Counter-Currents
The Specter of Saint-Domingue Part II: The Horror of Saint-Domingue in the Antebellum South
Giles Corey
Auguste Raffet, Attack and take of the Crête-à-Pierrot, 1839.
2,671 words
As Saint-Domingue sank ever deeper beneath the churning waves of black filth, those whites fortunate enough to survive fled for the greater Caribbean, including the antebellum American South. The colonists were no longer welcome in their home of France, which, in any case, was too dangerous at the time. The experience of one of the planters of Saint-Domingue, newly arrived in Revolutionary France in May 1794, is telling. Scarcely had the Frenchman cast anchor when the port officer approached him, gleefully celebrating the extermination of his own race: “Well,” he exclaimed, “at last they are free; those unhappy slaves. After a century of abuse and torture, it was high time that they became your equals and enjoyed our precious liberty; for they are as much men as we ourselves.” The former planter wrote in a passage eerily reminiscent of the epidemic of ethnomasochistic racial treason that has consumed much of our race today:
I was silent; it was no time to reply. The guillotines were “en permanence” upon the public squares. . . in coach or barge, in public house or private home, at cross-road or on city square, everywhere I found the same prejudice, the same virulence against the colonist. . . It was a furious hatred which prevailed. . . of such intensity that our most terrible misfortunes did not excite the slightest commiseration. To those prejudiced minds, we appeared more guilty than the most abandoned criminals, to whom are often vouchsafed some dregs of pity. We colonists. . . destitute, ruined, impoverished, often fated to beg our bread, found only cold hearts and unfeeling souls. . . I could name a great number of persons, men and women, young and old, who to my story of misfortune merely answered, “You have richly deserved it!” Our detractors had poisoned against us all classes of society. . . the very day-laborers in the fields. These simple people, impressed only by striking ideas, remembered about us only those reports most sensational. . . In their opinion, we colonists were worse than cannibals, and they really believed that we were accustomed to mutilate, flay, and massacre our slaves. I was actually introduced to many persons so touched by the “unhappy lot of the slaves” that they had long since ceased to take coffee; thinking that they swallowed only blood and sweat in this sugared drink! [1]
The white refugees of Saint-Domingue were, at least initially, welcomed with open arms in the Southern ports of the United States. Louisiana was a popular destination, particularly New Orleans, as were other major ports, like Charleston, South Carolina. These whites brought two significant items of baggage: primary accounts of the horrors of Saint-Domingue, and black slaves who had just witnessed a merciless race war, and whose hearts were thus filled with the desire to follow its example. The blacks — and even some of the French whites — thus spread not only the grim tidings of black violence, but the very same egalitarian propaganda which had brought the cataclysm to fruition.
Significantly, the fall of Saint-Domingue may very well be seen as the single most important event that caused the Southern planters to grow increasingly recalcitrant about the abolition of slavery, even accompanied by colonization; in other words, the full sketch of black supremacy led Southerners to dig their heels in and hold closer the fiends whose freedom they well understood could not be countenanced. Innumerable accounts of the white genocide in Saint-Domingue “convinced Southerners that the only thing they could expect from freed slaves was vicious retaliation. . . three generations of white Southerners believed that race war would be the only result of the universal emancipation of slaves.” [2] Slavery thus came to represent for many the most effective means of white self-preservation.
The black republic of Haiti, rife with voodoo cannibalism, [3] also stood — and still stands in all of its disgusting putrescence — as proof of the inherent inferiority of blacks, of their native incapacity of participating in, let alone building anew, any semblance of a civilization. Haiti “represented an affront to the laws of nature, and the republic was therefore doomed to fail.” George Fitzhugh observed that “the fruits of freedom in that island, since its independence, in 1804, are revolutions, massacres, misrule, insecurity, irreligion, ignorance, immorality, indolence, and neglect of agriculture. . . wherever this race is found in a state of freedom, a blight and curse seem to follow.” Black slaves, however, looked at Haiti much as blacks today look to the fictional nation of “Wakanda,” as “an indication of the potentialities of black people,” as if blacks would achieve Great Power status were it not for the white colonizer. The Haitian insurrection thus formed an important part of a nascent black nationalist militancy and Pan-Africanism. [4]
As time wore on, the Haitian insurrection also served to inflame sectionalism in the prelude to the War for Southern Independence as Northern abolitionists made it explicitly clear that they desired to foment white genocide in the South. Shortly after the blacks renamed their putrid, smoking ruins of a country “Haiti,” Northern politicians pushed for American recognition of the black republic and the establishment of diplomatic and trade relations. Southerners were revolted at the very notion of normalizing such a vile land and state of affairs, especially given the ever-present danger of black insurrection within their own borders. In fact, it was only after the Southerners had resigned from Congress that the United States recognized Haiti. The statesman Hugh Legaré, speaking in opposition to the Northern-proposed American recognition of Haiti, expressed the Southern perspective well:
It is not for the paltry commerce of a horde of barbarians that agitation is beginning on this subject. It is because it affords a plausible pretext and a convenient opening to a continued discussion of that fatal question which has been agitated out of the House of late, with so much vehemence. . . My objection against this memorial is that it aims at abolition — is a part of a system — is not for the benefit of commerce, but for the ruin of the South. . . As sure as you live, Sir, if this course is permitted to go on, the sun of this Union will go down — it will go down in blood, and go down to rise no more. I will vote unhesitatingly against nefarious designs like these. They are treason. [5]
The universal praise and religious adulation given to the terrorist John Brown was the final nail in the coffin of union. Southerners fully and immediately understood that John Brown’s 1859 raid at Harpers Ferry, Virginia was “nothing more nor nothing less than an attempt to do on a vast scale what was done in St. Domingo in 1791,” and that “there is in the South a widespread organization of conspirators whose object is servile insurrection and the conflagration of Southern society.” The law of self-preservation thus required full-bore resistance to “Northern Jacobinism” and its demoniac missionaries, animated by “lust for Southern blood.” [6]
In response to reports that the abolitionist Lydia Child was keeping John Brown company as he awaited his execution, the First Lady of Virginia, appealing to the experiences of the whites of Saint-Domingue, wrote: “You would soothe with sisterly and motherly care the hoary-headed monster of Harper’s Ferry! A man whose aim and intention was to incite the horrors of servile war — to condemn women of your own race, ere death closed their eyes on their sufferings from violence and outrages, to see their husbands and fathers murdered, their children butchered, the ground strewed with the brains of their babies.” It is surely a testament to the singular resonance of the fall of Saint-Domingue that even after sixty or seventy years, Southerners so vividly recalled those horrific events as the fate that lay in store for them should the volcano erupt. [7]
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Graduate School with Heidegger here
As the nation split asunder in late 1860 and early 1861, the Northern Establishment openly sponsored the incitement of black insurrection against their own ostensible countrymen, their own racial kinsmen. Indeed, contemporary Northern abolitionists took to calling Toussaint Louverture the “Washington of San Domingo.” [8] President Abraham Lincoln’s 1862 Emancipation Proclamation was more than an attempt at retroactively grafting a narrative of moral profundity onto a war of ruthless conquest; in its words, Southerners saw a brazen attempt at conjuring a repeat of Saint-Domingue. The Confederate Congress condemned the tyrant’s attempt at “inciting servile war” and trying “to convert the South into a San Domingo by appealing to the cupidity, lusts, ambition, and ferocity of the slaves.” One Confederate officer wrote home that he saw it “as a direct bid for insurrection, as a most infamous attempt to incite flight, murder, and rapine on the part of our slave population.” [9]
Slaves who had lived in Saint-Domingue were often implicated in the formation of insurrectionary conspiracies, and many other black slaves looked to what had happened in Saint-Domingue as a divine call to arms. After the nightmarish Nat Turner insurrection in Southampton County, Virginia, citizens received a mysterious letter addressed from Boston, gloating that blacks were taking lessons from Haiti and “know how to use the knife, bludgeon, and the torch with effect — may the genius of Toussaint stimulate them to unremitting exertion.” Heeding the warning of John Randolph against the “introduction of slaves into this country, or of the maroons, brigands, or cutthroats from St. Domingo,” nearly every Southern state enacted legislation aimed at excluding slaves from the turbulent West Indies in an attempt to discourage the arrival of potential insurrectionary leaders. [10]
Many Southerners saw demographics as the key to preventing another Haiti in their own backyards, and, as such, were convinced that the uninhibited growth of the black population was to blame. South Carolina was the first state to take legislative action based upon this premise when, in 1792, it banned the importation of all new slaves into its borders. Early on, while French authorities maintained some scant control over the colony, they attempted to deport their most troublesome negroes from their West Indian possessions to the United States. Though some blacks did land in New England from Guadeloupe, this gambit failed, largely because the Americans were wise to the scheme. One Virginia newspaper warned that “the infernal French are disgorging the whole of their wretched blacks upon our shores.” [11] A report commissioned by Louisiana Territorial Governor W. C. C. Claiborne remarked thus:
Some few weeks ago. . . there passed up the fork from sea a vessel having on board some twelve negroes said to have been Brigands from the Island of St. Domingo. These negroes in their passage up were frequently on shore, and in the French language made use of many insulting and menacing expressions to the inhabitants. Among other things, they spoke of eating human flesh, and in general demonstrated great Savageness of character, boasting of what they had seen and done in the horrors of St. Domingo. [12]
Another lesson learned from the fall of Saint-Domingue was the extreme danger of egalitarian rhetoric in inflaming blacks. Indeed, “whatever revolutionary sentiment there had been in the South during the American Revolution soon lapsed into silence over the ominous events in St. Domingue. Southerners admitted refugees from St. Domingue as a humanitarian act; they cautiously excluded revolutionary ideology as an act of self-preservation.” As Whitemarsh Seabrook noted in an 1825 address in Charleston, “Our history has verified the melancholy truth, that one educated slave or colored freeman, with an insinuating address, is capable of infusing the poison of insubordination into a whole body of the black population.” [13] William Gilmore Simms agreed, seeing the tragedy of Saint-Domingue as “the introduction of troublesome ideas and people into a stable slave society.” [14]
Southerners saw themselves as living “on the edge of a precipice,” and if they did not guard against radical ideas and radical men, there might come “a crisis which may overwhelm this country as St. Domingo was destroyed — a single false slip may precipitate us — a spark may produce an explosion.” Thomas Jefferson wrote that “the recent scenes transacted in the French colonies in the West Indies are enough to make one shudder with the apprehension of realizing similar calamities in this country. Such probably would be the event of an attempt to smother those prejudices which have been cherished for a period of almost two centuries. . . if something is not done; and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our children.” [15]
Jefferson’s grandson, Thomas Randolph, agreed that blacks and whites could not “exist upon the same soil in an equality of condition; one will govern by force, the other will rebel in bloody massacre.” The Richmond Enquirer reported on the thousands of whites who “fell under the bloody hatchet of the Haitians, and the warm stream of blood which ran from them, [which] quenched the thirst of their murderers, who went to their knees to receive it.” The Enquirer went on to sound the alarm about this “dark and growing evil at our doors.” [16] John Taylor of Caroline shared the same fear, but rather than articulate them into a call for gradual emancipation and colonization, he believed that the only solution was to maintain and strengthen slavery as the only barrier standing in the way of a “war of extermination” initiated by the vengeful hordes. [17]
In his Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun cautioned that liberty, “when forced on a people unfit for it, would instead of a blessing, be a curse; as it would, in its reaction, lead directly to anarchy — the greatest of all curses.” Alexis de Tocqueville was likewise convinced that the natural and inevitable result of emancipating blacks and allowing them to remain in the United States with whites would be gruesome racial warfare. He warned Americans that “the most formidable of all the ills that threaten the future of the Union arise from the presence of a black population upon the territory.” Wherever blacks gained dominance, “they have destroyed the whites.” “This,” he continued, “has been the only balance that has ever taken place between the two races.” [18]
De Tocqueville spoke then not merely with prescience, but with eternal wisdom. Yes, the Jew is the Enemy. But the footsoldiers, the golems on the streets that menace our children, rape our women, and humiliate our brothers, the animals with whom we must deal with first, are the blacks. Blacks do not belong here. They never have, and they never will. Even if there ever comes a day when no whites are left in the land formerly known as America, it will still be ours. This land will never be theirs. Take courage, dear reader, for all is not lost. Let us rejoice at the account of a survivor of the abominable birth of Haiti: “I had a single combat with a large Mondogue negro. We sparred for some time. . . he was stronger, I was more agile. At last, he jumped for the little bottle of rum which I carry slung over my shoulder; happily, by a thrust well placed, I gave him a second mouth, a little beneath the one made by Nature; but I assure you that this time, Art surpassed Nature by at least two inches.” [19]
If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Notes
[1] T. Lothrop Stoddard, The French Revolution in San Domingo (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1914), pp. 239-41.
[2] Alfred N. Hunt, Haiti’s Influence on Antebellum America: Slumbering Volcano in the Caribbean (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), p. 2.
[3] Sir Spenser St. John, Hayti, or the Black Republic (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1884), pp. ix, xiii, 193-94, 197-200, 219-20, 223-26.
[4] Hunt, 2-3, 138.
[5] Mary Treudley, “The United States and Santo Domingo, 1789-1866,” The Journal of Race Development, Vol. 7, No. 2 (October 1916), pp. 220-274, 230.
[6] Hunt, 140.
[7] Ibid., 140-41.
[8] Ibid., 92-93.
[10] Ibid., 107-09 99.
[11] Ibid., 107-09, 112.
[12] Ibid., 113.
[13] Ibid., 107, 111, 114.
[14] Ibid., 130.
[15] Ibid., 122, 124.
[16] Ibid., 2, 5, 128.
[17] Ibid., 123.
[18] Ibid., 131, 137.
[19] Ibid., 21.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
28 comments
So what lessons do we learn from this affair?
1: Cheap labor is never cheap
2: Multi-cultural societies do not work
3: Egalitarian ideology leads to the destruction of civilization
4: White peoples need to stick together for mutual preservation
True in 1791 in the country formerly known as Saint-Domingue
True in 1859 in the American South
True in 1994 in South Africa
True in 2020 worldwide
Saint-Domingue is clear lesson never to under estimate your enemies and think low of them. A group of slaves who defeated one the best European armies at the time with all the equipment to supress any insurrection could not do it and was completely defeated from all angles. This is why i tell people don’t just go off by thinks you read or what people tell you. Its the same with current situation where a lot naive whites, think Asian are less of a threat and are so called ”compatible” to live in a Western society. With many sadly beta-simp white males dating and procreating with Asian women creating new Asian children. Canada has already become a Asian-satellite state where Asian culture and with all the communist, ethno-collectivist, crime, outbuying etc has take off to a new wave length. The Asians and especially the Chinese use western tolerance to leave parasites in the west so eventually it can eat the western world from within. And today we see the fruits of it….because as usual a lot whites let other of the hook and only focus on Jews. Many reading this from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK will know exactly what I mean.
I’d push back on that a little bit. Of course, its extremely important to never underestimate your enemy, as there’s thousands of examples throughout history where over confident armies were annihilated because they didn’t take the precautions they should have, and did not take their enemy seriously when they really should have.
However, the main reason the French were unable to put down the Slave rebellion on Saint Domingue were tropical diseases, the British blockade, and the British and Spanish aid to the rebels. Off the top of my head, I believe that around half of soldiers in army sent by Napoleon to the island were killed by tropical diseases, not black slaves, and the British naval dominance prevented almost all resupply of the French troops sent there. Even with the losses due to tropical diseases, the French probably still would’ve put down the rebellion if not for the constant supply of guns, swords, and more importantly gunpowder, that were constantly being given to the black slaves by mainly the british, and to a lesser extent, the Spanish.
Yes, Corey has written an appropriately lurid essay, but he strangely neglected to tell this most important aspect of the tragedy – that the eventual French relief force was decimated by disease, not Negroes. Stoddard talks about that in his classic account.
Still, this is a good article to forward to openminded white friends. We must NEVER AGAIN put ourselves in a position of dependency on the mercy of another race (as white libtards have done to all whites everywhere in the so-called postwar “Global Age”). Clearly, whites are sick as a race, as I keep reiterating. This article proves the ubiquity of the liberal genome in our history. Any race liberal is inherently unreliable, forever. Racially sane whites MUST separate ourselves from liberals as well as nonwhites. The “we want to save all whites” theme is pure idiocy. I sometimes feel like old Cato ending everything with my own variant of “Carthago delenda est”, but it cannot be stated too often. White liberals are our worst enemies. They always have been. They must be eliminated from our white gene pool.
That’s just nonsense. Many, many members of the WN movement are former racial liberals; including, by their own admissions, quite a few posters on this website. The radicalisation of numerous erstwhile egalitarians into WNs or WN fellow-travelers has been one of the most stRiki-Eiking political trends of the past decade.
Never trust a liberal. Never. I don’t mind ignorance on many issues, as it can be remedied. Maybe that is the case with some former race liberals, perhaps whites who simply had never been much around other races, and/or had no clue about the scale of the immigration invasion.
But for the most part, race is visceral. I cannot imagine a BLMist today becoming a white nationalist tomorrow. And if it happens, I would be suspicious of the depth of the transformation. A person who goes from BLMism to white nationalism is more likely a shallow, unstable person than a quality person who’s had a change of heart. And I am a hard hereditarian, meaning that I think one’s ideological politics are heavily genetically determined (I do not have a single liberal in my family; I have a cousin who in his youth in college voted for Clinton over Dole, and everyone razzed him tirelessly; he’s now firmly pro-Trump). A liberal may have a change of heart, but his liberalism is quite likely to resurface down the genetic line.
So no, I think allowing white liberals – especially really committed, activist ones later claiming an awakening – into the ethnostate is risking future instability.
With all due respect, you’re confusing genes with learned behaviour. Obviously, people tend to stay in a relationship with someone with similar political views (some couples can make do without politics being an issue, but it’s rare and sort of a tabu for them, generally speaking). Said views will then naturally be imprinted on their children. Do that for two or three generations and you’ll have something like within your own family. But take one of the children early enough out of them and have it raised by a firmly liberal family and that child is going to grow up liberal. Or, perhaps, it’s just enough to put said child into a hardcore liberal environment (like schools), as the case with your cousin shows. The fact that he’s now pro-Trump means either 1) he received some arguments that actually made him change his mind or 2) he behaves that way in order to fit in (as per sociological studies up to 95% people do). And even though research seems to show that certain behavioural aspects are tied to our DNA, it’s currently unclear and there’s a certain hierarchy to sociological structers (aka most people will show group behaviour even if it opposes their idea of whichever topic we choose).
It’s also impossible to get rid of liberals. Even if you were to take a group of hardcore traditionalist families and put them in a location with outside influence, eventually there is going to be someone comming up with the motion “we’re doing moderately well and there’s this old man up the hill that never had children and it might be a good idea if the rest of us gives him some money or food, so that he can have it a bit easier.” Similarily, there’s eventually gonna be someone that will venture outside and, if you’re settlement is doing well and the neighbouring one not so well, some of those travelers might come up with “why don’t we share with them?” Even if you come up with laws that prohibit this, laws can and have been changed. Particularly women are prone to help others and it’s not like they didn’t know how to get things done their way even if they weren’t able to vote. If someone comes up with the notion that, if that’s the case, women should be second class citizens and only at the mercy of men, I would have to question that person’s sanity (and advice him to move to savage lands where such societies exist even today). Drop that settlement into poverty and nobody is going to care about outsiders (unless it’s to try to get help from them), but with a certain level of security (moderate income, affordable housing, education) people, particularly of European descend, will begin to wonder if there’s a way to help the less fortunate. That’s literally a significant part of our history and why development was possible. And I believe the evolution of European and American societies and ultimately the world in the past 2-300 years it’s mostly preferable to keeping people in constant poverty. The last 5-7 decades have been unfortunate in many aspects, but I find there’re still solutions (both violent and noneviolent) if we (people of European descend) cooperate, instead of pretending we can form a society that will never become even remotely liberal (that just as much of an utopia as a completely just and global society).
I just wish people would stop using the term white and start using the term european.. white is what allows the jew and the asian to seem as one of us.
And look what they are doing right now today, while whites pretend Trump will save us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4wv6VfRR1g&feature=youtu.be
“if something is not done; and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our children.”
They had a way with words back then, didn’t they? In an article chock-filled with great quotes, this one I like most. But what irked me is that none of the figures cited proposed to send the negro back where it belongs as a solution. Rather than make their own beds… I guess.
There were such notions as well, if I recall correctly, they’re just not cited in this article. But that notion is the reason Liberia exists, for example.
Speaking strictly from a biological perspective, any human organism that has a mortal enemy needs to destroy it, and any ideology that does not support this is immoral. Of course some men want to think of themselves as something else, not realizing that one’s own animal reality is a good possession, ignorant of the fact that all the higher qualities any man is heir to stems from that. This is hard to accept, that man’s higher self comes from the fact you are an animal. So you go down all the roads to the spiritually higher goals, and what you find is that when you have gone there and done those things it is because of what you inherently are and that is you are an animal, a very highly advanced animal, and without a valid shame of it. This understanding has many unexpected consequences. The most noble seeming things reveal themselves as hollow, and their apparent shell as simply part of what you were to begin with. You tuck it in and go on. Another, greater height appeals to you, and you seek to attain it, and you do attain it. Surprise surprise, it is just you doing what that thing which you are can do. Eventually you acquire an understanding, not a facade, not a sheer mist of appearance but a genuine comprehension: some of the qualities of your character that you have been trying to get rid of are actually some of your most valuable possessions. When you reach this point, remember this, that you need to believe only what is true, that you need to do what is in your own real interest, and that the only legitimate authority over your own life and yourself is you. Then keep going, and as you fully understand why, you will discover that your hope was not empty.
If you carefully watch all the videos of the ‘peaceful protests’ of the last seven months, you will observe numerous instances of ‘jungle dances’ and other primitive action — jumping up and down, hopping from foot to foot, hurling anything at hand into building and cars — i.e., pure misguided, hateful energy seeking escape. If you cannot clearly see the activities of your enemies and realize their import, we are indeed in trouble.
I very much agree with your statement.
Yet again another great article!
The first learned about the history of Haiti from a broadcast by William Pierce I had found in 2002. That prompted me to read A Journey Through Haiti by Hesketh Pritchard.
Thank you GC for furthering this education about such a nightmare in our history that we hopefully don’t have to experience again!
BTW, I recommend all your articles to my close friends. White Plague should be read by all self-respecting men! Until reading it I had not known that one of the kingpins had worked at the psychiatric center in my old neighborhood!
~A
What we have been experiencing since Floyd’s death in late May, with all the BLM riots and looting and chaos, is Black insurrection. It has never been absent from their minds, and will always continue to surface. This is our problem to face and solve. They will never forget or forgive what they see as a crime against them, rather than an inborn personality disorder.
A lot of the chaos, looting and destruction was done by our own ”white youth” who identify as Antifa and co. That is something i am more concerned about then some Black insurrection. Its the enemies within the white American society which is antifa, feminist etc. These are all facts that we don’t discuss out loud but clearly have a blind eye for. Next to that its not the Blacks who concern our existence but the burgeoning hate i and many witness among immigrant groups like Latinos, Arabs and Asians in the USA. Asians have this nice happy happy face in public, but have deep deep contempt for white people especially Chinese community but also all these other Oriental groups white men love to date and procreate with these days as the biggest ”interracial group” in the western world.
We are to focused on American Blacks, yet let all these other parasites of the hook thinking they are any less ? They are even worse and consistently show their loyalty and allegiance to their own just like Jews. At least there are many decent American Blacks who are prideful to be American and only know this nation as they are part of it and they can live in their separate states. But its these Asians, Latinos. Arabs you really need to keep on eye, CCP Chinese already taking over Canada and West-Coast of the USA.
No, it is EVERYONE NOT US. We sane whites are a tiny minority, ringed by enemies within and without. We must form the Ethnostate. ALL our charity and volunteer efforts should be directed to that end, nothing else (let white liberals, secular or Christian, man the soup kitchens; the best thing awakened whites can do for God Himself is to ensure our racial preservation).
“What we have been experiencing since Floyd’s death in late May, with all the BLM riots and looting and chaos, is Black insurrection.”
True but an insurrection incited, enabled, justified and in every way promoted and encouraged by the US Democrat party and all those who lead it and fund it and promote it.
Consider again the title of Lothrop Stoddard’s classic book, “The French Revolution in Santo Domingo- (Haiti (as later)”. It was the revolutionary fervour and madness in France which in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity undermined the moral authority of the French colonists in the West Indies and simultaneously and deliberately incited the insurrection of the Blacks Every time it is the radical, insane Left-Liberals who let loose these appallingly destructive forces.
As Francis XB correctly states above: Egalitarian ideology leads to the destruction of civilization
White peoples need to stick together for mutual preservation:
True in 1791 in the country formerly known as Saint-Domingue
True in 1859 in the American South
True in 1994 in South Africa
True in 2020 worldwide
To which one can add, true also of the ghastly Bolshevik-Communist revolution in Russia in 1917.
Once America loses its White majority, White extinction will be inevitable. It may come gradually, as the result of chronic violence and miscegenation, or it may come suddenly in a great paroxysm of savagery as in Haiti, but it will come. Our worst enemies are not Blacks but the fair-skinned groups that continue to indoctrinate non-Whites, and even our own children, with White hatred. They will not rest until we are gone.
So, Mr.Blackpill, what are YOU going to do about it?
Why would you answer an observation with an interrogation? Calm down tough guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins
The Black Jacobins by black historian, C.L.R. James is very interesting. Published originally in 1938 it has the black communist perspective on Haiti and it’s remarkably similar to this article, except that he believes the extermination of whites was justified and that Haitians should have killed more whites. A subsequent edition, published in 1961, contains an epilogue that praised Fidel Castro. James was a Carribbean born scholar and Communist Party member who was deported from the US . Even so, his book is well researched, well written and worth the time.
He makes an interesting demographic note: In 1789, two thirds (2/3) of Haiti’s 500,000 black slaves had been born in Africa, meaning they were imported. Haitian slavery was very harsh and brutal and slaves could be worked to death and then cheaply and easily replaced by freshly imported slaves from Africa. Haitian leaders were also encouraged by the English to murder as many French as possible. As the French Revolution spilled over into Haiti so did the historic national rivalry between England and France.
American slavery was, by contrast, much more costly and unwieldy, being based on a positive birth rate, the need to maintain a large female child bearing population of slave women and the need to wait for 15 or so years until infant slaves could grow big enough to do manual labor. Haitian slave owners, by contrast, could simply go down to the docks and purchase full grown slaves from Africa without the need to support them from infancy to adulthood.
https://constitutions.albasio.eu/wp-content/uploads/african-slave-trade.pdf
“The African Slave Trade from the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Century”
(1978) is a collection of studies by “scholars” that participated in a UNESCO conference in 1978 in, of all places, Haiti!
Dr. Joseph Inikori, an American black who is an expert in “black studies” wrote the following.
See p. 68-69:
“Of all the slave-receiving territories in the Americas it was only in the United States that the imported Africans achieved some rate of net natural increase during much of our period.
In the other territories, the effect of a lengthy journey from Africa by sea, strange disease environment, the harsh conditions of plantation slavery, particularly on the sugar-cane plantations, etc., actually led to rates of net natural decrease among the slave populations.”
Of the twelve million African slaves imported into the Western Hemishpere, approximately 400,000 arrived in the British colonies of North America, i.e. the United States. Ninety seven per cent (97%) of the Africans went to the Carribbean, Mexico and South America.
The superior standard of living and humane treatment of blacks in the USA resulted in a positive birth rate contrasted with the negative birth rates in most other areas. Although less than 5% of the Africans were imported into English North America, by 1820, twenty five per cent (25%) of the blacks in the Western Hemisphere lived in the United States.
The US abolished the international slave trade in 1808 and took punitive measures against US citizens who participated in it before that. The humane treatment of blacks in the US may explain why they were less homicidal than Haitian blacks in 1790-1805. Not to say that we should rely on the good will or restraint of Africans, or persons of African descent, but that there were some differences between Haitian slavery in 1805 and American slavery and the condition of American blacks today, who are better off than blacks in any other part of the world.
Who cares about anything you just wrote? No excuses! Black Americans show no more gratitude than Haitian blacks. Blacks have given nothing but sorrow to white civilization and the world. We whites must territorially separate from them (and all other races). We have a moral right to live and to live in accordance with our own unique mentality and racio-psychological profile. Coercive racial integration is a gross violation of true human or ‘natural’ rights (if such exist; if not, then extra-tribal morality exists neither; either way we should do anything necessary, however, to ensure white safety today, and white survival tomorrow).
Who cares about what I wrote?
You cared enough to attack me. I don’t disagree with anything you say or very much of anything any one else says on this thread. I do think there are some important differences between Haitian blacks in 1804 and American Blacks today, which is not to say I want them living next door to me or in the same hemisphere as me.
Much of the black Haitian cruelty was based on the cruelty of French slavery and that has never existed in the US, where African slavery was of a different sort.
Apart from that, undisputed demographic data shows that (1) Blacks were NOT responsible for the success of the US and (2) Slavery in the US was not a “holocaust.”
Of 12 million blacks transported to the western hemisphere, approximately 500,000, 4.1% were arrived in the US. The remaining 95.9% landed in the Caribbean, Mexico and South America. So if 4.1% of blacks achieved the American success, why didn’t the remaining 95.9% achieve anything but failure in the rest of the Western Hemisphere?
As far as the “Holocaust” argument, goes, the black birth rate exploded and the American slave population exploded as well. Compare this with Ireland, where the white population of 8 million at the beginning of the 19th century declined by 50% to 4 million one hundred years later. The white population of Ireland declined by millions, by half, under British rule during the same period in which the black population exploded under US rule.
The point of this analysis is not to persuade dull witted blacks that white people aren’t so bad, but to persuade dull witted white people that white people weren’t so bad. Believe it or not, white people who think like us are in a small minority and we have to increase our numbers if we’re going to survive.
I don’t dispute your facts but, rather, your conclusion.
{The US abolished the international slave trade in 1808 and took punitive measures against US citizens who participated in it before that. The humane treatment of blacks in the US may explain why they were less homicidal than Haitian blacks in 1790-1805. Not to say that we should rely on the good will or restraint of Africans, or persons of African descent, but that there were some differences between Haitian slavery in 1805 and American slavery and the condition of American blacks today, who are better off than blacks in any other part of the world.}
I do not agree with this hypothesis. Blacks in the US were less homicidal (you mean to say “successfully so”) than Haitian blacks because 1) there were many more whites, in both the South and the adjacent rest of the USA, than French in San Domingo; 2) Southern whites may have been better armed on a per capita basis than the French, as we first had to clear out the Indians, a long process during which ownership and skill with firearms became a core feature of American life; and 3) the Southerners did a much better job than the French in inculcating Christianity in the slaves (the postwar period’s secularization and dechristianization of America has almost certainly played some role in increasing black crime rates compared to the first half of the 20th century). Haitian Catholicism is much more syncretic and neo-pagan (essentially an African religion with a Christian patina) than black American Christianity, especially in the South. And yes, you are probably correct that American slavery was less onerous than Haitian – but the effect of this merely amplified the other conditions, listed above, which worked to dramatically lessen the attractiveness of bloody revolution in black minds. But don’t forget the horrific brutality marking the revolts of Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner. If more blacks had thought they could get away with it, they would have done their share of massacring, too.
Finally, the reason American blacks are better off today than any other blacks in the world is because a) they are living in the hugely successful white-built nation of America (try being Oprah in Haiti or Africa); b) they have been on the receiving end of countless trillions of white wealth, as well as unearned privileges and opportunities stolen from more qualified whites, esp men; and c) there has been a huge genetic transfer between blacks and racially shortsighted and selfish whites, especially among the planter class. IOWs, American blacks have a fairly high proportion of white blood in them – around 25% on average. If a black population comes to have around 25% Chinese blood someday, that population, too, will be better off than less (tainted? contaminated? improved?) blacks.
But do you not think in future times, powerful forces, foreign and domestic, will be falling over themselves to offer a ready supply of arms, planning and training to violent insurrectionists, all in the name of ‘humanity’ or course.
“But the footsoldiers, the golems on the streets that menace our children, rape our women, and humiliate our brothers, the animals with whom we must deal with first, are the blacks.”
First? They could be handled with minimal effort if we were allowed to do something about them.
But a group puts itself between us and every issue. We can’t resolve anything, because we have to go through them. They are the The Foundational Problem. First things first.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment