Response to Thomas Main

Thomas Main has responded to my challenge and emailed me a response to my article, “The Left Hates The American Founding.”

“Dear Mr. Wallace:

Thanks for the invitation to respond to your comments on my post about “All Men Are Created Equal.”

We live in interesting times!

The Far Left has launched the most brazen assault on the American Founding in all of American history. No one is safe. Not even the memory of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Even during the Civil War, it never got this bad as both sides in that conflict claimed to be the heirs of the American Founding. In contrast, the Far Left today proposes to overturn the American Revolution and erase the memory of the Founders who were stained by “racism” and “white supremacy.”

This is a huge difference between our beliefs and worldview. The Far Right reveres the past, dislikes the deracinated present and despairs of an even worse future. In contrast, the Far Left despises the past and seeks to erase it in order to build a new utopian future. One side feels uprooted and resents being disconnected from the past while the other side wants to fully disconnect from the past.

This divide was on full display in Charlottesville. The Far Right went there to support the monuments of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson and held the torch march to the Jefferson Monument to honor the memory of our fathers. The Far Left went there because it supports anarchy and toppling monuments. Once again, one side identified with Thomas Jefferson and the other side opposed him.

“Your article cites a long list of things, foolish and not, said about America by leftists. But I didn’t claim that leftists never say foolish things.”

It wasn’t just a list of foolish things being said by leftists. It was mainly an account of actions which took place on the July the 4th weekend. The list included everything from vandalism to murder which took place all across the United States. There is no comparable list of Far Right activities.

“My claim was that you and your fellow Alt-Rightists say things about America that are foolish and worse. Let’s look at the attacks you yourself have made on, not merely American founding principles, but America itself”

You make it sound like it was a mob of White Nationalists over 1,000 strong who laid siege to a federal courthouse in Portland, OR or who have been rioting there for 40 straight days after tearing down the American flag above the Multnomah County Justice Center and setting it on fire. The Far Left took over part of Seattle for nearly a month and shot and killed a 14-year-old black kid. Who is attacking America itself here? Who has launched a nationwide violent insurrection?

“America has now evolved into its final form as a cultural and political dung heap of liberty and equality—just like every other republican experiment in the modern West.”1

I stand by this statement.

1.) First, America’s social problems are not unique to the United States, but are replicated abroad in other Western liberal democracies. See the movement to topple Winston Churchill’s statue in the UK.

2.) Second, I am not alone in this view. It is part of a wider and growing conversation on the Right about whether liberalism is compatible with order, cohesion, continuity, stability, decency and normalcy. My argument is that it is incompatible with these things which is why life under liberalism resembles a perpetual state of social revolution. I agree with George Fitzhugh that “this unsettled, half-demented state of the human mind” is “co-extensive in time and space with free society.”

3.) Third, I do not conflate the American Founding with modern America, which is the product of later generations. Back then, we had a republican form of government, but the system was bounded, stabilized and anchored by White identity, Anglo-Saxon culture and Protestant Christianity. It rested upon the accumulated social capital of all previous generations. In 1790, an American was approximately a White, Anglo-Saxon or English-speaking, Protestant Christian who subscribed to republican principles.

This notion that liberal democracy can get along just fine without its ethnocultural core and that civic nationalism and free-market capitalism is sufficient to hold a nation together is a peculiarly post-World War II idea. Colin Woodard recently wrote a book about the subject and he traced the roots of this liberal vision back to George Bancroft in the 1830s. He did not attribute it to Thomas Jefferson who was a White separatist who believed that blacks should be colonized in Africa.

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.”

Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

“In an article entitled “Why Do You Hate America?” you wrote: “Is this what you call America? If so, then it makes sense to hate America, as this is a false America, not the real thing.”2

Clearly, I do hate modern America.

In that same article, I asked why “people whose ancestors actually fought in the American Revolution and who revere Thomas Jefferson want to secede from the Union?” I went on to elaborate at length about the differences between classical republicanism and liberalism and contrast the American Founding, Early Republic and Antebellum periods with modern America.

I’ve written at length about how “liberty” used to mean different things in different parts of the United States. I have explained the differences in how “liberty” was understood in New England and its meaning in the Tidewater, the Lowcountry and Appalachian backcountry. That’s because I am interested in how the meaning of “liberty” and “equality” have evolved across time.

The Founding Fathers would have never understood how the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence which in their time was an uncontroversial statement about the republican cause in the context of a struggle for independence from the British monarchy would eventually come to be associated with something as absurd as “black trans” liberation.

Gradually, the republican ideal of liberty of the American Founding came to be conflated with early 19th century liberalism, but that is a long story for another day.

“You have also written: “. . . nothing is less self-evident to us than the notion that all men are created equal.”3

This is indeed self-evident.

It is absolutely true that men differ in all kinds of ways. There are differences between and within races. There are differences between and within families. There are differences between the sexes. These ineradicable differences between individuals which are grounded in nature are also rejected by the Far Left, but were present at the time of the American Founding, which is why they despise it. It was “independence for White men.” It was racist, sexist, xenophobic, nativist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

What do you think?

Is it self evident that this is a woman?

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the phrase “all men are created equal,” he did not mean to imply that a man could become a woman simply by putting on a pair of panties and applying lipstick and makeup and posting a pair of pronouns. He was condemning monarchy and aristocracy and advocating republicanism. The train of absurdities that followed is a result of the diabolical unfolding logic of liberalism.

“Equality” can easily mean one thing under republicanism and another under liberalism and another under socialism and anarchism. As Eric Foner explained in his book Second Founding, this tendency to collapse different types of equality instead of making finer distinctions – civic equality, political equality, social equality, religious equality – is a product of the degraded thought of later generations.

“You scorn “the Constitution Cargo Cult” and the Union itself: “I dislike the Constitution because I believe the Union should have never been created in the first place.”4

I stand by this statement as well.

1.) First, I am not a civic nationalist who believes that liberal ideology is sufficient to hold this country or any other like it together. I do not agree with the assumption that is currently being tested and found wanting that a liberal order can remain stable without its ethnocultural core.

2.) Second, I believe we would have been better off if our ancestors had chosen to form a more ethnically and culturally homogeneous Southern federation at the outset. This would have been completely consistent with state sovereignty and republican government. I believe we could have avoided the Civil War and the World Wars of the 20th century and our current dysfunction.

“In my post I cited many such statements by you and other Alt-Rightists but the excerpt of my piece you ran edited them all out. The Alt-Right says at least as many foolish things about America as the left does.”

I have included your whole response this time.

“But there is a difference. In all the comments by leftists you cited no one denied that all people are created equal.”

What does the Far Left mean by equality?

What is the cause of all the chaos we have witnessed on television?

By equality, the Far Left which subscribes to Critical Social Justice Theory means “equity.” Notice how I said the definitions of terms change across history?

The Far Left does not believe in equal rights. It does not believe “all men are created equal.” It does not believe in treating people equally. Instead, it believes in “equity” which means treating people differently according to their politics and place in the racial caste system of Social Justice.

New Discourses:

“Notice that, in Social Justice, the meaning of “equity” takes pains to distinguish itself from that of “equality.” Where equality means that citizen A and citizen B are treated equally, equity means “adjusting shares in order to make citizens A and B equal.” In that sense, equity is something like a kind of “social communism,” if we will—the intentional redistribution of shares, but not necessarily along lines of existing economic disparity but in order to adjust for and correct current and historical injustices, both as exist in reality and as have been drawn out by the various critical theories (specifically, Theory – see also, critical race Theory, queer Theory, gender studies, fat studies, disability studies, and postcolonial Theory).

The example given (above) of providing a wheelchair user with privileged access to an elevator is one that few people would find unfair. However, within Social Justice conceptions of the world, specifically disability studies here, invisible systems of power and privilege are understood to hold some people back in often invisible ways because of their race, gender, sexuality, or other marginalized identity factors. Therefore, “equity” requires giving some identity groups privileges in order to redress the perceived imbalance.

In common parlance, this is the difference between attempting to force equality of outcome by enforcing some resource allocation system and equality of opportunity, which Social Justice regards not only as myth but as a harmful ideology that upholds injustices like “white supremacy.”

Because of the blank slatism and simplistic ideas of power and identity found within Social Justice worldviews, all imbalances of representation in desirable areas of work are held to be caused by these perceived power dynamics. Equity is the intended remedy to this problem, and it is made applicable only (and especially) to positions of status and influence. For example, there is no equity program that attempts to increase the number of female sanitation workers, though there are equity programs that seek to increase the number of female doctors and politicians, and these endure even in high-status positions that employ more women than men. Of particular concern are positions that have influence where power is concerned, including in terms of shaping the discourses of society.

Where equality would imply not being particularly concerned with the demography of people filling certain roles, equity is centrally concerned with this. It often calls for wanting to achieve parity with the existing demographics of the population, which would mean that most (status-bearing) professions would employ roughly 50% women and whatever percentages of racial and sexual minorities as are present in the prevailing population. This itself can be considered problematic, however, and often seeks overrepresentation by members of smaller minority/minoritized groups (e.g., trans identities).

Moreover, equity, importantly, is often to be assessed historically, not merely in the present moment. If an identity group has historically been disenfranchised or excluded from a particular (status-bearing) role, equity often implies achieving representation numbers higher than demographic parity to make up for the historical injustice. Thus, we can understand quips like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s when she said that the proof of equality would be that there are nine women on the Supreme Court of the United States (that is, the entire court is female). It is also in this light that many arguments about reparations, whether material, monetary or symbolic (e.g., through high-status employment) are situated. That is, equity is not merely about “making up for injustices” but also often about “making up for past injustices.”

Equity is often sought under a combined suite of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or sometimes “justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion” (JEDI), and as such, these terms have become major buzzwords in most professional sectors, particularly including education. Often, however, Theorists and activists remark that equity may not be enough, because it is, in some sense, incrementalist in orientation, and therefore that revolution (of the system) might be advocated instead. This is, in fact, the underlying objective of the critical approach—social revolution according to the terms of Critical Social Justice Theory—and incrementalist proposals like diversity, equity, and inclusion are either fallback/compromise positions within liberal systems or half-measures deemed better than nothing.

When equity programs do not meet their intended goals, the “resistance” by privileged people (especially whites) is typically blamed (see also, white fragility). The program itself isn’t allowed to be a failure. This “resistance” is often easy to find “proof” of because equity programs deliberately stack the deck in favor of certain identity groups and occasionally explicitly attempt to reduce the numbers of others (famously, Asian students at Ivy League universities like Harvard), which most people understand as intrinsically unfair, if not a bad idea that places some irrelevant characteristic like demographic identity ahead of relevant characteristics like competence in hiring/appointment decisions (see also, meritocracy). Indeed, the “diversity, equity, inclusion” suite was introduced as a deliberate work-around for Affirmative Action.

In early 2020, and rather shockingly, in the Washington state legislature, an “Equity Task Force” was assembled that offered the following definition for equity: “Equity = Disrupt and Dismantle,” which is to say an explicit call for a systemic revolution. (NB: The Task Force was assembled even after the state voted against Affirmative Action.) The Task Force took pains to explain that they (the Social Justice supporters present) know that equity means disrupt and dismantle, and debated whether or not the language was too naked to be able to be approved by the legislature. In the end, the centrality of disruption and dismantling was considered so crucial to the proper understanding of equity, lest anyone in the future mistakenly leave it out as a result of their euphemisms, that the language was included in the proffered definition.”

It is only in this sense that the violent Far Left riots makes any sense.

If these violent leftists were classical liberals who believed in, say, life, liberty and property and equal justice, then they wouldn’t be rioting and looting and engaging in arson and vandalism, toppling monuments of the Founding Fathers, shooting black children who violate their borders, engaging in ritual shaming and cancel culture mobs, etc. They have more in common with the Soviet Union and Mao’s China.

Woke supremacists do not believe in treating everyone equally. They do not believe in law and order which is why they attack the police and courts as a matter of principle. They certainly do not believe in property rights. Pretty much the last thing that they believe is that White people have the rights and liberties which are the legacy of the American Founding. That’s what they call “systemic racism.”

“For example, Lucian K. Truscott IV in the New York Times article you cite does not repudiate “all men are created equal” as you and Alt-Rightists do. He only objects that Jefferson “never did much to make those words come true.” He accepts the principle and laments it was not implemented.”

Lucian K. Truscott IV proposed to raze the Jefferson Memorial to the ground. This would never occur to the Alt-Right which obviously identifies with Thomas Jefferson and loathes people who would erase his memory. This is because people like Truscott hate America. Their ideal of “equality” isn’t derived from Thomas Jefferson who was a “white supremacist.” It is the stuff of Maoist struggle sessions.

“You also cite Blow’s article “Yes, Even George Washington.” But Blow’s point is only “Slave owners should not be honored with monuments in public spaces.” Agree or disagree but Blow does not reject Jeffersonian equality.”

The fact that Charles Blow disparages the character of George Washington, the Father of our Country, and seeks to defile his memory speaks to a profound alienation from the American Founding which goes far beyond anything seen on the Far Right. Truscott and Blow hate America in a way that simply has no parallel anywhere on the Right. Once again, we see that their ideal of “equality” has more in common with the ritual shaming, struggle sessions and statue toppling of Mao’s China. No one on the Far Right is calling for toppling monuments of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

“Al Sharpton, in the video clip you provide, objects to “the disgraceful days” of our history “that we need to eliminate out of the continuing American story.” Again, he does not reject Jefferson’s foundational principle as you and the Alt-Right do.”

Al Sharpton considers the American Founding “the disgraceful days” of our history and which he says that “we need to eliminate out of the continuing American story.” Once again, this speaks to his profound alienation from the American Founding, which is why he seeks to erase the memory of the Founding Fathers. While the Far Right is critical of the liberal axioms that Thomas Jefferson invoked in the Declaration of Independence, we do not propose to erase and disparage the memory of the Founding Fathers. The Far Right identifies with the American past. The Far Left does not.

“In the article from the Washington Post about renaming Washington and Lee University the author wonders whether people who oppose that move “are afraid of too much racial justice and equality.”  He therefore endorses equality while you distain it.”

What does he mean by “racial justice” and “equality”? He means the exact opposite of what Thomas Jefferson meant by the term. He does not mean equal rights or equal justice or treating all people equally. He means treating White people differently than non-Whites. He means taking away our rights and liberties in the name of Social Justice. This is why Washington and Lee University has to be renamed. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee all fought for something else.

“You cite the vandalism against a statue of Fredrick Douglass. But no one knows who did this or why. Was it leftists or white supremacists or someone else? No one knows.”

Yeah, who knows?

Maybe it was also white supremacists who vandalized the Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Rochester and wrote BLM on it?

“You show several clips of people stepping on American flags and of anti-police graffiti. Obnoxious, I agree. But not a repudiation of “all men are created equal,” is it?”

When I look at people stomping on the American flag and burning it in front of the White House on July the 4th while carrying signs which say, “Abolish the Institution We Need a Revolution,” I tend to agree with Donald Trump that they want to overturn the American Revolution.

“And you object to reports of taking down statues of Lincoln. But in your article “Happy John Wilkes Booth Day!,” you wrote “I propose a toast: to the memory of the great John Wilkes Booth, slayer of tyrants, martyr for liberty, avenger of the South!”5 You aren’t exactly honoring Lincoln yourself, are you? And your objection to Lincoln is that he insisted that all men are created equal.”

My objection to Abraham Lincoln is that all of my ancestors fought for the South against him. I’ve always been a Southern patriot. In that same article, I said “I don’t care for the Lincoln Memorial. I wouldn’t raze it to the ground though. It is a part of our history. I’ve never worked myself up into a rage about it because that is just insane.” I don’t support the Far Left toppling his monument.

My Confederate ancestors fought against Abraham Lincoln. If anyone should be offended by his monument, it should be Southerners, but Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant are part of the American past. We are natural conservatives, not ideological fanatics. It is not our custom to go into graveyards and disturb the graves of the dead. Unlike the Far Left which truly and passionately despises America, we are rooted in the past. They want to erase the past. We do not. It is that simple.

“An 8 year black girl was killed during protests in Atlanta. Horrific. But what does this have to do with the fact that you and the Alt-Right deny all men are created equal?”

I don’t know. Let’s see.

It wasn’t us who shot and killed the 8-year-old black girl in Atlanta. Maybe it is because we had more respect for her life and rights than those savages who killed her? It wasn’t us who shot dozens of people in Atlanta that night either. Ironically, it was the Black Lives Matter protesters.

If these people believe in equality as you continue to insist they do, why do they wantonly destroy the property of others? Why do leftwing mobs tyrannize people and try to cancel them and destroy their lives? Why do they engage in aggravated assault? Why do they shoot children?

Is it the Far Right toppling monuments, shooting black children, burning down and looting businesses and silencing people? It is truly amazing you think that is what “all men are created equal” means today. If it were us doing any of that, what would you have to say about it?

“The leftists attack symbols of America. The pull down monuments, mostly of people who deserve no honor, such as the confederate defenders of slavery, but also, unfortunately, of some honorable people.”

Why?

The leftwing mobs are deeply alienated from America. They hate America. They want to erase America and build something else. Don’t even try to say it is about Confederate statues. Don’t make us laugh.

Tell me something. What have these losers ever done that gives them right to tear down such beautiful monuments? What makes them morally better than Theodore Roosevelt or George Washington? I don’t see it. I can’t think of a single redeeming moral quality that they possess.

“The left’s objection is that the American founders often did not live up to and practice the principle that all men are created equal”

I disagree.

The Far Left hates the American Founding. They have said this country was built on the original sin of whiteness. This is why they believe this country is illegitimate even before it existed back to the times of Christopher Columbus discovering the New World and maybe even before that back to the age of Saint Louis IX in the Middle Ages or even to the birth of Jesus Christ. This sense of hatred and alienation from the American past is why they disparage the memory of the Founding Fathers.

It is simply a lie that this is based on “equality.” In our own times, the Far Left wants to create a new racial caste system in order to degrade Whites, which is why the California state legislature recently voted to embrace racial discrimination. They do not believe in respecting the life, liberty and property of White Americans. They believe in Social Justice, not equal justice.

They believe some races have rights while others have duties because equality is systemic racism. Some races should be encouraged to nurse racial grievances, pursue racial interests and assert a common racial identity while other races should be subordinates. This is the essence of woke supremacy.

The Left’s objections to the American Founding are shameless hypocrisy. They claim to believe “all men are created equal,” but in practice that means racial discrimination against Whites. They claim to believe in tolerance, but practice bigotry. They condemn white supremacy only because they desire to substitute woke supremacy in its place. In the name of “anti-racism,” they endorse racism against Whites. Their hypocrisy is so staggering that they claim Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence to legitimize their radical Marxist views (how many layers of Marxism is it now?) while calling for the Jefferson Memorial to be razed to the ground and equal rights to be repudiated as “white supremacy” and “systemic racism.” The Left wants to reverse the American Revolution in order to do away with the dignity and equal rights it established for White Americans.

“But you attack, not symbols, but the foundational principle of America, which is embodied in those 5 immortal words.”

No, it is not.

The Constitution was the foundation of the American Republic and it was created to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The American Founding only established equality between the states. American citizenship was based on state citizenship.

There was no such thing as “equality under the law” until the Reconstruction era. Eric Foner has written a whole book which explains how equality in the sense you are using it was not part of the American Founding. Colin Woodard also has a new book which attributes this liberal vision to George Bancroft who picked it up traipsing around Europe in the early 19th century.

The Founding Fathers explicitly established a White Republic. Only Whites could become naturalized American citizens. This vision of a White Republic also endured in law all the way down to the McCarren-Walter Act of 1952. Liberia was established as a settlement for free blacks.

“You do not object that the principle was not acted on.”

What is this principle?

Why didn’t they act on the principle as you understand it?

The principle that was being fought over in the American Revolution was that we should have a republican form of government. Federalism has nothing to do with liberalism. The Founding Fathers did not create a unitary liberal state based on equal rights. They created a federal republic that was composed of smaller republics each of which determined things like who was a citizen and who was not and who had civil rights and who did not and who had voting rights and who did not.

“You and the Alt-Right reject the principle itself.”

Yes, I reject 19th century liberalism.

I reject liberalism because it has failed in theory and practice. I disagree that the American Founding was synonymous with liberalism. It wasn’t and it is precisely for this reason that the Far Left despises it. The American Founding upheld slavery and white supremacy and settler colonialism and patriarchy and heteronormativity and other “systems of oppression.” It established equal rights for Whites without abolishing the social order. It anchored, stabilized and bounded the republic.

“And with your fantasies of secession and white ethnostates you reject the actually existing America itself.”

This is absurd.

1.) First, the ideal of a White Republic is American and was established by the Founding Fathers. In fact, it is more American than liberalism. It is an ideal that organically grew out of our peculiar history.

2.) Second, it was the Founding Fathers who established secession by seceding from the British Empire and the Articles of Confederation.

As for the actually existing America, I don’t support the American Empire. I completely reject and repudiate the postwar liberal consensus. I hate the post-World War II era and seek to overturn it.

“Jefferson did believe blacks had the same rights as whites despite the disparaging remarks he made about the abilities of blacks. We know this from the Declaration’s plain meaning. Jefferson could have written “all white males are created equal.” But he didn’t.”

As the quote from his Autobiography makes crystal clear, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in racial equality. He was the original White separatist. He believed that blacks should enjoy equal rights in Liberia. I suppose it is understandable that leftwing mobs want to topple his monument.

“Jefferson’s rough draft castigated the king for perpetuating the slave trade: “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself…. [D]etermined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold….” The striking capitalization is in the original. As Danielle Allen, a distinguished scholar of the Declaration, has noted, Jefferson acknowledges the “sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people”—that is, black Africans being carried into slavery—and specifically recognizes them as “MEN,” the general term then used for humanity.

Congress edited this passage out of the Declaration but not over objections to the idea that blacks were men. Thus we have clear proof: if “all men are created equal,” and blacks are “MEN,” then, logically, Jefferson meant blacks are equals. You are deliberately ignoring the text and editing of the Constitution when you claim that “to the Founding Fathers…negroes didn’t qualify as ‘men.’”6″

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, he would be completely on our side in this argument. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence was personal for Jefferson because as an ardent Anglo-Saxonist he accused King George III and “our common kindred” who are “our British brethren” of being “deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.” King George III was willing to incite slave insurrections, the “merciless inhabitants of our frontier” and unleash the Hessian mercenaries on his own people.

“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”

Jefferson condemned King George III for being a race traitor in the Declaration of Independence. This was edited out by others although the part about the “merciless Indian savages” and how he had “excited domestic insurrections amongst us” was included in the document.

“But the essential question isn’t what Jefferson thought. It’s what we today think. The overwhelming majority of Americans today accept that all people are created equal and are working to extend that idea to include people all races, sexes, and conditions.”

As we have seen in recent weeks, the Far Left has come up with an entirely new definition of equality, justice and anti-racism. This is a recent shift which does not reflect what “the overwhelming majority of Americans” believe about these critical issues.

By equality, the Far Left now means “equity.” By antiracism, it now means explicit anti-whiteness. By justice, it now means social justice. The overwhelming majority of Americans being kindhearted and good natured people were sold on a vision of colorblindness and equal rights and fairness in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. This is exactly what the Far Left wants to repudiate though in 2020. The core of their vision of equality and justice is now explicit anti-whiteness in which “racism” is seen to be a “system of power” than pervades all interactions.

“You, the Alt-Right, hate groups, and illiberals of all stripes, are the only people who explicitly reject the political equality of all people. You are fighting against the efforts to make that equality real today. And the American people are opposing you.”

No, we recognize the bait-and-switch.

The Far Left does not believe that we have rights. It does not believe that we are equal. It does not believe we have freedoms. They openly embrace the use of violence and censorship against us. They do not believe in tolerance of those who disagree. They endorse and practice bigotry. They have redefined equality as equity. They advocate for a new racial caste system in which justice is based on race and political ideology. They believe in selective enforcement of laws. They believe in toppling statues of the Founding Fathers and erasing our history. They openly despise this country and seek to overturn the American Revolution which established the dignity and rights and liberties of White Americans. They’ve even brought back and racialized the feudal custom of bowing, kneeling and prostrating themselves before their superiors as a sign of their abject submission and degradation before superior authority.

You are absolutely right that I stand in the way of communism and anarchism. More Americans will join us too as the realization begins to dawn that your use of these words are not what they seem.

“One final point. If anyone thinks Mr. Wallace’s objects to “all men are created equal,” not because he objects to political equality, but only because people are obviously unequal in their traits and talents, consider this. In a recent article Wallace wrote as he often does “‘All men are created equal’ except that a moment’s worth of observation and reflection shows that this not true.”7 “

Equality doesn’t even exist within families.

This was understood by Plato and Aristotle. Brothers and sisters are different in intelligence and personality types. The sexes are different, but complementary. God and Nature created ineradicable differences between human beings because complex societies require a broad range of complementary skill sets. Insofar as true equality exists, it is only in a spiritual sense before God.

“And who does Wallace offer as an authority to back up his objection to equality? None other than George Fitzhugh, the notorious defender of Southern slavery. Wallace then quotes approvingly from Fitzhugh’s book “Sociology for the South, or, The Failure of Free Society,” as follows”

George Fitzhugh’s book Sociology for the South, or, The Failure of Free Society isn’t interesting to me as a defense of slavery. There is a timeless quality to his critique which recommends the book:

“An essay on the subject of slavery would be very imperfect, if it passed over without noticing these instruments. The abstract principles which they enunciate, we candidly admit, are wholly at war with slavery; we shall attempt to show that they are equally at war with all government, all subordination, all order.”

It is not a defense of slavery.

Sociology for the South is an attack on liberalism and free-market capitalism and a prophetic forecast that “free society” would degenerate into anarchy and oligarchy.

I was inspired to start rereading it because of the events of the last month:

“Men are not “born entitled to equal rights!” It would be far nearer the truth to say, “that some were born with saddles on their backs, and others booted and spurred to ride them,” – and the riding does them good. They need the reins, the bit and the spur.”

In this passage, George Fitzhugh is arguing that there are ineradicable differences between men and criticizing how this manifests in “free society” as opposed to “slave society.” In both slave society and free society, Fitzhugh argues that there are human beings who are born strong and weak, rich and poor, smart and dumb, etc. The difference is that under liberalism the strong and the rich and the cunning have the unlimited right to trample upon and immiserate the weak, the poor and the dumb.

The end result of the logic of the free enterprise system and its maxim “every man for himself” is a tiny oligarchy of billionaires and gargantuan multinational corporations that lord it over, immiserate and destroy the happiness of everyone else. As a result, there is more inequality and discontent (as people are constantly trying to devise means of escape) and less social responsibility in free society than under the more patriarchical slave society. George Fitzhugh agreed with the socialists that the equality of free society is a lie promoted by the rich. If free society is so great, then why are so many people unsatisfied with it?

Why do you have so many anarchists and communists toppling statues, looting businesses, changing genders on a whim, rampaging and burning down Washington, DC?

“A more inhumane sentiment is hard to imagine. I prefer to side with the people who protest in the name of equality—even though they sometimes make mistakes—than with the Alt-Right and other illiberals like Wallace who celebrate slavery and would reduce the mass of humanity to the status of beasts.”

Liberalism has always plumed itself in the airs of a false humanitarianism. Chattel slavery was only abolished in the South so that it could be looted and enslaved to industrial capital.

These people who invoke abstractions like humanity and freedom and equality usually don’t even know the names of their own neighbors. They neglect their own families and communities. They create anonymous and alienated societies dominated by market forces which are physically repulsive and miserable and riven by conflict and mental illness and which are lorded over by a class of unaccountable and constipated oligarchs who lack any of the virtues of the older ruling class.

In contrast, we are natural conservatives who love particular places, peoples and cultures very deeply, and the world less so. We admit to being attached to and loving our own families and ethnic groups and traditions more than others and say it is perfectly natural to do so. We don’t have any use for abstractions which are nothing but bulldozers of organic societies and which are invoked by liberal metropolitan elites only to rob peripheral societies of their wealth and to establish their dominance over them.

Unlike liberals like Thomas Main, we also do not wish to dominate or plunder the world because we are satisfied with our own portion of it. We believe that America needs to be pruned of its liberal axioms and restored to health, not destroyed. We’re not interested in imposing a universal system of infidelity, materialism and selfishness backed by American military power on the mass of humanity only in governing and revitalizing ourselves. The world has groaned long enough under such tutelage!

George Fitzhugh is a good starting point for rethinking America:

“This doctrine of the natural growth and origin of society is the distinctive Tory doctrine of England, the very opposite to the theories of Locke and the Fathers of our late Republic. In adopting it, we begin a great conservative reaction. We attempt to rollback the Reformation in its political phases; for we saw everywhere in Europe and America reformation running to excess, a universal spirit of destructiveness, a profane attempt to pull down what God and Nature had built up, and to erect ephemeral Utopias in its place. Liberty was degenerating into licentiousness, and “anarchy, plus the street constable” stared us in the face. We lead off in a new reactionary Reformation, and Christendom must follow our lead, or soon be involved in social chaos and confusion.

Viewed in this aspect, and it is only true in one, which to view it, the Revolution of ’61 is the grandest, most momentous event since the days of Luther and of Calvin. The grandest in conception, and the grandest in action; for never did a people of the same numbers display such heroic courage and giant strength as the people of the South in this revolutionary struggle. “Deo duce vincemus.” For we fight “to vindicate the ways of God” against the profane doctrines and schemes of charlatanic man.”

St Junipero Serra. A Franciscan monk. A man who detested violence.

St Serra walked bare foot from San Francisco to Mexico City to defend Native Americans, to request authority to punish Spanish soldiers that were violent towards Natives.

pic.twitter.com/fpNJSt4Nx7

— brad el niño polla (@BradEBaker) July 5, 2020

Liberalism is now widely admitted by both sides to have been a failure. In some quarters, there are even whispers that it is a demonic heresy. Lucifer was the first egalitarian.

Woke supremacy is one vision of an American future. We are crafting a very different vision. Liberals were wrong that societies are like machines and can be reduced to a set of universally true abstract principles. Societies are more like organisms that are born and grow and reproduce throughout history. America was a child of England, NOT a universal formula reducible to a mere five words.

Note: America’s origins aren’t any different from England’s origins: migration and settlement, awakening and unification, followed by conquest and expansion.