Death of a Nation

Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party

Dinesh D'SOUZA 1960-20xx

All Points [St Martin's], 2018, 318pp, FHL

1 dilapidated housing, which slave-owners termed slave quarters

2 broken families, the product of slave rules that abolished the inst of m. and permitted the sale of family members at the master's whim

3 a high degree of violence to police the plantation, necessary of course because slavery was based on captive labor

4 no opportunity for decent education or advancement, notwithstanding the Dems' insistence on slavery as a 'school of civilization' (and 'a positive good' for slaves)

5 the pervasive atmosphere of hopelessness, despair and nihilism [i.e. resistance is futile]

We can see this 'signature' today in Dem-run cities e.g. Oakland, Detroit, Baltimore, St Louis, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Philly, Atlanta ... and Latino barrios of CA and S TX ... and on Native American reservations e.g. Pine Ridge in SD ... other plantation features e.g. an idle class of people who devoted themselves to leisure, gambling and duels provoked by petty slights can also be found in today's ghettos and barrios. In this respect their inhabitants resemble the old slave-owners more than the slaves!

Inner covers: Who's killing America? TRUMP? This book says no, its the Dems i.e. turning it into a massive nanny state modeled on the old Southern [Dem] plantation system. He looks at the Party's founding in the pre-Civil War South i.e. slaveholding elite devising plantations as means of organizing both labor and political support. In many ways a mini welfare state, a cradle-to-grave system that bred dependency and harshly punished any urge to independence. This model deeply impressed N Dems like Martin Van BUREN - Andrew JACKSON's VP and successor as president - who forged an alliance between N/S Dems explicitly based on the protection of slavery. MVB saw that the foreign immigrants flooding into Northern cities could be org'd in much the same way as a plantation by creating political 'machines' that traded patronage and govt handouts for reliable votes from 'urban ethnics'. These machines dominated Dem politics for decades [to this day]. Meanwhile, after abolition, it was S Dems, not GOPers, who introduced the concept of white supremacy while terrorizing blacks with lynchings and burnings carried out by domestic terror groups e.g. the night-riding KKK. In this campaign of terror they had the full support of N Dems who turned a blind eye to these atrocities, from Woodrow WILSON to FDR. Now the Dems have expanded to a multi-racial plantation, one that includes ghettos for blacks, barrios for Latinos and reservations for Native Americans. Whites are the only holdouts resisting full dependency, so Dems blame them for the bigotry and racial exploitation that is actually perpetrated by the Dems themselves!

[Master Thomas] told me, if I [want to] be happy, I must lay out no plans for the future. He said ... he'd take care of me ... and taught me to depend solely upon him for happiness.
- Frederick DOUGLASS

To make us love our country, [it] ought to be lovely.
- Edmund BURKE

Preface: On Gaining and Losing a Country (ix)

... DD's arrival in US (as an exchange student in 1978) and how he came to love it ...

- How Nations Die (xii)

... how OBAMA tried to 'shut him up' in 2004 ...

- A Plot to Kill a Dream (xv)

... judge didn't go along with OBAMA's suggested 'federal prison for 10-6 mos' but did sentence DD to 8mos of o/n confinement in a halfway house with 60 hardened felons ... a fine and 5 years probation, ending Oct 2019 [TRUMP later pardoned him, else he'd be a lifetime 'felon'] ... he sees that many in America are trying to kill the dream, the existential threat to it is real, they're organized and powerful.

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition [tyrants].
- Thomas JEFFERSON

1 Intro: Who's Killing America? (1) [Dems, not Trump!]

- 2 Trump Cards (4 i.e. 'racism' + 'fascism' [or 'Nazism'] = 'white supremacy')

- The Prog Narrative (8, like 'The Theme is Freedom's 'Liberal History Lesson')

- 'Knowing' What Isn't True (13 i.e. fake history and news)

After the infamous 1857 Dred Scot US Supreme Court decision, LINCOLN saw that America would either go 'entirely free' or 'entirely enslaved' and began his epic battle (15). JACKSON protege Chieff Justice Roger TANEY pushed for latter. Martin Van BUREN (MVB) was aka 'the Little Magician' (16). Pro-slavery apologist George FitzHUGH was influential. Dinesh relies on facts i.e. progs can have their own opinions and interpretations, but NOT their own facts. He cites 'indisputable evidence of history, drawn from primary sources and from the most reputable scholars of slavery, racism and fascism: Gordon WOOD, David Brion DAVIS, Orlando PATTERSON, Eugene GENOVESE, James McPHERSON, George FREDERICKSON, A James GREGOR, Ira KATZNELSON and others. 'The facts I present can easily be verified thanks to the tech. marvels of the internet ... In the end, everything depends on whose interpretation of the evidence is right, theirs [progs] or mine is true [not both]. You the reader must decide, you're my judge/jury' (16-7).

- Prison of the Mind (17)

In his 'House Divided' speech (date?) LINCOLN ID'd a 4-man conspiracy to nationalize slavery; S Dem Roger TANEY of MD and 3 N Dems Stephen DOUGLAS of IL, frmr Pres Franklin PIERCE of NH and then-curr Pres James BUCHANAN of PA (seen by many as 'worst president ever'). Interestingly, Dems' prime apologist for slavery, Geo FitzHUGH, was a self-proclaimed socialist who contrasted the happy inhabitants of the Dem plantation with what he took to be the exploited laboring class of the capitalist GOP N states. His arguments seem chillingly familiar because his beloved plantation still shapes the ideology of his 21C Dem successors (19). Likewise for the pro-slavery ideology of LINCOLN's supreme antagonist Stephen DOUGLAS, a N Dem. Both were also full-blown white supremacists. The Dem urban machine, of course, outlasted the Civil War and continued to hold immigrants in its iron clasp ... sharecropping replaced slavery, and segregation and racial terrorism [KKK] enforced Dem control in the S, not just of blacks but also poor whites. Essentially the Dems reinvented the plantation using a new tool of enslavement: white supremacy.

- Rebuilding the Plantation (20, in the N cities, WW and FDR pushed it along)

Contrary to the [standard] history books, which assiduously camouflage this fact, progs are the ones who invented white natl-ism and white supremacy in their modern and most virulent forms for the purpose of keeping poor whites in thrall to the Dem Party. Progs, in other words, were America's original hate group, and their opponents, the cons GOPers, were the original champions of the notion that 'black lives matter'! The other key idea of prog-ism was to introduce the idea of the centralized state as the Big House, with racial terrorism and eugenics as the macabre mechanisms for controlling the population of their new plantation and maintaining quality control for its labor. Through prog-ism, Woodrow WILSON (WW) inaugurated, one might say, the 'birth of a nation' that departed radically from the American founding, a new birth represented by the ominous symbol of the night-riding KKK, which served as the domestic terrorist arm of the Dem Party [just as the blackshirts did for HITLER]. But it wasn't WW but FDR who in the 30s-40s institutionalized prog-ism in govt operations, creating the foundation for the modern Dem Party. FDR began replacing the Dem urban machines with the natl labor union movement and local Dem Party bosses with a natl boss i.e. himself (i.e. the 'massa' in the Big House)! He introduced the idea of a natl plantation - Tammany on the Potomac - with a prog 'brain trust' and prog administrators as its overseers (21). Today's Dems share FDR's attachment to the centralized state [the plantation], the new Big House [WH], and display the same fascist streak when e.g. they use the instruments of the state against their pol. opponents ['bot and paid for dirty dossier ...']. But it didn't stop with FDR ... LBJ again modified the plantation in the 1960s, and Slick Willy and Obama further expanded it more recently [i.e. to anyone NOT white, male, straight, Christian].

- Conversion Stories (22, oddly there are none, so Dem claims to have 'changed' are bogus)

LBJ was a lifelong bigot, likely in TX KKK (22, revealed by recent JFK document dump).

- Racism's New Face (26)

He shows that racism remains the core of the Dem project, but takes a different form than in the past. Tho they no longer call blacks 'niggers' or lynch them, they remain just as indifferent to the plight of blacks (and other urban minorities) and seek to create (and maintain) dependency and exploit suffering (to maintain their power) just like before. They even use the 'positive good' apologia for minority enslavement (cf also Candace OWENS' bk). While benefiting both financially and politically from the new plantation, the progs insist they're doing it entirely for the benefit of its inhabitants [e.g. Al SHARPTON and race-hustling Baltimore ldrs]. But one group they've NOT been able to enlave (yet) is working-class whites (who used to be in their grip, part of FDR's coalition). They've now broken loose, 1st for RR and now many for TRUMP. So Dems desperate to conceal their own racism (and fascism) seek to discredit them, portraying them as bigots and TRUMP's natl-ism as white natl-ism e.g. Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' rally ('deplorables' 'poor, uneducated, easy to cmd' 'bitter clingers to God, guns, trad views' ...). But DD shows the rally's organizer Jason KESSLER to be a man of the left who used to be an OBAMA supporter and Occupy Wall St guy! Similarly, his interview with notorious white natl-ist Richard SPENCER reveals he's NO conservative either, no GOPer or man of the right. In fact his positions on ethnic natl-ism, white supremacy, immigration and eugenics show him to be a relic of history, a prog Dem in the WW mode. But his natural party has since jettisoned its whole eugenic and segregationist agenda of early prog-ism in favor of a new plantation model. SPENCER's a [prog] pol. activist whose been left behind as fellow neo-progs have evolved into something else [equally or even more? evil]. SPENCER and others like him are used as decoys by the left, to corroborate their Big Lie of racism and fascism being associated with the Right, deflecting attention from the truth (opposite) i.e. progs' own racist exploitation of every minority group and fascist effort to empower their new centralized, natl plantation. DD also notes that, unlike Dem ideas which demonize whites (and males, straights, Christians, middle class ...), these crazies like SPENCER at least recognize that TRUMP and the GOP make room for all citizens. DD says Trump's natl-ism isn't racial or ethnic, but like the LINCOLN model offers ALL Americans a policy framework for replacing the dependency and hopelessness of the Dem plantation with ladders of opportunity for EVERY American. Far from causing the death of the nation, TRUMP and the conservatives can come together to show the way for America's restoration, revival and hope.

We have the wolf by the ear, and can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, self-preservation in the other
- Thomas JEFFERSON

2 Dilemma of the Plantation: The Antislavery Founding (30)

Historians are unanimous that Dred Scott 1857 set into motion events leading to Civil War i.e. Harry JAFFA: it gave energy, confidence and intransigence to the pro-slavery cause'. The main 1860 GOP plank was outlawing slavery in the new territories. Dems saw Dred Scott as essentially declaring the winning party's main plank [i.e. Dem James BUCHANAN won in 1856] as being unconstitutional (33). TANEY argued (pro-Dred Scott) that the Founders had been effectively pro-slavery i.e. believed blacks were 'in essence' inferior. LINCOLN fiercely disputed this, saying most Founders were anti-slavery, only agreeing to compromise with it (temporarily) to pass 1789 Const and Bill of Rights i.e. to found Union. Modern Dems oddly support TANEY's view (but not his white-supremacist conclusion?).

- Catchword of a Party (34)

LINCOLN said he was conservative i.e. returning to anti-slavery consensus of Founding, saying Dems' lies re the Fndrs had become (just in ~3yrs before 1860 election i.e. since Dred SCOTT) 'the catchword of the entire [Dem] party' (v. history, reality). Gives lie to many progs who claim LINCOLN as 'prog'.

- Jefferson Agonistes (37)

He was most 'man of Enlighenment' among Fndrs (so most suspicious of Religion) but always wanted slavery to end, understanding it couldn't last i.e. 'And can the liberties of a nation be thot secure when we've removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice can't sleep forever' (40).

- Consent of the Governed (40)

i.e. sometimes clashes w/other key principle: 'all men are created equal'

- Lesser Evil (43)

Like all statesman, Fndrs had to choose lesser of 2 evils; a Union which (temporarily) compromises with slavery, or no Union at all (most Fndrs were anti-slavery and fully expected it to eventually disappear, or be extirpated 'when the people are ready').

- Laying the Fndn (46)

DD says history proved them right, it was worth it after all, 'the prog attack on Fnding is a decoy, an attempt to shift blame for other, greater sins perpetrated by other, far greater [Dem] sinners. We - esp. those of us who are nonwhite (e.g. 'person of color' DD :-) ) - owe the Fndrs a debt of gratitude, and should 'take a knee' [cf Colin KAEPERNICK] only to thank God for the USA' (47).

Socialism proposes to do away with free competition; to afford protection and support at all times to the laboring class ... these purposes, slavery fully and perfectly attains
- George FitzHUGH in 'Sociology for the South'

3 Party of Enslavement: The Psychology of the Dem Master Class (48)

Early 19C saw something new; for the 1st time in world history, slave-owners had an elaborate philosophy - actually 2 - to protect slavery from moral and pol. attack. This ideology was formulated by the leading thinkers of a new pol. party, the Democratic Party, which became from the 1820s-60s the party of the plantation. We'll explore their thinking since the 'mind of the Dem master class' has shaped Dem thinking to the present. This is of course something modern Dems are desperate to camouflage, including by tearing down statues in the S and elsewhere. Could it be Dems are finally ack-ing their racist, white-supremacist past? Nope, wishful thinking. The whole point is to disguise this history. They're very careful NOT to mention that ALL of these Confederate heros were DEMS! What modern Dems want is to detach these from themselves (Dems and progs) and re-attach them to 'the South' (which mostly votes for GOP today). All part of 'The Big Lie'. Though Stephen DOUGLAS was clearly a white supremacist, modern Dems are careful NOT to touch HIS statue in Chicago, since he was a NORTHERN Dem, which would pollute their propaganda campaign v. 'the South'. Attn to him would implicate N Dems, and thus the natl Dem party as the pol. champions of slavery (which they were). So his statue is no doubt safe. - King Cotton (51)

On 8-2-1862 after Abe had informed his cabinet re the Emancipation Proclamation, he met with 5 free blacks, explaining that even after slavery they'd still be seen as 'less than whites', he couldn't change that, since the public mind had been debauched (by Dems) between the Founding and his time. By 1828 when AJ fnd'd the Dem Party the plantation had grown far bigger and more powerful than in the late 18C. 1776 slave pop was ~650k -> ~2M 1828 -> 4M 1860 (6x). From 1820s they were the cornerstone of S economy. Fndrs had hoped slavery would die out, but hadn't anticipated Eli WHITNEY's invention of the cotton gin in 1793. His device (separates cotton from seed) revolutionized the plantation. Cotton production grew from 6k bales in 1792 to 178k in 1810 and up from there. From a diversified economy to largely a single-crop one. Slave states went from 8 to 15. Since 'King Cotton' was the basic raw material of the Industrial Revolution, it made the planters very rich, by the 1830s it was >1/2 of US exports. This generated a powerful pol. lobby, which was able to overpower the anti-slavery one, which most Americans don't realize had been fairly strong even in the S at the founding. By the 1830s 'the hostility to slavery that had been common in Jeffersonian times ... [had] all but disappeared' (53). Accomplished via S propaganda, including mob attacks on adversaries [i.e. brownshirts]. By the 1840s they'd mostly silenced the churches. Also blocked N anti-slavery literature from distribution in the S. The Dem Party served as the Southerner's pol. arm to press their claims in WA DC (but also at local level). They dev'd a 'full-blown moral, legal and pol. phil. of the plantation', a 1st say many historians. 2 key features; 1 slavery as 'a positive good' (most notably by CALHOUN, but the socialist FitzHUGH thot it was so good for slaves it should be tried on whites and all laborers worldwide, even the Nazis didn't have THAT kind of chutzpah) and 2 they rejected founding principles, incl. DecInd e.g. CALHOUN said they reflected 'an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race' and blamed fellow S-ers like JEFFERSON for 'admitting so great an error' into the S, which was now suffering its 'poisonous fruits' (54). CALHOUN ack'd that the mood in the S had changed since the Fnding, but his point was NOW it was more realistic. But N Dems were needed too, the S alone wasn't enough. Stephen DOUGLAS was key here, promoting the 2nd entirely independent pro-slavery philosophy, one equally imbued with racism and that ID'd the cause of slavery with that of democracy itself i.e. 'popular sovereignty' (States' Rights). Tho sectional diff's needn't always lead to war, historian David POTTER notes that this 2-pronged ideology 'enabled the planter class to refuse pol. accommodation and thus' led to the Civil War; so in this respect it may be said that the Dem Party unleashed the malignant forces that started the war.

- Lifestyles of the Dem Planters (55)

DD makes the point that slavery warped both slave and master. Since slaves did all the work, the planters developed the idea that a clear separation was needed i.e. honorable us v. dishonorable slaves. This caused them to ape the English aristocrats in scorning physical labor i.e. 'the classical ideal of the free and indep gentleman'. So they 'built country homes, traced family genealogies and held sumptuous banquets' i.e. their days were designed for those with time on their hands (like they were flaunting it). Also gambling, sports, croquet, cards, cockfighting and hunting, and of course duels. While they expected slaves to lie, cheat, steal and kill (no honor), they themselves held to a hyper-sensitivity to 'slights' to their honor. DD argues that, tho its incomprehensible to most, we also see this in today's inner cities. There too is a prickly culture of honor/respect, tiny slights lead to fights to the death. Then as now, duels were public rituals, 'theatrical displays for public consumption' and to 'send a message' that NO one messes with me or my honor. So both slave and master become debased.

- Enforced Subordination (58)

Another shared feature is informal polygamy. Plantation masters often took advantage of young female slaves. He discusses S Dem 'patriarch' Sen James Henry HAMMOND of SC, who ack'd to his son his mulatto children (tells him to never sell them, saying they'll be happiest as 'our' slaves) and 'drapes his sexual predation in the language of philanthropy', speaking, some might say, as a true Dem. DD agrees, seeing in HAMMOND a forerunner of Bill CLINTON i.e. displaying the same sanctimony, quivering upper lip, even as his behavior reveals a ruthless selfishness. S Dems loved discussing the 'laziness and worthlessness' of slaves (v. themselves). A running joke was 'it takes 2 whites to make a black man work'. In reality, it was the master class that was lazy and slovenly. The main tool used to make them work was the whip, developed for this purpose. While both JEFFERSON and JACKSON were slaveowners with about 200 slaves (often compared), JACKSON was in his early career a slave-trader, a profession universally loathed by JEFFERSON and the whole founding generation, and looked down upon even in JACKSON's day. JACKSON had NO qualms about using the whip, sometimes even to death. But no system can be sustained only via force ('stick'), they needed 'carrots' too. For that they needed 'total dependency' (like today's Dem party, especially in inner cities). The slaves were taught to develop 'a habit of total dependence' i.e. 'no way out'. THIS was the true meaning of slavery to W E B DuBOIS i.e. in part psychological, the enforced feeling of personal inferiority, calling another 'Master', helplessness, defenselessness. DD says in this we can clearly see a continuity with Dem tactics then and now; after all this is precisely how they maintain their ethnic plantations (also using fear of the 'other' as 'racist, nazi ...', you're only chance is with US as protectors).

- Slaves Without Masters (61)

The 'positive-good' school of slavery that emerged in the Dem S is associated with names e.g. John C CALHOUN, James Henry HAMMOND, Henry HUGHES, George Frederick HOLMES, Thomas R DEW and Edmund RUFFIN. CALHOUN and HAMMOND led the charge in the Senate. ALL were (needless to say) Dems. But its most notorious and charismatic spokesman was George FitzHUGH, author of 'Sociology for the South' and 'Cannibals All!' and many other pro-slavery pubs. Unlike many rural agrarians, he wanted the S to become a manufacturing powerhouse like the N. He kept up a lively correspondence with abolitionists (virtually alone among pro-slavery apologists). He even changed some peoples' minds!? Even LINCOLN found his arguments interesting (tho repulsive). GF was able to 'spell out the logical outcome of the slaveholders' philosophy and lay bare its essence' (62). He was also a self-professed 'leftist and socialist', and modern progs can't help praising him for those. Many of his thots are proto-Marxist. He blurs free- v. slave-labor, saying even 'free' workers aren't really free. The world is dog-eat-dog, every man for himself under capitalism, where the strong crush the weak, rich grow richer, poor poorer. He used ENGELS' term of 'wage-slaves'. In this type of society, he says, 'virtue loses all her loveliness because of her selfish aims' and 'life is war' (like HOBBES' 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'). He turned N arguments on N wealth v. S backwardness against them, saying it was a measure of N exploitation. The beauty of slavery, he said, was establishing 'an organic relationship between master and slave', more than just a contract, more like a family bond. He echoed MARX's (later) 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. He criticized socialist theories as utopian, saying 'we in S have actually built one'. We've achieved what they want in the only form possible on this earth due to human nature. Unlike other slavery apologists, he dared to say even some whites should be slaves i.e. he thought the world must choose, either slave system or free-labor system, and his own preference was clear. He said slaves are 'the happiest and freest in the world', while N workers are anxiety-racked, like 'rats on a treadmill' (my words). Liberty can be a curse. DD recalls Dem NY Gov Mario CUOMO's 1984 speech at the Dem Convention likening the whole nation to a single family working toward a common purpose, one that takes care of all its members. DD says it seems eerie to hear FitzHUGH speak in the modern language of compassion and social justice, for him slavery is the ultimate expression of both. Without it blacks (and some whites) would be 'an intolerable burden to themselves and to society'. The plantation is a sort of welfare state, offering basics to all. His sharp break with the Founders can be seen in his ridicule of JEFFERSON, shared by CALHOUN, HAMMOND and Jefferson DAVIS e.g. called the Declaration of Independence self-evidently false (and utopian). LINCOLN agreed that mid-19C Dems had 'introduced a new spirit of receptivity to tyranny not present at the founding' (65). Contra JEFFERSON, some people ARE meant to be ridden (by others), and it does them (and society) good (recalling the derisive quote that 'these men believe some are born with spurs on, others with saddles'). He calls Adam SMITH's system one of 'unmitigated selfishness, rotten to the core'. Contra LOCKE, GF said man is born a member of society, he has no rights, and is subordinate to the good of the whole. Obviously a fascist forerunner, glorifies state, society over individual. GF was a statist, favored strong, powerful govt (state power in his day), and he wasn't alone. Many condemned abolitionist agitation as 'a rebellion against the state'. They all believed people NEED more govt to order their lives and be told what to do. Disagreed w/JEFFERSON's 'too much governed' ideas. They pinned their hopes on the Dem party, of course, realizing LINCOLN's GOP stood in their way (then and now). GF even believed the N would come over to his side given enough time. Tho GF's dreams were put on hold by the Civil War (his VA home was destroyed), he always maintained 'our edifice will never fall', and in a way he was right; the battle still rages. His arguments - we can't expect all people to compete in market, self-reliance is a chimera, people are happiest when looked after by 'the Big House' - have a startling contemporary relevance. We see modern prog Dems channeling him.

- Lincoln's Refutation (67)

LINCOLN was sympathetic to S people, admitting he wouldn't like to overturn his world either. He said if slavery didn't exist, they wouldn't now invent it. But he said whenever he heard pro-slavery arguments, he felt it should be imposed on those arguing for it! i.e. rooting out hypocrisy. In their famous debates, Stephen DOUGLAS took what we might call the pro-choice position i.e. I'm not personally pro-slavery, but we all need to respect their right to be so (echoes modern Dem abortion views). He claimed this was the most democratic view, calling it 'popular sovereignty'. But he was a white supremacist and criticized LINCOLN's views of blacks as 'our brothers' (not mine, he said). Of course, virtually ALL Dems shared those views. DD clarifies that SD was a N Dem, important because S Dems weren't enough to swing the nation, they NEEDED N Dems to back them up on principle. Dangerously, SD and others envisioned a massive slave empire S of the Mason-Dixon line, stretching from Sea to Sea and eventually including Mexico, C America and the Caribbean islands i.e. expansion was the keynote of SD's for policy (Harry JAFFA notes 'popular sovereignty' was only his domestic policy!). LINCOLN's response was to show the radicalism of SD's supposedly modest position, seeks to create a transcontinental slave empire, with NO end in sight, rejected American founding wish that slavery be phased out. LINCOLN also stressed individual rights, not just community ones (like modern Dems ignore the rights of the infant, 19C ones did of blacks). So 'choice' is NOT an absolute principle, depends on CONTENT of decision (murder, rape, theft ...). AbeL said SD seems to discount humanity of blacks, treats them like mere property. He showed that well-meaning people can't side w/SD, though he poses as 'moderate'. But here in the 'muck and meanness of slavery' lie the roots of the Dem Party. The plantation was its original stomping ground, and they fought hard for it. When defeated in the Civil War, they sought to revive it somehow, transplant it to N (like a drug), where immigrants by the millions, later 10s of millions, were pouring in. Whether or not they were interested in the Party, the Party of enslavement had big plans for them.

Everybody's talkin' these days about Tammany men growin' rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin' the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft
- George Washington Plunkett, 'Plunkett of Tammany Hall'

4 Urban Plantation: Martin Van Buren and the Creation of the N Plantation Machine (72)

Dems love to explain how much they 'care' about minority groups e.g. hispanics, blacks, LBGTQ... and more recently illegal aliens. So we have sanctuary cities (and states), and Dems even hand out driver's licenses to them (and likely purposely fail to enforce voting for citizens-only on a massive scale [Trump 2016: >4M in CA alone, enough to give Hillary popular vote majority]). Infamously, Oakland Mayor Libby SCHAAF and NY Gov Andrew CUOMO. They like to see this as idealism, moral fervor, exalted moral superiority ... but DD asks us to imagine if these minority groups started voting GOP. Would Dems still promote them? Hmmm. DD says there's 'a kind of implicit bargain i.e. Dems secure bennies for illegals [and other minorities] in exchange for them voting Dem!' (74). OBAMA even publicly urged Hispanics to 'coalesce as a group and ... punish our enemies and reward our friends' (75, i.e. Nazi apologist Carl SCHMITT's 'Theory of a Partisan'). DD's Venezuelan wife suggests offering non-voting legal residence here (as a convicted felon, DD is also not allowed to vote), but Dems are [oddly? no] uninterested in that idea. While Dems use 'the anodyne language of Dems fighting for the little guy' as cover, they're actually using [and have for >100yrs] blatant appeals to racial, ethnic, economic, cultural Marxist ... resentment as weapons v. the GOP (and America's founding principles). There's no moral high ground here, its just bare-knuckle street fighting (thuggery). So obviously these appeals are based NOT on 'caring' for anyone but on basic Dem self-interest. So illegals now have a place on the Democratic urban plantation.

- A Novel Theft Scheme (75)

Now we'll look into the origins of this Dem 'machine' i.e. its 'urban plantation' idea. DD ack's there were also some GOP urban machines e.g. Philly in 2nd half of 19C, but the idea was created by N Dems in the Jacksonian era and reflected Dem pwr in N cities. DD believes he's the 1st to notice the parallels between the old S rural slave plantations and these later urban ones. Odd, since this is the basis for the unification of the Dem Party and for its pol. domination from the 1820s thru the Civil War! A key difference was that urban plantations produced nothing. But both were designed as mechanisms for stealing i.e. systems of larceny on a grand scale (76). In the slave plantations the theft was straightforward; you work, I eat. In the later ones its more subtle and sophisticated, though no less profitable. The urban plantation has a much bigger prey; the entire body of productive citizens in an urban area (taxpayers of all income levels and also corporations). The urban plantation recruited arriving immigrants, typically Irish, German, Scandanavian, Italian, Jewish ... into their scheme by promising 'some meager favors' e.g. a job reference, place to stay for a few days, turkey dinner or flask of whiskey ... in exchange for something that costs the immigrant nothing, their vote. Enough of these votes allows the 'masters' to accumulate enough pol. power to get his hands on the public treasury i.e. 'Fort Knox'. Its like a business; pay a minimal amount to secure the votes, and use the 'profits' to ensure continual re-election and broadening the scheme to as many other 'out' groups as possible (create new ones as necessary). This all began in the mid-19C and continues to be the modern M.O. of the Dem Party, though interesting its an untold story in American politics (77). Dems' original story was how idealistic Dems bravely challenged corrupt machines like Tammany Hall and eventually 'their great reformer' FDR 'dispatched' them in the 1930s. More recently they're extolling the virtues of those machines for 'looking out for the little guy'. What progs don't say is that they've legalized this corruption and made it the core of their customary way of doing politics (78)! So Tammany is still very much with us in a modified form, but still pushing ethnic (and other types of) resentment for pol. gain [hatred for white, male, straight, Christians ... 'rich' ...]. These pol. machines produced what we now call 'pork barrel' politics i.e. pols conspiring with each other to loot the treasury for their own pol. gain (fascism = banding together to WIELD power v. Americanism to RESIST being dominated by it). But this practice can be traced directly to the old slave plantations, as explained by Chester Collins MAXEY in his 1919 article in National Municipal Review 'A Little History of Pork'. He explains that the slave plantations had a custom of periodically distributing rations of salt pork among the slaves. They'd knock the head out of the barrel and have each slave come and receive his portion. Often they'd all rush in and try to grab as much as possible. The old system used helpless black slaves and the new one helpless white immigrants, but in both cases the helpless ones were exploited to give the masters wealth and pol. power. The man who figured this out was Martin Van BUREN.

- The Little Magician (79 i.e. Martin Van Buren)

MVB has proven to be an enigma. He's known for his 'absurdly large sideburns' and some know of his unsuccessful presidency from 1836-40, when he was defeated by Wm Henry HARRISON. He had a bit role in SPIELBERG's film 'Amistad' as the villain who spurned Africans' plea for freedom (true), and his obscurity was the butt of a Seinfeld running joke on a secret group called 'the Van Buren Boys'. But in his own time he was a colossus. Tho barely 5'6" and nicknamed 'Little Van', the dapper NY son of a tavern-keeper rose to become the most powerful politician in the state, With national influence 2nd only to Andrew JACKSON. In fact, most accounts say MVB 'made' AJ, securing his 1828 victory and 1832 reelection. In the process MVB virtually single-handedly created the urban Dem machine, sustaining a Dem coalition making it the majority party for nearly 40yrs [to end of Civil War]. Yet even his contemporaries considered him a mystery. Nicknames were the Little Magician, Red Fox of Kinderhook, Enchanter and Master Spirit (i.e. they didn't understand how he'd become so powerrful, which he'd done BEFORE becoming president!?). Davey CROCKETT, no fan, called MVB 'an artful, cunning, selfish speculating lawyer ... w/o obvious statesmanship or superior talent' but admitted his success was 'a riddle [that] must puzzle [even] the devil' (80). Modern progs, tho glowingly fond of MVB, also profess to be mystified by him. Tho they see that he created their Dem Party, its unclear exactly how!? It seems MVB destroyed most of his personal correspondence, so died with his innermost secrets. He was famously evasive, known never to commit fully to any position [a trimmer]. Asked if the sun always rises in the E, he replied 'I sleep in'. He understood that any winning coalition must unite N/S, just as a NY-VA alliance had elected (Rep-Dems) JEFFERSON, MADISON and MONROE in the founding period. In that era VA had been top dog and NY 2nd. MVB's NY had grown so much in population and wealth, by the 1910s his idea was NY 1st and VA 2nd. He 1st worked with SecSt Wm CRAWFORD of GA (MVB's 1824 VP candidate), but when WC suffered a stroke and did poorly in balloting, MVB switched to fellow Senator Andrew JACKSON. Key (and usually NOT covered by progs) is HOW MVB got VA to go along? They usually cite his political skill and vision, patient courting of CALHOUN, vote-counting abilities, personal charm, savoir faire ... [so now DD will explain the REAL reason].

- His Magic Trick, Explained (82)

MVB made several trips to the South from 1822-8, 1st to VA. He announced a visit to JEFFERSON's Monticello, but never arrived there, instead talking to Thomas RITCHIE, editor of the Richmond 'Enquirer' (ferocious defender of slaveholding interests) and head of the Richmond 'junto' which controlled VA politics. TR liked MVB but wasn't yet sold. MVB failed in 1824 but didn't give up. In 1826 as AJ was preparing for a 2nd run [in 1828], claimed he'd been thwarted by what he called a 'corrupt bargain' between Henry CLAY and John Quincy ADAMS that put latter in WH. MVB now made an extensive tour thru the South; VA, NC, SC, GA. He got to all of them, since as it turns out he didn't need to. He spent Christmas 1826 making a deal with CALHOUN at the home of their mutual friend Wm FitzHUGH of VA (rabid and eloquent pro-slaver). Details of this deal are unknown, but CALHOUN agreed to back AJ. MVB then wrote to TR proposing a formal alliance (between MVB's 'NY Regency' and the 'Richmond junto'). Dems like to claim AJ's 'personal popularity' as a war hero who'd been 'cheated' in 1824, but MVB emphasized party principle over personal preference. His 1827 letter to TR shows the 1st traces of his new Dem Party vision, existing then only in MVB's head v. reality. In it he explained what was 'in it' for the South. He'd recruit the pol. power of North to the protection of the slave interests in the South. This bombshell is only partially concealed by MVB's 'antiquated and somewhat overbearing rhetoric' (83). This is obviously incriminating and an 'inconvenient truth' for Dems. Tho it's true that MVB himself was not pro-slavery (tho he'd owned a slave Tom before he'd run away). MVB was like the later Stephen DOUGLAS, didn't care much either way about slavery but cared ALOT about winning elections! Progs like to portray this coalition as 'remodeling JEFFERSON's party i.e. xfr-ing govt from control by few to many'. But this is just leftwing balderdash to camouflage a sordid deal between elites to continue and amplify their exploitation of both slaves in the South and urban poor in N cities. AJ won twice, prompting formation a renewed rival party; the Whigs in 1834. So MVB not only created a new ruling coalition (lasted to Civil War) but a new M.O. for Dem Party (still with us today i.e. a new type of 'plantation' politics).

- The Uprooted (85)

One of the largest immigrations in human history occurred from mid-19C to 1924 as some 35M came to the USA:

- 6M Germans (Gearharts ...)
- 4.5M Irish (potato famine)
- 4M Grt Britain
- 5M Italy (Anselmos ...)
- 2M Scandavaians (Grunnet, Larson ...) - 3M Greece, Macedonia, Armenia
- 8M Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukr (AHE/Russia)

[this was 'turned off' from 1924 to 1965, when Dems turned it back on again, hoping to add lots of new party dependents]

While we think of them as immigrants, Oscar HANDLIN shows most were in fact refugees i.e. destitute and fleeing something. Worst case were the Irish, fleeing a series of potato famines in the 1840s and early '50s. Many spoke no English, and crowded into US cities. Many had been rural peasants w/o mkt-able job skills. So they became ghetto dwellers; scared, confused and lost. In this misery Van BUREN saw a pol. opportunity. He knew this type well; the son of Dutch immigrants, he'd been a 1st-gen American himself, the 1st US president to be so. He was also the 1st ethnic president i.e. not descended from Anglo-Saxon roots. So he saw America (as DD does) both from the outside AND inside. Viewing these disoriented souls, he realized they resembled a group he'd become quite familiar with in his travels through the S: slaves. He had an idea, one that could only have come from a complex, conniving [Machiavellian] brain like his. He was careful not to leave any written trace of it. But like LINCOLN's idea which is revealed in the Emanc. Procl., MVB's idea is revealed in the thing he built. So here it is; why not re-create the Dem model of the rural plantation in the NE cities? Make these new desperate immigrants just as dependent on the Dem Party in the N as slaves were on it in the South? Then the 2 plantation systems would together form the political backbone of the Dem Party. He realized implementing it would require some creative improv, which anyway happened to be his forte as the Little Magician! The Northerners were obviously not slaves; couldn't be held by force. Also they were mostly white. But the key similarites were their shared wretchedness, impoverishment and helplessness. Both had experienced the shock of displacement, including family separation [we could almost say PTSD]. Both groups shared 'a clannish solidarity based on their origins' [blacks, Irish, Italians, Jews], and met challenges not individually [like Anglo-Saxons?] but thru communal existence. In these similarities he saw the possibility of creating a similar type of enduring dependency he'd witnessed on the slave plantations, but this time in the NE cities. But how? Here MVB was in a unique position, since he'd already created in NY the 1st political machine in US history. Leading a group called the Bucktails - they wore deer tails on their hats - MVB in 1821 had displaced NY's most powerful pol, DeWitt CLINTON [Fort C named for him] and created a pwrfl machine called the Albany Regency. He did it, biographer Ted WIDMER admits in a telling comparison, 'like a 19C Vito CORLEONE'. While pols like DC based their success on their popularity or personal accomplishments - DC was a noted abolitionist and champion of the Erie Canal - MVB's machine worked differently. [Instead of 'winning' voluntary votes of free people] It demanded the complete allegiance of organizers and constituents right down to the local level. The machine's agenda became THEIR agenda. It told them how to vote and required them to campaign for its entire slate in elections [i.e. straight-ticket voting]. Its currency wasn't patriotism [what's good for America] but party loyalty [what's good for OUR team]. Like a scam or illicit racket [what RICO was designed to break up]. Such loyalty required a certain toleration for corruption and even criminal behavior; machine operatives learned to 'look the other way' [he may be a crook, but he's OUR crook]. It was enforced by, as Regency man Silas WRIGHT Jr helpfully explained, 'the 1st man we see step to the rear, we cut down'. This type of blind devotion rewarded members w/political and $ patronage. For MVB, the treasury wasn't a fund to promote the common good, but a prize to be [hijacked and] distributed to those who helped him get his hands on it. Asked to defend MVB's patronage policies, Wm MARCY (prominent Regency member) famously quipped 'to the victor belong the spoils' (a rare 'gaffe' of honesty). To the Regency, politics wasn't a vocation, but a business! So they organized clan-based 'interest groups' which could then be ruled by the Dem Party bosses who'd demand ethnic loyalty in exchange for political patronage. So this was the Frankenstein monster that the wily MVB created; the politics of ethnic [and later ANY type of minority group] mobilization. One later addition was 'resentment' i.e. hate masquerading as resistance to hate [and later fascism ...]! So MVB's urban machine proves to be his most enduring legacy. Tho devised as a new type of plantation for consolidating Dem power in the N, we can see here the embryo of how the Dem Party still functions today.

- Magnanimity, Tammany Style (88)

We can draw a straight line from MVB's Albany Regency to the full-fledged Dem machine as epitomized by Tammany Hall. Both were in NY, former based in NYC, latter at upstate capital Albany. Later, Tammany-style machines were developed in most big cities; Buffalo, Philly, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco. Most were Irish at 1st, leading to other ethnic groups later being incorporated or getting their own 'machines'. There were even a few GOP machines e.g. Geo COX's turn-of-century one in Cincinnati and the state-wide PA one run out of Philly that W E B Du BOIS wrote about in 'The Philadelphia Negro'. But the vast majority were Dem-run, delivering Dem victories even in mostly GOP states. LINCOLN, for e.g., won NY state in 1860 but lost NYC, as much a Dem stronghold then as it remains now. These machines, as we know, were founts of political corruption. Tammany bosses like Wm 'Boss' TWEED, Richard CROKER and Chas F MURRAY ran Dem fiefdoms, dispencing favors and accumulating wealth culled not only from the public sector but also by coercing private sector corp's to pay under-the-table fees to secure public contracts and project approvals [we saw an AMZN one killed recently in NYC by AOC et al]. In Brooklyn, 'Uncle John' McCOOEY ruled the roost; in Jersey City, Frank 'I am the Law' HAGUE; in KS City, Tom PEDERGAST; in Boston, the duo of James Michael CURLEY and John 'Honey Fitz' FITZGERALD [JFK ancestor]. All were Dems. Even prog historian Terry GOLWAY in his bk 'Machine Made' characterizes Boss TWEED's 1860s operation as 'the great raid on the public treasury'. Journalists knew some of this but kept it quiet to keep the game going (and many had been 'bought off' by TWEED and others). Only in mid-1871 did the NYT run an expose. TWEED was eventually removed as grand boss or 'sachem' of Tammany and found guilty of corruption in 1873. But he escaped jail and fled to Cuba, then Spain, where he was finally caught and extradited back to the USA. He d1878 in prison. GOLWAY knows and approves of these 'transactional politics', which of course continue today within the Dem Party. Bosses often didn't hold office themselves, but controlled those who did. People like FDR, LBJ, OBAMA would've fit in perfectly as city bosses if they'd lived in that era. These prog accounts of 'good bosses' remind DD of earlier ones of 'good slave masters'. Tammany underboss Geo WA PLUNKITT became a multi-millionaire. These urban machines also served as 'employment bureaus', except not requiring any skills or even any useful work. They often paid widows' pensions by keeping the dead hubbys on the payroll!

- Election Rigging (91)

In many big cities, bosses didn't depend on actual voters; they'd supply the immigrants with filled-in ballots, thus assuring outcomes. As time went on the machines grew bolder, arranging for dead people to vote or some to show up multiple times ['vote early and often'], sometimes under false names from novels, etc. Tammany used these tricks for nearly 100yrs, 1840s-1930s. Bosses could be entertaining; asked by an investigating committee whether he was 'working for his own pocket', CROKER fired back, 'All the time - same as you'. Still, DD finds it odd to read prog paeans to these Tammany thugs. While they enjoy discussing soaring ideals, they seem to view what these bosses did as amusing and 'healthy for democracy'. There's still a high tolerance for pork-barrel schemes, even now viewed as 'business as usual'. Progs don't seem overly concerned that pols are looting the treasury, and no one seems to be minding the store on behalf of the hapless taxpayer. While admitting the machines were [are] corrupt, they insist 'they gave migrants a voice'. But this 'voice' was nothing more than the ventriloquist preferences of the bosses [once again we see how progs claim to believe in democracy but really favor fascist authoritarianism, 'finger on scales' to make sure the right people win]. So ethnic exploitation of vulnerable people is presented as somehow noble. They probably realized that not much has chg'd; modern politics includes similar rackets and exploitation (and dbl-talk). We saw in 2016 that Dems aren't above rigging elections, even while accusing TRUMP of collusion [what we do, accuse them of i.e. psychological transferrence]. Also their resistance to voter ID laws, feigned as concern for the poor but masking their fear of lost manipulation opportunities. In reality, these tactics are a thorough perversion of the democratic process. A usurpation of the Founders' pol. system. They and LINCOLN believed ethnic diversity can be integrated within an inclusive American natl-ism. But even they saw the dangers of factionalism i.e. a minority manip-ing the system to gain access to the public purse. They saw the answer as 'balance of pwrs' but MVB found a way around it. He went on to an undistinguished presidency marked by econ depression and what even progs concede is the disgrace of supv-ing the notorious displacement of the Cherokee aka the Trail of Tears. Perhaps repenting of his previous Faustian pact with slavery, MVB joined the Free Soil movement and made an abortive 3rd run for president in 1848. He was soundly defeated. In his later years, while no longer a partisan for the plantation, he refused to follow the Free Soil Dems who left the Dem Party and joined the GOP. MVB remained a lifelong Dem. The Tammany system was challenged by prog reformers in late 19C and finally routed by progs in early 20C. Working thru GOP ally, Fiorello La GUARDIA, FDR finally crushed Tammany and in general brought down the urban machines. But his motives were hardly pure (cf Jay COST's bk 'A Republic No More'). His plan was to replace them with a natl machine i.e. NOT to end corruption but legalize it and make it 'a permanent feature of our govt'. He replaced many local scams w/1 big natl one. Some things have chg'd i.e. Dems gave up their system of city-based ethnic mobilization under FDR in the 1930s, then took it up once again under LBJ in 60s. Today they don't bother with white ethnics anymore; they've moved on to other grps; blks, Latinos, feminists, gays [LGBTQ... add gender-benders ...]. The old Tammany regime is gone, but what it represents - the dehumanizing system of Dem ethnic exploitation that MVB created - is still very much with us today.

What did we go to war for, but to protect our property?
- Alexander Stephens, Dem and VP of Confederacy

5 The Plantation in Crisis: How Dems N/S Fought to Extend Slavery (95) [post-Civil War]

DD: One of the most powerful weapons of historical revisionism is silence. Socrates used it after convincing Glaucon Greeks shouldn't enslave other Greeks, when G tried to quibble (S realized he'd gotten all he could, further debate would risk 'slippage'). Then LINCOLN's silence in winter 1860-1, the 4mo between his election and inaug. Several states seceded as panic spread among Dems (and some GOPers re civil war fears). Compromises were breited about e.g. Crittendon proposal, but he remained silent i.e. prudent, wait til he actually has power to implement the mandate he'd just won. In contrast to these noble uses of silence, DD discusses in this chapter 'a very ignoble use' of it by Dems to distort historical truth i.e. prog revisionism to blame Civil War and Reconstruction mostly on 'the South' (v. on Dem Party N/S). This isn't prudence, but deception. E.g. in Ta-Nehisi COATES' bks and articles (in 'Atlantic') he never mentions the Dem Party affiliation of the Confederates, always calling them 'Southerners' instead. TC himself is, of course, a Dem, so is careful to shift blame away from his party for the crimes for which he seeks reparations/restitution. He uses this silence to serve his ideological purposes i.e. to shift the blame to TRUMP and the GOP right. But it goes further; in quoting prog historians like Barbara FIELDS, Annette GORDON-REED and Eric FONER, he not only shields the party but hides the fact that N Dems actively upheld slavery before and during the war, then re-est'd a form of neo-slavery in the S after the war. They then go further and morph blame from 'S' to 'America' i.e. racist origins and past. In this way they can smear the GOP, whose base is in the S and favor reviving an American natl-ism [racism, say Dems]. Some even call LINCOLN 'a bit of a racist, not quite as enlightened as progs'. In FONER's bizarre scheme, S Dems who oppose equality for blacks are 'conservatives'! And on the Dem Party's 'left stood radical GOPers'. Immediately after the war, Dems got to work fashioning a narrative of concealment aimed at fooling future gens re what had just happened (and FONER is a leading propandist and further developer of that line). The old liars pretended the war wasn't about slavery, but federalism v. centralism. Chas/Mary BEARD picked up this line and said the war was a '2nd American Rev' that shifted power from the 'planter aristocracy' of S to 'N capitalists'. Then came Wm DUNNING's lie that the war was a GOP attempt to impose Negro rule on the S, bravely thwarted by indep-loving S Dems. DD will show the truth is that it was NOT N v. S, but blocking (GOP) v. allowing (Dems) the spread of slavery.

- The Difference Between the 2 Parties (99)

Tho LINCOLN had assured all that he wouldn't outlaw slavery in the South, but only prevent its spread, he realized that wasn't enough to prevent war. This was NOT a N v. S issue (S GOPers opposed spread, N Dems favored it), and DD revealed in 'Hillarys America' that in 1860 NOT 1 GOPer owned a slave (an assertion unchallenged since then). Not just leaders, but NO Republican, period! All 4M slaves at the time were owned by Dems. LINCOLN and GOPers were accused of being 'nigger lovers' and 'wooly heads', that 'free love and free niggers will certainly elect Old Abe'. His response shows how he embodied the philosophical statesmanship of the Founders. Indeed, his plight was eerily similar to theirs i.e. inherited slavery and struggling with what to do with it. Even LINCOLN had to appease the then-current feeling that, while natural rights are due all human beings, CIVIL rights are granted only by the consent of a community that has every right to withhold them if it chooses. Few at that time wanted blacks immediately granted these latter rights. If LINCOLN had promoted intermarriage, social equality or civil rights at that time, his political defeat would've been certain. So he was careful to accommodate, but not encourage, racist sentiment of his day. He realized most Americans weren't ready for those developments. We could even argue that LINCOLN saved those things (for the future), since his defeat would likely have delayed or even prevented them in future.

- The Confederacy's N Allies (104)

The Civil War was Dems' (N and S) attempt to kill America by carving her into 2. This fact is also masked in prog histories. DD says the most reliable accounts are by James McPHERSON and Harry JAFFA, and even they only allude to it. Once again, the key is the role of N Dems. In 1861 the N had 20M and S 9M (incl 4M slaves) people. In addition to a 4:1 population advantage, the N dominated manufacturing and munitions industries and had complete naval supremacy. The only hope for the S was N Dem support. While prog accounts focus on attempts to draw England and France into the war, in reality both were far-fetched and S-ers knew it. LEE himself didn't mention that, but he DID focus on N public opinion as being critical for victory i.e. N Dems to thwart LINCOLN et al. LEE focused on MD and partly succeeded; N Dems did well there in the 1862 midterms (but MD still didn't secede). In fact, in several N states Dems won where LINCOLN had just 2 years before. LEE and DAVIS both focused on those wins, realizing those N Dems would have to be the ones to help them save the plantation.

- Fire in the Rear (106)

Abe LINCOLN also understood the grave threat posed by the N Dems; in Jan 1863 he told GOP Sen Chas SUMNER (namesake for Ft S?) that he feared the 'fire in the rear' i.e. a faction of N Dems, even more than the Confederate army! He didn't mean just Stephen DOUGLAS, who took a dangerous journey to S states to talk them out of secession, but died unexpectedly in Jun 1861 shortly after war commenced. AbeL also didn't mean Dem Party as a whole, at least not at first. The N Dems had split into 2 factions; the so-called War Dems and Peace Dems. Many, including 100s of 1ks of German & Irish immigrants, fought gallantly for the Union. AbeL was worried about the Peace Dems, a group that incl former OH Rep Clement VALLANDIGHAM and Alex LONG, former NY Gov Horatio SEYMOUR, NY City mayor Fernando WOOD and IN Sen Daniel VOORHEES. GOPers called the Peace Dems 'Copperheads' i.e. deadly snakes who seem harmless til they strike w/o warning. That group had been strengthened by early Confederate successes, and sought to rally public opinion v. what CV called 'a wicked and senseless conflict'. They called for an armistice and withdrawal of N army, but AbeL believed that would spell death for the Union, or at least any Union worth preserving. In the early years of the war he at least had the support of the War Dems. They viewed secession as unconstitutional rebellion but were NOT interested in fighting over slavery. AbeL knew he'd been elected with only a minority of the vote, due to the N/S Dem split, and that N Dems were a critical part of his coalition. As we know, his key stated goal was saving the Union, NOT to save/destroy slavery (he even said to do the former he'd do any combo of latter). His main goal in these statements was to keep the War Dems with him. DD mocks today's Dems for portraying him as insufficiently anti-slavery when its obvious he was politically constrained to say that to keep his coalition together (he obviously was NOT in favor of slavery cf LINCOLN-DOUGLAS debates). He also needed to keep the border states (MD DE KY MO) which together had 450k slaves) from seceding. But he COULD'VE saved the union and avoided the war by embracing the CRITTENDEN proposal or simply adopting DOUGLAS' doctrine of popular sovereignty; that he didn't proves he was willing to go to war to keep slavery from spreading into the territories. Once he secured the border states he candidly acknowledged the root of the war was in fact slavery. DD cites Alex STEPHANS' infamous 3-21-1861 'Cornerstone Speech' in which he said 'the Founders considered all men equal, but our new govt [in S] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea ... its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man ... that subordination to the superior race is the natural and normal condition' (wow). The Emancipation Proclamation 'showed his hand' i.e. that slavery was key (which he did using wartime powers, acknowledging he could NOT have done so with normal peacetime powers).

- The Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation (109)

Yet the Emancipation Proclamation (NOT applied to border states, since AbeL knew they'd then secede) gravely weakened his support among N Dems i.e. they used it as a pretext to turn against him. In effect it turned War Dems into Peace Dems (both were 'deeply racist'). IN and IL Dems called for AbeL to 'retract his wicked, inhuman and unholy' EP and a Dem Chicago newspaper called it 'a monstrous usurpation, a criminal wrong and an act of national suicide'. By 1864 the Peace Dems dominated the Party, and nominated a War Dem, George McCLELLAN, to challenge AbeL's re-election. But the platform was written by Peace Dems i.e. 'the Constitution as it is, the Union as it was' (return focus to union v. slavery). GOP stalwart Horace GREELEY (educ guy?) grieved for 'our bleeding, bankrupt, almost dying country'. The Dems attacked AbeL as Abraham Africanus the 1st and his 1st of 10 cmdts Thou shalt have no other God but the Negro. AbeL then gave up on N Dems, seeing them as having a 'death wish' for the union. He was re-elected (narrowly?) and Union armies finally prevailed in the Civil War (Wm Tecumseh SHERMAN's scorched earth policy). That prompted a MD man who thot himself 'a N Dem w/S sympathies' to do something drastic; his name was John Wilkes BOOTH. Many Dems had called for it in newspapers [Tucker: there's violence at the heart of this ideology]. Today JWB is portrayed as 'a deranged lone wolf' but his view that America was better off without AbeL was shared by many Dems, N and S. Just before killing the pres, after jumping up on the stage, he called out 'Sic semper tyrannis' (thus be the fate of tyrants). 'But of course it was a lie in the classic Dem fashion; the supreme irony is that JWB's was the real cause of tyranny and human bondage' (!? 111). He was a Dem who stood for the plantation, but used 'anti-tyranny' as a mask [just as modern Dems use 'anti-fascism'] for violence. And today's Dems have the chutzpah to blame slavery's legacy on the very party that stopped it [Mike ROWE's 'That's How I Heard It' show explained that frustrated actor JWB resented his more successful actor bro name?, saying 'fame, fame, fame, I MUST have it' and, in the end, settling for infamy, so there's an additional motive]

- A Squid-like Cloud (111)

Now we turn to Reconstruction, a period whose storytelling is dominated by the towering figure of [leftist] Eric FONER. He wants his readers to think the plantation was somehow a right-wing institution [aka 'the big switch'] that was bravely overthrown by an early generation of American progs!? He disingenuously portrays the South as 'conservative' (tho S Dems represented a radical break from the American Founding) and also counts AbeL a 'prog' (tho he explicitly said he was defending the Fndrs' principles). FONER's 'squid-like cloud' of ideology 'sometimes dissipates and a ray of truth breaks through' :-). AbeL saw Reconstruction as an admin v. const. problem i.e. the S had never actually left the Union since that would've been unconst. and the war had prevented it. This was just rebuilding with 'created equal' and 'consent of governed' characteristics. But the Dem Party didn't see it that way, they saw an existential threat. They feared the GOP would dominate now just like JEFFERSON's Dem-Rep Party did after the demise of the Federalists. The 13-15th (abolished slavery, extended equal rights, granted blacks right to vote) reset things (arguably to the Fndrs' orig intentions). Likely made possible the 1964 Civil Rights Act [14th A 'equal rights' clause, hmmm, not an unalloyed good, but only because progs pushed it PAST its intended function, like always i.e. revolutionary v. stabilizing] and 1965 Voting Rights Act [ditto]. Progs downplay the fact that almost ALL Dems N and S fought tooth and nail to preserve the plantation system, even AFTER the war!? Not a single Dem voted for 14-15th Amendments, so they are exclusively GOP achievements. No wonder they don't talk about that, disgraceful [the Party of Disgrace e.g. 2020 election]. Progs like to see it as 'enlightened N progs v. wicked S cons' (all Dems, but never mentioned, blame 'South' but never 'Dems'). 2 other GOP achievements; 1866 Civil Rights Act and giving freed slaves access to education and land ownership e.g. SHERMAN's Special Field Order No 15 reserving coastal land in GA and SC for liberated slaves (admin'd by Freedman's Bureau aka '40 acres and a mule'). It was basically 'seizing plantation lands and dividing those among patriot soldiers, poor whites and freedmen' according to Sen Chas SUMNER.

i.e. Dems squirt propaganda to hide their escape (from responsibility for slavery, racism ...)

- The Politics of Terror (115)

But these measures were opposed by AbeL's successor President Andrew JOHNSON; guess which party he belonged to (right, Dems). AbeL had put him on the ticket since he'd opposed secession and was a Union man. He'd hoped AJ might attract S unionists and also (as conciliation) help generate bipartisan support for the war. But once in office, AJ connived to defeat GOP Reconstruction and restore, as much as possible, the S status quo ante. Dems loved him but modern progs distance themselves from him. They try to call him a closet plantation sympathizer, untrue: he grew up dirt poor in TN and hated the planter aristocracy. His real goal was to restore the pre-war N-S Dem coalition that had ruled the country since Andrew JACKSON, later MVB. AJ vetoed the CRA of 1866 but GOP overrode it. He was more successful in thwarting the Freedman's Bureau, and via a systematically enforced policy of lax pardons, he restored plantations to their former owners, thus depriving it of land. Thus ended '40 acres and a mule'. In Dec 1867 he told Congress that blacks possess less 'capacity for govt than any other race of people' and that 'no indep govt of any form has ever been successful in their hands' ... 'constant tendency to relapse into barbarism'. But blacks dominated the GOP in the S during Reconstruction (N whites who moved there were called 'carpetbaggers' and sympathetic S white previous residents 'scalawags'). The Dems thus created the KKK to suppress all this; led by Nathan Bedford FORREST, a former slave-trader, Confederate general and delegate to the 1868 Dem Natl Convention. Dems also founded dozens of other domestic terrorist orgs. For nearly a decade (late 1860s early 70s) they conducted a reign of terror thru the S, targeted both blacks and whites. Shooting, burning, lynching often with large crowds. Congress passed Force Bill to prosecute these thugs. It worked, though KKK revival occurred in early 20C under WW. Even FONER admits that post-war, the KKK was a military force serving the interest of the Dem Party. He also admitted they resembled the Nazi Brownshirts of 20s and 30s i.e. domestic terrorist arms of official Parties (Dem, Nazi). Here's one of those glimpses of truth in EF. He notes Reconstruction 'came to a rude halt in the late 1870s' but doesn't explain that the KKK did that. Weary GOPers finally retreated from the S i.e. 'battle fatigue' as part of a deal to break the 1880 tie and put Rutherford B HAYES into office [not in bk]. Dems like to say 'the South will rise again' but what they really mean is 'Dem domination will rise again' and so it did with MVB's new plantation idea.

It was a menace to society itself that the Negroes should thus of a sudden be set free and left w/o tutelage or restraint [after the Civil War]
- WW in his 'History of the American People'

6 Progressive Plantation: White Supremacy as a Weapon of Reenslavement (119)

In 1912 W E B DuBOIS faced a tough choice; support former, now progressive, TR on 'Bull Moose' ticket or Dem WW also prog? Tho they were similar, he knew the Dems had always been the 'plantation party', even then still scheming to reinvent it in big cities. WW was part of that effort; a VA Dem who'd watched in horror as a young boy as Union armies occupied the South. As a young man he'd migrated N to NJ, became president of Princeton University, then NJ Gov. These experiences did change him, but NOT in the way you'd think; instead of moving away from his old bigotries, he acquired new fortification for them in the so-called scientific racism of the day i.e. he became even MORE racist than before. Its apparent in his published work of the time. The Aryans had invented democracy, and other races not only HAD not but likely COULD not, since they were inferior i.e. white supremacy. TR was not unaffected by these racial ideas but as a NY-er, Union man and GOP-er he embraced AbeL and Reconstruction, condemned lynching and the KKK and, unlike WW, and at considerable personal risk, he sought to build bridges to the black community and integrate blacks into the postbellum South. In 1901 as new President he'd invited Booker T WASHINGTON to dinner at the White House; TR's natural decency can be seen in himself criticizing his own initial qualms to inviting BTW. Of course this led to rage among Southerners. It was the original, real-life 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?'.

- Will the Real Uncle Tom Please Stand Up? (122)

It was precisely that 1901 dinner meeting that fortified WEB's hatred of TR. WEB, you see, was the 2nd most famous black leader in America of that time, undoubtedly America's leading black intellectual and the 1st black PhD in Phil. from Harvard. Even so [because?], he was prickly and pretentious. Tho he sought to inherit Frederick DOUGLAS' mantle, he watched in dismay as it actually went to BTW. Former attacked latter in 'The Souls of Black Folk', and these ideas have now become standard fare among progs. WW was almost single-handedly responsible for the national revival of the KKK; defunct since the late 1870s. WW also segregated the fed. govt and promoted vicious schemes of forced sterilization of racial minorities [to 'protect the gene pool']. They were later taken up by the Nazis in a macabre succession of policies that moved from mass sterilization to mass murder in the Holocaust [also used Southern Dems' '1 drop of black blood' idea, tho even the Nazis thought that was too harsh, settled for 1/4 instead]. DD agrees w/Jonah GOLDBERG that WW was 'the most racist president of the 20C'. Amazingly, WEB ended up supporting WW (today's progs still adore both WW/WEB). It helps to know that in Harriet Beecher STOWE's famous 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', the slave character Tom is the noble, long-suffering protagonist and NOT the sellout or traitor to blacks as portrayed by (decades) later progs trying to hide their obvious connection to the 'bad guys' of 19C. Malcolm X in the 60s used the term 'Uncle Tom' to designate a 'house slave' v. a 'field slave', the latter being the true resisters. But DD's point is BOTH had to accommodate themselves to slavery since they were powerless to stop it. BTW emphasized self-help for the same reason i.e. don't kvetch re negative stuff, just do the best you can with what you have. He did in fact fight for legal equality, just not in a revolutionary way; in one case supporting black defendant Alonzo BAILEY in the landmark 1911 SC case Bailey v. AL (struck down the discriminatory and oppressive practice of peonage). In fact, taken as a whole BTW did more in practical terms than WEB to combat segregation in particular, and white supremacy in general. Latter just railed against those but actually accomplished little to nothing in terms of curtailing them. So BTW's 'accommodation' is reminiscent of how the Founders and even AbeL 'accommodated' slavery for a time; they did what they could to restrain it while they lacked the power to end it (Burkean v. revolutionary approach, former works, latter always fails, 'devours her young').

- An Appreciation for Hitler (125)

While we can see WED's attack on WA as 'the bitter recriminations of a lesser man', this still doesn't fully explain his bizarre endorsement of WW. Why did he support this well known racist and white supremacist? We can answer this by looking at his later career; post-WW (after his hopeful predictions were proven wrong) he moved on to become enamored with both STALIN and HITLER (like many other progs)!? In '36-7 he travelled to Europe, praising STALIN's 'brave start at scientific planning' and 'investing ownership of all land/materials in the public [state]', refusing even to criticize S's purge trials and actually defending the forced relocation of peasants. What attracted him (et al) to STALIN, of course, was his socialism, which WED came to understand as the most uncompromising [totalitarian] form of prog-ism (correct). At S's d1953 WED called him 'a great man' who pursued 'real socialism'. This is also what WED appreciated most about HITLER, and though deploring H's anti-black racism, attributed his anti-Semitism to 'reasoned prejudice or an economic fear'. Both dictators were, in fact, national socialists. Historian Stanley PAYNE's 'A History of Fascism' also noticed the parallel between these 2 dictators. Even TROTSKY had seen it much earlier, calling them 'symmetrical phenomena'; both champs of 'the all-powerful state' and sought to 'remake society and even human nature in subordination to the centralized state'. WED's naked admiration for these tyrants proved an embarrassment to his allies at the NAACP, whose magazine 'The Crisis' WED edited for many years. After they fired him, he left America in disgust and settled in Ghana, where he later 'died a bitter and broken man'. Like many other progs, he grew to hate America for not taking strong [totalitarian] measures to force change. In retrospect, THAT's why he'd supported WW; he saw him as 'embracing the prog vision of the centralized state' (which he did but wasn't able to fully implement). In this way WED betrayed the black cause in favor of his battle to destroy 'individualism and self-reliance' (represented by GOP). But he was prescient in detecting 'a subtle but unmistakable movement of the Dem Party from the party of state's rights to that of centralized state power. He saw the WW's Dem party was 'creating a new plantation', to be run by a new elite prog class to replace the older planter class. He'd already argued the black community should be led by a 'talented tenth' of its smartest men; we can assume he saw himself in that group. But WW never saw blacks as belonging there, as WED eventually realized and moved on. Later 'plantation bosses in the Big House [White House]' after WW were FDR, Truman, LBJ, Bill CLINTON and BHO [and Biden et al]. They did this by deploying new weapons, white supremacy and ethnic mobilization [community organizing], that had existed under slavery but were modified by progs into a comprehensive system of exploitation. But progs also had to rewrite history to re-assign blame for these things onto their adversaries, the very party that fought Dems' vicious and bigoted schemes from the outset!

- Why Wilson Admired Lincoln (128)

Now from prog intellectual to prog pres WW; he and FDR, LBJ are ack'd as the 3 leading progs of 20C, thus all celebrated by lefty historians. WW praised for supposed dedication to 'global self-determination' and other prog 'reforms' including introduction of income tax, Federal Reserve and greater federal regulation of industry [with friends like that ...]. But his blatant record of racism is too much for today's progs to ignore (he joins virtually all other early Dem presidents here). So they call him a Southerner, not a Dem, and demand the WW School at Princeton change its name (but of course keep its prog thrust). But if WW is a prog racist, shouldn't Princeton also jettison the prog-ism? They say no since they all deny any connection between prog-ism and racism, that latter is just a 'regrettable leftover' from his and others' S roots. So here's another aspect of their Big Lie; blame SOUTH not Dem prog-ism for it. Its true he oddly admired (in an almost over-the-top way) AbeL; so America's 1st prog president modeled himself upon America's 1st GOP one!? But things clarify when we realize WHAT he admired; NOT AbeL's dedication to the principles of the American founding, but his DENUNCIATION of them! WW mocked their separation of powers, checks and balances and fear of an all-powerful state and saw that, whatever AbeL said, he was willing to greatly increase the power of the fed. govt at the expense of the states, also to undercut the const. system of checks/balances as necessary to win Civil War e.g. suspending habeas corpus even though Const. clearly gives that power only to Congress. Also revoked civil liberties like speech of Copperheads. So here was a model for unlimited state power concentrated in the exec. branch. DD thinks AbeL would've been deeply offended by WW's admiration of these things, and would argue that S Dems simply refused to accept the result of a free election, justifying his response to save the Union (else what's the point of elections?). He would say none of these emergency powers were normal and only done 'under duress' and temporarily. His intention was none except Emancipation Proclamation should outlast war. He even OK'd the 1864 election go ahead though it took place in a desperate and decisive stage of the war. A tyrant would've postponed it, perhaps indefinitely. He even thot he'd lose it. Ulimately N victories by GRANT and SHERMAN revived his pol. support and ensured re-election, but he took a big risk to uphold 'govt by popular consent even under extreme duress'. In sum, AbeL was a natl-ist v. WW a statist. Latter essential turned what was provisional and most problematic re the S into a new prog creed alien to the spirit of both AbeL and the Fndrs. Why? The left saw themselves as 'the smartest people in the room' (sound familiar?) and should thus run things. Herbert CROLY's 'Prog Democracy' and E A ROSS' 'Social Control' both argue this point. Someone has to rule and it may as well be us i.e. highly educ'd and highly spcl-ized social scientists. Democratically elected in theory but, 'when it becomes paternal and develops on the admin side, is able to guide the society it professes to obey ... an independent center of social pwr' (wow, the 'deep state' in utero). So we see how progs sought, with a certain rat-like cunning, the subvert the democratic process -> admin state that governs FOR v. BY the people. Obviously still with us today (in spades). Libertarians often argue correctly that 'centralized societies don't work', but they're missing the point that progs don't care if its less efficient as long as THEY'RE in charge! Similarly, some tried to debate with plantation owners regarding these matters and, understandably gained few (no?) converts. Dems saw that the centralized state had defeated the old plantation system, and since 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' they adopted if as their own (and to use for their OWN purposes, NOT the Fndrs'). WW represented a great shift in the Dem party from one of state's rights to one of strong centralized govt. Notice that, for the Dems, this was a change in tactics but NOT purpose. This new system was built 'on the cornerstone of white supremacy', even though today they level that charge against GOPers. DD will show this latter to be an invention of prog-ism and identifies 3 distinguishing features of the new Dem engine of exploitation; racial terrorism, segregation and forced eugenic sterilization. Though some of its surrounding apparatus is now gone, the prog plantation itself is still in full operation today.

- Inventing White Supremacy (134)

The challenge faced by WW and his generation (of Dems) was how to reconstruct the loss of their very lucrative and successful REAL plantations in the Civil War i.e. GOP had dominated elections since then. Those slave plantations had been the basis of Dem power, the party having been formed around the interests of the slave-owners in the 1820s (led by Andrew JACKSON). Historian David Brion DAVIS has calculated that, by 1860, the total value of the slaves (4M of them x $1k/slave) was $4B or 80% of US GNP! That would translate to $13T in 2019 (of 16.25T when this bk pub'd) or 22T (of 28T) today (2024). No wonder the South went to war! But the loss wasn't just financial, of course, it was also cultural and political and ... the South had been based on status, leisure and idleness of the elites made possible by the slaves (AbeL: you work, I eat). They still had consolations e.g. share-cropping (of rice, tobacco, cane, cotton fields), whites still 'on top', we might call it 'neo-slavery' or 'wage slavery' closer to what we find today. But the workers were of course free to leave if they thought they could find a better situation elsewhere. And worse, slaves began to actually compete with white workers, eroding that key bastion of southern supporters. Further, cultural mixing and even inter-marriage began to increase, deeply troubling many southerners (previously unheard of). But the greatest threat to the Dems was that black southerners had begun voting en masse for the GOP, threatening what reduced power the Dems had there. But the Dems realized that, though they'd lost the plantations, they could still rely on widespread racism in the South. But now, instead of it being in the background with no need to bring it out into the open (why do that when you're already on top, 'silence is golden'), the Dems realized they could wield it as a political weapon i.e. stoking the latent racism into a fever-pitch for political gain (like the Left does today with racism and many other natural human prejudices i.e. divide and conquer). This they did in both North AND South (cf DD's 'The End of Racism' bk for more details). DD's basic thesis is: Explicit White Supremacy was and is a creation of the Dem master class. Under the old plantation system, there was no reason for open racial hatred; just the opposite, it was better to get as much voluntary cooperation as possible. But after the Civil War that logic was gone, it was in Dems' interest to stoke that fire to the max for pol. gain. This is why racial hatred in the US reached its most potent levels in the late 19C and early 20C (just as 'war is the health of the state' acc. to Randolph BOURNE). Plantations could be (and were) destroyed, but racialism could never be i.e. blacks could never BECOME whites (or vice versa). So Dems pursued this formula; White Supremacy + Black suppression = pol. victory (in both N and S, today its more like Dem Supremacy + suppression of white, male, straight Christians ... esp. Donald TRUMP). This became the basis for a new type of 'plantation' and WW realized a 'new whip' was needed to replace the older actual one. Then in early 1915 WW's old college friend Thomas DIXON (author of the book 'The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the KKK') walked through the door of WW's Oval Office door.

- Thomas Dixon's Progressive Racism (139)

WW & TD were buddies from having attended Johns Hopkins Univ together. Today's progs call TD a 'right-winger' due to his southern roots and racism, but by now we can see this as part of 'The Big Lie' (cf DD bk tBL). The South was, of course, THE Dem stronghold and BASED upon racism (by design, then and [for Dem Party] now). TD was a self-described prog associated with the Social Gospel movement. His slogan was 'politics is religion in action' (like THATCHER's pol. is phil. in action). Early in his career he was an avowed socialist, animal rights activist, railed against capital punishment, published the book 'The Root of Evil' 189x. Their friendship was both personal AND ideological. TD had been a legislator, lawyer, preacher, actor and author of the 1902 best-seller 'The Leopard's Spots'. In his bk 'The Clansman', the villain 'Austin STRONEMAN' is modelled on PA abolitionist GOPer Wendell PHILLIPS while ordinary Southerners are victims of 'the predatory alliance of blacks and the GOP'. The heroes are the Night Riders of the KKK. The book is dedicated to his Scot uncle Col. Leroy McATEE, Grand Titan of the KKK (and leader of the South)!? He told WW (correctly) that D W GRIFFITH had turned his story into the 1915 ground-breaking movie 'Birth of a Nation' which WW had privately screened in the White House. Dems say WW was 'gullible', but DD says no, it was calculated; 'he knew exactly what he was doing'. The point was to turn all viewers into good Dems i.e. to hate GOP and blacks. The movie undoubtedly helped inspire the KKK resurgence (planned? DD: maybe). While the original KKK had been only regional, this newer version was 'from sea to shining sea'; from ME to the Midwest to CA (in fact, there were more members OUTSIDE the South than in). It once again became the domestic terror arm of the Dem Party (point: to terrorize both blacks and GOPers). It definitely cooperated with the Dem Party, hitting its zenith in the mid-1920s with 3-5M members. The 1924 Dem convention was informally known as 'the Klanbake'. Rather than being humiliated, TD went on to enjoy a prominent career as a writer and Dem activist, zealous for FDR in 1932, rewarded with a job as clerk for the US Court, E District in NC. Though he later soured on FDR's New Deal, he retained the judicial post '38-46 the year of his death.

- Man in a Cage (142)

Now that WW & progs had found a way to beat blacks [back, and now white GOPers] down thru racial intimidation and murder, they needed a way to KEEP them down. They needed not only to suppress the black vote but to insulate white Dems from economic competition with them. Solution: state-sponsored segregation, imposed on the South from 1890s-1910. Exclusively done by Dem Party (though modern progs like to blame 'the South'). WW's contribution was to bring segregation to the federal govt; not many realize that pre-Civil War, the federal govt was NOT officially segregated. Blacks have ONLY GOP admin's since Civil War to thank for that. Somewhat comically, W E DuBOIS in 1913 wrote an open letter to WW complaining about it, comparing black clerks serving in govt to 'men in cages'. No response from WW, but DuB must've realized his endorsement of WW and Dems had LED to that phenomenon!? When a group of black progs later visited WW in the WH, he 'sold' it as 'not a humiliation but a benefit' (reminiscent of John C CALHOUN's 'slavery as a positive good' argument). Thus ended DuB's and Monroe TROTTER's (leader of group) hopes of having a central role in administering WW's emerging Dem 'plantation'.

So we have 3 tools Dems devised to recreate their 'plantation': 1 racial terror (KKK), 2 segregation and 3 what we might call 'racial conservation' (just as lefties wanted to protect the environment, they wanted the same for America's 'racial heritage') with 2 elements: 1st, racially restrictive immigration laws and 2nd, eugenic sterilization of the 'unfit' (thx Margaret SANGER founder of Planned Parenthood) i.e. mostly poor whites and racial minorities. WW supported both and saw them as closely connected i.e. to prevent an inflow AND limit 'spread' (breeding) of the 'unfit'. The Immigration Act of 1924 was actually signed AFTER WW left office, but he and other progs (most but not all Dems) had pushed for it for >20yrs (seem odd? Still true today with Dem AND GOP support, difference is then it was the 'establishment' position then, but NOT today). So its not wrong to dub these early prog GOPers (like TR) the original RINOs e.g. GOPers Madison GRANT and Lothrop STODDARD were close associates of Margaret SANGER. MG an enviro movement founder (and his racism grew out of that i.e. preserve both physical environment AND 'our valuable racial stock'). Not surprising since early 20s 'unleashed a 2nd wave of mass immigration', this time not from Ireland and Germany but S & E Europe (including many Jews). Perhaps surprisingly for white supremacists, they viewed these new whites as also inferior (to earlier Anglo-Saxon stock). So white supremacy really meant Nordic supremacy v. 'inferior' Alpine and Mediterranean types. The Carnegie Institute report on 'The Parallel Case of the House Rat' !? traced America's growing rodent infestation to immigrant ships arriving from Europe. Labor Unions were naturally at the forefront of limiting competition, with leader Eugene DEBS expressing very anti-'Dago' views ('even worse than Chinamen'). To progs, blacks were 'niggers', Mexicans 'wetbacks', Asians 'chinks', Italians 'wops and dagos' ... WW was fully onboard with all this e.g. his 1902 'History of the American People'. This wave was stopped in 1924 (to 1965). WW was also a pioneer in prog eugenic sterilization e.g. in 1911 as Gov of NJ he signed 1 of America's 1st forced-sterilization laws, later joined by 26 other states, leading to ~65k victims.

- The Progressive Roots of Nazism (145)

We can't end this section without noting that 3 of these 19C Dem schemes of the 'progressive plantation' - 1 race-based immigration restrictions, 2 racial segregation and 3 forced sterilization - provided models for the Nazi Party in the early 1930s. HITLER himself praised them (esp. #1) for having been 'a slow start' toward the Nazi 'racially supremacist' state. Progressive legal scholar James WHITMAN's book 'Hitler's American Model' cited HITLER's 1934-5? Nuremberg Laws as being explicitly modelled on the Jim CROW laws of the Dem South; they just replaced 'black' with 'Jew' (e.g. segregated ghettos). DD asks why has there been no US textbook describing this Nazi-Dem link? No CNN or NPR or History Channel documentary? JW used the familiar Dem tactic of blaming 'America' (or 'the South') v. Dem Party. Also, German historian Stefan KUHL's book 'The Nazi Connection' charted the logical progression (and we could add moral collapse) from forced sterilization to euthanasia to HITLER's gas chambers in WWII. Did US progs realize this? Certainly yes (KUHL shows this clearly). Then in 1934, Sec'y of the American Eugenics Society Leon WHITNEY said so out loud (progs still openly admired HITLER at the time). In 1935 Clarence CAMPBELL, a close associate of PP founder Margaret SANGER, attended the Intl Population Congress in Berlin and raised a toast 'to that great leader Adolf HITLER'. MS herself had already praised him by that time. SK was a prog himself, so its hard to accept his idea that 'both L and R are to blame' for HITLER. This is obviously a case of 'The Big Lie' (cf DD bk) that both HITLER and the Nazis were 'rightwing' (no way, both he and MUSSOLINI were lifelong leftwing socialists, more on that in next chapter). SK acted 'shocked' (called it 'ironic') that WW & MS could do this [inspire the Nazis], as if it was an aberration. But it certainly was NOT ironic, and the next chapter will show that the Nazis were indeed leftwing socialists with an ideological agenda closely parallel to that of US progs (then and now). But (thank God) in the end, WW's prog plantation remained incomplete ... conditions weren't right (too much resistance to a centralized state in the US), also WW was too much a 'pointy-headed intellectual' to get it done. The racial component eventually became an embarrassment for Dems [obviously], so they retained it in modified and palatable (therapeutic) form in the later '30s and beyond (i.e. 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help you' [gun pointed at you]). They needed a major crisis for such a big change to be made, also a less educated, more cunning leader, a creative improviser of the Martin Van BUREN [and HITLER] type, but even more unscrupulous, a mafia boss unhampered by conscience [hello FDR].

If Fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the name of Liberalism
- Ronald Reagan in a 1975 '60 Minutes' interview

7 The State as Big House: What FDR Learned from Fascism and Nazism (149)

In 1935 Sinclair LEWIS pub'd his novel 'It Can't Happen Here', which envisioned a fascist regime in the USA. Little did he, a prog leftist and former socialist, know that 'as he wrote', FDR was consciously importing fascist ideas (from Italy and Germany) to America. SL knew it wouldn't be exactly like those other 2 examples, it would instead be built on homegrown symbols ... but he missed what was right in front of him, since he couldn't see the fascist elements of his own ideological side (like most people, he told himself 'we're the good guys, right?'). This chapter is about FDR and the fascist plantation in America. During the '20s and '30s, Italy and Germany developed a new type of plantation run by an all-powerful, centralized state. FDR admired those and sought to make a distinctly American version i.e. what we could call 'democratic fascism', that could win political support, and in the process he permanently transformed the Dem Party [hmmm, really? it seems AJ, MVB, WW did that i.e. in 'the leftist DNA'] and remade the Dem plantation. Tho its shocking to modern libs that fascism could fit with prog-ism (didn't we fight and win WWII v. those 'bad guys'?), HITLER was in fact very familiar with the Dem slave plantations in the American South. Prog historian Ira KATZNELSON shows how HITLER denigrated blacks, admired the US South and regretted its defeat in 1865 [as did UK and other monarchist nations' ldrs]. He also hated AbeL for defeating 'the great new social order' of the South (using 'inequality, slavery'). Many scholars have noted the similarity of HITLER's concentration camps to the Dems' S plantations. DD grants that its not fair to compare H's death camps to those, since their purpose was extermination, tho the comparison DOES work for H's labor or 'concentation' camps, whose purpose was slave labor). But even Nazi's distinguished those 2; there were 100s of concentation camps e.g. Dachau, Mauthausen, Ravensbrueck ...) but just a few death camps e.g. Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor. NONE of the latter were in Germany itself, tho many conc. camps were. Historian Timothy SNYDER notes that the vast majority of Jews killed in the war 'never saw a conc. camp', since those held mostly Russians and E Europeans (and a few Jews). They held 8-12M slave laborers, mostly used for the armaments industry. Wolfgang SOFSKY's book on conc. camps notes how they affected both workers and bosses i.e. personality distortions ... slacking off unless boss watching, then appear busy, 'Sambo' syndrome ... DD reminds us that in Dem S slaves were valuable, so in owner's interest NOT to kill them. But Nazi slaves weren't owned by individuals, only by 'institutions', so no one cared what happened to them other than govt ministers. Prog historian Stanley ELKINS' early '70s book title? noted the close connection between Dem plantations and Nazi labor camps. Both generated similar types of disfunctional personalities; victims became submissive, showed stereotypical patterns of behavior e.g. so-called Sambo syndrome, also excessive cruelty by bosses (also 'Stockholm syndrome'?). Timothy SNYDER thinks HITLER got the idea for labor camps from 19C Jacksonian Dems and their plantations. H had originally planned to do colonial expeditions like the other GPs did, creating remote 'labor plantations' for profit and power (i.e. standard Great Power imperialism). But when he noticed that all the most valuable paces were taken, not much left for Germany, he changed his plan to a simpler, perhaps more audacious one i.e. 'European colonialism'. He reasoned he could do to greater Europe what the US had done to the natives in America. Why bother conquering Asia and Africa when he could conquer other, more backward European nations instead. His plan was to drive Russians, Poles and E Europeans (mostly slavs) from their homes into labor plantations for use by German industry. Those who resisted would be killed, the rest enslaved. This was 'Generalplan Ost' and involved 30-45M laborers. H hoped this would become a continental empire to match (and rival) the American one. The Volga River would be the German equivalent of the Mississippi for America. H was also a fan of the Dem KKK, thought it was a political movement like his own. His friend Ernst HANFSTAENGL served (in America) as leader of the Foreign Press Bureau [& spy?]. H, like WW, envisioned his govt [WH, H HQ] as 'the Big House' on a plantation, that runs the whole shebang using 'a whip'. Many people, both Germans and Americans, saw similarities between WW's KKK and H's Brown Shirts i.e. paramilitaries of 3-4M peak in both cases, using racial terror to enforce Party policies (the 'whip'). So despite prog cries of foul, its hardly far-fetched to notice these similarities.

- FDR and the KKK (153)

FDR's relationship to fascism does require a little introduction. He was obviously NOT a racial natl-ist like HITLER, though he DID maintain a fairly close relationship with such people in the US (esp. Southern Dems). Since we're discussing the Klan, its useful to begin with FDR's close connection with WW, latter largely responsible for the nationwide revival of the KKK during his pres. admin. FDR never criticized WW's KKK affinities and racist policies or indicated the slightest discomfort with them. But progs who did never distanced themselves from FDR, who remains a great prog hero, written about in hagiographical terms, except for the brief 'throat clearing' regarding FDR's internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. But, though less direct (FDR - racism/KKK), he was much closer to them than most progs will admit. Even FDR's VP and successor TRUMAN was briefly a member of the KKK which is rarely mentioned by progs; who claim it was only for anti-RCC reasons. TRUMAN told his wife Bess 'one man is as good as another as long as he's honest, decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman'. Uncle Will [ROGERS?] said 'the Lord made white men from dust, niggers from mud, then tossed up what was left and it came down as Chinamen!' Thought blacks should be in Africa, yellows in Asia, whites in Europe and America. A close associate of FDR's was KKK long-timer Sen [1935-47] Theodore BILBO D-MS, that state's leading prog. His fight was against what he called 'mongrelization' of the US population. FDR relied on him and many other racist Dems to push through his ['plantation'] agenda, notably Samuel RAYBURN D-TX, later Speaker of the House. He criticized pres. HOOVER for opposing segregation, abolishing lynching and promoting a deal with negros. Also criticized GOP for sending 'carpetbaggers' to the South 'to crush the [greatest] white civilization on earth'. Longtime clansman Hugo BLACK D-AL altered his resume to downplay that association. When confronted about it during his SC vetting process, his excuse was that the clan is 'the undergound Dem Party in AL' (i.e. HAD to join) which was true but also telling (also dishonest, he likely was HAPPY to join). A later similar case was Harry BIRD D-TX. Even Bill CLINTON once said 'you HAD to be in the KKK to get elected'. FDR [like Bill C], ever the consummate political dissembler (156), pretended he had 'no idea' regarding Harry BLACK's KKK membership ['shocked, shocked']. But much later, in 1968, Justice BLACK admitted in a memo that 'FDR knew and never said it was a problem; some of his best friends were clansmen!'.

- A Fascist Superhero (156)

Notice that these (leading prog) Dem-Klan connections are much more recent than those of, say, Confederate Gen Nathan Bedford FORREST, founder of the 19C KKK. Yet his statues are torn down by progs [BLM, Antifa] and NOT FDR's. There's no indication of even ambivalence of progs toward FDR's racist legacy. Same for TRUMAN, Hugo BLACK, Sam RAYBURN and Robt BYRD (latter enjoys MANY named schools, hospitals, roads [not to mention statues] ... in WV). These are all given a pass. In fairness, its likely that most BLM/Antifa activists don't even know FDR's (or et al's) links to KKK racism. Here again we encounter 'the big lie' (of omission this time) to hide Dem (prog) complicity in 'the worst crimes of American history'. But few have benefitted more from this coverup than FDR. DD finds his famous statement 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself' to be idiotic; like hearing a doctor say this to a cancer diagnosis. No, we'd say, I fear the DIAGNOSIS, not fear! I want you to DO something about it, not just quell the fear. And FDR did NOT remove the thing to be feared (e.g. Great Depression, bankrupcies ... of the '30s). Only WWII did that [with a LOT of bad side-effects]. DD says its like Peter SELLERS' 'Being There' in which the lead character 'utters pedestrian banalities and absurdities which are then hailed by elites as profundities!?' FDR deserves NO credit for ending the Great Depression, though DD does ack his leadership defeating the Nazis and fascists in that war (with help from the Red Army). But that also helped progs conceal his much friendlier and indeed more intimate relationship to both [closely related to each other and 'left-liberalism' (misnamed)] ideologies in the previous decade i.e. '30s]. He and most progs had greatly admired both Mussolini and Hitler, and they his New Deal (DD calls it 'a mutual admiration society'). Its important at this point to discuss the real meaning of fascism; an appeal to envy/hatred of successful entrepreneurs in order to mobilize political action against them. Also the equivalent of German 'gleichshaltung' (pol. correctness, wokeness, right-thinking, hi-low coalition, divide and conquer ...). Indeed, these fascist tactics have been in use at least since the beginning of the 19C 'Dem plantation' and continue to this day. Its true that WW envisioned it long before FDR, but latter gets credit (blame) for actually implementing it. Only FDR had (and used) M & H as models. He used the Great Depression as 'a crisis not going to waste' to implement what Americans never would've otherwise supported. Fascists were socialists [M/H both lifelong socialists] but not in the Marxist way; this new national socialism did NOT involve the nationization of industry or worker control of it. Rather, govt (WH = 'the big house') control of major sectors of economy i.e. state-directed capitalism [ESG, wokeness]. The signature New Deal program was the Natl Recovery Act, which was explicitly modelled on Euro fascism [M/H] and admin'd by one of FDR's closest advisors and a devotee of Mussolini, Rexford TUGFORD. He openly praised fascism [we could politely call it 'managed capitalism'] which they recog'd as leftist and even 'more progressive than the New Deal'. This fascist influence was also recog'd by HOOVER, who warned of its dangers to America. RR too (cf opening quote). Imagine what they'd say today re e.g. Obamacare, which involves increased levels of govt control of healthcare and, since then, other power grabs over investment, energy, education ... ('the commanding heights'). These are, again, not typical socialist programs involving worker control, but involve control by ELITES in govt and industry. BHO was even able to fire GM CEO Rick WAGONER, a Nazi-like tactic. Other Nazi tactics used recently are 'the politics of class hatred' and enforced cultural conformity (more on those later). But 1 big thing FDR did NOT share w/M/H: they were dictators, he was not, though he did have 'dictatorial instincts'. Some progs, esp. Walter LIPPMAN, advocated that he SHOULD invoke those powers, but he mostly chose not to, to his credit. A case where we did cross the line was threatening to pack the SCOTUS, causing it to 'back down' and accept his New Deal programs. So, unlike M/H, FDR had to build and maintain a pol. coalition to be re-elected; 'a particular American brand of fascism'. He did it by abandoning Van BUREN's strategy of setting up decentralized urban 'plantations' led by 'big men'. Those were replaced by a centralized version where the WH becomes 'the big house' and the president its 'massa'. Sadly, this new system has been pol. successful and also very attractive to prog 'seekers of power' [brings out worst in most pols]. 'Who said exploitation can't be fun?' LBJ, WJC and BHO all enthusiastically continued this model. FDR saw himself as 'a kind of fascist superhero', not in H but in M mode. Thus began the prog PR project of burying and entombing their own idolization of the fascist project. As part of that, the terms 'fascism' and 'Nazism' had to be redefined in such a way as to project them onto the Right. So 'the big lie' regarding race was expanded to incorporate altering the meanings of those terms.

- How the Nazis Viewed FDR (161)

Few today (on Left OR Right) understand what fascism means e.g. Left portrays TRUMP and GOP as being fascist, since they're said to be 'authoritarian' (not), ultra-nationalist (OK, we love America, yes) and racist (not). MAGA to them means 'like H toward Germany' [recently heard a leftist say Trump is like Kaiser; MGGA, both Kaiser and TRUMP on Right, love their nations, no, truth is M/H on Left, HATE them in their present form, like ALL leftists, Trump loves America]. But, as DD showed in 'The Big Lie', fascists are more (and different) than typical dictators (who aren't all fascist either). TRUMP is NOT an authoritarian, since if he were he certainly would NOT have tolerated (while president) how he was treated in MSM [i.e. he would've acted like fascist Left does now [2024], using censorship, surveillance, cancel-culture ...]. M & H 'sent goons to shut up their pol. opponents overnight'. Tho Left calls Trump racist for his immigration policies, wanting strong borders for your beloved country (or strong national defense) is NOT racist, since 'illegal is NOT a race'. He wants to end 'chain' migration and boost 'skills' migration, making him like other sane leaders who seek what their countries need. His (and their) natl-ism is nothing more than trad Amer patriotism. Also, natl-ism is NOT a distinguishing feature of fascism or Nazism e.g. Gandhi was a natl-ist, as was MANDELA. Other anti-colonialists were, to a man, natl-ists; Winston CHURCHILL and Chas de GAULLE. The American Founders and AbeL, it makes no sense to call these men fascists. Moreover, M/H were NOT natl-ists in the traditional & Trumpian sense. M once reviled the Italian flag as a 'rag' to be 'planted on a dung hill'. He saw trad natl-ism as 'a scheme for the capitalist class - the bourgeoisie - to win the loyalty of the people and protect its class privileges' (recognizably leftist). He resolved to 'remake' Italy much like BHO in 2008 ['Amer is the greatest nation in the world, join us as we fundamentally transform it' !?]. His allegiance was not to the nation in general but only to his fascist conception of it (after remaking it). Same with H; he HATED the traditional Germany of his time, sought to overturn and remake it (again, recognizably leftist). His loyalty was neither to trad Wilhelmine Germany nor to the Weimar Republic, both of which he saw as decadent. He was dedicated only to his own futuristic ideal of what he termed the 'Volkish' or fascist state [peoples' republic]. Tho self-styled neo-Nazi's may like TRUMP and MAGA (cf later chapter), but they're confused, since M/H admired NOT Amer GOP leaders but leftist ones like FDR! At 1st M thot more of FDR than H (cf Stanley PAYNE's bk 'A Short History of Fascism'). M condescended toward H at their 1st mtg, only changing his mind after H's successful conquests. M' review of FDR's bk 'Looking Forward' said 'FDR's policies were reminiscent of the ways and means by which fascism awakened the Italian people'. M thot there was 'a lot' of fascism in FDR i.e. state no longer merely leaves economy to its own devices, but guides it, intervenes in it 'for the common good' [or at least the elites']. German newspapers said FDR's leadership style resembled 'fuehrer-ism' i.e. collective good before individual self-interest. cf historian John Patrick DUGGINS' '72 bk 'M & Fascism' and also German hist. Wolfgang SCHIVELBUSCH's '3 New Deals'. Even Ira KATZNELSON's admirable bk 'artfully leaves out the most incriminating quotes'. So the whole subject of fascism and Nazism is surrounded today by 'a thick vapor of vagueness and obfuscation' [like lib Chr SCHLIERMACHER did for theology, making his name appropriate; 'haze- or gauze-maker']. Young progs today scream against fascism and Nazism on the Right but have no idea their own heroes are and were 'neck deep' in it! We can't really blame them, though, since its all been covered up BY DESIGN by earlier progs, the main goal of which has been to portray F-ism and N-ism as rightwing phenomena. So let's 'turn on the light and look behind the mirror' [or curtain, like Oz] to see the truth.

- Fascism at its Core (164)

What is fascism? FDR's 4-29-38 message to Congress said 'unhappy events abroad have taught us [Americans] a simple truth: democratic liberalism is NOT safe if people tolerate the growth of private power to the point of being more powerful than the democratic state itself' [i.e. what today's woke-sters are actually DOING, using govt to cajole or force private media, elites, corps, deep state ... to push ordinary citizens aside to hijack America]. So according to FDR, fascism is ownership (or at least control) of govt by an individual, group or any other controlling private power [or public/private coalition]. So here we see FDR being one of the earliest inventors (or at least purveyors) of 'the Big Lie'. Fascism is NOT about private power, but unchecked GOVT power! Not a private t/o of govt but its opposite, a govt t/o (or at least the invasion) of private or 'civil society' (& power[s]; religion, family, communities, companies, orgs ... BURKE's intermediary institutions that are supposed to form a buffer between govt and individual citizens, w/o which latter are 'naked' and vulnerable to former. FDR redefined fascism to make HIMSELF look like the savior, but he was LEADING the actual fascist forces (while calling it 'anti-fascist', like today's BLM, Antifa, Jane's Revenge, Hamas, Hezbollah ...). Wow, bald-faced deception (lie, cheat, steal, kill)! Sadly, the lie still lives; a May 2017 NYT op-ed by Henry Scott WALLACE (grandson of FDR's 2nd VP Henry W) defined fascism as 'the merger of state and corporate power', saying his grandpa was a 'champion of the people' v. fascism (and DJT's GOP like fascist groups of 1930s). He doesn't mention that his grandpa was a socialist and HITLER was the head of the Natl Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP). Today's progs say Hitler wasn't really a socialist, he just said that to get elected. But DD says no, both Mussolini and Hitler were authentic lifelong socialists, supporting true fascism, which involves the centralization of power in the national state. M's motto was 'everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state' (drafted by Giovanni GENTILE, the then-leading [Italian] philosopher of fascism). M built the 1st fascist regime in the world [hmmm, how about ancient barbaric empires ... maybe 1st MODERN one]. GG said state authority must NOT be subject to negotiation, must be unconditional, even morality and religion must be subordinated to it. Alfredo ROOCO: fascism means society is the end, individuals the means, latter should be USED as instruments for former's social ends i.e. collectivism. The state is seen as 'a living organism', individuals as 'mere cells'. 2nd feature; foward-looking (hates or at least ignores the past, sees anyone who disagrees as reactionary, fascist, R-wing acc. to Left). But even prog historian Roger GRIFFIN rejects that mischaracterization, since fascism is anti-cons, always revolutionary, forward-looking thrust (hates past, God, religion, family, nations, sees past as 'a nightmare to escape' rather than any type of guide). Fascism is really an alternative modernism (v. the cons truth-based one) rather than a rejection of it. Italian futurists joined and merged with Italian fascism. Same for Germany. Historians like A James GREGOR say fascism & communism 'recruited from the same sorts of people'; malcontents who hate their own religion, society, family, nation, traditions ... (utopians or distopians). Does this sound R-wing or L-wing? Duh! BHO 2012: 'govt is the 1 thing we all belong too' (eeuw). Vs. Amer Fndrs: it belongs to US! M was a Marxist like Antonio GRAMSCI (the most famous Marxist in Italy). Zeev STERNHELL (historian) said Mussolini never said a word against socialism as a system of thought. He created the fascist party with (a coalition of) revolutionary socialists and Syndicalists in the early 20C and the 1st (modern) fascist state in 1922. There were also fascist movements in England (Oswald MOSLEY), France, Germany, Belgium ... and ALL early fascist leaders were 'men of the left' w/o exception. This is clear in the 25-point Nazi platform; nationalize corporations and trusts, govt control of financial industry, seize land, split into smaller units, confiscate war profits, pass usury laws, abolish income w/o work (aka 'unearned income'), profit sharing for workers, universal free healthcare [Kamala: 'public safety, health, educ i.e. your safety, health and educ are in OUR hands! bwaahahaha! hands rubbing :-) ]. None of this sounds like DJT! But it nevertheless DOES sound eerily familiar. If we replace 'usury' with interest, 'Jews' with Wall St greed [or white, male, straight, Christian] we see which side is promoting the Nazi agenda today. HITLER went MUCH further than Mussolini since Germans are famously punctilious (v. Italian lacky-daisy enforcement). H enforced 'gleichshaltung' (today's pol. correctness). Swastikas displayed publicly were really 'virtue signaling', displaying a willingness to serve H's interests, to be servants, even slaves to his fascist state (workers on 'the plantation' with Hitler as 'massa'). Today's PC or wokeness means Christian bakers must be FORCED to into line. Unlike H, M did NOT despise Jews. Angelo OLIVETTI (Jewish) was a prominent fascist leader. Gotz ALY's 2 recent bks show that even German racism [like today's Dems'] 'served the cause of the Left'. It's important to see WHY Nazism hated Jews; NOT because they were failures but because they were successful! i.e. the hatred was rooted in ENVY. H distinguished between financial (bad) v. productive (good) capitalism. Nazism sought to unite society's 'suckers and losers' in a coalition to steal their wealth and spread it around (like Dems with GOP $). Important to see who the beneficiaries are. cf Nazi pol. theorist Carl SCHMITT: the point of politics is to help your friends and hurt your enemies! For many Germans of that era, it was their 1st chance to own a car, go on vacation, have a nice environment, pension, welfare ... even luxury. They were, in effect, 'Hitler's satisfied thieves'. Whereas other socialists only promised, he actually DELIVERED! But like the old saying goes; any govt that promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can count on Paul's support! :-) This is exactly what FDR did; confiscate and redistribute wealth [added a new type of person; one who votes v. works for a living!'].

- That Admirable Italian Gentleman (169 i.e. Mussolini acc. to FDR)

Let's see how FDR created an American version of fascism, in the process transforming the 'prog plantation'. In 1933 a journalist asked him what he thought of MUSSOLINI. 'I don't mind telling you that I've kept in fairly close touch with that A I G'. Later the same year he told US Amb. to Rome (Breckinridge LONG) there's 'no doubt we're interested in each other and ways to restore [I'd add irony quotes] both Italy and USA'. This enthusiasm was echoed by most other progs of the era. Leftwing historian Chas BEARD wrote of M's regime: Its been an amazing experiment ... don't worry about the 'harsh deeds and extravagant assertions' [like STALIN's 'gotta break some eggs to make an omelet] ... don't let those obscure the potentialities and lessons of the adventure [i.e. ends justify (fascist) means, the classic path to tyranny and ruin]. Herbert CROLY, ed. of 'The New Republic', insisted that fascism offered potential for 'the spiritual reconstruction of society' [uh oh]. Even crooner Cole PORTER picked up the theme; 'you're the top, you're Mussolini' in his '30s hit song (that reference was tactfully and quietly removed a few years later when M invaded Ethiopia). FDR sent members of his 'Brain Trust' to fascist Rome to study their policies, and a 2nd (admin) team to study their organizational structure of govt. FDR advisor Rexford TUGWELL, upon his return from Rome, wrote 'fascism is the cleanest, neatest, most efficient operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious' [too bad for him that its unconstitutional in the US]. FDR saw his NRA (Natl Recovery Act) as the most important of his New Deal programs: it was directly modelled on Italian fascism, empowering the federal govt to establish coalitions of labor/mgt in every industry to set production targets, wages, prices and even max/min work hours. Those agreements were to be reviewed by a govt-run IAB (Industrial Advisory Board) answerable to FDR himself. According to Rexford T, NRA was designed to 'eliminate the anarchy of the competitive system' [i.e. econ freedom]. FDR's NRA leader Gen Hugh JOHNSON was an avowed admirer of fascism who loved being associated with what he termed the 'shining name' of Mussolini. He carried and often quoted from the fascist propaganda pamphlet 'The Structure of the Corporate State' written by a MUSSOLINI aid. NRA issued its similar [but more careful] brochure Capitalism and Labor Under Fascism; it ack'd that 'fascist principles are very similar to those evolving in America'.

So we've seen how FDR was ideologically shaped by Italian fascism, now let's explore how, like the Nazis, he made pol. use of racism. FDR wasn't himself a racist, at least not of the extreme form that HITLER was. But he also was not above making a Faustian pact with his party's worst bigots in order to get his agenda passed. The conventional story is how he won pol. support for the New Deal by assembling an amazing coalition of big city bosses, poor white Southerners, farmers, laborers, RCCers, Jews and other ethnics and blacks. But as prog historian Ira KATZNELSON points out, these groups were NOT equally important for FDR e.g. most blacks in the South did NOT vote (due to voter suppression by Dems). True, a black migration to N cities had begun, but FDR already HAD those cities [migration likely organized by Dem Party]. What FDR needed was racist Dems in the South who sat on important Congressional committees with power to accelerate or block New Deal policies, especially the TN Valley Project and others in their districts. These Dems made 3 demands; 1st design programs to exclude blacks (e.g. Social Security, farm labor & domestic worker rules ... mostly black). These exclusions lasted thru TRUMAN admin, and were only stopped by GOP in Ike's '50s admin. 2nd protect Southern segregation (FDR also blocked integration in armed forces, even though he had the power not to, so in fact US had 2 armies in WWII, black and white). Mil. desegregation happened in TRUMAN admin. Progs also prevented GOP from attaching anti-discrimination provisions to social programs (until Ike's admin). 3rd and most damning; don't block lynching. FDR said yes to all of these demands (even though there was a surge in lynchings at the time, prompting GOP and even some Dems to seek legislation against it, but couldn't pass w/o FDR's support, which he withheld). That had to wait until former clansman TRUMAN's admin. FDR and SC Dem James BYRNES and others worried that anti-lynching laws would 'arouse ill-feeling between the sections' and 'destroy the Dem Party', so FDR was less concerned with black rights than getting his New Deal done and maintaining Dem control in the South and in N cities (and Congress). DD: not only FDR, but also N Dems were complicit in this. A 1937 anti-lynching bill was killed after being denounced by prog N Dem Wm BORAH of ID. So while S Dems unsurprisingly LAUNCHED the proceeding to kill the bill, it was (more surprising) N Dem support that sealed its fate. Ira K's 2nd point; Dem Party was crucial to eventually making Civil Rights bill possible (but THEY chose to NOT do that earlier). HAD the New Deal ended the Depression, there may've been a case for it, but it did NOT! Also its longer term consequences have been mostly bad (as we'll see). DD thinks Ira K 'blows their cover' by admitting FDR's complicity with Southern Dem racism (and co-travelers with Nazis in many ways). Even this prog historian admits links to Nazi racism (at least he's honest) and the GOP's opposition to it. So the latter is the real Party of Civil Rights, both in the 1860s and the 1940s and beyond. Ira K is virtually the ONLY honest prog historian who 'lifts the veil' on FDR which the others have used to conceal the truth in 2 generations of prog biographies. Yet in the end, even Ira K disappoints, since he argues 'it was all worth it' to pass the New Deal (i.e. end justifies means, a fascist position).

- Shifting the Blame (173 i.e. transferrence)

Finally, let's see how FDR reconstructed the Dem coalition by taking a page, actually 2 pages, from the early record of the Nazis. 1st, he ID'd and demonized an internal enemy; rich GOPers. Starting with his inaugural address in 1933 and continuing with his 1936 Dem Party Nomination address, he castigated wealthy GOPers and conservatives in the same type of language that HITLER used against the Jews. He called GOP businessmen 'money changers' and 'economic royalists', accused them of 'creating a new despotism', and 'economic tyranny'. His New Deal (in his view) had challenged these 'privileged princes' who sought to oppress 'political freedom' by imposing 'economic slavery' on the American people. 'They hate me', he said, 'and I WELCOME their hatred'. We need to 'expose and route these greedy swindlers' [as HITLER had also called Jews] so we valiant New Dealers can create the largest progressive democracy in the world. DD is tempted to say that FDR invented the language of class warfare, which has since been taken up by subsequent generations of Dems and has now become a staple of prog politics e.g. in 1948 TRUMAN railed against 'princes of privilege' and 'bloodsuckers' with Wall Street offices. And today we hear the same language from PELOSI, SCHUMER, HILLARY and OBAMA [and ...]. But in truth HITLER was the source of this. Sure, we also find the same language in MARX and socialist rhetoric, but of course HITLER [like MUSSOLINI before him] WAS a lifelong socialist. But HITLER was the 1st political top leader to use this demonizing language, and FDR the 2nd. Both recognized that envy is a very powerful human force. Its power derives not merely from its sheer wickedness - we detest others for the mere fact that they're more successful than we are - but also from its secrecy. We rarely confess envy to others; we're reluctant to admit it even to ourselves [since that would trigger shame, we'd feel pathetic]. Thus envy is the worst of the deadly sins, even more potent for operating covertly. No politician can openly appeal to it. So it has to be mobilized deceitfully behind 'the banner of social justice'. Both HITLER and FDR did this. The point of creating an internal enemy is to [evilly] justify steeling from them [immorally]. Both HITLER and FDR accused their victims of being thieves. Neither explained how exactly, the important thing is whipping up 'the mob', appealing to our worst impulses and 'freeing' the evil to flow freely out of the dark recesses of our souls. While HITLER and MUSSOLINI didn't need to build pol. coalitions [since they were dictators], FDR did. How? By transforming the big city 'machines' into a single national one with the WH as 'the Big House'. He worked with 'the bosses' as needed and dumped them when possible. As a state senator, FDR had opposed NYC's infamous Tammany Hall machine. They retaliated by throwing their pol. support behind FDR's rival [RCC] Al SMITH in the 1932 Dem primary. But once FDR won that race, he 'made peace' with Tammany since he needed their support in the general election. But the very next year in office he again turned against them, allying with GOPer Fiorello La GUARDIA to destroy Tammany. For that, the latter got his name on 1 of the 2 most important NYC airports. FDR could've saved Tammany, but instead 'took the kill shot' (Jay COST's phrase). In the end, Tammany was doomed not just by FDR but by the federal govt i.e. the latter was able to swamp (dwarf) the former as a source of money and patronage. By the 1940s it had collapsed and WA DC took over the role (w/o competition). Yet FDR still needed mechanisms to rally pol. support, to keep Dems in power, which leads us to the next section.

- Tammany on the Potomac (176)

FDR found that support in the unions. Here the prog account gets all 'romantic and dewy-eyed'. Even [otherwise mostly fair and balanced] KATZNELSON indulges in rhapsodic descriptions of how FDR empowered unions to get a better deal for workers. Though ostensibly all voluntary, DD says not so, since this wasn't the arrangement that really mattered. Once again we must look 'behind the mask' of prog concealment. The main deal was NOT the one between unions and management. Rather it was the one between unions and the Dem Party! From FDR's Point of View, the government [controlled by Dems] would pass laws that not only enabled unions to exist but FORCED all workers to join (as long as a majority voted to accept the union [and Dems are very good at rigging votes]). Dues would be mandated from all union members and the govt would thwart companies from firing union workers who strike and force them to be hired back afterward. The govt would also pressure (force) management to cave to union demands i.e. full force of govt behind unions; a 'finger on the scale'. The best part for govt is they don't have to fund the unions, they can just force companies (and workers) to pay for them. Govt is just the 'heavy' (gorilla) that beats the private sector into submission. And there's more. Unions won't focus just on worker benefits as before. They'll also join other Dem groups in pushing the Dem party line e.g. New Deal (i.e. inflate the welfare state ad infinitum). So the system not only rips off the employers, but also the taxpayers. A great deal, but Dems wanted something in exchange for helping run this extortion racket; for unions to also pressure their workers to vote Dem i.e. to bolster and grow 'the Plantation' so the racket could go on indefinitely. Ironically, it was a Tammany man (NY Sen Robt WAGNER), an FDR adversary, who 1st spotted the potential for a union racket. He sponsored the 1935 Natl Labor Relations Act [NLRA] creating a pro-union federal board to actively intervene in labor disputes. The next year [1936], FDR demonstrated to workers what the govt could do for them (unions). The UAW went on strike against GM, shutting down the Flint, MI plant. Violence ensued as the union forcibly (and unlawfully) occupied it. GM asked the govt to intervene, but neither MI Dem Gov Frank MURPHY nor FDR helped. FDR's Labor Sec'y Frances PERKINS then urged GM President Alfred SLOAN to come to WA DC to negotiate with UAW leader John LEWIS under federal auspices [rigging]. SLOAN refused as long as his plant was being unlawfully occupied, reasonably holding that the govt should 1st help him defend his own property [after all a key reason for govt]. The general public supported SLOAN in this. But FDR attacked him for 'recalcitrance' and finally SLOAN succumbed. Soon other auto industry leaders 'got the message'. The oldest and most powerful AFL union stayed aloof for awhile, while new spin-off CIO sided with FDR from the get-go. But others swung over and eventually AFL would relent and join the others. In this way FDR was able to remake the 'Dem Plantation' with this new union racket. It continues to this day, though unions have gotten weaker since then. DD cites BHO's 'bludgeoning' of GM's workers at the expense of GM stockholders and taxpayers in the wake of the 2008 crash. The Nazi govt didn't negotiate with unions, they simply displaced them and incorporated worker protection into the govt. FDR's version outlasted him and his administration. While Europe's 'fascist plantations' collapsed by 1945, FDR's 'incorporation of fascist ideology and strong-arm tactics into his new Dem plantation system is still with us today'.

Let's face it. Our ass is in a crack. We're gonna have to let this nigger bill pass
- LBJ to Sen John STENNIS in 1957

8 Civil Rights and Wrongs: LBJ, Nixon and the Myth of the S Strategy (179)

DD opens by noting many 'flip-flops' among pols and thinkers, sees these as more minor and possibly temporary (i.e. opportunistic?). Then there are more significant volte face cases e.g. RR leaving Dems for GOP (he said 'they left me'). Also whole groups e.g. Soviet Commie party of America [CPUSA] which in '91 abolished itself. CHURCHILL on political consistency; he defends it as 'changing tactics but not goals, values' e.g. like in sailing leaning to left or right depending on wind direction aka 'trimming' (to maximize its help in getting to where you're going). Hmmm. Another would be large-scale black migration to GOP after LINCOLN (and today) and S Dems switching to GOP in late '60s [i.e. RMN's '68 win v. Hubert HUMPHREY, what the Left likes to call NIXON's 'Southern Strategy' which THEY think is based on racism & white supremacy, but we see as just common sense; why support the party that's destroying your religion, family, country, world ... and keeping you on a new 'urban plantation']. The GOP was losing its NE [Puritan New England] base so benefited from these Southerners, as well as many from Midwest and West (except coastal areas of E/W). LBJ was indeed a racist but is still lionized as a 'civil rights champ'!? Odd that they call GOP racist but ignore LBJ's racism (obviously part of 'the Big Lie'). They accused GOP of using 'dog whistles', being quasi-fascists [tho the 2 most notable real fascists, MUSSOLINI and HITLER, were lifelong socialists and thus 'men of the Left'] ... we've seen how WW, FDR and now LBJ were very good 'dissemblers', but latter is 'the most cynical of all 3'. They've tried using 'the Big Lie' to do a giant 'switcho-chango'; THEIR racist past [and present] for a fake GOP [racist, fascist ...] present'. They want to peel the label off themselves and stick it on GOP!?

- How Does a Racist Change His Spots? (183)

We begin with LBJ since he drove CRA & VRA (Civil/Voting Rights Acts) of 1964 to passage in Congress. A man of the South who lived through the transformation of both parties and embodied 'the big switch' (i.e. the Dem strategy of recasting themselves as the 'good guys' and GOP as 'bad guys', mainly wanting to take the racist label off Dems and wrap it around GOP with the evil 'Southern Strategy' of RMN). LBJ was a prog racist who appears [portrayed by progs] to have become a prog anti-racist. A Dem 'bad guy' -> prog 'good guy'. DD's wife Debbie graduated from LBJ's TX State Univ in San Marcos, TX, where he's still seen today as a sort of demigod (has a street, student center named for him and statue(s) on campus). Antifa and BLM will never touch THESE racist artifacts! Their 'take' on LBJ is even more positive than FDR (at least regarding race)! He's their 'flawed giant' per Robt DALLEK's book title, 'the big guy' according to FRADY. They acknowledge that he USED to be a racist (undeniable), blaming it on his dirt-poor rural TX background, but 'the hick' supposedly underwent a 'moral transformation', or paraphrasing BHO; 'the arc of his life bent toward justice' :-). When he got power he used it for good [they say; certainly of THEIR pol. good]. Bill MOYERS said LBJ told him CRA would cost Dems the South for a long time to come. But such an altruistic spin on such a famously cynical man 'almost inspires wonder' (says DD, more likely manipulation, PR). They of course want to apply this to the entire Dem Party i.e. selflessly giving up the South to further their high moral purposes. But, as DD says, this is 'unbelievable and fantastic'. Even prog LBJ biographer Robt CARO found in LBJ 'a hunger for power in its most naked form, NOT to improve others' lives but to manipulate and dominate them to his will'. Similarly, lefty Doris Kearns GOODWIN heard LBJ admit he thought about politics (i.e. power) 18hrs a day. So there's NO evidence of any moral transformation or conversion in LBJ's life documented by any prog author. FBI guy name? claimed he'd been a KKK member (from recently unveiled JFK files). Also, one can't ascribe moral idealism to a manifestly dishonest man (184). In a key 1965 speech he spoke of segregationism and frank white supremacy as a detached observer rather than the active participant he always was. As if 'the dude who poisoned the well was now offering to be the water commissioner'. So basically he lied about this, posed as something he was NOT. All who knew him agree he was nasty, a bully, crude, selfish, mean-spirited, personally and sexually abusive ... not the profile of 'a moral exemplar undergoing a crisis of conscience. His behavior with females 'wouldn't survive 5 minutes of scrutiny by #MeToo and he, like JFK and Bill CLINTON, reflects 'the priapic aggression of the prototypical 19C plantation boss' (186). But LBJ enjoyed 'lording it over' everyone, not just women. He derived pleasure from degrading and humiliating others. He was a pervert in every sense of the word, and this 'the whole time' (not pre- any xformation). Same for his racism; he liked to refer to 'uppity niggers' and when he nominated Thurgood MARSHALL as SCJ in 1965, some suggested a lesser known (better qualified) black, but he said 'that guy's only known by you and his mama, I want EVERYONE to know he's a nigger!'. This was the year after he'd helped pass the CRA. LBJ said the Watts Riots of CA proved blacks would never be able to control themselves and they'd soon be 'pissing on the Senate floor ...'. This shows he was NEVER rehabilitated from his earlier KKK views. He once asked his black chauffeur what he'd like to be called; 'boy, nigger or chief', and when Robt PARKER replied 'how about by my name', LBJ said 'no way, you'll never be known by that'. During the 1957 debates regarding civil rights, LBJ told segregationist Sen Richard RUSSELL 'we gotta give'em just a little, not too much, just enough to quiet'em down [since they were getting 'uppity'], but NOT enough to actually make a difference' (i.e. 'toss'em a bone'). All this shows his support of CRA was never a moral awakening but merely a cynical strategy to keep them on-side. He even bragged 'I'll have them niggers votin' Dem for 200yrs' (as 2 governors heard him say regarding the '64 CRA). So he was ALWAYS a vile, bigoted Dem' and there was NO enlightening conversion.

- LBJ's Shrewd Calculation (188)

- Plantation Confessions (191)

- Party of Civil Rights (196 i.e. GOP)

- Did the Parties Switch Platforms? (198, no but Dems want you to think so)

- Why Blacks Became Dems (200)

- Reexamining the Southern Strategy (202)

- Learning from Goldwater's Mistake (206)

- How the S Became GOP (208 e.g. Dems now hate white male straight Christians)

Nowhere in the ancient or modern world ... is there the idea that people will become self-sufficient if they're given a lifetime income that's slightly better than subsistence w/no requirement either to work or educate themselves
- Shelby Steele, A Dream Deferred

9 Multiculti Plantations: Expanding the Culture of Dependency (212)

- Streetwise (215)

- Worst Places on the Planet (220)

- Learned Helplessness (224)

- Overseers w/o a Plantation (228)

- Rez [Native Reservation] Life (231)

- The Multi-Culti Plantation (235)

- Deploying the Big Lie (240)

All you heard from the [2016 Hillary] Clinton campaign was African American this, AA that. The same w/Hispanics and Latinos ... Nothing about white people ... I'm a white male [and likely Chr straight], no way was I going to vote for her
- WTF1958, blog post response to an article posted on CNN

10 Holdouts: Dems and the Problem of White People (243)

- The Know-Nothing Endorsement (246)

- The Obama-Trump Voter (249)

- What the Hillbillies Figured Out (251 e.g. the Left hates them [always has])

- Like Voting for his Dad (255)

- Elephant in the Living Room (258)

- ID Politics for Whites (263)

- Who is Richard Spencer? (267 i.e. NOT a conservative)

Go down, Moses, way down to Egypt land, and tell old Pharaoh, let my people go
- Negro Spiritual

11 Emancipation: How American Natl-ism Can Save the Country (273)

- A Similar Situation (277)

- The Wolf and the Lamb (279)

- 2 Big Lies (282 i.e. 1 fascism is right-wing 2 racism defines cons and GOP)

- Plantation Control (285)

- A Glorious History (286 i.e. of Lincoln and the GOP)

- Party of Lincoln (288)

Trump must re-Lincolnize the GOP, by:

1 opposing racial preferences and affirmative action [i.e. ID politics]

2 invade Dem plantation, restore entrepreneurship, jobs and opportunity to America's barrios, ghettos, reservations i.e. to 'the Dem plantation' ... via tax incentives, dereg, arm-twisted that Trump specializes in, and suspension of destructive family/social policies of Left that encourage illegitimacy, crime and civic brkdown. GOP already has formula, just need 'spine' to enact it ... don't just 'improve' life for 'plantation' residents, destroy it and free them.

3 need cleansing antidote of truth [Truth] ... Dems not content to promote lies, they now insist we collaborate and bow down to their lies, just as 1860s Dems demanded all stop calling slavery 'wrong' and join them in calling it 'right' ... the enforcement of PC has been a Dem strategy from Lincoln's [Jackson's?] day to our own

Econ 4-27-19: noted that upon 1877 departure of [reforming] Pres. U S Grant, 'Reconstruction' was ended and Dems began (continued) what they called their 'Redemption' (of pre-war South) i.e. continuing the 'plantation' idea there [my words]

DD's bks:
1 Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus 1991
2 The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society 1995
3 Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader 1997
4 The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence 2000
5 What's So Great About America 2002 (h)
6 Letters to a Young Conservative 2003
7 The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 2006
8 What's So Great About Christianity 11-4-2008
9 Life After Death: The Evidence 11-2-2009 (w/Rick Warren)
10 The Roots of Obama's Rage 2010
11 Godforsaken: Bad Things Happen. Is There a God Who Cares? Yes. Here's Proof 2-17-2012
12 Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream 8-13-2012 (FHL $2 5-31-16, hmmm)
['2016' movie was based on #10 and #12]
13 America: Imagine a World Without Her 6-2-2014
[DD was sent to a San Diego Federal Confinement Cntr 10-2-14 to 5-31-15, 8mos]
14 Stealing America: What My Experience w/Criminal Gangs Taught Me About Obama, Hillary, and the Dem Party (i.e. they ARE a criminal gang!) 11-17-15
['Hillary's America' movie released summer 2016 based on #14]
15 Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Dem Party 2016?
16 The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left 2017 (cf br-tbl, removes 'Nazi' arg from Dems)
17 Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics & the Making of the Dem Party 2018 (cf br-DoN, rem 'racist' ")

DD's 5 signs indicating America has become a 'police state' (his 'Police State' movie was released 10-27-23, he says these things e.g. Patriot Act ... were originated in a bipartisan way but now USED mainly by Dems)
1 rigged elections (right to vote denied)
2 political prisoners (e.g. >1500 1/6ers [later pardoned by DJT]; Steve BANNON, Roger STONE, Peter NAVARRO, DJT? ...)
3 unequal 'justice' (right to eq justice denied)
4 censorship, surveillance, 'shut down' (cancel culture ... free speech denied)
5 conscience (mandatory EXPERIMENTAL vaccines, closed churches, masks ... freedom of rel. observance, cntl over OUR bodies denied ... 'blanket' of laws so ANYONE can be 'gotcha'd' in something, like anc. Greek phil quote)