Richard McCulloch, American Renaissance, June 1995
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 monoracial 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 adesire 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. Monoracial 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 monoracial. 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.