White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

The Tale of John Kasper

John Kasper

In 2007, I wrote the article on the white activist John Kasper (1929–1998) that will follow these prefatory remarks.  I remember it well, because it was the very first writing I did for a personal website I had just set up and still maintain—http://robertsgriffin.com/. I have the sense that this Kasper article has been read by few people over the years, though six months or so after I posted it, a Wikipedia entry on Kasper was created that drew heavily on what I wrote.   I felt good about that.

The Kasper writing came to mind this past week (it’s December of 2017) because I happened upon a reference on the internet to a new book about Kasper—John Kasper and Ezra Pound: Saving the Republic (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017) by Alec Marsh.   I was surprised to see it: I hadn’t imagined that Kasper was a big enough deal to warrant a book about him, but there it was.  It isn’t in the university or public library around where I live, and it’s pricey, around $40 for a hardback, $30 for a Kindle.  After some soul-searching, I bit the bullet and bought the Kindle.  If you decide to get the book, you don’t have to spend that kind of money for it.  If a library doesn’t have it in its collection, it can obtain it for you through interlibrary loan.  I didn’t want to wait for that process to play out, thus the Visa card payment.

Author Alec Marsh is an English professor at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania with a particular interest in Ezra Pound, one of the twentieth century’s preeminent poets and most influential literary personages.   Not only did Pound — born in Idaho, lived in Paris, London, Italy, and the U.S., died in Italy — produce great art himself, he inspired and mentored great artists, among them T. S. Eliot and Ernest Hemingway.  Pound was highly controversial personally, as he was tabbed a fascist and anti-Semite.  After reading the Marsh book, it can be said that, for better or worse — most would say worse, I say better — he inspired and mentored young (in his twenties), American, New Jersey childhood, Catholic upbringing, Columbia University, John Kasper.

I respect Marsh’s book very much and recommend it: it’s impressively researched, and it’s even-handed; it’s not a hatchet job on Pound or Kasper as a racist, anti-Semitic nut case, which for many would have been tempting.  I didn’t pick up the patronizing and virtue signaling that characterizes so much academic “scholarship” these days.   Good for Professor Marsh.

Marsh draws heavily on letters Kasper wrote to Pound which are collected in the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library at Yale University.   (Pound’s letters to Kasper didn’t survive).

These letters, often long and informative, sometimes embarrassingly fulsome and worshipful, sometimes gossipy, sometimes mere business transactions revealing records of books (often anti-Semitic tracts) bought by the poet, offer fascinating views of the American Right in the 1950s. Read more

Thoughts on “Decolonization” as an Anti-White Discourse

Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard

Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden

Along with ‘Whiteness Studies’ and ‘Black Lives Matter,’ the concept of ‘decolonization’ is currently rampant in Western institutions of higher education. In the most recent example, academics at England’s University of Cambridge are considering how to implement a call from a small group of Black and leftist undergraduates to “decolonize” its English literature syllabus by taking in more Black and ethnic minority writers and bringing ‘post-colonial thought’ (a branch of critical theory) to its existing curriculum. Seen in the context of similar agitation at Yale last year, ongoing “Rhodes Must Fall” agitation in South Africa, the removal of portraits of White founders from King’s College London, and attacks on statues of prominent White historical figures in the United States, the ‘decolonization’ effort is clearly part of an escalating craze for removing White presence and reducing White space throughout the West. This reduction of White space is occurring in demographic, cultural, and even historical areas; the latter involving a ludicrous ‘Blackwashing’ of periods of European history which were overwhelmingly monocultural, with gross exaggerations of non-White presence in places like Roman Britain.

Today, White nations are being demonstrably colonized by non-Whites, White culture is increasingly marginalized (or dismissed as non-existent), and White history is being rewritten to support and advance the agenda of contemporary multiculturalism. Whites are thus abused as colonizers while simultaneously being subjected to an unprecedented and multifaceted colonization. This jarring incongruence between rhetoric and reality requires an interrogation of what is meant by terms like “colonize,” “empire,” and even “genocide,” particularly in regard to the political uses they have come to acquire, and also an interrogation of what we understand by historical processes of colonization. It is argued here that the growing clamor for ‘decolonization,’ like Whiteness studies, exists only to encourage and facilitate an aggressive anti-White discourse.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to attend a conference on ‘genocide studies,’ during which I was introduced to the work of the leading academic in this field, the Australian scholar A. Dirk Moses. Despite his last name (which apparently is also English and Welsh as well as Jewish), Moses evidences no discernible Jewish ancestry, his father John Moses being a notable Anglican priest and his mother Ingrid a full-blooded German from Lower Saxony. Moses has built his career around broad explorations of the themes of colonialism and genocide, and the relationship between the two. Although he wasn’t present at this particular conference, I was very much interested in those presentations concerning his work, which I have since come to regard as being generally of a very high quality and, most importantly, wide-ranging and devoid of the mawkish (not to mention mendacious) moralism that often saturates Jewish academic treatments of these themes. To my mind Moses remains one of the most essential writers on colonialism, conquest and genocide as perennial features of the human existence, and I would have a difficult time engaging in discussion on these subjects with someone unfamiliar with his work. Importantly, Moses argues that terms like “colonization” have fluid rather than fixed definitions, especially in their discursive usage, and stresses that the meaning of such terms as “colonization” and “imperialism” have rather been adapted in recent decades in order to facilitate a political agenda — to condemn European nations and to question Western moral legitimacy. Read more

Addictions:  An Example of the Interplay of the Public and Private

Very often, the opposite of a good thing to do is also a good thing to do.   Loving is a good thing to do, obviously.  But despite what whites are admonished to condemn and repress in themselves (by people who don’t mean well by them), loving’s opposite, hating, is also a good thing to do.   Some things — injustice, abuse, attacks against us and those we care about — deserve our hating them and acting accordingly.

There is a Pete Seeger song from the 1950s called “Turn! Turn! Turn!” that gets at this value-of-opposites idea.

To everything
There is a season
And a time to every purpose, under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together

Almost exclusively, white racial discourse has focused on public concerns: white identity and culture, historical and current realities, philosophical and ideological concepts, and proposals and strategies for collective action.  And that’s all well and good, keep it going.   But the argument here is that at the same time we’re doing that, let’s give attention to the opposite of a public focus: let’s look at things from a private, or personal or individual, frame of reference; and take note of the interplay of the public and private, how each affects the other.

The private concern I shine a light on here is addiction.  Not addiction as a problem for the society and culture as a whole — though it is good to look at it from that angle — but rather as a problem for individual people: for him and her and you and me.   Read more

Not Guilty! Identity Evropa Organizer Ian Hoffmann speaks out on Charlottesville, Public Activism and our coming Courtroom Battles

“You had a group on one side who was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now,” The President had told a hostile press. “You had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent.”

I remember watching the prime time news in that hotel room on the 12th with my fellow White activists when we heard our Commander in Chief not only tell the truth about what had happened on the ground, but then give a cold shoulder to a hostile corporate media as they called on him to say something to “White nationalists who say they support you.” The President gestured to the media and walked back to the podium. The reporters grew silent waiting with bated breath. “They’d like me to sign the bill here, instead of outside, so I think we’ll do that. Ok? Thank you.” Knowing how triggered this would leave our enemies in the press and those who attacked the permitted rally, our hotel room erupted with laughter.

We hadn’t seen the fighting. We arrived late and heard that the rally had been moved out of the park and pushed through a gauntlet of violent Antifa. The images playing out on every major news network was the first violence I had seen from rally.

The night prior, the University of Virginia had hosted a 700-strong torch-lit march through its campus, where the marchers ousted counter-demonstrators at the monument to Thomas Jefferson — the slave-owning and soon-to-be-expunged -from-the-American-pantheon founder of UVA. Several marchers were forced to defend themselves. One, appearing stoic and unwavering on the news footage, was taken into custody. Read more

The Moral Battle

From the beginning of Trump’s candidacy I expected and hoped that it would accelerate racial polarization and White radicalization as well as discredit the anti-White media and its false narratives. As that racial polarization — the Great Divide — occurs, our success or failure, and with it the life or death of our race, will depend on how many of the people of our race break to our side of the divide. If it is most of them, we will probably win and our race will be saved. If not, our chances will be greatly diminished, and for something of this importance, this seriousness, with this much — literally the life or death of our race — at stake, we must take the utmost care to maximize our chances.

In April 1989 I gave a talk at a gathering of Instaurationists entitled “Creating a Moral Image.” It was well received and Wilmot Robertson published it in the August, 1989 issue of Instauration. It turned out to be the most controversial essay yet to appear in its pages. According to Wilmot most of the criticism was of a very low quality, too low even for the “Safety Valve,” but he did publish one essay-length response which, like the other criticism, wrongly saw my paper as a pacifistic rejection of warrior values. The critics missed the main point of the essay — the decisive battle for the hearts and minds of our people is being fought on the battlefield of morality. Violence per se was rejected only if it was immoral (by public perception and/or traditional Western standards) or counter-productive, and the example I cited was clearly both. I maintained that those who practiced or preached such immoral violence, or in any other way projected an immoral public image, were hurting our cause and playing into our opponents hands.

Over twenty-eight years later, in the wake of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, we see how little has changed, how clearly our battle is still one of morality, and how the points I made in that essay are, if anything, even more true now than they were then (see also “Moral Capital and White Interests“). Our anti-White opponents know this well, but too many pro-White activists have yet to heed the lesson. The storm now shaking the country, and the whole of the Western world, including the Trump administration, is one of perverse anti-White values and policies presented as consensus traditional and universal morality. Our anti-White antagonists were given, or arranged, the opening or opportunity they were looking for and took full advantage of it at our expense. They seized the moral high ground and from those heights are showering us with a torrent of moral invective, denunciation, condemnation and epithets, creating false pretexts to justify suppression of our message, our platforms and our gatherings as our moral image seems to have been dragged to new lows. Read more

Feelings and Thoughts on Charlottesville

Like everyone—in the world, really—I was riveted by the events in Charlottesville.   What came up for me:

My first reaction was elation and gratitude.  How about this!  White people—organized, and doing it publicly—standing up for their heritage and race, standing up for people like me, standing up for me.  When has this ever happened before?  Nothing comes to mind, and I’ve been around forever — I’m bearing in on eighty.  Thank you.

And they were doing it with such remarkable dedication and courage.  Richard Spencer and the other leaders had to know the physical peril they were putting themselves in; much less assaulted, they could have been shot.  The participants in this endeavor had to know they’d be trashed, not applauded, for doing what they believed in their hearts, and very arguably, was the right thing to do, and that it could even cost them their jobs, their livelihoods.  I was involved in anti-Vietnam War protests and, yes, black civil rights activities in the sixties and had nothing at all to lose doing it.  In fact, it was a good way to improve my social standing, including with women; it picked up my love life.

The Charlottesville protest had special personal meaning to me.  While I grew up in the North, the Griffins are from Georgia and my grandfather fought for the South in the Civil War.   That’s right, my grandfather—not my great-great-great grandfather—was an adult in 1860.  I know enough about my grandfather to be assured that his participation in that war was not in the defense of slavery and oppression.  And I know enough about history to affirm that the same can be said about General Robert E. Lee.  From the images on television over the weekend, what a magnificent statue of Lee it is, and sadly, I didn’t even know it existed, or that it was going to be removed.  Such an injustice and calculated assault on my race and my ancestors, and the protestors brought that to my and others’ attention.

These upbeat feelings, which persist, have gotten mixed up with some sobering thoughts, however.  Read more

Trump’s Tergiversations on Charlottesville and Their Significance

In the immediate aftermath of last weekend’s rioting and death in Charlottesville, VA, Pres. Donald Trump stated: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.”

This is about the best statement on the matter we could have hoped for from the President of the United States. In judging it, we should bear in mind his limited knowledge at that time about what had actually transpired in Charlottesville, as well as his limited knowledge of the case to be made for pro-White advocacy. The President seems to have sound instincts. He understands that as President it is his duty to condemn civil violence and lawlessness whoever commits it and however it may be motivated, and that is what he tried to do.

Predictably, a hurricane of abuse came down upon his head, perhaps best typified by John Oliver’s criticism that “it doesn’t get any easier than disavowing Nazis.” Only a Nazi, after all, could object to the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee.

Two days later, under intense pressure, the President made a second statement which checked off all Cultural Marxism’s mandatory boxes, denouncing racism, the KKK, David Duke, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and people who hate cute little puppydogs. This caused consternation on our side, where some felt Trump had betrayed his supporters (see, e.g., Hunter Wallace’s remarks here). Yet it also met with little to no positive response from the anti-White establishment either: the headlines read not “Trump Denounces Racism,” but “Trump Waits Three Days to Denounce Racism.”

The President may have learned something from this experience, subsequently tweeting:

Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied…truly bad people!

Read more