|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol 6, No. 6||June 1995|
The Preservationist Imperative
Why Separation is Necessary for Survival
A reply to Samuel Francis’ essay opposing racial separation.
In the February issue, Richard McCulloch and Rabbi Mayer Schiller wrote articles advocating national partition as the only means by which white Americans and their civilization can be preserved. In the March issue, Samuel Francis responded with a critique of separatism, proposing instead a “reconquest” of the nation by European-Americans and their values. Mr. McCulloch now replies to Mr. Francis.
By publishing Samuel Francis’ views opposing racial separation, American Renaissance took another important step in opening this supremely important subject to constructive discussion. Nevertheless, even though he has obviously given the matter considerable thought, there are a number of points on which Mr. Francis and I disagree.
First, he is mistaken to think that the cause of racial separation lacks concrete proposals. Although neither Rabbi Schiller nor I made specific proposals, this is not because there are no proposals. I make one myself — including a map — in my book, The Racial Compact, which has been reviewed by AR. Nor is there a lack of the logistical means of achieving separation. The only thing we lack is that a majority of our race should desire separation by means of a partition of the country.
I grant Mr. Francis’ point that overcoming this lack is a problem that now appears to be “virtually insurmountable,” but this misses my main point, the main point: Separation is the preservationist imperative. Mr. Francis says that partition would be surrender but I say that any solution less than separation would be surrender, as it would deny us the mono-racial habitat we require for our continued existence.
Mr. Francis also writes: “There may well come a time when partition is the only recourse left to whites, but that time is far off.” It is somewhat contradictory to say that the obstacles to separation are already “virtually insurmountable” but to imply that we will be able to achieve it more easily some time in the distant future when we really need it. Perhaps he means that we will not be able to achieve it until everyone finally realizes it is necessary.
Mr. Francis apparently thinks that since separatists cannot tell him exactly how separation is going to happen, it is no more than a “fantasy for whites who refuse to face the threats to their survival.” I would describe separation as a desire by whites who are aware of and facing the threats to their survival. The reason they can offer no specifics is because no real separatist movement yet exists.
The first step in creating a movement is the development of a racial preservationist ideology capable of winning majority acceptance. I have attempted this in my books. The next step, much more difficult, will be the promulgation of that ideology. This effort has scarcely begun, but if it is to start anywhere, I think it most likely that it will start with us, the people who read this magazine. It would necessarily take place incrementally, as the means and opportunities arise.
Incompatible With Patriotism?
I am perplexed that Mr. Francis seems to think that the preservation of the European-American (or Old American) population by racial partition means that we would have to give up our identities as Americans. He writes that separation is incompatible with patriotism, national loyalties, the U.S. Constitution, or the heritage of Jefferson and Lincoln (both of whom strongly advocated racial separation). He adds that we would have to start all over constructing a culture and political order, and could no longer take pride in the settlement and conquest of North America by the Old Americans since we would be confessing that they were failures.
Of course, this is not true. A multiracial society was not the intent of our Founding Fathers, nor was it the intent of the generations of Old Americans who followed, who built this country they called America. They never wanted a land where their race could not survive. I identify true American patriotism and nationalism with their legitimate interests, foremost among which is the right to continued existence, which requires separation from other races. In this sense, separation is far from being a rupture with the original idea of America; it is its only true continuation.
Mr. Francis writes that after partition there would be no nation that had national interests and that could therefore oppose immigration. I say that a multiracial society is not a nation, and therefore cannot have national interests, and that is why our country is now unable to protect itself from immigration. Mono-racial nations like Japan can easily protect themselves from immigration by other races.
I freely confess that my Old American ancestors, among their many great successes, had one major failure: They failed to keep the country mono-racial. Their descendants can therefore no longer claim the whole country for themselves, but must accept partition. Our generation has the difficult task of correcting that great failure by achieving separation.
Mr. Francis is right to say that even if separation were achieved there is no guarantee that the races would remain forever separate — but there are never any guarantees in the life of a nation. The most we can do is accomplish our task and give our descendants the chance to preserve what we have given them. Future generations will have the much easier task of maintaining this life-essential separation, with each generation responsible for passing it on to the next. There is no guarantee that they will always be successful, but it is their best hope — in fact their only real hope — for existence as a people.
I think Mr. Francis still accepts the incorrect notion that the European-American people can continue to exist indefinitely, or at least for a very long time, in a multiracial society. This misconception, probably more than any other, prevents many of our people from seeing that separation is needed for survival. It gives them a false sense of security when they need a sense of urgency.
Many of our people share another misconception: a false sense of indestructibility, an over-confidence in the ability of our race to prevail, and a corresponding tendency to underestimate the strengths and ambitions of other races. They do not realize how vulnerable and endangered our race really is or how quickly it could be lost. They assume it will last forever, blithely unaware of the process of racial destruction accelerating around them.
Of course, some European-Americans have always been aware of the long-term consequences of multiracialism. Jefferson and many other ante-bellum figures certainly were. Since the Civil War, this awareness has seldom been given open expression, and the very fact that it is a long-term, gradually impending danger has retarded efforts to achieve a long-term solution. Instead, we have favored short-term palliatives like segregation and immigration restriction. If we persist in viewing the problem as a distant one that does not require immediate, primary attention, our failure to act will mean certain disaster for the generation a century from now.
Mr. Francis believes that the danger from racial intermixture is relevant only “on an evolutionary time scale” and notes that “[d]espite a good deal of racial mixture in 300 years, there is no prospect of the extinction of either the black or white races on this continent because of mixture.”
I wish he were right, but intermixture is not evolution, and does not operate on the same time scale. Evolution is a slow process of gradual creation which, by even the shortest reckoning, required 40,000 or more years to create the modern races of humanity. Intermixture is a totally different process of racial destruction, which is not similarly constrained by time. In fact, if the present generation of young European-Americans were “color-blind” in their selection of mates, as they are told by the dominant culture they should be, their numbers would be reduced in a single generation by 35 percent (the non-European proportion of the adolescent population). Destruction can work much more quickly than construction.
As for the last 300 years, they have been characterized by a process of gradually accelerating multiracialism, bringing us to the present crisis. I cannot help but believe that if Jefferson and Lincoln had foreseen our present situation they would have been alarmed. But too many of us still seem unaware of the consequences of the present trend.
It is possible to imagine a multiracial society employing the most draconian measures to restrict racial intermixture. However, given the present racial situation, the level of white supremacy required to enforce such measures would be at least as difficult to achieve as separation, and much more difficult to maintain. It would require a virtually totalitarian level of regimentation, indoctrination and discipline. This is not the kind of society I want for future generations of my race.
Mr. Francis is correct in suspecting that I regard racial supremacism, including white supremacy, as unacceptable. First, I have no confidence in the long-term success of such a system. Second, I have, as he says, a genuine ethical objection to one race ruling another. Call it the Racial Golden Rule, if you will. I do not want another race ruling mine, so I do not want my race ruling others. Besides, I believe ruling other races is not good for us, but leads us away from ourselves, our true nature, and our own best interests.
There are other problems facing our race, such as our low birth rate, that cannot even be addressed, much less solved in a multiracial society. This is because our current multiracial society does not regard this as a problem but as a positive development. It regards the very existence of different races (or at least the European race) as something regrettable or even evil.
For Europeans, a multiracial society is an engine of racial destruction. It is folly to believe that we have some immaculate immunity to intermixture. On the contrary, of all the major races of humanity, we are probably the most vulnerable to destruction in multiracial habitats. Our survival depends on a determination to face the consequences of multiracialism, and on the adoption of an ideology that promotes racial preservation in a manner that is morally acceptable to the majority of our race.
Richard McCulloch’s books are available from Towncourt Enterprises, Box 9151, Coral Springs, Fla. 33075
Racial Differences in Morality Revisited
A controversial author replies to his critics.
In the April issue, Prof. Levin outlined his view that people of different races have evolved different moralities, and proposed an evolutionary explanation for these differences. In a letter published in the May issue, Lawrence Auster criticized Prof. Levin charging, among other things, that the article was based on insufficient evidence.
Among the issues Lawrence Auster raises, perhaps the most reasonable is his concern about the adequacy of the evidence that I cited to support the view that races differ in their levels of morality. The documentation may have seemed skimpy partly because I was summarizing conclusions reached in my forthcoming book, Why Race Matters, which goes into race differences in much more detail. I also assumed that readers of AR would be entirely familiar with relevant black\white differences, particularly in intelligence and social behavior. Anecdotes may have limited force, but every month the “O Tempora” section of AR reports black behavior that is virtually never duplicated by whites — and race differences so marked at the extremes naturally suggest differences at the mean as well. In any case, my article mentioned a good deal of evidence, but if it was too compressed let me expand on it here.
Lawrence Kohlberg found an extensive “isomorphism” between the stages of moral and cognitive development. He concluded that you can be smart without being good, but that there are limits to how good you can be without being smart. This implies that those who fail to reach the highest levels of cognitive development cannot reach the highest stages of moral development, which Kohlberg identifies with golden-rule thinking. I might note that since Mr. Kohlberg’s paradigm of moral development is Martin Luther King, his thinking is unlikely to have been racially biased.
Christopher Brand has found that IQ is positively correlated with altruism and negatively correlated with impulsiveness. Raymond Cattell reports a significant correlation between “general ability” and being “morally intelligent.” Richard Herrnstein and James Q. Wilson observe in Crime and Human Nature that “a person’s level of moral reasoning is correlated with intelligence, particularly verbal intelligence,” and in The Bell Curve, Prof. Herrnstein and Charles Murray report a moderate correlation between IQ and a measure of pro-social behavior they call the “Middle Class Values Index.” None of these authors suggests that the relationship between intelligence and morality applies to some races but not to others. Race differences in intelligence alone therefore suggest that blacks and whites differ in moral reasoning.
As for race and temperament, when they take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) test, blacks are more likely than whites to agree with propositions like the following: “Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than lose it,” “Most people make friends because friends are likely to be useful to them,” “Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught,” “It is not hard for me to ask help from my friends even though I cannot return the favor,” and “It would be better if almost all the laws were thrown away.” Affirmative answers to these questions are associated, for both races, with recklessness and poor judgment. It is therefore not surprising that black males outscore whites on precisely the MMPI scales that differentiate the prison population from the law-abiding.
This leads to the issue of crime. Roughly speaking, the average black is ten times more likely to commit a violent crime than the average white, and several times more likely to commit such non-violent felonies as forgery. These trends are observed world-wide, not just in the United States. Statistics on crime have an important bearing on the truism that nobody, black or white, wishes to be a victim of the criminal acts blacks are more prone than whites to commit. People of different races thus show a marked difference in willingness to conform to the golden rule, which is, in John Locke’s words, “that most unshaken rule of morality and foundation of all social virtue.”
In his 1974 book, The Unheavenly City, Edward C. Banfield describes the “type of morality” characteristic of lower class criminals as “preconventional, which means that the individual’s actions are influenced not by conscience but only by a sense of what he can get away with.” In this context, Prof. Banfield specifically mentions a willingness to inflict injury, and an orientation toward the present. Although he strives mightily to describe types of morality as a class rather than race phenomenon, Prof. Banfield makes clear that blacks are disproportionately represented in the lower class, and he often describes their outlook in explicitly racial terms.
It was in the context of conformity to the golden rule that I cited “dissing,” which is by now a recognized pattern of black behavior. The point of dissing someone is to achieve dominance instead of reciprocal equality. Nelson George in Elevating the Game, claims that there is a distinctive black “aesthetic,” uniting activities as disparate as jazz and basketball, that involves aggression, arrogance, and the will to humiliate. Since no one wants to be humiliated, this “aesthetic” is actually a code of values inconsistent with the golden rule.
In other areas as well, black and white attitudes toward rules seem quite different. Thomas Kochman, an expert on “sensitivity training,” and presumably the last person willing to indulge in “stereotyping,” writes in Black and White: Styles in Conflict, that one reason whites and blacks have trouble negotiating with each other is that whites are what he calls “process-oriented” and blacks are “result-oriented.” This appears to mean that whites are more concerned about how a decision is reached, whereas blacks are concerned chiefly with getting what they want. Elsewhere, A. Wade Boykin describes the African and African-American “ethos” as valuing “affect,” “expressive individualism” and a “personal orientation toward objects” while Euro-American culture values “reason,” “egalitarian conformity” and “an impersonal (objective) attitude toward people.”
It is hard to establish a direct link between morality and race differences in impulsiveness, propensity to violence and rule-following because “moral goodness” is an evaluative concept. There will never be a direct test of moral goodness nor, therefore, direct empirical evidence for race differences in this respect. And this is where philosophical analysis can be helpful.
Given what, on reflection, people mean when they make moral judgments, the racial differences I have described amount to differences in morality. The behavior considered “moral” within a community is the behavior everyone seeks to reinforce, and whose reinforcement is reinforced. Intergroup differences as to which behavior should be universalized are essentially intergroup differences in moral standards. On the other hand, group differences in the level of concern for whether behavior even should be universalized are group differences in concern for morality itself.
An example can illustrate this distinction. That Christians have rules against polygamy and Arabs do not means that Arabs and Christians differ in sexual morality; that blacks seem less interested than whites in rules as such means, on reflection, that blacks are less interested in morality itself.
People are not motivated by the desire to be good or bad. In real life nobody says, as does Shakespeare’s Richard III, “I am determined to be a villain.” Moral judgments must be passed externally on the behavior of people whose motives seldom have explicitly moral content and which, to the person himself, may seem quite legitimate.
Racial differences in moral judgment itself are suggested by the neo-realist movies of recent years about young blacks: New Jack City, Menace II Society, Boyz in the Hood, and New Jersey Drive. These movies, which have drawn the approval of critics, usually portray blacks sympathetically — they are trying to overcome or falling victim to an insalubrious “environment” and white racism. These blacks are often shown doing what they do simply to be noticed and have fun, but what they do is rob and kill. To themselves and to the directors of these movies, these kids are not evil. Yet by white standards — the standards to which Mr. Auster is likely to adhere — they are evil. And these standards do not seem to be shared by the large black audiences that cheer these movies.
That blacks are, in effect, less apt than whites to think along moral lines suggests that they are less autonomous and less responsible for their behavior. I present evidence to this effect in Why Race Matters; ordinary people also seem to sense it, as shown by their tendency to bend over backwards to exempt blacks from responsibility for actions.
Mr. Auster attributes to me a belief in “the all-powerful god of evolution.” I do not worship evolution, but I do think genetic factors set limits to what different human groups can do. Nor is it the case, as he asserts, that evolutionary speculations are “unprovable.” The evidence that supports evolution also supports the many conclusions about human behavior that evolution suggests. Because one can always be more confident of a fact when good theoretical reasons support it, it is important to explain race differences in morality in some kind of wider setting. As I tried to show in my article, evolution provides just such a wider setting.
Mr. Auster also indulges in the kind of overstatement that is characteristic of the mainstream press. I do not exclude the possibility of blacks having a love of knowledge. I say only that knowledge for its own sake is less of a value for blacks than for whites. That there have been no formal educational institutions in traditional black societies is indeed evidence for this. It is significant that the first European explorers in Africa remarked on the lack of intellectual curiosity among the groups they found.
Mr. Auster also writes that I “deny the human feelings of the entire Negro race” and that I say blacks are “less human” than whites. In fact, I say no more and no less than that, on average, blacks are less empathetic than whites.
By odd coincidence, Lawrence Auster contributed an excellent piece to the August 1994 issue of AR. In it he expressed the view that different races have different “way[s] of being.” And, although in his letter critical of me, he refers to my “egregious” conclusion that “all whites are justified in shunning all blacks,” in his own AR article Mr. Auster notes that under certain circumstances disengagement from nonwhites is, for whites, “the most reasonable and commonsensical thing in the world.” Indeed, he goes on to recommend that, if blacks refuse to accept white standards, “there must be peaceful separation between the races.” It is surprising how many Lawrence Austers there can be.
Prof Levin has not yet found a publisher for his book, Why Race Matters.
Fairest Things Have Fleetest Endings
A haunting novel about the end of the white race.
The Camp of the Saints, Jean Raspail, Norman Shapiro (trans.), The Social Contract Press, 1995, 316 pp., $12.95 (soft cover)
Reviewed by Jared Taylor
Fiction can be more powerful than fact. Authors have always lent their talents to causes, often swaying events more effectively than journalists or politicians. Fiction, including virtually everything emitted by Hollywood, has usually been in the service of the left, but occasionally an author declares his allegiance to culture and tradition.
In The Camp of the Saints, Jean Raspail goes further and declares his allegiance to his race — though it is an allegiance tinged with bitterness at the weakness of the white man. Originally published in 1973, this may be the first significant racialist novel since the days of Thomas Dixon. It is the story of the final, tragic end of European civilization which falls, like all great civilizations, by its own hand.
The novel is set in the near future in France, where the leftist sicknesses of multiculturalism and multi-racialism have undermined all natural defenses. As Mr. Raspail writes of young Europeans:
That scorn of a people of other races, the knowledge that one’s own is best, the triumphant joy at feeling oneself to be part of humanity’s finest — none of that had ever filled these youngsters’ addled brains, or at least so little that the monstrous cancer implanted in the Western conscience had quashed it in no time at all.
By then, “the white race was nothing more than a million sheep,” beaten down by decades of anti-white propaganda. As Mr. Raspail explains, it was “a known fact that racism comes in two forms: that practiced by whites — heinous and inexcusable, whatever its motives — and that practiced by blacks — quite justified, whatever its excess, since it’s merely the expression of a righteous revenge . . .”
This is the state of mind with which the West confronts its final crisis: nearly a million starving, disease-ridden boat people — men, women, and children — set sail from the Ganges delta for Europe. Practically no one is willing to say that this flotilla must be stopped at all costs. Instead, liberals and Christians spout confident nonsense about welcoming their Hindu brothers into the wealth and comfort of Europe.
The thought of this wretched brown mass sailing for Europe is a source of great joy for the World Council of Churches. Its men are “shock-troop pastors, righteous in their loathing of anything and everything that smacked of present-day Western society, and boundless in their love of whatever might destroy it.” They are determined “to welcome the million Christs on board those ships, who would rise up, reborn, and signal the dawn of a just, new day . . .”
One of the few Europeans who recognizes that what has come to be called the “Last Chance Armada” spells the doom of Christendom reproaches a group of anti-Western churchmen:
There’s not one of you proud of his skin, and all that it stands for . . .
“Not proud, or aware of it either,” replies one. “That’s the price we have to pay for the brotherhood of man. We’re happy to pay it.”
Europe is rife with fifth-column propagandists, products of earlier capitulations. Typical of these is Clement Dio, “citizen of France, North African by blood . . . [who] possessed a belligerent intellect that thrived on springs of racial hatred barely below the surface, and far more intense than anyone imagined.”
Knowing full well that acceptance of the first wave of third world refugees will only prompt imitators that will eventually swamp the white West, he writes happily about how “the civilization of the Ganges” will enrich a culturally bankrupt continent:
“Considering all the wonders that the Ganges had bestowed on us already — sacred music, theater, dance, yoga, mysticism, arts and crafts, jewelry, new styles in dress — the burning question . . . was how we could manage to do without these folks any longer!
As the flotilla makes for Europe, school teachers set assignments for their students: “Describe the life of the poor, suffering souls on board the ships, and express your feelings toward their plight in detail, by imagining, for example, that one of the desperate families comes to your home and asks you to take them in.”
The boat people steam towards the Suez Canal, but the Egyptians, not soft like whites, threaten to sink the entire convoy. One hundred ships turn south, around the horn of Africa — towards Europe. The refugees run out of fuel for cooking and start burning their own excrement. Pilots sent to observe the fleet report an unbearable stench.
A few deluded whites have boarded the ships in Calcutta and sail along with “the civilization of the Ganges,” dreaming of Europe:
Already they saw it their mission to guide the flock’s first steps on Western soil. One would empty out all our hospital beds so that cholera-ridden and leprous wretches could sprawl between their clean white sheets. Another would cram our brightest, cheeriest nurseries full of monster children. Another would preach unlimited sex, in the name of the one, single race of the future . . .
The Hindus tolerate these traitors until almost the end of the voyage and then strangle them, throwing their naked bodies overboard so that they drift onto a Spanish beach as the armada heads for the south of France. The boat people have no need for guides of this kind, from a race that has lost all relevance:
The Last Chance Armada, en route to the West, was feeding on hatred. A hatred of almost philosophical proportions, so utter, so absolute, that it had no thoughts of revenge, or blood, or death, but merely consigned its objects to the ultimate void. In this case, the whites. For the Ganges refugees, on their way to Europe, the whites had simply ceased to be.
Finally, on the morning of Easter Sunday, the 100 creaking hulks crash onto the beaches. The local inhabitants have abandoned all thought of taking in a family of Hindus, and have fled north. Many of the fashionable leftist agitators have likewise left their editorial jobs and radio programs and disappeared, with their gold bars, to Switzerland. The army has been sent south to prevent a landing, but there are doubts as to whether whites can be made to slaughter unarmed civilians.
As one government official explains to another, “[D]on’t count on the army, monsieur. Not if you’ve got . . . genocide in mind.”
The other replies: “Then it just means another kind of genocide . . . Our own.”
At the last moment the French President is unable to give the order to fire. He urges the troops to act according to their consciences. They throw down their rifles and run.
Bands of hippies and Christians, who have come south to welcome their brown brothers also turn and run as soon as they get a whiff of the new arrivals. “How could a good cause smell so bad?”
The few remaining whites with any sense of their civilization find they can communicate practically without speaking: “That was part of the Western genius, too: a mannered mentality, a collusion of aesthetes, a conspiracy of caste, a good-natured indifference to the crass and the common. With so few left now to share in its virtues, the current passed all the more easily between them.”
A handful of citizens drive south with their hunting rifles on suicide missions to do the job their government is unable to do. One of these, ironically, is an assimilated Indian. As he explains to another band of citizen-hunters, “Every white supremacist cause — no matter where or when — has had blacks on its side. And they didn’t mind fighting for the enemy, either. Today, with so many whites turning black, why can’t a few ‘darkies’ decide to be white? Like me.”
The Indian is killed, along with his white comrades, in an attack by fighter-bombers sent by the French government to put down resistance to the invasion. Soldiers who were unable to kill brown people make short work of “racist” whites.
All over France non-whites take the offensive. Algerians on assembly lines rise up and kill their white bosses. African street cleaners knock on the doors of de luxe Paris apartments and move in. A multi-racial government, including a few token whites, announces a new dispensation.
Capitulation by the French means capitulation everywhere. Masses of ragged Chinese pour into Russia, whose troops are likewise unable to fire on hungry civilians. Huge fleets of beggars set sail from every pestilential southern port, heading for Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The same drama unfolds In the United States. “Black would be black, and white would be white. There was no changing either, except by a total mix, a blend into tan. They were enemies on sight, and their hatred and scorn only grew as they came to know each other better.” Americans lay down their arms just as the French do.
Raspail hints here and there at what the new Europe will be like: “At the time, each refugee quarter had its stock of white women, all free for the taking. And perfectly legal. (One of the new regime’s first laws, in fact. In order to ‘demythify’ the white woman, as they put it.)”
The first provisional government also has a Minister of Population — a French woman married to a black — to ensure a permanent solution to the race problem. After all: “Only a white woman can have a white baby. Let her choose not to conceive one, let her choose only nonwhite mates, and the genetic results aren’t long in coming.”
And so ends the saga of Western man, not in pitched battle, not in defeat at the hands of superior forces, but by capitulation.
Even after a quarter century, the novel is astonishingly current. It was written before Communism collapsed, and the new French revolution is spiced with anti-capitalist slogans that now sound slightly off key. One might also complain that a few of the characters verge on caricature. Nevertheless, the central tragedy — suicidal white weakness — is brilliantly portrayed and could have been written in 1995.
Mr. Raspail obviously loves his culture and his race, and wrote in the afterward that although he had intended to end the book with a spasm of white self-consciousness that saves Europe, the final catastrophe seemed to write itself. Perhaps he could not, in good faith, write a different ending. In the preface to the 1985 French edition he observed:
[T]he West is empty, even if it has not yet become really aware of it. An extraordinarily inventive civilization, surely the only one capable of meeting the challenges of the third millennium, the West has no soul left. At every level — nations, race, cultures as well as individuals — it is always the soul that wins the decisive battles.
The Camp of the Saints puts the white man’s dilemma in the most difficult terms: slaughter hundreds of thousands of women and children or face oblivion. Of course, a nation that had the confidence to shed blood in the name of its own survival would never be put to such a test; no mob of beggars would threaten it.
The story that Mr. Raspail tells — the complete collapse of Western man even when the very survival of his civilization so clearly hangs in the balance — may seem implausible to some. And yet, what whites do in The Camp of the Saints is no different from what they have done every day for the past forty years. The only difference is that the novel moves in fast forward; it covers in months what could take decades.
Whites all around the world suffer from Mr. Raspail’s “monstrous cancer implanted in the Western conscience.” South Africans vote for black rule. Americans import millions of nonwhites and grant them racial preferences. Australians abandon their whites-only immigration policy and become multi-cultural.
Even if he did not actively cooperate in his own destruction, time works against the white man. As Mr. Raspail writes in the afterward, “the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles.” No other race subscribes to these moral principles — if that is really what they are — because they are weapons of self-annihilation.
Reprinting a Classic
The Camp of the Saints was first published, in France, in 1973. The reviews were few and mostly unkind; the little-known author was denounced as a racist. Jean Raspail has since written several more novels and has won France’s most prestigious literary prize, le grand prix du roman given by the Académie Française. Meanwhile, The Camp of the Saints has sold by word of mouth and has stayed in print for 22 years. Mr. Raspail wrote a new preface for the 1985 edition.
The book was first published in the United States in 1975 by Charles Scribner’s Sons. The New York Times magazine called it “a perfervid racist diatribe,” Time dismissed it as “bilge,” and other newspapers called it a “psychotic fantasy” and “a truly disgusting book.” Obscure journals that can afford real opinions were more sympathetic. The Weekender called it “as frightening as it is probable.” The reviewer for Peninsula Living wrote, “I cannot recall when, if ever, I have read a book of such stunning force and disturbing content . . .” The Pacific Sun Literary Quarterly pronounced it “an exciting, superbly written book.”
Despite its denunciation by the major media, the book sold well enough in America to go into paperback and has since been reprinted by small presses. The current version is a handsome, soft cover edition published by the Social Contract Press, which publishes a quarterly journal on immigration- and population-control, as well as several other books on immigration that should interest AR readers.
Moreover, this edition explicitly links the story of The Camp of the Saints to the United States. The cover photograph — eerily appropriate — shows a cargo of Chinese illegal immigrants huddled on a New York beach after their ship went aground off Rockaway Peninsula on June 6, 1993. The publisher’s preface compares the book to George Orwell’s 1984, in the hope that its narrative power will be enduring enough to shift the nation’s immigration debate in a more realistic direction.
The Camp of the Saints costs $12.95 plus $2.50 for shipping and handling. Please address inquiries and make checks payable to: Social Contract Press, 316-1/2 E. Mitchell St., Petoskey, MI 49770.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Living the Dream
Like the federal government, the state of New York has a Martin Luther King Commission that spends tax-money ensuring that New Yorkers celebrate Dr. King’s birthday properly. A white woman who worked for the commission claims she was harassed and fired because she is white.
“I thought, gee, it will be nice working in a place that’s really doing some good for people, [but] it was probably the most violent place I ever worked,” says Susan Kelley. She says that supervisors regularly yelled at white workers but treated blacks cordially. During her year with the commission she says five white secretaries left or were fired and all were replaced with blacks. The New York State Division of Human Rights is investigating Miss Kelley’s charges.
The Martin Luther King Commission has been beset with scandal and mismanagement for years. The Inspector General has cited it for wasting money, and Governor Pataki is considering shutting it down. [Gregg Birnbaum, Fired King-panel worker charges bias, NY Post, 3/30/95.]
Out of the Mouths of Babes
On March 20th, Valerie Johnson, a 38-year-old white woman living in Monessen, Pennsylvania, went for a stroll with her three-year-old son. They walked by two young blacks who were addressing each other as “nigger,” and the three-year-old repeated the word. The blacks took offense, and one of them struck the woman. She went home and reported the assault to police by telephone. About 20 minutes later, Mrs. Johnson went back out and happened to meet at least one of the blacks again. She was struck a second time, and later died from the blow. [Jim McKinnon, Child mimicking racial slur may have cost mother’s life, Wash Times, April 1, 1995, p. A5.]
South African television had a great idea for a heart-warming program about racial harmony. They invited eight young people of various racial backgrounds to live together for six months, rent-free, in a swanky suburban villa. The eight were chosen from 1,500 idealists who answered a classified ad, and who did not know each other until they moved in together. A camera crew showed up every day to film the love feast.
It didn’t last long. The house very quickly divided along racial lines, and five of the eight moved out before the six months were up. “Bev,” a black lesbian activist from Soweto, quickly discovered that her housemates were “racist, sexist, homophobic pigs who smile when I come in.” “Cokie,” a white surfer says the lesbian thinks she “deserves everything . . . [and] should take what she wants.” “Meirav,” another white, concluded that blacks and whites “have totally different mentalities.”
The person who apparently go on best with everyone was “Leroux,” a small-town Afrikaaner with a professed admiration for Hitler. Once, as he sat together with the black lesbian, he mused about how he used to beat up homosexuals. “I’m seeing life from different eyes,” he said. [Drusilla Menaker, House divided: S. Africans fail test of harmony, SF Examiner, 3/28/95, p. A8.]
The state of Maryland has been found guilty of racial discrimination against white state police. Ninety-nine troopers were found to have been held back in 1989 and 1990 so that blacks could be promoted. Seventeen of the white officers will be promoted and all will receive back pay. [Mary Pemberton, White troopers gain from reverse-bias suit, Wash Times, 4/6/95, p. C9.]
The California State University system has finally reversed a ten-year policy of letting illegal immigrants pay the low, in-state tuition rate rather than the out-of-state rate. It took a seven-year law suit to do it, but the university has sent letters to approximately 2,000 students, telling them that tuition will rise from $1,584 to $8,965. [John Chandler, CSU plans to raise fees for illegal immigrants, LA Times, 4/2/95, p. A3.]
What Price Peace of Mind?
For those who frequently drive alone through dodgy neighborhoods, the American Automobile Association offers a dummy to sit in the passenger seat and look fierce. Safe-T-Man costs $119 and weighs nine pounds. He is made of latex and comes with no clothes, but can be dressed to suit his owner’s taste. The manufacturer reports more than 7,000 sales in recent months. [AP, College Park woman travels with a dummy, Wash Times, 3/30/95.]
Showing Her Colors
Attorney General Janet Reno is pressing for the appointment of a black U.S. District Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi. Joshua Bogen, who is white, had been favored for the job until he learned from former Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy — who is black and is also from Mississippi — that President Bill Clinton was determined to appoint a black.
“Had I been told . . . that I would not be considered solely on the basis of my race,” says Mr. Bogen, “I never would have allowed my name to be submitted in the first place.” Even the black chairman of the state Democratic Party favors Mr. Bogen, who is widely recognized to be better qualified than the black, Calvin Buchanan, whom Miss Reno and Mr. Clinton prefer. [Bartholomew Sullivan, Reno favors black for U.S. Attorney, Wash Times, 4/27/95.]
Learning From the Natives
Some Asians are acting like blacks. Students at Northwestern University in Chicago have been demonstrating and going on hunger strike to try to make the university establish an Asian-American studies program. In April, more than 150 students tramped through the campus chanting “No program, no peace.” The hunger strike started with 17 zealots but seven dropped out after the first five days. The University — so far — is holding firm.
San Luis, Arizona, has 8,100 post office boxes for its population of 4,000. Why so many boxes? San Luis is on the border with Mexico, and thousands of Mexicans use the post office as a mail drop for American benefits checks.
The scam works like this: A Mexican mother brings her children across the border and enrolls them in public school, giving the address of relatives living in Arizona. Investigators visit the address, and the relatives vouch for the newcomers, who promptly apply for welfare, food stamps, and other benefits. State officials are barred from inquiring into a Mexican’s legal status.
So long as the children stay enrolled in school — and many of them cross the border and attend classes — the state keeps sending checks to the San Luis post office boxes. On the first of the month, when the checks arrive, the station is crammed with Mexicans, and the post master has hired extra staff to handle the crush. In 1988, the post office added two double-wide trailers full of boxes but they were soon gone and there are 400 people on the waiting list. [Mark Shaffer, Border Welfare bounty, Arizona Republic, 4/9/95, p. 1.] Many boxes are under as many as 15 different names.
President Bill Clinton has again demonstrated how reliably unreliable he is. Eight months ago, he promised that the 21,000 Cuban rafters who had been held at the American base in Guantanamo, Cuba, would never be admitted en masse to the United States. Now the administration says they can come after all. The President appears to have considered several things. It costs about a million dollars a day to house the rafters. They have already rioted twice — injuring dozens of American guards — and the administration fears a rowdy summer. Opposition to letting in the Cubans, which was very high when they were bobbing across the Caribbean, is thought to have waned. In return for this mass entry, the President says that henceforth all rafters will be returned to Cuba. This is a promise. [Paul Richter & Mike Clary, U.S. to Admit Cubans from Guantanamo, LA Times, 5/3/95, p. 1.]
In April, Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia switched parties, from Democrat to Republican. Now, all eleven Georgia Republicans are white and all three Democrats are black. Until last November, when Republicans won control of Congress, many southern white Democrats stayed in the party because they would lose influence by moving from the majority to the minority party. Now there is very little left to keep Republicans — particularly in the South — from becoming the party of the white. [Ross Baker, A Dixie defection rattles the party, LA Times, 4/16/95.]
Too Much of a Good Thing
In 1980, the village of Matteson, Illinois was about 12 percent black. By 1990, it was 44 percent black, and residents think they now have too much of a good thing. In April, the Village Board signed a $37,000 contract with a Chicago marketing firm to try to persuade whites to buy houses in Matteson. The usual groups are yelping, but sensible blacks think the money well spent. “I don’t want to go through the process of seeing my neighborhood go 75, 85, 90 percent black,” says Bill Watts, a retired postal worker who is black. “I know what that has meant for other communities, and I don’t want that here.” [Juanita Poe, Rapidly changing Matteson sets a course to woo whites, Chi Trib, 4/17/95, p. 1.]
Multiculturalism has come to the Sidney suburb of Cabramatta. About a quarter of the population — 20,000 people — is now Vietnamese and Cabramatta has become Australia’s heroin capital. There is so much drug use around the railroad station that gardeners refuse to tend to flower beds; they are afraid of being stuck by scores of discarded hypodermic needles. Whites now call the town Vietmatta.
Young Vietnamese men like to join gangs, and many have “5T” tattooed on the backs of their rights hands or the letter T written on each knuckle. T is the first letter of the Vietnamese words for love, money, prison, crime, and kill. As it is in the United States, “home invasion” is a favorite Vietnamese crime. Gang members smash through a door with a sledge hammer and then rape, rob, and terrorize the family. Preferred targets are illegal gambling dens, where a great deal of cash is likely to be found.
Victims are not all Asian. John Newman, Cabramatta’s representative in the state Parliament was shot to death in his own driveway, perhaps because of his strong stance against Asian gangs. His murder has been called Australia’s first political assassination, although the killers have not been identified.
Until the 1960s, Australia allowed only whites to immigrate. Now, about five percent of Australia’s 17 million people are either first- or second-generation Asian immigrants. [Charles Wallace, Racial tensions rise in Australia over Vietnamese immigrant community, LA Times, 4/8/95, p. A8.]
Death on Wheels
In Kenya, the death rate on the highways is about 90 times higher than in California: one death for every 71 vehicles as opposed to one for every 6,289. Some Kenyan officials blame the slaughter on awful roads, but foreigners think that for a nation of crazy drivers, overstuffed vehicles, and bad brakes, better roads would only make the killing more efficient. Another problem is traffic lights; sometimes there is no electricity and sometimes the bulbs are stolen. Kenya is a popular destination for European tourists, but enough have been killed in traffic accidents to persuade travel companies to scale back their operations. [John Balzar, Kenya’s most dangerous game? Driving, LA Times, 2/7/95, p. H6.]
The Michigan state government grants special tax favors to any city in the state with a population of more than one million. This is a gift to Detroit, which is the only city that even comes close. As Detroit keeps losing people, the one million figure gets harder to reach with every census.
Former U.S. Census Director Barbara Bryant now charges in a new book, Moving Power and Money, that the city went to unusual lengths to pad its population. When a preliminary estimate showed the city to have only 970,000 people, Mayor Coleman Young called for an army of volunteers to find more. They did. They listed the residents of 701 parking lots, 1,115 nonexistent addresses, and 236 houses that had been torn down. They also listed 722 people confirmed dead or departed, and 2,512 citizens who were unknown to the people who actually lived at the addresses. It took a one million dollar Census Bureau audit to find all this out, but Juliette Okotie-Eboh, who ran the 1990 Detroit census, says the charges are false. [Richard Ryan, Book bashes Detroit over its census count in ‘90, Det News, 4/19/95, p. 1A.]
Enlightenment at the Atlantic
The May, 1995 issue of Atlantic Monthly has published a remarkably level-headed article about diversity. In “The Diversity Myth: America’s Leading Export,” Benjamin Schwarz reports that it is pure ignorance about human nature and the history of their own country that makes Americans think they can solve overseas ethnic conflicts through “reconciliation” and “power-sharing.” He notes that until the 1960s, the United States forced all immigrants into an Anglo-American mold and that this held the country together: “the current fragmentation and directionlessness of American society is the result, above all, of a disintegrating elite’s increasing inability or unwillingness to impose its hegemony on society as a whole.”
- [F]rom the ‘American’ point of view, a reasonable accommodation [with the Indians] would have required that, in Theodore Roosevelt’s blunt phrase, the vast continent be set aside ‘as a game preserve.’ America’s great ethnic struggle should have taught Americans that many conflicts are simply irreconcilable. The struggle to make one nation of America’s original two [races] — black and white — is an enterprise that might never succeed, and that America’s founders did not believe was possible.
- [I]t is, as John Stuart Mill observed, ‘next to impossible’ to build a true democracy — as opposed to a system of majority tyranny — in a multi-ethnic society . . . Democracy, which permits — in fact encourages — competition for power and benefits among contesting groups, actually exacerbates internal tensions and conflicts.
- Stability within divided societies is normally based on some form of domination, and once internal differences become violent, usually only the logic of force can lay them to rest. Lamentably, the most stable and lasting solution to ethnic and nationalist conflicts has been ethnic cleansing and partition.
- Without the dominance that once dictated, however ethnocentrically, what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together. Unfortunately, the evidence from Los Angeles to New York, from Miami to Milwaukee, shows that such principles are not so powerful as we had believed and hoped. Afraid to face our own problems directly, we look elsewhere, and encourage other countries to prove to us that more pluralism and more tolerance are all that are needed to reunite divided societies. [Atlantic Monthly, pp. 57ff.]
The rest of the article which, with a little editing could have appeared in AR, is well worth reading.
Freaknik is an annual spring frolic for black college students, which has been held in Atlanta since 1982. It is well known to be accompanied by looting and violence, but a black-run city is unable to bring itself to forbid the students to come. Thousands of whites simply leave town for the weekend.
This year’s Freaknik, held April 21 through 23, drew only about half as many party-goers as last year’s 200,000, and the revelry was somewhat more subdued. Even so, for about 12 hours on Friday, crowds overwhelmed police and looted a dozen stores. On Saturday, students drove to suburban malls for desultory looting. Blacks smashed a department store window and made off with clothes — as crowds cheered — until a man appeared with a shotgun and fired several shells into the air. Three people were shot and ten women were raped in Freaknik-related violence, and the 1,793 Freaknik arrests swamped the Atlanta Municipal Court. Police overtime and clean-up costs were about one million dollars.
Thousands of specially-trained riot police, positioned just minutes from the looting, were never called out. The police chief and mayor, both black, have since traded accusations over who should have ordered them into action. Former Atlanta mayor, Sam Massell, probably got it right: “It took a great deal of courage to take any action that appeared to be forceful in opposition to an event that is predominantly African-American in nature and profile” — that is to say, more courage than either had.
Freaknik gets its name from the word freak which, in black slang, means someone who will do anything to get sex. There were many lewd displays by both sexes, and women were stripped and groped. Many men carried video cameras, turning them aggressively on all comers, willing or not.
The current mayor, Bill Campbell, had initially opposed the freaknikers but relented after being likened to George Wallace, Lester Maddox, “Bull” Connor, and Uncle Tom. He may now have enough allies to close “the South’s black Mecca” to next year’s frolic. [Rodger Brown, Broken Promise, Creative Loafing (Atlanta), May 6, 1995. Atlanta Constitution of April 21-24, 1995.]
Peter Brimelow of Forbes has written a critique of American immigration policy called Alien Nation. AR will be reviewing it soon, but the concluding sentences alone of a notice in the Village Voice Literary Supplement would have fully convinced us that this is a worthwhile book:
We might dismiss the rantings of Peter Brimelow as delusional paranoia. But truth is, it’s more of a desperate gasp. As multinational development schemes like NAFTA and GATT continue to degrade the quality of Third World life, more and more people are being displaced. We take our acts across oceans in order to survive. Our survival depends on the destruction of the privilege Brimelow is so desperate to defend. His fear is justified. We will bury him.
The author is someone named Lawrence Chua.
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — The story about the killing of Viola Liuzzo was remarkably appropriate for our times. That this should be the 30th anniversary of her killing is almost a side issue.
By comparison to the circus that O.J. Simpson’s trial has become, rural Alabama court procedures of 30 years ago are a model of speed and efficiency. Also, given the clear likelihood that black jurors in Mr. Simpson’s trial will refuse to convict him no matter what the evidence, it is instructive to read your account of the Klansmen’s trials. We have been taught to think of such trials as simply white supremacist rituals, but the truth is more complex — summed up, in fact, by the New York Times headline you quote: “Jury With Negroes Acquits Klansman . . .”
Finally, the antics of Gary Thomas Rowe are particularly relevant in light of current proposals to make it easier for the FBI to infiltrate suspect groups. The man was clearly a trouble-maker and an agent provocateur. Congress should carefully ponder his example before it turns many more Gary Rowes loose upon the land.
Byron Stolter, Fresno, Cal.
Sir — I would not have believed your account of public obscenities during the Selma-to-Montgomery march if it had not been for the page of affidavits that you reprinted. Since I do not remember this kind of goings on being reported by the press at the time, it makes me wonder whether this march was uniquely degenerate or whether it was just a typical “civil rights” demonstration.
Mary Schmidt, Charleston, S. C.
Sir — No, no, no. It was not Lyndon Johnson who did in Ole Miss with federal troops in the fall of 1962. It was John Kennedy. Let’s get the villains straight.
Name Withheld, New York, N. Y.
Sir — In his letter in the May issue, Lawrence Auster is right to object that Michael Levin’s article in the April issue should have been better documented. He is correct to say that sensitive and explosive issues require the utmost care. AR has maintained that level of care in the totality of its published issues, and should not be judged by any single issue.
On balance, Prof. Levin is surely correct in his views. Given that Caucasians and Negroes are separate sub-species of mankind, who evolved on different continents and forged vastly different histories, especially with regard to tools, weapons, and constructs of morality, and given further that these differences continue to manifest themselves today, the burden of proof should be on he who claims there are no significant differences between the races.
Name Withheld, Miami, Fla.
Sir — I was pleased to see your mention in the “O Tempora” column of Antoinette Frank, the New Orleans policewoman who murdered several acquaintances when she held up a Vietnamese restaurant. She is the fourth New Orleans police officer to be accused of murder in less than a year. All four are black. Len Davis is another New Orleans officer recently in the news. He had been under surveillance by anti-corruption officers, who recorded this charming speech, which he made into a cellular telephone as he sat in his patrol car:
Man, that whore’s standing out there right now with a black [expletive] coat on . . . with her [expletive] hair in that little bob . . . with [expletive] jeans on . . . standing in the middle of the [expletive] street. Get that whore.
This was not an exuberant message to the vice squad. These were instructions to a drug lord who promptly drove up and killed the “whore.” The 32-year-old woman, Kim Groves, had offended Officer Davis by filing a citizen’s complaint when he pistol whipped one of her neighbors. “Yeah, yeah, yeah,” exulted Officer Davis when he got confirmation of the killing; “Rock, rockabye.”
New Orleans is more than 60 percent black, and vies with Washington, DC as the murder capital of the country. Whites keep moving out of the city; I expect to leave soon.
Kevin Hopkins, New Orleans, La.
Sir — You published an “O Tempora” item in May describing an Immigration and Naturalization Service recruiting brochure that is full of photographs of nonwhites. In the parts of the country where it is most active — along the Mexico border — will not the largest number of affirmative-action recruits be Hispanic? What sort of border guards will they make? Who will guard the guards?
Sharon Mancuso, Long Beach, Cal.
Sir — I read with some bitterness former California assemblyman, Art Torres’ contemptuous description of Proposition 187 as “the last gasp of the white man.” He must realize that if whites were unified in the way that other races are, Hispanics would be no more a threat to whites than a gnat is to a bull. Obviously, he is counting on white weakness and is so confident of it that he can say in public exactly what he thinks. When will whites finally listen to what people are saying about them?
Thomas Strong, Virginia Beach, Va.