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

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

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