The Right Should Embrace The 1619 Project

A Good Ol' Boy's defense of Critical Race Theory

Jun 04, 2024

We Wuz Founderz

"In August of 1619, a ship appeared on the horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the English colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully."

So begins The New York Times’ interactive webpage for The 1619 Project, an effort at “reframing” America’s history “by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” As we approach the 5th Anniversary of this endeavor, it is worthwhile to review the project’s origins, reception, and fruit to help tease out what the Right’s goals and potential platforms for racial issues are versus what they should be in the next decade and beyond.

In doing so, we will discover the uncomfortable truth that the Right should embrace more elements of The 1619 Project than any public figure or official on the Right is willing to consider. But if the Right is to be conservative—rather than just slightly right of center, ever lurching left, and retarded—then consider it we must.

1619’s Immediate Reception

We’ll get to the 1619 Project’s origins shortly below, but a quick preview of the project’s initial reception indicates a mixed bag, with even major leftists disputing its accuracy, and I would venture to say that it has ultimately done much more to drive the push against critical race theory (CRT) rather than popularizing and perpetuating it.

While 1619’s reception on the Left was lukewarm, the Right launched an immediate backlash against the project, with major figures tweeting denouncements and decrying the death of a colorblind America (as if it ever existed outside the minds of suburban white people). This initial dialogue was short-lived, however, as the crucifixions of Saints Arbery and Floyd just a few short months after the project’s release (February & May, 2020, respectively), sparked the Bonfires of Black Liberation in America’s major metropolitan areas in 2020’s Summer of Love.

After this national ritual burning, complete with people painting black boxes above their digital thresholds to be spared from the death of being called a racist, the implementation of CRT in both education and employment settings was ratcheted up several notches with the creation of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In response, the Right’s critical commentary against CRT was reignited and began to develop from tweets into policy.

In September 2020, President Trump took two major actions against CRT and in response to The 1619 Project by (1) issuing an executive order that banned “divisive concepts” in federal diversity training, and (2) establishing an advisory committee to develop a “1776 Commission” which would support “patriotic education,” allegedly inspired by

Christopher F. Rufo

’s appearances on Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News. We’ll discuss these more below.

Biden, of course, rolled back both of these efforts immediately upon taking office.

Origins of Critical Race Theory

However, the Right has continued to secure victories, with over 18 States banning CRT in some way or another in education and/or government as of May 2024. The Left loves to paint CRT as some dusty, old, obscure concept only taught in graduate school electives, but this only belies their subterfuge when you look at

Libs of TikTok

’s evidence of the rainbow hair elementary schoolmarm army and the widespread issues with local libraries across the country.

But yes, it is true that CRT originated in law schools in the 70s and 80s as a way to defend the Warren Court’s unprecedented policy-making in the civil rights era.

It had to.

Remember, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Bow’d of Edumucation (1954) effectively on the basis of “psychology studies” that purported to show that black children felt “a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community” as a result of segregation.

Alright Boudreaux, which of these dolls do you want to play the knockout game with?

The methodology that led to this conclusion? Little black children from segregated Washington D.C. schools and integrated New York City schools were given the choice between playing with a white doll or a black doll. Both sets of children were found to have a preference for the white doll. Funnily enough, in a recent work of scholarship, Professor Robin Bernstein explains some of the "deep flaws” of the Clark experiments in both the statistical methodology and the questions the Clarks asked the children.1

Most interesting, however, is Bernstein’s explanation of the history of doll play in the 19th and early 20th century. Bernstein explains that children were regularly violent when playing with dolls, and she suggests that black dolls were played with in this way in particular. Bernstein notes that “this violence coexisted, in literature and in life, with a passionate love that white children expressed toward black dolls,” and reports instance after instance of Yankee children burning, hanging, biting, their black dolls during playtime, but then doting on the doll as their most prized companion. From my (admittedly) cursory review of the book, it seems that the vast majority of this kind of play was in the North, where the black population was significantly small.

Bernstein goes on to suggest that the black children’s preference for white dolls in the Clarks’ experiment could very likely be a matter of not wanting to engage in violent play with the dolls that looked more like them. (The black children in integrated New York City had an even stronger preference for the white dolls than the D.C. children). Another variable is that white dolls were frequently more expensive than black dolls, so there is a possibility that the children would prefer to play with a kind of doll that they never had played with before and was simply different.

Beautiful in its disingenuity, Bernstein’s ultimate conclusion portrays this scholarship as a “recuperat[ion] of the Clarks by defending the doll test not as flawed social science but instead a brilliant drama [which] redeems the Clarks’ child subjects by offering a new understanding of them not as psychologically damaged dupes, not as passive internalizers of racism, but instead as agential experts on children’s culture.”

It’s ironic that she frames the black children as needing redemption at all. . . They don’t. They are children. It was the Clarks and NAACP who used them to deceptively further a sociopolitical crusade. And it is the same types today—Left, Right, and Center—who continue to use black Americans as a political pawns.

So, yes, the doll experiments were bullshit BUT nevertheless were such a “brilliant drama” that the Supreme Court voted 9-0 in Brown to doom black children to lives of greater psychological distress by forced association with white people as indicated by contemporary studies at the time and today.2 Black teachers and administrators lost their jobs, and as a result, black children lost black mentors outside of the home. Middle class blacks were able to move to better white schools, while poor and rural blacks had no choice but to remain in their local schools where the white people who could afford to move or switch to private school promptly did.

Not actual evidence of unequal facilities or quality of teaching—in fact it was agreed that “the physical facilities, the curricula, courses of study, qualification and quality of teachers, as well as other educational facilities in the two sets of schools [were] comparable”3—but a single study conducted by a husband and wife pair of NAACP activists is what the Supreme Court hung its hat on to usurp the laws of over half the States (17 states required segregation, 4 states allowed the option under the law, and 10 had no laws either requiring or limiting it; 19 banned it).4 Even today, the Legal Defense Fund (yes, the one that operated as a dark money bail fund during Summer 2020) notes without a shred of self-awareness that Dr. Kenneth Clark’s peers described him as an “incorrigible integrationist.” Sounds like dispassionate and unbiased “science” if I’ve ever heard of any!

Naturally, then, the Brown decision required substantial post-hoc reasoning to justify its unprecedented and extrajudicial character. (This continues at present as well. Plenty of people in the public sphere of the Right will deplore Brown as legally flawed, but still bend over backwards to assert it came to the right outcome and could have been reached on the basis of some other strained legal argument.) And, as integration gave way to forced busing which gave way “colorblind equality” which gave way to affirmative action, nothing—as far as the academics were concerned—ever seemed to improve the station of blacks in America.

CRT was borne out of this never-ending racial discontent among the privileged class of blacks, aided, abetted, and egged on by their white and white-passing colleagues who had only ever tolerated their existence within the hallowed spaces of the ivy league as token melaninated company. Taking cues from the Frankfurt School’s post-Marxist Critical Theory5, CRT approaches race and racism from a structural and societal level, rather than an issue of individual bias, prejudice, or hatred. Ergo, Brown et al. didn’t solve “racism” in the United States because the United States and whyte peepo iz inherently racist.

The Rebirth of a Nation

Of course, the issue with CRT’s indictment of America is that the prevailing public education and popular cultural depictions of United States history have, until the last 10 years or so, portrayed a country that has spent over 200 years steadily working to improve the station of black people. My friend, the former Alt-Right turned Anti-Establishment consensus builder

Walt Bismarck

, has detailed this reality in a pair of provocative pieces arguing a “Pro-White Case for Reparations” based on the historical and current racial dynamics in America.

While well-argued and brilliant as a thought experiment, I don’t believe that Walt’s proposal for reparations is the panacea to the racial issue that we all desire. I highlight Walt’s essays, though, because they contain some great ideas and instincts, the chief of which is that the real racial problem in America is white people. Yes, you are hearing ringleader, the Jeffersonian jester of Dixie, blue-blooded whitey himself (albeit with a couple of suspicious birthmarks), correctly.

Whitey is America’s true problem. Always has been!

As such, as I understand it, Walt’s proposal for reparations and a museum of racial reconciliation isn’t driven by a desire to appease blacks (an impossible task), but rather the purpose of absolving whites of their original sin of being melanin deficient— Yakub damn us!

Depiction of Yakub from Malachi Z. York's *Holy Tablets*, 1993

As Walt puts it, White children will no longer be taught from birth that they owe a blood debt to black people. Instead, they’ll be provided with the extensive history of whites cooperating and aiding blacks throughout America’s history. All of America’s copious and varied entitlement programs for blacks could be rolled into a singular “reparations account,” and the white people who vote based on their bleeding cracker heart will begin to have a substantive reminder of their racial indulgences.

These are ingenious ideas that are worth thinking about, if not for any realistic practical efficacy, then certainly for their commentary on the normative questions surrounding race in America.

But the root premise of Walt’s proposal for reparations, that white people are the real issue we must reckon with, means that Critical Race Theory and The 1619 Project are significant impediments to any such program. CRT and 1619 both proffer that white people are really America’s true problem as well, yet do so with a bonified anti-white animus. CRT has already primed the exact same demographic of white people that Walt’s proposal would target with the programming that America has been built from the very beginning using—and owes its entire existence and success to—the exploitation of black people.

A brief outline of The 1619 Project

So let’s look at this programming. The 1619 Project charges the white devil with a litany of sins, all descendants of American slavery. Some of the project’s primary claims are that:

The Revolutionary War was actually fought to preserve slavery. [Such a stretch that the NYT was forced to revise this claim later to downplay it when one of the historians that had been consulted for 1619 publicly stated that she had advised against the claim and another threatened to go public with more issues if it wasn’t corrected.]
Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a matter of practical necessity to win his war against the South because he was strictly opposed to black equality. [True.] He further intended to facilitate a program of near total repatriation to Africa for the newly freed blacks. [Also true.] The cherry on top is that NYT states that “The Union had not entered the war to end slavery but to keep the South from splitting off.” Lol next time anyone tells you that the Civil War was strictly about slavery, just direct them to this.
All the worst depictions of slavery and Jim Crow are true. Slaves were raped and beaten to death for fun. Countless lynchings for totally frivolous and fabricated reasons. Maimed bodies displayed in storefront windows. Etc. [There are serious issues with these claims even though they are already well-seared into the public psyche.]
All the evils of capitalism in America are the result of slavery, from our corrupt banking system, to our use of fiat currency, the excesses of wall street, and even the 2008 subprime mortgage collapse.
That pretty much all music is black, and Lil Nas X’s Old Town Road was a “cry of ancestry”. [lol]
Basically all black crime is just a matter of whitey oppressing blacks. [13/50]

Most of these positions were already common within CRT circles by 2019, and a few even already had decades long syndication via popular programming, but the 1619 Project’s whole point was to emphasize a “true Founding” that better set the stage for CRT becoming ubiquitous. So the fact that the NYT had to make a correction to one of the core components of this was a major stumble out of the gate.

There is also the fact that CRT proponents have massively overplayed their hand by pushing this ideology so hard that soccer moms are starting to have racial awakenings. Remember that in 2022 Glenn Younkin (R) won the Governorship of Virginia, practically blue it’s so purple sweet Virginia, with a hardline anti-CRT and anti-Gender Identity Ideology platform. And, as mentioned supra, 18 States have now banned CRT in some form or another. There is a clear fatigue in large swaths of America for the concept that white people (and any other minority group deemed adjacent to white people) have inherent racial guilt and animosity against blacks.

These Americans reject The 1619 Project’s portrayal of the United States as inherently evil and perpetually tainted as a result of prior racial issues. Many are minorities themselves who don’t recognize the malevolent country that 1619 depicts. Their parents or grandparents worked hard and found fulfillment and success, ranging from modest to extravagant, by simply playing by the rules in “the land of opportunity.”

The 1776 Report

Enter the blackest president America has ever had—three baby mommas, six bankruptcies, thirty-fo counts of felony convictions, and I’d be damn remiss if I didn’t mention the man’s ability to cut a rug: Donald J. Trump.

You ain’t gang if you don’t got a mugshot.

Prez Trump’s response to The 1619 project was The 1776 Report, an attempt to “enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776 and to strive to form a more perfect Union.”

Yet, to this Heritage American, the end result is frankly an embarrassment. Despite purporting to be a faithful report of America’s objective history using its founding documents, the effort immediately stumbles by first placing inordinate emphasis on the Declaration of Independence (as the “nation’s” birth certificate) and then misconstruing the Declaration’s real function and import (as a “universal” statement of principles “‘applicable to all men and all times,’ as Lincoln said.”) It then proceeds to provide a totally distorted account of the Constitution that negates the sovereignty of the States. Finally, it serves a hearty and disingenuous helping of “the democrats are the real racists” with its discussion of slavery, civil rights, and identity politics.

Da Deklarashun

On page 2, right below a pic of America’s black founding father MLK Jr., the 1776 Report declares that “There was no United States of America before July 4th, 1776. There was not yet, formally speaking, an American people.” This seems innocuous to our present ears, but it’s setting up a distorted premise.

“There was no United States of America before July 4th, 1776.”

There was no “United States” on July 4th, 1776, either. To quite the contrary, the Declaration heralded “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” Note the lowercase “united.” The document concludes:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Emphasis added.

The Declaration of Independence did not birth the nation of “The United States.” To assert that it did is to misconstrue the entire Founding.

Instead, the Declaration asserted the independent Statehood of each of the thirteen colonies. This independent Statehood was precedent to “The United States;” the primary factor which shaped every element of the Founding; the core issue simmering throughout America’s first few generations until reaching the boiling point in the War Between the States; and the vestigial echo which has tried to keep total homogenization at bay in the 20th and 21st centuries.

“There was not yet, formally speaking, an American people.”

The 1776 Report then claims that the Founding generation were merely subjects of Britain who did not “become a people” until declaring themselves to be in the Declaration and winning the Revolutionary War. The Report claims that “they made that assertion on the basis of principle, not blood or kinship or what we today might call ‘ethnicity.’” p.3. Of course, this claim requires immediate qualification because it is merely a pretense to establish that the Founders were really just Civic Nationalists all along!

So, the ‘76 Report sets up future first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay’s Federalist 2 as a strawman:

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

And then feebly attacks Jay’s statement by suggesting that “as Jay (and all the founders) well knew, the newly-formed American people were not quite as homogenous—in ancestry, language, or religion—as this statement would seem to assert. They were neither wholly English nor wholly Protestant nor wholly Christian.”

This is retarded.

So retarded in fact, it almost makes me feel bad for the more intelligent people with CivNat sympathies and predilections.

In 1776, about 85% of America’s white population had British ancestry. They were overwhelmingly Protestant Christian (albeit with a diversity of denominations), with a negligible Jewish refugee population. John Jay (and all the Founders) knew this well. However, the ‘76 Report sticks to merely countersignaling Federalist 2 rather than providing any real data so that it can make the following claim:

Some other basis would have to be found and asserted to bind the new people together and to which they would remain attached if they were to remain a people. That basis was the assertion of universal and eternal principles of justice and political legitimacy.

In other words, the ‘76 Report presents the Declaration as a universalist CivNat Manifesto with its “core assertion, and basis of the founders’ political thought, that ‘all men are created equal.’” p.4. The Report does attempt to qualify that this famous phrase:

does not mean that all human beings are equal in wisdom, courage, or any of the other virtues and talents that God and nature distribute unevenly among the human race. It means rather that human beings are equal in the sense that they are not by nature divided into castes, with natural rulers and ruled.

But of course, the existence of slavery at the time of the Declaration’s signing necessarily precludes this definition, and that is The 1619 Project’s most compelling charge. “Look at these hypocritical white slavers!” they shout. However, instead of actually reconciling this apparent inconsistency by invoking the true meaning of the Declaration and the phrase “all men are created equal,” the ‘76 Report meets 1619’s CRT ideologues on their own terms and loses, bigly-badly.

In doing so, it obfuscates the real function and meaning of the Declaration, reducing it to mere principle in a vacuum. The ‘76 Report’s Declaration of Independence isn’t the Declaration of the Founders but of Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and MLK Jr. Might as well throw Saint Floyd in there with ‘em. We obviously haven’t truly realized the Declaration’s truth that all men are created equal until we recognize our inalienable right to secure the fent rock as proclaimed by Floyd our newest Founding Father.

John Trumbull, *Declaration of Independence* 1818

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.

In reality, however, the Declaration of Independence is nothing of the kind.

It is a wartime secession instrument, not a blueprint for fungible civic nationalism.

The Founders’ assertion that “all men are created equal” is not a clarion call for total political equality—not even among the former Englishmen themselves. We get caught up on slavery, but remember that the Founders were Republicans inspired by classical antiquity. While they may not have believed in monarchy and titles of nobility (though some certainly did), they most certainly believed in organic aristocracy, patriarchy, and limited franchise. The 1776 Report’s assertion that “all men are created equal” means “equal in the sense that they are not be nature divided into castes, with natural rulers and ruled” is a total fabrication.

The Founders were British subjects who wanted to be treated with the dignity of of their British brethren, yet had been abused instead. Because of this, these Anglo-Americans asserted the natural right of revolution. That is the Declaration of Independence’s true function, purpose, and meaning: it is an assertion of the 13 Anglo-American States’ natural right to independent self-government, a provision of the King’s abuses against the Americans which justifies the exercise of this right, and a testament to the natural right of all peoples to assert the same whenever their government has become despotic.

The Right is destined be ruled by the ghosts of MLK Jr. and George Floyd if we continue to view the Founding in an ahistorical and ideological way. We can no longer ignore the fact that the War for American Independence was a war of secession waged by Anglo-Americans to establish their natural right to self-government.

Which America?

The 1776 Report completely disregards this reality in the face of incontrovertible evidence, resulting in a contrived and incoherent telling of the Founding that propagates an ideology of civic nationalism that is totally alien to the Founders.

As a response to The 1619 Project, it fails miserably by accepting its premises of the sins of slavery and segregation, feebly paying its own indulgences to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “dream for America” while being oblivious to the fact that critical race theory is the natural development of MLK’s (verifiably communist trained) activism.

It’s quite funny actually that The 1619 Project has done more to mainstream the idea that America was founded effectively as a white ethnostate than probably any other single contemporary piece of media. It really threw the Trump administration a soft-ball to completely re-orient the popular discussion and understanding of the Founding from a neutered Civic Nationalism playing the role of useful idiot in the project for global homogenization, back to the radical experiment in self-government and freedom of association that the Founders initiated.

Imagine an “American Heritage Renewal Study” rooted in the unabashed acknowledgement of America having a White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant founding and heritage. Instead of kowtowing to a colorblind kumbaya fantasy, we acknowledge that Whitey created the greatest experiment in self-government in history: a union of independent and sovereign States in agreement to work together via a federal government of expressly limited and separated powers dedicated strictly to common defense, general welfare, and domestic tranquility.

Of course, we then acknowledge that Whitey screwed this up BIGLY-BADLY by killing 600,000+ of themselves in the “Civil War” and allowing the federal government to begin a process of total usurpation and domination of the States which has only degenerated further and further until we reach the present day.

Remember—it’s all Whitey’s fault! One way or the other…

It’s time Whitey took responsibility. Enough praying to MLK and letting your daughters listen to rap music because you’re ashamed of your ancestors. More recognition that the reason Whitey is the true cause of all of America’s problems isn’t because Whitey was mean but because Whitey has abdicated responsibility.

The Anglofuturist

John Arcto has written a great piece, “Why Straight White Men Deserve Wokeness” that digs into how Whitey has been complicit in the whole program of wokeness since its beginning. I will probably pen another piece that responds directly to his thoughts on how Christianity factors in this issue, but ultimately Arcto’s point that Whitey must take responsibility for himself is right on target.

Only in doing so, will Whitey realize that he is also the solution to all peoples’ ever-dwindling right to self-government.

Post-White America or White Boy Summer Forever?

The pale skin Founders of America were right in their assertion that all men are created equal in their right to self-government. Naturally though, simply because one has the right to something does not mean they have the capacity for it. Peoples of all colors and stripes throughout history have languished and been abused without ever rising up and asserting their right to self-govern. Enslavement is the norm of mankind.

Self-government necessarily requires freedom of association because government is an association by nature. However, the core Civil Rights Regime that both The 1619 Project and The 1776 Report revere has totally gutted true freedom of association in America. If people with the capacity for self-government cannot freely associate with one another, along whatever lines they please, then there can be no possible challenge to the regime in power.

Those in power throughout the millennia have developed and honed all manner of machinations to keep people subordinated, dependent, and helpless to do anything about it. And we can rest assured that the most devious and advanced forces of tyranny have been at work in America for generations now. Whereas the 1619 Project attacks on the front of perpetual racial grievance against Whitey, the 1776 Report attacks by gatekeeping any real recognition and understanding of the Founders’ America. Both ignore America’s central animating force of self-government.

A question of identity

The 1619 Project’s “identity politics” seeks to relegate Whitey (and those who dare deign to align with Whitey and engage in Whitey adjacent norms) to second-class status in society due to racial grievance. Whitey has sinned against melanin and must atone. Wrong as a matter of fact, but at least coherent.

The 1776 Report decries “identity politics” as evil; throws the South, Heritage Americans, and anyone who is skeptical of the possibility of “colorblindness” under the bus; and exalts Lincoln “send ‘em all back to Africa” as the prophet heralding the end of identity politics in America, with MLK as his heir, (and Floyd as his inevitable messiah whether they can comprehend the natural consequences of their ideology or not). Wrong as a matter of fact, and totally disingenuous to boot.

America was founded by men who were literally asserting their identity as Englishmen. When Mother Britain refused to recognize them as kin, the Founders threw off the binds of the British Crown, and asserted their right to govern themselves. And these Anglo-Americans did so in such a revolutionary way that they set the example for exercising the natural right to self-government for all peoples for all times.

Without “identity politics” America would still be a part of the British Empire.

To ignore this is to give up America’s future to ever-increasing centralization constantly changing hands between the Tweedle-dee of the Critical Race Theory ideologues and the Tweedle-dum of the Colorblind Civic Nationalists, both of whom ultimately consider Americans to be fungible tax chattel.

The destruction of the freedom of association has been a prize jewel in the thorny crown of tyranny being shoved onto America’s head.

America today truly is an alien nation to the Founders. They would have never considered it a “nation,” for one. But they would also look around and probably think that their posterity, their kindred, had lost a war or several. Just 70 or so years ago in 1950, America was still almost 90% white. Today, it’s under 60%. Plenty of other issues would appall the Founders, but this one would probably be the most surprising.

What will happen when the people that created the most free country in history become a minority in their own land?

We know that’s what ol uncle diddler Joe the ice cream man wants:

The Founders would hang this guy for just saying this much less for all his diddling and treason.

Whitey has gotta step up to the plate. If the progenitor of the idea that self-government—and its necessary predicate, the freedom of association—are natural rights cannot stand up and assert it, then who the hell has a chance to?

As America descends into being an irrevocably pluralistic conglomerate society, the factors that John Jay explained in Federalist 2 enabled the Founders to establish self-government—the same ancestry; same language; same religion; same principles; and same manners, customs, and dedication—are not merely fading into memory, but fading completely out of it.

An Exhortation for the American Right of the 21st Century

America is already irrevocably different from the Americas of 1776, 1860, 1920, and 1950, and even 2000, BUT the fundamental truth of the Founding is still dangling by a thread.

The posterity of the Founders—Heritage Americans—are already an absolute minority in the land of their forefathers. “RETVRNING” to the America of the Founding as a matter of demographics is a practical impossibility. However, if Heritage Americans can stand up and assert the truth of the Founding, then America has a chance for the restoration of its soul.

That fundamental truth of the America’s Founding is that all men are created equal in their natural right to assert self-government.

The Right must reorient its compass to the lodestar of self-government and the freedom of association—freeing itself from the false and mercurial god of individual equality as an end in and of itself.

The Right must recognize the existence and ongoing displacement of Heritage Americans who are a visible reminder of the Founders’ true system of government. There could be further discussion on the merits of expanding Heritage Americans to include several peoples, particularly black Americans who are the descendants of slaves, and the initial waves of immigration prior to 1965. The most important step, however, is recognizing Anglo-Americans as the posterity the Founders spoke of.

The Right must operate on, and advance, an understanding that to be an American requires the capacity for self-governance and the recognition that, while men may be equal in their right to self-governance, they are far from equal in their capacity for it.

The Right must recognize the reality that America has been transformed demographically into a very different country than the one the Founders passed down—not by insisting on an impossible and inhuman “colorblindness” but a recognition that different peoples are different and will naturally seek to exercise self-government in different ways. There are Americans who are from the post-65 waves of immigration that have an American capacity for self-governance that exceeds impotent civic nationalism, and a coalition between Heritage Americans and these First/Second/Third generation Americans can be fruitful. With this in mind, it is imperative that the Right seeks total deportation of all illegal aliens and zero immigration for a period of 25 years minimum so that the various Peoples of America can cultivate their own self-government in friendly cooperation with one another.

The Right must consider the States as the Founders did—as fully sovereign and independent parties to the operating agreement that is the U.S. Constitution, willing to nullify any federal actions that violate the Constitution. The States are the perfect venues for the various Peoples of America to pursue their respective models of life, liberty, and happiness. This will require, of course, that the Right acknowledge that Lincoln’s view of the Constitution as Hotel California and States as no more sovereign than mere counties in comparison to the federal government is wrong.

The Right must pursue total political revolution of the entire cancerous leviathan that is the United States Federal government in order to restore self-government via the States in America.

The Right must be prepared to assert their ultimate right of self-government as the Founders did once “the long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Obviously, all of this is easier said than done. But it can never be done without first being said. While the natural right of self-government is not a panacea to our problems, it is a fail-safe to absolute despotism if a People have the capacity to exercise it and the courage to put their lives on the line to the very last man when tyranny goes to war to maintain submission nevertheless.

AMERICA, anno Domini 20xx

Jamestown was established in 1609 by subjects of the British Crown. A little over 150 years later in 1776, their descendants would assert the right to self-government in the face of tyranny and begin an unprecedented experiment in governance. And a little under a 100 years after that in 1860, their descendants would kill over 600,000 of each other in a war over what their grandfathers had agreed to.

Johannes Adam Simon Oertel, *Pulling Down the Statue of King George III, NYC*, 1859

Today, as we approach the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration, Heritage Americans find themselves in a situation much like their Founding Fathers. The system we have inherited is our birthright, yet it is becoming more and more unrecognizable all the while we are increasingly being boxed out of it.

The Left (and saboteurs on our side) take delight in this. They jeer at whites becoming a minority because they see it as retribution and think it will mean more of the pie for them. They create a complete revision of history like the 1619 Project to pursue this end.

The “Right” seems oblivious to the underlying cause of this. While The 1776 Report seeks to quell brewing racial vengeance against whites, it does so by appealing to the “colorblind” America that grew the ideologues of 1619, not the America of the Founders. In doing so, they play to lose.

However, the unfortunate reality for (almost) everyone is that a completely pluralistic America with an absolute minority of whites will be so disparate that no coalition of self-governing spirited Peoples of America will be able to drown out the din of party and group interest squabbling among those wedded to the American Empire Incorporated. It will be MTGs vs. AOCs screeching in Congress by an order of magnitude in perpetuity as America is resigned once and for all to the tyranny of the global homogenization regime. All the while, the people in the shadows of power will continue to reap the rotten fruits of despotism.

All of this is bubbling to a head, and fast. The grandchildren of the OG American Whiteys couldn’t help but to engage in bloodletting on an unprecedented scale—to this day unmatched in mere number, much less proportion—in a dispute among kin, no less. Can you imagine the scale of bloodshed in a Civil War in the pluralistic America of 20xx?

The self-governing spirited Peoples of America cannot afford to dither around any longer, and Whitey has gotta buck up, get right, and stand accounted for because soon there won’t be much left for him and anyone else to save in George Floyd’s America.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Introduction to The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, July 4, 1776.

sic semper tyrannis

e pluribus unum

Deo vindice

Subscribe to dog and pony show today for more, including my upcoming epic poem American Empire in V Cantos.

Professor Robin Bernstein, Racial Innocence: Performing American Childhood from Slavery to Civil Rights, New York Univ. Press. 2011.

See Lani Guinier, From Racial Liberalism to Racial Literacy, The J. of Am. His. June 2004.

In fact, the NAACP specifically declined to pursue cases that only sought equal facilities, staff, and budget, instead solely directing the Court to strike segregation down writ large.

There were a few more “studies” that the NAACP cited in briefing, but the Doll Test is widely considered to have been the most persuasive before the Supreme Court.

There’s plenty more to be said about the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory as a broader school of thought. For now, I’ll only briefly note that Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), one of its Founders, worked for the United States Office of Strategic Services (proto-CIA) from 1943-1950, ostensibly working to critique the Soviet Union’s Communism. However, the root of Marcuse’s critiques were nevertheless from a Leftist anti-capitalist perspective. After this stint in the Deep State, Marcuse would go on to be a major inspiration to the New Left movement of the 60s and 70s. You can expect many more pieces on the Frankfurt School and its consequences here on dog and pony show.

Randy Tripp

Jun 9

Hey I seen someone saying black on black crime is a myth could you respond to this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_S6PSCwo3c

Expand full comment

3 replies by ringleader and others