"...After the Negroes massacred the last of the White population in 1804, Haiti remained a part of Santo Domingo until 1844 when it became a separate "republic." Between 1844 and 1915 only one Haitian President completed his term of office. Fourteen were ousted by armed uprisings, one was blown up, one was posioned and another was hacked to pieces by a mob"
.....The above was taken from a speech that Carleton Putnam made at the University of California at Davis on December 17, 1964 . It was intended to serve as a dire warning as to the consequences of integration. That speech has been published in a 63 page booklet called: A Study In Racial Realities and includes the question and answer period that followed. That was back when Academic Freedom still existed to some degree. Today, Academic Freedom is just a phrase, having been replaced with the tyranny of liberal political correctness. Like everything else about liberalism, the term "Academic Freedom" today is a total sham.
The end of Academic Freedom in the United States can, to a large degree, be laid at the feet of the media. They set the tone in our society. The media often decries the lack of civility in the arena of public debate, but it is they who promote it. One need only look at the way they categorize those who disagree with them as a means to marginalize them. The words "Neo-Nazi", "Nazi" , “Fascist”, and "racist" are thrown around recklessly and with little regard to the truth. They are not trying to air differences, they are trying to silence them.
In any debate one must first define the terms. For instance, what is a "racist"? Is it a person who seeks to oppress others, or is it someone who is proud of their own race, its heritage, and its contributions to the world? The definition makes all the difference in the world. The RNPA seeks to oppress no one, we seek only to go our own way.
And then there is the "Nazi" or "Neo-Nazi" label. A "Nazi" or "Neo-Nazi" is a National Socialist, someone who follows the National Socialist doctrine set forth by Adolf Hitler. They may use different symbols or names, but they are in agreement on the basics. It is true that we Racial Nationalists and National Socialists are in agreement on race, but that is where the similarity ends. One can argue the tactical advantage or disadvantage that some people find in embracing National Socialism, but is it ideally what we want as a form of government? Hitler founded the National Socialist movement basically to offer a challenge to the communist thugs who were terrorizing Germany at the time and who drove a wedge in the German population with their insidious class struggle. Hitler saw what he thought was the solution to this in the military. There was no class struggle in the military, only rank, and so he concluded that this was the answer to class struggle: the militarization of society. But, is this the kind of government we would choose? We think not. For one thing, as Americans we love our freedom too much and find a certain repugnancy in the regimentation of society. And then there is always the problem of succession. If Hitler had died prematurely there would have probably been a mad and bloody scramble to the top. The RNPA is firm in its belief that a Constitutional Republic is the soundest, the fairest and the most stable form of government. So, all of this stated, the media that portrays the Racial Nationalist movement as "Nazi" or "Neo-Nazi" is simply being dishonest.
Another term loosely thrown about is "Fascist". A "Fascist" is a follower of the movement created by Benito Mussolini. Mussolini believed in the "corporate state". Hell, that is what we have now! Corporate lobbying has totally corrupted our election process to the point that 'buying the election' is the norm. And then, once elected, these corporate pawns corrupt our society and foreign policy for whatever is good for the 'bottom line' of their corporate sponsors. The RNPA would aggressively promote anti-lobbying laws, support public financing of national elections, as well as term limits for US Senators and Representatives, thus taking the government out of the hands of corporations and career (and bought) politicians, and putting it back in the hands of the citizenry. We view this, because our foreign policy has become a victim of this corporate corruption, a national security issue, and therefore an issue of the utmost urgency. Consequently, we are not advocates of a "corporate state", but rather its fiercest opponent, but that doesn't stop the media from trying to portray us as "fascists".
We need to draw these distinctions, because the media never will. They do not seek understanding, they do not want civil discourse, they only want the power that comes from ruthlessly silencing anyone who disagrees with them. In fact, in the eyes of the media, civil debate and discourse, along with the truth, are the enemy. Indeed, any kind of real civility in debate, especially in regard to race, is as alien to them as it is to a rabid dog. v