From Republic to Empire
America began life not as a democracy, but as an “aristocratic” republic. Under this model of elite governance, also known as federalism, civic participation was restricted to propertied White males. The basis for this particular exclusion was traditional English jurisprudence, which maintained autonomous agency was not possible without ownership of property. John Adams, a prominent Federalist, spoke for the majority of American Founding Fathers when he wrote:
“Such is the frailty of the human heart that very few men who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest …. [They are] to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents.”[i]
The Federalists were defeated in the presidential election of 1800 by the Democratic-Republicans, who ushered in the age of Jeffersonian democracy. There were more White males who had been accorded full suffrage in 1824, which saw the end of Jeffersonian democracy, than in 1800, when it began. The mid-1820s witnessed the dissolution of the Democratic-Republicans and the growth of the highly influential movement for Jacksonian democracy, which opposed the continued disenfranchisement of non-propertied White males. During the 1840s and 1850s, the movement continued to gather momentum until by 1860, White male suffrage was recognized in all 33 states of the American union. In the aftermath of the Civil War, male suffrage was further expanded to include Blacks. The effect of the new legislation was mitigated by post-Reconstruction state governments, which used grandfather clauses and literacy tests to keep Blacks away from the polls.
Women were accorded full suffrage in 1919, another watershed in American history. This would have far reaching consequences for contemporary US politics. Female suffrage would shift electoral voting patterns in a more leftward direction.[ii] The next piece of momentous legislation was the Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964, which dismantled racial segregation in the South, putting an end to freedom of association. Barry Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act because it violated states’ rights, lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson, the architect of the modern American welfare state. In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, delivering the final death knell to what was left of the old republic.
Meanwhile, decolonization had begun in 1945. This period of turmoil witnessed the emergence of independence movements and guerrilla insurgencies across the Third World, all of them agitating for the full evacuation of colonial personnel. In response, European metropoles dismantled their colonial empires, having lost the will to govern them after years of fighting in Europe and the Pacific.
Having abandoned their Third World outposts, the West’s deracinated and Judaized elites decided among themselves to transform their own nations into empires. This would be achieved by importing large numbers of migrants from Third World countries to live under a single sovereign authority. In the years since passage of the 1965 immigration act, America would place herself on a similar trajectory.
The Curse of Diversity
Once a nation embarks on a path to imperial hegemony, i.e., to become a multicultural, multiracial cesspool like Alexander’s Macedon, ancient Rome and Hapsburg Austria, its fate is already sealed in blood. Far from being an exception in this regard, the United States is representative of the problems that come with having a racially heterogeneous population. Indeed, racial conflict has been interwoven into the fabric of American history since the arrival of the first English settlers in 1607.
We must look to human biology to understand why diversity always fails. The separate evolutionary histories of each human race, which inhabited different ecological niches for thousands of years, entails average differences in intelligence and temperament between populations. This makes conflict inevitable when racial groups must live together under a single roof. As far as human relations are concerned, the greater the diversity, the greater the severity of the ensuing conflict. If group differences are too wide, the prospect for internal stability is diminished considerably.
In America, immigration policy has increased the potential for race conflict. The most destructive wave of mass migration so far, the post-1965 mass Third World immigration, would not have been possible without the mass European migration of 1880 to 1924, which brought inter-ethnic conflict, of the kind well-documented in the Culture of Critique, to American shores. As a result, there has been large-scale erosion of social cohesion in towns and cities across America. What was once a homogeneous ethno-racial community, a nation, is now the location of the world’s largest marketplace.
Without any social glue to hold America together, government must step in and resort to micromanagement of its citizens’ personal lives. By directly managing diversity, bureaucratic elites do their best to prevent America from exploding like a powder keg. Traditionally, management of diversity entailed maintaining the boundaries that separated whole neighborhoods, cities, regions and even nations largely populated by a single ethnic or racial group. For example, in America, segregation in the South and the tribal reservation system were meant to diffuse and manage the race problem. Soviet “multiculturalism” wasn’t integration of ethnicities, but a federal model that respected the ethnic diversity within each of its autonomous regions and socialist republics.
These days, American elites go against the conventional wisdom by forcibly integrating their own citizens, regardless of racial and ethnic differences. Since diversification is forced, limits must be imposed on freedom of speech to manage diversity. These are enforced by means of social ostracism and economic sanction. Critics of diversity have been deplatformed, fired from their jobs or have had their books removed from general circulation. As the high-profile case of James Watson demonstrates, even so much as expressing dissident views on race and intelligence in modern-day America can ruin careers and turn celebrities into virtual non-entities overnight.[iii] Multiculturalists, in their desire to create a nondiscriminatory and egalitarian society, have created an environment where the easily offended can dictate their own agendas with impunity.
The traditional Western canon is among the first casualties of political correctness, having been marginalized on colleges and universities across America in favor of gender and ethnic studies. Apparently, the achievements of the Western canon tower so highly above the achievements of other peoples and nations they must be slowly forgotten or attributed to some other racial or ethnic group, otherwise post-modern beliefs about cultural relativity wouldn’t be credible. Sometimes, the marginalization of the Western canon can be quite dramatic. The ongoing controversy over Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a shining example of the excesses of political correctness. This classic work of fiction has been subject to outright bans and expurgation, all because it uses the word nigger some 213 times.[iv]
Not only must the Western canon be replaced, but certain fields of inquiry are declared verboten, all in the name of managing diversity. Since World War II, academia has aggressively marginalized scientific researchers who have refused to adhere to the ideology of political correctness. Anyone who conducts research in a field deemed off-limits by political correctness can expect no financial support from the universities and colleges. For example, if not for the Pioneer Fund, an alternative source of funding for dissidents, the famous Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (MISTRA), one of the most important studies ever conducted on race and intelligence, would never have gotten off the ground.
The limiting of public discourse to politically correct discourse and only politically correct discourse will make society weaker in the long-run:
First, political correctness impoverishes American culture by ensuring art and literature do not violate multicultural orthodoxy, with violators marginalized and treated with oppobrium. A similar, but more extreme situation existed in the Soviet Union, where socialist realism was imposed on artists and writers by government officials. This not only suppressed individual creativity, but perpetuated the wealth and power of the ruling communist party. With few exceptions, the art and literature churned out by Soviet literati were bland, utilitarian, propagandistic and kitschy. The regime of political correctness in America has had a similar effect on contemporary American art and literature, without any of the pretensions to neoclassicism. Clearly then, creativity cannot flourish in an environment where racial hypersensitivity and racial orthodoxy are the norm.
Second, political correctness makes America less stable politically. Dissidents will be forced underground, where they will continue to undermine the stability of the multicultural order as they challenge it from within. If the ideas are credible and reach a large audience—which they will because political correctness is intellectually vacuous—the elite narrative will be threatened. But as a consequence, political repression will increase in severity. If ideas must be suppressed in the name of diversity, their supporters will have to seek other, more clandestine avenues to get their message across. Continued repression will inevitably lead to further unrest.
As JFK once said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
The Future of the American Empire?
When queried about the new American government, Benjamin Franklin said: “A republic … if you can keep it.” There was uncertainty as to whether the political arrangement agreed upon by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 would continue indefinitely. By the 1790s, there were already signs the new arrangement was beginning to unravel; by the mid-1960s, the spread of universal suffrage had forever consigned the nation’s republican institutions to the trash bin; by the early 2000s, America was a burgeoning imperial colossus, but one that strode the world with feet of clay.
The mass immigration that has played an instrumental role in America’s rise to imperial status has turned American culture into one that worships death. Death, both racial and cultural, permeates American culture and society to the extent it has become ubiquitous; Western borders are porous; state propaganda encourages Third World colonization; miscegenation and antinatalism are everywhere promoted among Whites; and racial integration is considered the normative ideal. By handing over their major financial and administrative centers to non-Whites, Whites are gradually ceding power and control to a growing and increasingly hostile class of imported serfs. In other words, Whites are committing race suicide, while giving non-Whites the means to destroy them when they become powerless minorities in their own racial homelands.
Is America destined to end up “… in fragments, forgotten … in ruins, like old Memphis and Babylon,” as prophesied by Oswald Spengler in Man and Technics?
What happened to Rome during the fourth to fifth centuries is similar to what is going on right now in modern-day America. After the Punic and Macedonian wars, which paved the way for Roman political and military ascendancy in the Mediterranean, the same moral degeneracy affecting modern-day Americans had set in, to rot the empire from within; birth rates fell; cosmopolitanism thrived; high culture declined; foreigners replaced citizens in the main urban centers[v],[vi]; government positions were occupied by foreigners and the defense of the nation was entrusted to foreign mercenaries. In short, the Roman polis had become a cosmopolis, much like modern-day America, everywhere unworkable because people are local, not global in their attachments.
The collapse of Rome is a warning to America—a warning that will, of course, go unheeded. If the ethno-racial differences between Near Easterners and North Africans, Germanic tribesmen and Italian plebeians—small though they were—were enough to cause social and political instability in Roman imperial times, the even more racially divergent Third World colonization will be much, much worse when the time comes for the indigenous populations of the West to finally surrender all political and economic power to the newcomers.
While Spengler did not foresee America’s transformation into a multicultural, globalist empire, he was right that the West’s future would eventually be decided by race. Given the fate of all empires, the passivity of Whites in the face of their own demise, and the vicious avarice of globalist elites, we can be certain race will be America’s undoing.
[i]“Founders Online: From John Adams to James Sullivan, 26 May 1776.” Founders.Archives.Gov, founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0091.
[ii]Lott, John R. “How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 1999, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=160530, 10.2139/ssrn.160530.
[iii]“DNA Pioneer Loses Honours over Race Claims.” BBC News, 13 Jan. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46856779.
[iv]Page, Benedicte. “New Huckleberry Finn Edition Censors ‘n-Word.’” The Guardian, 5 Jan. 2011, www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/05/huckleberry-finn-edition-censors-n-word.
[v]Frank, Tenney. “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire.” The American Historical Review, vol. 21, no. 4, July 1916, p. 689, 10.2307/1835889.
[vi]Antonio, Margaret L., et al. “Ancient Rome: A Genetic Crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean.” Science, vol. 366, no. 6466, 7 Nov. 2019, pp. 708–714, science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708.full, 10.1126/science.aay6826.