Essays

Four Wars that We Lost, part 1

by Wolf Stoner

NATIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN at war among themselves. War is an eternal companion of life: The very phenomenon of life presupposes struggle; struggle determines who survives. It is the way natural selection operates; there is no way around it, whatever the futile dreams of various shallow thinkers. War is the supreme arbiter of truth. The ultimate victory belongs to those who are better — but only in the long run.

In the meantime, all kinds of combinations could emerge and all kinds of falsehoods could gain the upper hand and impose their will on nations.

The supreme law of natural selection becomes evident only in greater time frames. In most cases we require periods far greater than a human lifespan in order to discern what is what, where is truth and where is falsehood. But our vision of current events is almost always beclouded by the fog of war and deliberate deceptions. And such deceptions continue to befuddle us long after the events; at least for the duration of the lives of the participants.

Only a long time after the events can their true meaning start to emerge on the historical horizon; the outlines of the long-term results of those events start to become discernible for sharp observers. But even then the “mainstream” public remains oblivious, and still holds on to past delusions inherited from their parents. For many passengers on our planetary Titanic, the iceberg of reality becomes evident only after it strikes — when it is too late to change anything.

Now the outlines of the true meaning of the historical events of the past two centuries are becoming clearly visible; now is the time when any doubts we may have had about the long-term results of those events melt away.

As I said, wars have always happened. But some wars are different than others. Various nations of the White race fought each other for centuries; but it was the normal process of internal struggle; it is the way the Life Force operates. Even children born of a common mother and father fight among themselves. But sometimes those fights cross a line, and cease to be a mechanism of natural selection and become instead a mechanism of racial suicide. This could happen for all kinds of reasons; either as a result of internal stupidity, or of external malicious influence and alien penetration. Either way the results are disastrous.

There are different ways of studying history. Our way is to look at it from a racial perspective; to analyze the long-term results of any event in relation to the overall fate of the White race. There are no Establishment historians today who study history through this prism, therefore our conclusions are bound to be different from theirs. Most official historians are either too shallow to discern the deeper meanings of the events they study, or too timid to even mention them.

Therefore most historical studies, even if providing a detailed factual account of an event, always try to obfuscate the significance and long-term ramifications of it. For example, no Establishment historian would dare to tie the ongoing crackdown on freedom of speech to Abraham Lincoln’s wartime censorship, then unprecedented in American history. After it was done once, it was de facto legalized and constitutional protections in this field ceased to be effective.

Lincoln is the father of American totalitarianism; the first American dictator. He effectively destroyed the land of free White men. But not a single historian would dare to publicly draw such a conclusion because to do so would be certain career suicide.

Here I will not devote much time to studying external malicious actors who facilitated the destructive events that eventually brought the White race down to its current state. Instead I will focus my attention on the events themselves; on their place in our overall history and their mutual interconnections. I will try to provide a view of these events as if they were being seen from outside of our planet; as an imaginary omniscient alien would see them — an objective observer who had no personal stake in the process. I can’t be perfectly objective because by definition I am a part of the process, part of an interested side. But, all the same, the principle of objective judgement allows us to look differently on social events; not as court historians do, but as a physicist or chemist looks at his experiments.

* * *

Up to the middle of 19th century, the White nations fought each other for territory and dominance. These were, mostly, limited wars that rarely impacted wider populations. For centuries, peasants and town artisans lived a measured life, and even a transfer of their lands to the rule of a different crown didn’t change their way of life. There was little difference whether you lived under the sovereignty of the Piedmont, or Austria, or France — you paid your taxes, obeyed the laws (which in essence were identical in all European countries), and the state didn’t meddle in your personal life. It was an almost perfect social arrangement.

The armies of these monarchs consisted mostly of mercenaries who were drawn from the excess population. Families had many children and some of them were bound to become social misfits. Such people were the main recruiting pool for the kings’ armies, and his sailors for overseas expeditions. Yes, many of them died — only a smaller part of them survived and succeeded, but they too were part of the overall process of natural selection in its social application.

But at some point this equilibrium was broken. Wars ceased to be local, limited affairs and were transformed into clashes of whole societies. The consequences of such wars became exceedingly destructive to the overall social structure.

The Napoleonic Wars

The Napoleonic Wars were the first planetary event that could truly be named a World War, though they were denied such a name: They encompassed almost all lands that the White race possessed; and, back then, the White Man’s lands represented the whole civilized world.

However great their destruction, the Napoleonic Wars were not seriously harmful to the White race as a whole. That couldn’t be said about the preceding French Revolution — which triggered the murderous Haiti uprising, which set the first precedent for a successful, unpunished White extermination event. The example of Haiti, right up to the present day, inspires all the enemies of the White race.

Napoleon curtailed the revolutionary insanity in France, and continued to adhere to the traditional European social model (except for his unwise delusion about the necessity to provide “equal civil rights” to all subjects). Napoleon — and all of his opponents — represented the same culture and had in essence the same vision. Therefore, the victory of either side didn’t change the overall path of society. And as long as the outcomes of wars don’t hurt the overall social structure or distract the entire race from its evolutionary path, their negative consequences are limited exclusively to material aspects, which are rapidly restored — and sometimes even improved — after a war ends. The great numbers of those killed in a war don’t much affect our overall racial destiny, because those killed are rapidly replaced by the newborn of the same race. As long as losses in a war don’t change the overall racial composition of society, or diminish its intellectual qualities, this factor can’t be judged as something especially bad. Proceeding from this criterion, the Napoleonic Wars were not significantly detrimental to the White race, even if not particularly useful. The sum total of those wars is zero in racial terms. Neither a gain, nor a loss; only a redistribution of influence inside the European community, as was the case on many previous occasions.

The American Civil War

The war that changed all that was the American Civil War, which had nothing civil about it. For the first time in modern history the White race engaged in a war of fratricidal annihilation with the obvious result of damaging its own interests and unduly benefiting an alien race. Hundreds of thousands of the best White men were killed in order to upgrade the social status of Negroes. Even this abomination was not the main result, which was creation of the exceptionally dangerous precedent of elevating savages and humiliating the White man to a position below Negroes. At the end of the war, Negro slaves felt themselves above the defeated White men. What is most disgusting is that it was other White men who defeated their racial brethren in order to elevate and please Negroes.

What is obvious now was far from evident before and during the war. Had the wider public known in advance the long-term consequences of the war, the very same people who voted Lincoln into the White House would have lynched him on its front lawn.

The problem is that people rarely understand the true essence of the events in which they participate.

The main tools of political scoundrels are lies, deceptions, and emotional manipulation. They use them without hesitation. They care not about objective truth, but only about appearing truthful. At times, such scoundrels are even able to gain semi-saint status.

Before the war began in 1861, there were very few White deviants who sincerely believed in “racial equality.” But, though being small in number, they were vociferous and persistent. They tried to sway public opinion in favor of their insane visions — but it was hopeless. The healthy conservatism of the masses guaranteed the failure of the egalitarian maniacs — as long as the situation remained stable. The only way to change this was to plunge society into a war, to break down the existing equilibrium.

I don’t want to ascribe all the guilt for this disaster to any one particular group — because some share of it should be ascribed to all participants, including the southern states and slave owners. Their greed, and inability to see the long-term consequences of their actions — led to the obstinacy that allowed the Northern extremists to provoke war. Instead of insisting on a state-funded program of Negro repatriation back to Africa, many Southern politicians advocated spreading the institution of Black slavery into new states.

The institution of slavery was flawed on all counts. First, because it presupposed the coexistence of alien races side by side with ours, which is obviously abnormal. Yes, the races were divided by a mostly impenetrable social barrier — but, as history teaches us, the only reliable barrier is a physical one, preferably one of vast oceans, deserts, and mountains.

The constantly multiplying Negro population presented an ever-increasing potential danger which could not be ignored. But most American politicians and businessmen were too short-sighted and too self-interested to see this. Most of them preferred to go with the flow (as they do now as well) and hope that the problem would be solved by itself. Predictably, it didn’t.

For many years the problem of slavery (not so much of slavery per se as of the Negro presence among White people) festered in American politics, and each time it garnered some public attention, it was pushed aside as something to be decided upon in the future. But inevitably the time came when it couldn’t be postponed any longer.

As I said, obviously some of the guilt falls upon the South for not being able to see long-term and for being too subservient to the interests of big business that relied on slave labor. Big business often becomes a destructive factor in society — because its interests often diverge from the interests of society itself: the businessman’s craving for ever greater short-term profits is almost always at the expense of the interests of future generations. That is why, in any future state we may create, large private companies should cease to exist; it is too dangerous to allow private individuals to accrue so much property and to influence the policies of the state.

But though the South bears part of the guilt, the Lincoln administration and its core abolitionist supporters were the main driving force in unleashing this war. But they were too clever to do so openly. They bided their time; they waited for the South to make a mistake. They knew that it would be impossible to persuade the wider American public of the necessity for war as long as the Southern drift to independence proceeded peacefully. They set a trap and waited patiently. They needed a pretext to start a punitive military operation against freedom-seeking Southern states. When the trigger event was arranged at Fort Sumter, Lincoln launched his war. Having seemingly absolved himself of the moral responsibility for starting hostilities, he could unleash the whole might of his army against the freedom-seeking South.

As is almost always the case, everyone hoped the war would be a short one with few casualties. The South hoped to secede, making little more than a token fight. Lincoln, too, hoped that a mere show of force would be enough to intimidate the South into submission. Neither side was correct in their assumptions.

Lincoln’s aim was to present the conflict to the public as a struggle to “save the union.” Initially, the Negro question wasn’t even mentioned. It was held back from public view because it was understood that White people in the North would not support the war if it was openly declared as a crusade to free Negroes. That is why Lincoln did not dare proclaim, early on, the abolition of slavery. He did that only when the war had reached the peak of its intensity, and when the mechanism of totalitarian suppression of public dissent was firmly established. Besides, as Nietzsche put it so well, “Spilled blood can sanctify any cause.” Two years of war had made it easier to promote any idea or decision, arguing that “our soldiers fought and died for this” — even if not one of them ever imagined dying for the sake of Negroes.

Bloodshed creates a dynamic of its own. The hatred provoked between the populations of Northern and Southern states, who were pitted against each other like fighting dogs, was great enough to smuggle under its cover any idea — including this one of “Negro freedom,” and even of “Negro equality.” The combatants were too busy fighting and hating each other to notice what the treacherous politicians were preparing behind closed doors.

When, finally, Northern armies succeeded in crushing the South, the federal government showed its true face, imposing harsh occupation regimes, hunting down any lingering dissenters, and promoting Negroes to equals of — in many cases, even overlords over — Southern Whites.

For the first time in history, the Negro was so elevated — and by White men, no less. It was the most egregious crime against Nature — the gravest insult to the entire White race. The abolitionist maniacs tried to go even further, but reality curtailed their insane efforts. After few years of these “experiments” with “equality,” and after their universally abysmal failures, the federal government was compelled to allow White Southerners to restore order in their states — otherwise the entire South would have descended into chaos. The initial damage done to the White South was partly restored in subsequent decades — but the most dangerous precedent had been set, and all sorts of political crooks and enemies of the White race noted this example as something special, something to work from and to expand upon.

Karl Marx had corresponded with Lincoln. Vladimir Lenin had on numerous occasions favorably referred to Lincoln’s legacy and admired him. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Lincoln was a role model for Lenin. His national policy in Russia after 1917 was based partly on Lincoln’s ideas. Therefore, we can clearly see the obvious ideological connection between the abolitionist movement in America and Marxism in Europe. Both were of the same anti-European, anti-White cult that covered its true essence under sweet platitudes about “equality.”

The American Civil War was the first exceptionally damaging blow against the collective interests of the White race. It would reverberate for decades in all parts of the world. It would inspire anti-White hate — and hopes for the total defeat of our race — among all non-White tribes. It was the first war in which, for the first time, one group of Whites slaughtered and murdered and enslaved another group of Whites because they were White and for the sake of the interests of racial aliens.

For the time being it was an isolated case; Europe was still too strong to be challenged as a racial entity by any other bipedal group on earth. The White man was a supreme force and no one could even think about contesting his superiority. The only enemy that could pose a threat lurked inside Europe itself; consisting partly of ethnic aliens, partly of White degenerates, perverts, and egalitarian maniacs. Eventually this unholy alliance would coalesce into a loose Marxist movement that would gain enough force to start open hostilities against the European social order. But even then, at the end of the 19th century, the only force that could defeat the White Man was another White man.

To be continued

* * *

Source: Author

Previous post

Brain Size and Intelligence: A Positive Correlation

Next post

Greasing the Skids

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
18 Comments
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Will W. Williams * National Alliance Chairman
Will W. Williams * National Alliance Chairman
19 August, 2022 4:05 pm

Dishonest Abe’s fratricidal war of aggression aginst Southern White separatists For the first time in history, the Negro was so elevated — and by White men, no less. It was the most egregious crime against Nature — the gravest insult to the entire White race….the most dangerous precedent had been set, and all sorts of political crooks and enemies of the White race noted this example as something special, something to work from and to expand upon.Karl Marx had corresponded with Lincoln. Vladimir Lenin had on numerous occasions favorably referred to Lincoln’s legacy and admired him. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Lincoln was a role model for Lenin. His national policy in Russia after 1917 was based partly on Lincoln’s ideas. Therefore, we can clearly see… Read more »

Alex Lund
Alex Lund
20 August, 2022 11:34 am

There is one thing I do not understand.
General Leee was a gentleman. After Shermanns March to the seas it was clear that the Age of the Gentleman was over.
Why dit Lee not respond in kind?
And if he was not willing to fight the hard way then he should have resigned his commission.
Lee should have given his armies the order to charge into the North and inflict the same or worse damage to the North as the North had inflicted upon the South.
Just imagine Southern regiments storming into Washington and later the White House and hanging Lincoln from the balcony of the White House.

Jim - National Alliance Staff
Jim - National Alliance Staff
Reply to  Alex Lund
20 August, 2022 12:21 pm

Now you understand, Mr. Lund, what demeanor we must have to take our place under the sun. Imagine becoming a part of us and building a future for our race. http://www.natall.com/about/what-is-the-national-alliance/ As you may have already guessed, it will not happen all by itself! One cannot rub an oil lamp and have a genie pop out to grant your wish. Prayers won’t work at imploring some anthropomorphic and fictional “god” to save us either because if they did work, it would already have been done. It takes you and everyone of you to get involved. This comments section is not a playpen for commenters to just while away time, but to encourage serious and sincere Whites to join with us and make the survival and advancement of our race happen.… Read more »

Will W. Williams * National Alliance Chairman
Will W. Williams * National Alliance Chairman
Reply to  Alex Lund
20 August, 2022 1:33 pm

Alex Lund: There is one thing I do not understand. General Leee was a gentleman. After Shermanns March to the seas it was clear that the Age of the Gentleman was over. Why dit Lee not respond in kind? — There is probably a lot you don’t understand about the Lost Cause of Southern secession, Alex. Mr. Stoner has put his finger on it here, however, in later parts of this essay. Though Leee [sic] was a brilliant military leader, tactician and gentleman, war is not a gentleman’s game. General Shermann [sic] certainly knew this. Lee’s biggest flaw in my opinion was his overweening devotion to superstitious, Jew-spawned Christianity. He later lamented his surrender at Appomattox, and is allegedly quoted as saying: It’s the loneliest feeling in the world to… Read more »

Wolf Stoner
Wolf Stoner
Reply to  Alex Lund
21 August, 2022 3:20 pm

From the very outset of the war the Southern states were a weaker side. Their industrial base was insufficient to support a long-term war effort. The southern strategy was to hold on as long as possible. For them the ability to withstand an invasion was in itself a victory. I suppose that no one in the south wanted to invade northern states. The Gettysburg campaign was an attempt to bring the war to a conclusion by destroying the main federal forces. But, it failed. I doubt that the South had physical ability to successfully invade the North and capture Washington. The main fact about the American Civil War is that the South was invaded by North, not other way around. It was Lincoln who started this war, not the independence-seeking… Read more »

Alex Lund
Alex Lund
Reply to  Wolf Stoner
29 August, 2022 6:42 am

This is an anwer to Mr Jim, Mr Williams and Mr Stoner I admit that as a German I have not the deep knowledge of the US Civil War as you as Americans. I also say that I can not comment on at least one point as this topic, just look at Mr Zündel. I read the first book of the honorable Mr Pierce so, I consider myself a german patriot and more I know and felt the truth of certain people of other parts of the world hold together because of their skin colour and therefore I am viewed as the enemy. And I once worked together with one of the “Untouchables” who told me that for every drop of their blood spilled we Germans owe them 7 times… Read more »

Jack Brody
Jack Brody
21 August, 2022 11:59 pm

It is sickening and disgusting that so many Aryan racialists believe that the U.S.A. had the right to invade the C.S.A. Why don’t they believe in “consent of the governed”? Why don’t they believe in “self-determination”? They at least pretend to understand that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Croatia, and the Ukraine had the right of self-determination. [T]he States of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia, in their ratifications of the Constitution of the United States, expressly reserved the right “to reassume the powers delegated whenever they should be perverted to the injury of the people.” This is simply and clearly the right of secession, and as these States were admitted into the Union, partnership, or alliance, with this condition precedent annexed, such condition became, of course, a part of the… Read more »

Wolf Stoner
Wolf Stoner
Reply to  Jack Brody
29 August, 2022 4:42 am

Thank you for this information. It is important to know these facts. It underlines the main problem that we face: our main enemies are treacherous whites, not blacks. Blacks would never dare to challenge White Man’s rule if not were incited and armed by white traitors. I suppose that the only just solution in the future would be to resettle all Clinton-like whites into central Africa where they would be able to enjoy blessings of multiculturalism.

Chris
Chris
22 August, 2022 7:03 pm

Lincoln’s supposed Marx connections are greatly exaggerated by dissident circles, who are ignorantly I might add, promoting a leftist socdem narrative regarding the President’s supposed love of Socialism. Referring to him as an egalitarian is also lunacy given his views on race and hierarchy. https://www.aier.org/article/was-lincoln-really-into-marx/ As you can see, Marx & Engels were actually quite derisive and even preferred Andrew Johnson because they thought he would be harsher on the South, being willing to confiscate estates (and he was) and would better suit their agenda. Lincoln likely never even so much as read Karl Marx’s name, let along replied directly to the man himself. As reprehensible as many of the hypocritical things Abe did were, he was adamant on the removal of Negro from White society and might have been… Read more »

RCavallius
RCavallius
Reply to  Chris
22 August, 2022 10:20 pm

A well-written comment Chris, and one that I happen to agree with – even though the Chairman might take my head off for it! ;)

Say, are you an Alliance member, by chance?

Wolf Stoner
Wolf Stoner
Reply to  Chris
23 August, 2022 4:33 am

Thank you for expressing your opinion. A few years ago I had this debate about Lincoln on one of the forums. The same set of counterarguments was put forward. Jeffrey Nyquist was especially good in exculpating Lincoln. First of all I must say that my knowledge about American Civil War is much more limited than about Russian Civil War and WW2; therefore, I have no moral right to assert my point of view as something infallible. I have read only two books about American Civil War; including “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin (voluminous but profoundly empty piece of liberal trash; no one should read it ever); and some articles in various historical magazines. I have to read much more yet on this… Read more »

Jack Brody
Jack Brody
Reply to  Wolf Stoner
24 August, 2022 1:46 pm

“As long as we continue to believe in words instead of evaluating deeds of any person, we are bound to fail in every endeavor.” True. Let’s look at Lincoln’s deeds. Think about Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine. What if a Russian general were to burn to the ground every Ukrainian city that he captured? Wouldn’t you consider that a monstrous war crime? And yet that is what Lincoln’s minions did in the South. “The city of Atlanta, after its surrender, was burned to the ground, and only a handful of churches and a few outlying residences escaped the holocaust…. Captain Daniel Oakey of the Second Massachusetts Volunteers recounted the burning of Atlanta as follows: ‘Sixty thousand of us witnessed the destruction of Atlanta, while our post band and that of the 33rd… Read more »

Wolf Stoner
Wolf Stoner
Reply to  Jack Brody
26 August, 2022 8:23 am

  Thank you very much for your extended commentary. It is very important to disseminate this truth as widely as possible. Sam Dickson did a great job in this regard. What happens now in America is the logical continuation of the same abolitionist ideas that triggered American Civil War. Having once elevated Negro to the human status, it was a matter of time before Negro pulls down the whole civilization to his subhuman level. It is all too obvious but Christianity conditioned people to not see obvious things. You mentioned an idea “if a Russian general brought negro troops into the country…” The sad truth is that modern Russian generals do precisely this, only using Asian tribesmen instead of negroes (but there was even talk about hiring negroes from Zimbabwe and… Read more »

Dave Nichols
Dave Nichols
26 August, 2022 12:22 am

The North fought to maintain the Union, NOT to free Blacks; and Lincoln wanted Blacks DEPORTED.

Jamie
Jamie
26 August, 2022 9:35 pm

I bet to differ with the author. War, or Belum as how the civilized Romans called, is a companion of life, but of death. It is the destructor of morals, friendship, truth and ultimately the life of man. Have the ancient European tribes practiced this as how we know it today, they would have gone extinct long ago, and to further support this, here is what the Roman historian Tacitus wrote about the Cherusci, the tribe that eventually united the ancient Germanics against the destructive Roman empire and defeated them in the battle of Teutoburg forest: “Dwelling on one side of the Chauci and Chatti, the Cherusci long cherished, unassailed, an excessive and enervating love of peace. This was more pleasant than safe, for to be peaceful is self-deception among… Read more »

Angelicus
Angelicus
26 August, 2022 10:16 pm

Thank you Wolf Stoner for another impressive article. Over the last 25 years, I read many conflicting stories about Abraham Lincoln all of them written by racially minded North Americans. The problem is this: Some argued that Lincoln was almost a racialist/racist who planned to ship the Negroes back to Africa. Others said that he was a liberal do-gooder who knew very well what he was doing. Having said this I believe that the picture is more complex than the previously mentioned points of view. However, I am inclined to agree with Wolf’s assessment of Lincoln’s character; that means he was a classical politician, and as such he would twist the truth and even contradict his own words if that benefited him. We should also remember that what really counts… Read more »

Jim
Jim
1 September, 2022 10:31 am

Another fratricidal war for the jews, whites killing whites for the kosher banker boys. You would think after a few thousand years of this self-genocide whites would “get it”. It’s not looking like we learned a thing. Jews laugh themselves to sleep while raking in the shekels. Oy vey. “We have met the enemy and he is us”. Pogo Possum

dean
dean
7 September, 2022 5:59 pm

A famous line in “Cool Hand Luke” reminds me of Lincoln and his war for mandatory consolidation: “Wish you’d stop bein’ so good to me Cap’n.”

The North and South were opposite civilizations from day one. Exile Puritans had nothing in common with the Southern country or anybody else.

Lincoln and the Confederate actor in a public theater: Shakespeare Tragedy.