Romanticizing American Indians: Scalping the Unwary

Professor Oliver’s brilliant summary of our race’s interactions with Amerinds; he wrote in 1991, before the Solutrean hypothesis and genetic studies that showed that some eastern Amerind tribes had considerable infusions of European blood.

by Revilo P. Oliver

JONES-CRESSON forged the “Holy Oak Pendant” to make himself prominent. (1) I do not know whether he also had a desire to exalt the aborigines.

(1. See Liberty Bell, March 1991, pp. 16-18.)

Today, of course, hoaxes to exalt primitive races and denigrate Aryans and their civilization are a sure path to eminence and emoluments.

Of the concerted campaign to degrade our race and induce masochistic insanity in our people, no one can have remained ignorant after the United States Navy, once a service with high traditions of patriotism and personal honor, so prostituted itself that it buried in Arlington with highest military honors the corpse of a nigger whom it had the effrontery to call the “co-discoverer of the North Pole.”

That was enough for the gangsters in the “education” racket, and, according to letters from parents that are sometimes published in the press, children who are sent to the public boob-hatcheries to have their minds crippled are now not even told that Commodore (later Admiral) Peary had gone along to black the nigger’s boots and keep his clothes in order.

American Indians, as the aborigines of the Western Hemisphere are now called, (2) are naturally exploited in the campaign of mental sabotage, but imaginative exaltation of them is much older than the present lying about niggers and has a quite different tradition.

(2. Columbus’s geographical error has embarrassed writers of English and other modern languages for centuries. The term ‘Indian’ should, of course, refer only to India. One is tempted to accept the improper and disagreeable neologism ‘Amerind,’ which was coined some decades ago and is used by some anthropologists. It would at least avoid ambiguity and misleading connotations. The aborigines (i.e., earliest inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere) were all Mongoloid, but, at least when first observed, differed very markedly from Asian Mongoloids, and furthermore exhibited ethnic diversity among themselves. A recent study to determine the degree of racial homogeneity by mitochondrial heredity found that all tribes of aborigines had a common origin; another study, using the same technique, found there had been five ethnically distinct immigrations.)

It goes back to the myth of the Noble Savage, which was formulated by a Swiss crackpot named Rousseau, who, perhaps at the suggestion of Diderot, put together antecedent tendencies in a rhetorical diatribe that fascinated sciolistic minds.

Rousseau did have one valid point: as is now obvious, scientific knowledge and technical ability do not in themselves ameliorate either personal or social morality. From this he leaped to the absurd claim that knowledge destroys morality and that ignorant savages are therefore superior to civilized men. The principal factors which made this notion acceptable to light-headed contemporaries were: 1) A residue of the Mediaeval Church’s perception that knowledge diminishes or destroys faith in Christian fictions, which were said to be the basis and only source of morality. 2) The ancient traditions of Saturnia regna and a Golden Age when life was uncomplicated by the burden of civilization. On these, see the two volumes by Arthur Lovejoy and George Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1935, 1948). 3) The exploration of remote and newly discovered lands in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, and the mistakes, exaggerations, and fantasies of early travellers; for a summary account, see Percy G. Adams, Travellers and Travel Liars, 1660-1800 (New York, Dover, 1982). 4) Fiction disguised as reports of newly discovered lands almost invariably portrayed virtuous natives uncorrupted by civilizations. 5) Imaginary discoveries of newfound lands provided a convenient setting for political essays about improved or perfect societies, such as More’s Utopia and Bacon’s New Atlantis, but you should include in this category the hundreds that are now forgotten, e.g., La terre australe inconnue, by Gabriel de Foigny (1676; often reprinted), who found in place of Australia an island where all inhabitants were content and happy because they were hermaphrodites and hence sexually equal. 6) In the Eighteenth Century there was a veritable deluge of romances and novels about remote lands; some exalted the supposed wisdom of the uniformly virtuous inhabitants; and others satirized contemporary society by viewing it through the eyes of a virtuous alien (e.g., Montesquieu’s Lettres persanes).

Rousseau’s animosity toward civilization fueled a vast literature. A good specimen is Chateaubriand, one of the great masters of French prose with poetic adornments, a supreme egotist, audacious liar, (3) and Christian apologist. In his long diatribe, Le genie du christianisme (1802), he imagined noble savages further ennobled by Christianity. One detached section of this, Atala, was commonly read in high schools when I was a boy. His “prose epic,” Les Natchez, celebrating Indians he never saw in a part of America (Louisiana) he never visited, was once widely read; I got through it, but that took determination and fortitude.

(3. His Voyage en Amerique recounts travels that could have been made only by an angel, whose wings would presumably enable him to flit rapidly from place to place. Chateaubriand probably never saw an Indian, except tame specimens in the civilized part of North America. He concocted his travels from books by Americans, now readily identified, appropriating to himself their observations and experiences, revised to suit his taste or his rhetoric.)

The attitudes of the first Anglo-Saxons who colonized this continent are conveniently and aptly illustrated by two English clergymen who visited what is now New England in the Seventeenth Century and mentioned the aborigines in the first respectable Latin verse written in our territory. (4) One wanted to make the Indians just like Englishmen by dosing them with Jesus-juice and giving them our technology; the other had the common sense to see that the regions our people would colonize and inhabit must be cleared of savages.

(4. Cf. Liberty Bell, July 1989, pp. 29 f.)

The early colonists had to occupy and appropriate for their settlement some part of a wilderness that was claimed by some Indian tribe or over which two tribes were fighting. What happened to Sir Walter Raleigh’s ill-fated colony is still in dispute, but it is obvious that the unfortunate White men and women were either exterminated by aborigines or genetically absorbed by them, thus providing White genes for, e.g., the Cherokee.

The settlers at Jamestown necessarily came into conflict with the aborigines, and almost succumbed to them, but were saved by the prudence of the famous John Smith and the enterprise of John Rolfe, who married the celebrated Pocahontas, daughter of the chief of the Powhatans, a ‘confederation’ formed by the Algonquin tribe that had beaten into submission the neighboring tribes.

Pocahontas was an intelligent and perhaps winsome young squaw, who readily adapted herself to the religion and manners of a society she cannot have really understood, and when her husband took her to England, she was the social sensation of the year. She was described as a “princess,” daughter of a “king,” and she was the heroine of a romantic story that was told and retold by John Smith, and which need not have been wholly fictitious. Before her premature death in England, she gave birth to a half-breed son, who grew up and became prosperous in Virginia, and whom some members of the First Families, including the eminent John Randolph, (5) were proud to number among their ancestors, thus inaugurating a curious snobbism that claimed distinction from a real or imaginary descent from an aboriginal “chief” or “princess” — never, of course, from one of the common herd of savages. This induced an odd ambivalence in attitude toward the aborigines and encouraged the proliferation of imagined or embellished tales about noble savages that would have gladdened the deformed mind of Jean Jacques Rousseau and comparable mattoids.

(5. Randolph deserves great credit for having done his best to arrest the decline of the American Republic. A good study of his political principles, only slightly distorted by an attempt to read into Randolph the author’s own predilections, is Russell Kirk’s John Randolph of Roanoke (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merril, 1978), which includes copious selections from Randolph’s speeches and letters. Randolph’s last years were embittered by the erosion of his country by “democracy,” and that doubtless explains some inconsistency in his conduct and in the provisions of his will.)

The aborigines could be brave and exhibit an almost heroic superiority to pain and hardship, and that encouraged sentimentalists to forget that they were also cowardly and treacherous, filthy and squalid, innately cruel and savage, and incapable of the discipline that makes civilization possible. And deliberate disregard of their savagery was encouraged by the Christian hallucination about “conversion” and the efficacy of holy water in transforming hereditary character.

Even John Smith in his popular book had promoted colonization of Virginia by suggesting that miracles could be wrought by teaching the savages the Christian myths. And there were innumerable efforts to provide the Indians with an education for which they were innately unsuited, such as the college that bears the name of Lord Jeffrey Amherst, who, according to the ditty sung by its undergraduates, set out “to civilize the In-di-an, / with a Bible and a gun, / and five hundred gallons / of good New England rum.” The uniform failure of these efforts (6) did not even dent the resolute incomprehension of persons who blindly refused to perpend even the indubitable fact that the aborigines were physiologically incapable of taking rum as White men can and normally do. Even at that early date, the Christian hokum about “all mankind” obfuscated biological facts.

(6. A few Indians were trained to serve as showpieces when taken to Europe and exhibited to help wheedle money from uncritical ‘philanthropists.’)

Fabulous Fiction

The first readable American novelist, Charles Brockden Brown (1771-1810), belonged to a generation that retained some vivid recollection of the savages, and the Indians that appear in his novels are described realistically. (7) The next generation of American literati lived along the Atlantic seaboard, many in Boston and New York, and saw only trained Indians exhibited by various promoters, unless, perhaps, they went sightseeing to a reservation in which subjugated and tamed Indians were corralled. So far as I can recall at the moment, none of them ever ventured to the western frontier, where normal Indians could be observed. Most of them, furthermore, had minds filled with Christian fustian, Rousseau’s rant, and romantic sentimentality.

(7. His Edgar Huntley (1799), considered by many his best work, was handsomely reprinted, with an introduction by Professor D.L. Clark (New York, Macmillan, 1928). Wieland and Arthur Mervyn, the only two of his other novels that I have read, were reprinted in the late 1850s, and so, no doubt, were his other novels (Ormond, Clara Howard, and Jane Talbot — the last two should particularly interest literate feminists today).)

Imagined Indians provided an inexhaustible subject for the ingenuity of writers who were manufacturing fiction for sale to persons who craved emotional entertainment and sentimental titillation.

Perhaps the most influential of these writers was James Fenimore Cooper (1789-1851), whose thirty-five or forty novels, which recounted implausible events in a turgid and pompous style that Mark Twain justly ridiculed, (8) were inexplicably popular. The Last of the Mohicans (1826), generally accounted his best work, was one in a series of tales that portrayed imaginary Indians. I read a number of those books when I was in high school, and I do not now recall which one I threw across the room when I was assured that two beauteous White girls, taken captive by savages, had been held prisoner for months in an Indian camp “without offense to their delicacy.” That one detail, however, will suffice to show how absurdly mendacious were Cooper’s tales about Indians, often enhanced by the appearance of an impossible frontiersman, a White prig who boasts he has never killed an Indian, although he kills deer, who are better entitled than savages to consideration as “God’s creatures.”

(8. See his essay, “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses,” which is usually reprinted from the North American Review, in which it was first published. A few pages that were omitted from the magazine were found and edited by Bernard De Voto and included the collection, Letters from Earth, which was finally published by Harpers in 1962.)

Cooper and his many imitators made the Indians seem romantic, and Aryan composers turned out sentimental songs and tunes they entitled “Indian Love Song” or something similar. The music, usually pathetic and sometimes lachrymose, was, of course, our racial music, which no savage could have understood or appreciated, much less composed. In various parts of the country suitable precipices were called “Lover’s Leap” and tales of star-crossed lovers were devised to match the name. (At the foot of one such precipice a number of skeletons were exhumed, all of males who had been killed with tomahawks or arrows.) And sentimental women wept over the spurious legends.

Imaginary Indians became fashionable. Merely typical of the vogue was George Lippard, a now forgotten author, once famous for his novel, The Quaker City, a Gothic romance about Philadelphia (!) in which he tried to surpass “Monk” Lewis and Mrs. Radcliff in accumulating supernatural horrors. When he was married, c. 1840, he dressed as an Indian warrior and was wedded to his presumably admiring bride in a nocturnal ceremony by moonlight amid the unspoiled nature of a romantic glade on the banks of the Wissahickon. Whether the bride’s dress was consistent with the groom’s costume is not recorded.

The greatest damage, however, was done by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who published his Hiawatha in 1855, a long poem in which he sought to imitate the primitive vigor of “Ossian” in a novel meter, trochaic tetrameter, and which powerfully appealed to our race’s love of undefiled nature and the sentimental primitivism that often goes with it.

Ye who love the haunts of Nature,
Love the sunshine of the meadow,
Love the shadow of the forest,
Love the wind among the branches,
And the rain-shower and the snow-storm,
And the rushing of great rivers
Through their palisades of pine-trees,
And the thunder in the mountains,
Whose innumerable echoes
Flap like eagles in their eyries; —
Listen to these wild traditions,
To this Song of Hiawatha!

This poem became immediately and immensely popular, eclipsing even Longfellow’s finely-wrought and beautiful narrative, Evangeline, in stately dactylic hexameters that are a remarkable achievement in English verse. The artfully primitive structure of Hiawatha was childlike in its simplicity, and the narrative poem was recognized as especially suited to children. It is likely that during the remaining decades of the Nineteenth Century Hiawatha was read to, or read by, almost every American child who grew up in a literate home. And it inevitably formed their conception of the nature and life of the aborigines.

It must be clearly understood that such was not Longfellow’s intention. He himself said that his poem was an “Indian Edda,” i.e., as mythical and remote from quotidian reality as the compilation of Norse myths in the Poetic Edda. (9) The hero of his poem, he said, was “a kind of American Prometheus,” a superhuman benefactor of his race.

(9. He must have had in mind the Suomi (Finnish) analogue of the Elder Edda, the Kalevala, which was systematized by its editor, Lonnrot, in trochaic tetrameter, a meter that was reproduced in the English translation that was Longfellow’s model. Longfellow probably referred to the Norse poem because it was better known than the recently published Kalevala, although less similar to his own work, in which he created a new and American mythology.)

He incorporated in his narrative Indian legends that had been elaborated by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft from tales told him by his half-White, half-Ojibwa wife, who had received some education and who helped him in his business relations with the Indians as a trader and Federal agent, 1822-1841.

The Song of Hiawatha was admired as a technical achievement by critics, including Bayard Taylor, who was a poet of distinction in his own right as well as the translator of Goethe’s Faust. One of his comments on the poem contains a prophecy that was entirely reasonable when he wrote, which I have italicized here: “Hiawatha will be parodied, perhaps ridiculed, in many quarters, but it will live after the Indian race has vanished from our Continent.” He could not foresee the present, when the Indians are more numerous than they were before our race came to North America.

When the savages had been subdued and slain or expelled, the inhabitants of the regions east of the Appalachians, living in civilized security and remote from the perils and not infrequent massacres of the frontier, began to develop an odd sense of gratuitous guilt for having taken from the savages the lands they now enjoyed. This perverse sentiment is the more remarkable since they all professed to believe the tales in the Jew-Book about the ruthless invasion of Palestine and slaughter of its inhabitants by a pack of free-booters, aided by the Christians’ ferocious god, which was simply a paradigm of the right of a superior people to seize the country of an inferior people and exterminate them.

Piacular Ploys

American writers imagined many stories, usually melancholy and sometimes lachrymose, about Indian Romeos and Juliets, but the climax of that kind of writing came with Helen Hunt Jackson’s romantically pathetic novel, Ramona (1884). It is an ably written story, well worth reading, provided you understand that you are reading a romance clothed in an illusory verisemblance. (10) Its modest literary quality is somewhat astonishing, since the book was written, not as more or less artistic fiction, but to dramatize and popularize a diatribe, A Century of Dishonor, which its author had published three years before. (11)

(10. The scene is California after that territory became part of the United States. Ramona is a mestiza who was raised and educated by a wealthy Spanish lady, whose son becomes enamored of her. She, however, having better sense than he, eloped with a full-blooded but Christianized Indian named Alessandro (!), and a large part of the novel describes the Federal government’s persistent and cruel oppression of the Indian couple until the story reaches its tragic denouement.)

(11. Helen Hunt Jackson (1830-1885) is in the popular mind so exclusively associated with California, where she spent the last part of her life, that it may be well to note that she had Puritan ancestry. She was Helen Fiske, born in Amherst, Massachusetts. (Fiske is an Anglo-Saxon name, the equivalent of ‘Fisher.’) Hunt and Jackson are the names of her successive husbands. (At that time, it was socially proper and even obligatory for a widow or divorcée to retain the name of her former husband — she became ‘Mrs. Mary Jones’ instead of ‘Mrs. John Jones’ — and if she married again, the name of her former husband was necessarily retained, replacing her maiden name in her full legal name. Resumption of a maiden name after marriage was considered fraudulent and, in most states, illegal.))

That diatribe was the first of the breast-beating orgies of simulated remorse for our race’s treatment of the Indians whose land we took. Like all of its innumerable successors, it is a rhetorical medley that inextricably confuses three quite distinct questions that are ethically unrelated to each other, viz: (i) good faith in observing treaties, (ii) the occupation of North America by our race, and (iii) our treatment of the Indians after they were conquered and subdued.

I. It is quite true that on several occasions Americans did violate treaties they had solemnly made with Indian tribes, although in most of the cited cases there is a question which side violated the treaty first.

The clearest and most flagrant example of our perfidy is the expulsion of the Cherokee from Georgia and adjacent territory in 1835-1838. The Cherokee were a most extraordinary tribe that exhibited a capacity for civilization that was unique among the Indians of North America. Whether they had received any considerable infusion of White blood must remain conjectural; if they had not, their character makes them an anthropological puzzle.

When our race first came into contact with them, they were, by all accounts, a settled and chiefly agricultural people, although constantly exposed to raids and incursions by the Iroquois. After Americans had shattered the Iroquois, the Cherokee, delivered from the need constantly to apprehend and frequently to resist attacks by their hereditary enemies, readily adapted themselves to our way of life, especially after they were made literate by the famous Sequoyah (in whose honor the sequoia trees were named), who was the son of an Irish trader by a Cherokee woman who may have had some White blood. They formed a settled and virtually independent state of their own, the Cherokee Nation, and prospered, purchasing many Negro slaves for both agricultural and domestic service. They had productive farms, well-built houses (some of which were large and even luxurious), schools, newspapers, and all of the other appurtenances of civilized life. They governed themselves well under their own laws, and they were not guilty of any aggression against our people.

In what is a shameful episode in our history, we plundered their property, confiscated their Negro slaves, and drove them, with only the few chattels they could carry with them, to land west of the Mississippi over what they called “The Trail of Tears,” on which a large part of them perished. That the tribe survived at all must be credited to the prudent leadership of their chief, John Ross, who, by the way, was a Scot, having only one-eighth of Indian blood. (12)

(12. He was thus like William Weatherford, the chief of the Creek Indians, whose intelligence, dignity, and eloquence in defeat are often admired by writers who elect to suppress the fact that he was seven-eighths a Scot.)

We may and should be ashamed of what was done to the Cherokee, but even here, however, there is the overriding question whether a viable race can prudently tolerate an enclave of aliens, however innocuous, in its own territory.

The issue here is so clearly joined that we should consider it and thus dispose of all the more doubtful instances of our race’s unfairness to the aborigines. The Cherokee, as I have said, were unique among their race, and, having confidence in the validity of the treaty by which their Nation was established, they appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed their rights under the treaty. That was the occasion for President Jackson’s cynical comment, “Mr. Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson, working largely through the state government of Georgia, nullified the verdict of the Supreme Court and must bear the greater responsibility for the expulsion of the Cherokee.

If Jackson had been asked to explain his conduct and had deigned to reply, he would have said that the American Constitution had been formed by Aryans for an Aryan nation and so did not apply to other races. He might have acknowledged the Cherokee’s unique capacity for civilization, but he would have observed that they were, after all, Indians, and cited the aphorism, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” (13)

(13. The phrase is generally attributed to General Sherman, because he is recorded as having used it, but it is only what was thought, and doubtless said, for a century before him, by innumerable Americans who had been victims of Indian raids or had to protect our people from the savages. When Sherman used the words, he was only quoting a widespread conviction, not making an original observation.)

If you disapprove of Andrew Jackson’s policy in this instance, you must balance your censure against his many and great services to our nation, ranging from the military ability that enabled him to win brilliant victories over many Indian tribes and a British army, to the act by which he emancipated our nation from servitude to alien bankers. Less well known is his service in acquiring Florida for our country. You may regret his injustice to the Cherokee, and regret even more strongly his bullying of South Carolina in 1832, (14) and you may think it unfortunate that the crude and even vulgar Mrs. Jackson was no ornament to the White House, but you must approve and acknowledge with gratitude what he accomplished for our nation. And finally, is it not obvious that the presence of an alien race’s virtually independent state in a large part of what is now Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee would have been an intolerable hole in the fabric of our nation? You may regret the means, but you must emphatically approve the result.

(14. Jackson’s invasion of Florida in an undeclared war resulted in the capture and occupation of Spanish towns and forts, which determined the Spanish government to sell the territory to the United States rather than undertake an enormously expensive war to drive the Americans from it. His action against South Carolina was, of course, a political device to force a reasonable compromise and partly frustrate the greed of New England merchants, but while it left the principle of Nullification undecided, it provided an illogical pretext for the fiction about an indissoluble Union that was invoked to make the war of aggression against the Southern states seem less obviously treason to our nation as well as to our race.)

Pride in our own race is a valid reason for regretting that some Aryans were unscrupulous and even dishonorable in their dealings with the Indians, but remember they were part of our race and their actions greatly benefited it. You should have only contempt for the squawking twerps whose ostentatiously paraded morality assumes that Aryans should be without human weakness, and whose hypocrisy is made glaringly obvious when they yowl about the hardships inflicted on Indians and purr with delight when they remember the ghastly slaughter of much of the best part of our race in 1861-1865 to please our enemies and ignorant Americans who had been crazed with Judaic righteousness.

We should also note in passing that while our treatment of the Cherokee was dishonorable by our standards, it was not by the standards of most Indian tribes, whose normal procedure was to conclude a treaty when defeated and then begin preparations treacherously to break it as soon as they deemed it expedient to do so. A typical instance is provided by Metacomet (“King Philip”), chief of the Wampanoags, who signed treaties with Whites while secretly organizing an Indian federation to exterminate them. This is admitted even by the Indian’s advocate, John Tebbel, in his Compact History of the Indian Wars (New York, Hawthorne Books, 1966; paperback reprint, Tower Publications, s.a. [1970?]). (15)

(15. This is a very useful book, the only one of which I know that contains the essential history of all of our Indian wars in one convenient volume. — Needless to say, the moving orations that several prominent American writers devised for “King Philip” to exercise their rhetorical powers are merely what an Aryan might have said in comparable circumstances, and should not be mistaken for indications of his mentality and attitude.)

II. Recent writers on Indians, profiting from the confusion in Western thought that followed the Platonic haggling about an abstraction called ‘justice,’ which is meaningless out of a specific context, (16) refuse, through either muddled thinking or eristic trickery, to face the very simple question before them.

(16. E.g., is it just for us to enslave cows, force them to produce milk for us each day, and slaughter their offspring to make veal cutlets and Porterhouse steaks? Can we justly usurp for ourselves a right to life that we deny to other mammals?)

Honesty would require such advocates frankly to choose between the obvious alternatives. Either:

(a) No nation has a moral right to invade the territory of another nation and occupy it. Our occupation of North America was, therefore, a criminal offense against some universal law, decreed by some god or other supernatural power, and by living in the United States we are enjoying the fruits of an inexpiable crime against “humanity,” and therefore guilty of complicity in it. That is what the breast-beaters imply, but avoid stating explicitly. I have never heard of one who proved that he sincerely believed in our collective guilt by freeing himself from complicity in the crime, as he could do by going home, killing his wife and children, and then committing suicide after executing a will by which he devised all his property to the nearest Indian tribe. One the contrary, the tender consciences of persons who wax indignant over our treatment of Indians never inhibit their enjoyment of all our comforts and luxuries while they wail about our injustice to Indians in books that net them very handsome incomes; or

(b) A superior race has a moral right, perhaps even a moral imperative, to displace an inferior race in desirable territory. Aryans were obviously greatly superior to Indians and therefore had a natural right to take North America for themselves. I do not say that our race’s superiority to the Indians was shown by our greater intelligence and our unique culture, for that would be only a tautology. Our superiority was conclusively demonstrated by the fact that we subjugated the Indians and conquered the country that was ours until we discarded it.

This alternative, needless to say, is the only one that rationally recognizes the real world, a universe that was not made for man and is totally devoid of moral values. Morality is a code that each nation must devise for itself, and the morality that is highest for that nation is the one that most conduces to its survival and to its expansion at the expense of inferior peoples.

III. When Indians had been defeated and subdued, it was obviously necessary to provide against a resumption of hostilities and renewed massacres of Americans. There were only two possible solutions of that problem, either:

(a) The surviving Indians could be disarmed, confined to reservations, and there protected against themselves, especially by preventing them from obtaining whisky and similar liquors, which they were physiologically incapable of using without becoming insane; or

(b) The survivors could be killed and the inferior race exterminated.

Which of the only feasible alternatives was morally preferable may be left to your decision. (17)

(17. You may wish to remember that William Weatherford, in his much admired and indeed admirable speech when he met Andrew Jackson, rationally recognized that the vanquished Indians had no rights.)

The Rewards of Folly

We could not expect the Americans to be rational after 1861-1865. Ignorant plebeians in the Northern states, excited by envy and Judaeo-Christian righteousness to fratricidal hatred, had drenched many battlefields with the best blood of their nation. And they spent the following decades in trying to wash the blood from their hands by lying to themselves about what they had done and viciously oppressing the survivors of their homicidal mania.

Had Americans been rational, they would have honestly confronted the alternatives I have stated above and taken pride in their possession of their country and realized that any failure to show Indians such compassion as they would never have accorded to us was merely inevitable and nugatory when considered as an incident in our obedience to the imprescriptible law of nature, that the strong survive and the weak perish. They would not have made Ramona a “best seller” and snivelled hypocritically when they read A Century of Dishonor or were told what was in that book.

They would not have permitted their factitious sense of guilt to go so far that even anthropologists, who professed to portray the society of Indians, censored their accounts to eliminate repulsive details that would depreciate the subject of their writing and alienate the readers’ sympathies. In Liberty Bell, February 1987, p. 7, I noticed a book which was most unusual in that it told the full truth about the Mayas, dissipating the common notion that they were a peaceful and relatively civilized people, as their massive architecture suggested and as anthropologists with impressive academic credentials had affirmed. (18)

(18. E.g., Charles Gallenkamp in his Maya (New York, David McKay, 1959).)

The Indians naturally took advantage of a professed guilt they could not understand, but it was only after they had for decades seen the Jews with impunity excite the niggers against White men that they concluded that the crazed Pale Faces were on the run. And they began to assume extravagant pretensions and make equally baseless demands, encouraged, of course, by our domestic enemies and the American mutineers whom they have trained.

How far our imbecility has gone may be seen from a recent instance in the state of New York, where the gang of racketeers who call themselves “educators” are ramming into the minds of their child victims the lie that the American Constitution was imitated from a confederation formed by savages.

The New York Post claims to have been founded by Alexander Hamilton, but if you look at the editorial staff listed on its masthead, you will find only one name (Cotter) that could have been borne by one of Hamilton’s contemporaries, and, needless to say, the newspaper conforms to the “Liberal” hokum that must be endorsed by any newspaper that hopes to survive as a business. But even so, the outrage perpetrated by the gangsters of the National Education Association was too much for the editors to stomach. On 13 April 1990 they published an editorial entitled “Rewriting History, N.Y.-Style.”

After reviewing the Soviets’ practice of forcing populations to believe what they by their own experience know to be false, as exemplified in an official lie about the “liberation” of the town of Pilsen by Soviet troops, (19) and noting an obviously mendacious claim by the state’s Commissioner of Education, who bears the significant name, Thomas Sobol, (20) that he does not intend to “rewrite history,” the editors discuss the “curriculum now in place”:

‘At this moment, New York’s 11th-grade history syllabus tells teachers that the two major influences on the U.S. Constitution were the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries and the political system of the Haudenosauncee Indians — a New York tribe. Yet the latter claim is sheer nonsense.

‘The Founding Fathers wrote a lot about the intellectual influences that informed their drafting of the Constitution. And there is no evidence that they were influenced by an Indian tribe. Indeed, the notion has about as much historical validity as the legend that Soviet troops liberated Pilsen.’

(19. For an even more striking instance, see Liberty Bell, June 1991, p. 11.)

(20. The name is Yiddish; see the Oxford Dictionary of Surnames (1989). s.v.)

The editors charitably assume that Sobol himself was not the author of the lie, and identify the motive as the “educators” normal indifference to truth, rather than malicious sabotage of children’s minds:

‘It seems that the present-day members of the tribe in question sent a delegation to meet with the educational commissioner’s staff, and Sobol’s aides thought it wise to accommodate them.’

Incidentally, there never was a tribe of “Haudenocaunee Indians.” The name, of which the correct spelling, I suppose, is ‘Hodenosaunee,’ since that is the form which was used (with hyphens to separate the syllables) by Lewis Morgan in the first real book about them, was the Indian name of the Iroquois (21) federation of five (eventually six) Indian tribes, formed to resist White settlers and to carry on continual raids on Algonquin Indian, other neighboring tribes, and even the Cherokee, far to the south.

(21. ‘Iroquois’ is the name by which the tribes or some of them were collectively designated by the French who first came into contact with them. It has been suggested that the French word may have come from an Indian word meaning ‘adders,’ but that is a mere guess based on a slight phonetic similarity.)

Lewis Morgan was an American lawyer and promoter of railroads who, around 1850, decided to form a secret “fraternal” society like the Masons, and, wanting to create a ritual that would contain no nonsense about Solomon and Jewish myths, thought he might find in the rituals of the Iroquois a useful model for an American ritual. He was influenced, no doubt, by the vogue of mythical Indians that I have described above.

He investigated the several Iroquois tribes and became so interested that he was the first to describe systematically the federation and the tribes that composed it. He was somewhat credulous, and believed some of the tall tales told him by the survivors of the tribes, which by that time had been conquered and put on reservations.

The federation of the tribes was supposedly inspired by a Savior, who, needless to say, was miraculously born of a virgin, and, Morgan was told, was formed by an Indian prophet who may have actually existed, named Hiawatha. (22)

(22. Longfellow thought the name euphonious and so bestowed it on the hero of his highly imaginative mythology, whom he described as belonging to an entirely different Indian tribe, the Ojibwa, who were constantly at war with the Iroquois and, indeed, had driven some of the tribes out of what is now Canada.)

Like their kinsmen, the Cherokee, with whom they were almost constantly at war, the tribes of the federation practiced agriculture and had more or less permanent settlements, villages. There are several indications, far from probative, that the tribes contained some White blood. The Iroquois confederacy is now dear to anthropologists because its tribes are one of the very rare instances of an effective gynaecocracy and strictly matrilinear society. (23)

(23. All property was really owned by women, who selected and could remove the male sachems who governed each tribe. That is a reasonable arrangement in a society in which the identity of a child’s mother is usually certain, whereas the identity of the father may not be known even to the mother herself.)

Of course, the notion that the authors of the Constitution would have taken into consideration a league of savages, about which they knew little and of which the best known tribe was the Mohawks (whose name means ‘the cannibals’), is simply preposterous and shows only the total dishonesty of the racketeers who operate the public boob-hatcheries.

By the way, the hogwash about the Constitution was obviously derived, not from the presumptuous Indians, but directly from Communist doctrine. Morgan’s book about the Hodenosaunee came to the attention of Marx while he was looking for sources he could plausibly cite in apparent support of his Marxian Reformation of Christianity, and it was used as a major source by Marx’s employer and accomplice, Engels, when he compounded Bolshevik hokum for his Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, which became the fundamental textbook of the Judaeo-Communist conspiracy, much more important than Das Kapital. Needless to say, Engels ignored all the parts of Morgan’s book that did not fit the weapon he was manufacturing to attack civilization.

The editors of the Post observe that Sobol, not content with the lie about the Constitution, is planning further sabotage of children’s minds:

‘As for the [announced] “Curriculum of Inclusion,” it represents a larger plan to rework the history curriculum in order to accommodate various political pressure groups. The goal, as Sobol’s task force makes clear, is to reduce the “arrogance” of “European American” (i.e., white) students.’

In other words, our enemy is proposing to take American children by the nape of the neck and rub their faces in Yiddish excrement.

The editorial concludes with a discreet hint that in the state of New York White men still form a majority, and if they were sufficiently interested to form a political party of their own, they could prevent such degradation and perversion of their offspring. If you are indefatigably optimistic, you may entertain a wild hope that the hint will be taken.

The educational gangsters are not alone in their zeal for the demolition of civilization. The shamans naturally want to participate in the dirty work. Human Events, in an item in the issue dated 22 September 1990, under the title, “The National Council of Churches’ Assault on Western Civilization,” reported that the two hundred members of the General Board of the National Council of Churches, at their semi-annual conference, solemnly declared that

‘Christopher Columbus did not “discover” the Western Hemisphere, he “invaded” it. His voyage of exploration [opened] this region of the world to…”church-supported racism,” “genocide,” “exploitation,” “moral decadence,” “enslavement of Indians,” and terrible injustice to “African(s)” and the “peoples of Asia.” …. Not only were the “indigenous peoples” throughout this hemisphere slaughtered and enslaved, but the white population — descendants of the “European Conquerors” — have continued to perpetuate the legacy of “paternalism and racism” until the present day.’

Such frenzied raving is only to be expected from the sleazy shysters who swindle their ovine congregations with verbal slop that appeals to low superstitions. But a filthy pack of enemy aliens and zombies tried to go them one better in spewing out venom. According to Christian News, 8 October 1990:

‘The World Student [!] Christian Federation has issued a resolution decrying the oppression associated with the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas, echoing the sentiments expressed by a number of other religious bodies…. The resolution says that the “invasion” of Columbus was motivated by “expansionism and hegemonic aspirations.” It also contends that the arrival of Europeans resulted in “expropriation, conquest, violence, ethnocide, racism, sexism [sic!], and multiple forms of oppression” against the indigenous population and Africans brought to the hemisphere later as slaves.’

Reading the foregoing, you must not suppose that the “students” really believe that the innocent aborigines in the Western Hemisphere multiplied by fission in those happy days before the wicked Whites taught them about sex. When “Liberal intellectuals” are programmed, their little minds will hold only a limited number of collocations of words that they will regurgitate at given signals, thus avoiding the mental strain of thought, which would doubtless, lead to nervous breakdowns. The word ‘sexist’ was just part of the programmed vomit, and one cannot expect the homunculi to notice whether it is applicable every time they react to an applied stimulus.

The anthropoid garbage collected in Chantilly naturally endorsed the Council of Churches of Christ’s assault on civilization:

‘The resolution calls for ecumenical bodies to recognize “the sin of Christian participation in the spiritual conquest of the indigenous and African American peoples” and points to the necessity of joining in “popular struggles opposing new forms of invasion, conquest, and recolonization.’ (24)

(24. The Indians do have a few justified complains. I heard a tribe in Canada complain that their children are forced to go to schools, and this is certainly unjust to them as well as folly on the part of the White boobs, but I am sure that plaint would be rejected by the “Student” scum, who would insist on enforced attendance at schools at which the aborigines would be taught how further to intimidate the cringing Aryans.)

Emboldened by pusillanimity of White men, the Indians are having sport, devising ways further to harass the Pale Faces. They seem to have adopted a game initiated by the aborigines in Australia, who belong to the lowest of extant races and seem to have somehow reached Australia from India, where little enclaves of them still exist. They suddenly took an interest in the bones of their ancestors and demanded that anthropological museums return the specimens that had been collected for scientific research. The half-witted Australians complied with the insolent demand!

Indians in the United States are now imitating the Australoids. They suddenly developed a religious veneration for the skeletons of Indians whose relatives had never taken the trouble to bury them if they died away from camp and in a wilderness in which carnivores were efficient undertakers. An account of the preposterous demands and the silly respect with which White nincompoops yielded to them may be found in an article by Professor Clement W. Meighan, “Bury My Bones at Wounded Knee,” published in National Review, 27 May 1991, pp. 34-38.

California, as usual, takes the lead in asininity, and its state government has embarked, at the expense of dim-witted taxpayers, on cuddling savages and persecuting anthropologists whom the sacred Indian trash want to harass. The legal vermin employed by the state have the effrontery to argue that anthropologists “have no legal right to remove or study any human remains” and are “guilty of a felony” when they do so. The scabrous government of that mongrel state has looted state museums and piously buried bones, pottery, stones, and the like, only to be sued by the grinning Indians and forced to rebury the refuse according to a silly ritual the savages devised for the purpose. Rampant idiocy and racial degeneration can go no farther.

Even the once venerable and respected Smithsonian Institute has pavidly provided fun for Indians who enjoy kicking the hamstrung Aryan jackasses. For further instances, see Professor Meighan’s article or watch your local newspapers; in all likelihood, there is near you, perhaps in your own town, some museum that is now being, or soon will be, harassed and plundered by insolent savages — for savages they remain in mind and soul, unchanged by wearing shirts and trousers or by having learned to speak English, and, thanks to our insensate folly, they are now far more numerous than ever they were in all the centuries before Columbus.

It remains only to inquire why American men, who, though sometimes brutal and misguided, still had manhood a century ago, have now been replaced by anatomically male wimps and punks. How did it happen the our people have lost the will to live — have lost even a velleity to spare their children the horrors to which they are condemning them?

The cannibal’s disease, kuru, which rots what brains they have, is similar to, if not identical with, the African Plague, commonly called “AIDS,” and caused by an enterprising virus which seems to have an unlimited power to accommodate itself to its victims by suitable mutations. It thus differs in some respects from the menticidal disease with which a clever Sheeny, who called himself Paulus, infected the decaying Roman Empire, which in turn transmitted the deadly epidemic to our barbarous ancestors. It took fifteen centuries for the Judaeo-Christian revolt against nature and reality to destroy utterly the Aryan’s rationality and will to live. The two diseases have the same effects, although one works more rapidly than the other, and, from present indications, it appears that both are incurable. If there is any hope for us, it must depend on the tiny minority of Aryans who have a spiritual immune-system that resists that hallucinatory virus.

* * *

Source: Liberty Bell magazine, July 1991