we’d defeated in W.W. II who had set up “Hitler’s racist laws.” As long as only States Rights or strict constructionist arguments, or trying to tie in agents of change with Communist connections were the main tactical objections made to counter the slick Jewish lawyers and “fellow travelers” trying to overthrow de jure segregation, rather than the strongest argument to maintain the system, which is the proven average intellectual inferiority of blacks to whites, then it was only a matter of time before the Second Reconstruction took place and we can see the results in 2018 now that it has had plenty of time to run its full course.
Nonetheless, statesmen like James Eastland and others of that time can still be models for future generations of white youth in that they fought for a just cause, the right of whites to maintain their distinct racial identity and culture-something which the Second Reconstruction pushed by the Jewish power structure intends to totally eliminate and which is not far from taking place unless enough whites wake up to the reality of the ongoing White Genocide.