Paul Kersey, The Occidental Quarterly, Fall 2010
Editor’s Note: First published in The Occidental Quarterly over ten years ago, this essay is as relevant as ever.
In 1995 American Renaissance dedicated two issues to the subject of racial separation and White survival. The contributors included Sam Francis, Richard McCulloch, and Rabbi Meyer Schiller. McCulloch and Schiller advocated separation and the creation of ethnic enclaves. But Francis adamantly opposed any notion of secession, which he saw as a form of capitulation by the White majority:
By embracing a strategy that involved breaking up the United States, not only would Whites be abandoning their own country but also they would be forced to give up appeals to its history, its traditions, and its interests as a nation. We could no longer cite the words of Jefferson and Lincoln (and other American statesmen) on racial matters; we could no longer invoke the US Constitution as an authority; we could no longer argue that immigration threatens our national interests because there would be no nation to have interests; we could no longer mention the settlement and conquest of North America by whites, if only be-cause we would have confessed that that settlement and con-quest have been failures from which we are now running as fast as we could. By consenting to national disintegration and separatism, in short, we would have to start all over in the project of constructing a culture, a country, and a political order. If only for practical reasons, it is much easier to stay with those we already have than it is to invent new ones that do not exist save in the mind’s eye.
Francis then went on to state, rather axiomatically:
Moreover, whites should not embrace this proposal because at the present time and for a long time to come, there is no need to. There may well come a time when partition is the only recourse left to whites, but that time is far off. The fact is that descendants of Europeans are still a large majority of the American population and still retain far more wealth, political power, and even cultural dominance than non-whites. If whites wanted to do so, they could dictate a solution to the racial problem tomorrow — by curtailing immigration and sealing the border, by imposing adequate fertility controls on non-whites and encouraging a higher white birth rate, by refusing to be bullied into enduring “multiculturalism,” affirmative action, civil rights laws and policies; and by refusing to submit to cultural dissolution, inter-racial violence and insults, and the guilt that multiracialists inculcate.
Flash forward to the present. The President of the United States is a byproduct of a polygamous African male and a liberal White woman, demonstrating for the first time on the national scene the awesome power of the minority voting bloc.
Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser paint a picture of this voting bloc in their book, How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election. They write:
While the coalition of voters that supported Obama reflected the in-creasing diversity of America, and while Obama made gains across al-most all demographic subgroups, the majority of his support came from white voters. Sixty-one percent of his supports were white, 23 percent black, and 11 percent Hispanic. In contrast, 90 percent of McCain’s supporters were white. . . . (Obama) won 95 percent of the black vote. . . and 67 percent of the Hispanic vote.
Using the 2008 election as a template, Obama can look at the rising tide of color in the United States and smile. A recent study by the Augusta, Georgia based think-tank The National Policy Institute illustrates the perilous situations that Whites collectively face and quantifies the severity of the problems, which show no signs of being confronted by a renewed sense of vigor from the majority. Another study, this one commissioned by the US Census Bureau, shows that Whites will be a minority in this country much sooner than originally projected.
The first of the studies to be discussed is “The Cost of Diversity: The Economic Costs of Racial and Cultural Diversity,” which analyzes the effects of affirmative action, immigration and multiculturalism, states:
America pays a high price for racial and cultural diversity. Most of us have no idea how high the price really is. The economic burden falls hardest on non-Hispanic whites who, as a group, are disadvantaged by policies aimed at increasing diversity. . . . Peter Brimelow, writing several years ago in Forbes, calculated cumulative affirmative action costs to the U.S. economy at $225 billion, or four percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), for the year 1991. . . . The economic cost of affirmative action compounds annually, as the growth path of the economy diverges from its potential. Bottom line: The misallocation that cost 4 percent of that GDP in 1991 could easily cost 8 percent of GDP today (2007). That implies a $1.1 trillion economic loss from affirmative action programs — a whopping $3,667 taken from every man, woman, and child in the country.
With those costs compounding, by 2012 the economic costs of diversity will be over $4.5 trillion during President Obama’s tenure in the White House (clarification is needed). However, these numbers cannot accurately reflect the awesome demographic changes the country is undergoing, thanks entirely to massive immigration — both legal and illegal.
In 2050, the nation’s population of children is expected to be 62 percent minority, up from 44 percent today. Thirty-nine percent are projected to be Hispanic (up from 22 percent in 2008), and 38 percent are projected to be single-race, non-Hispanic white (down from 56 percent in 2008).
Understanding that the longer necessary action is met with inactivity is the key to realizing that the displacement of the majority will continue unabated if we follow the model that Dr. Francis postulated almost 15 years ago. Each day that passes is another step closer to the demographically inevitable eclipse of Whites by a minority comprised of individuals who no longer see any value in becoming American, but enthusiastically embrace the new America — as defined by President Obama:
We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.
These somber facts are further accompanied by more bad news with US Census Bureau’s projections, widely discussed in the summer of 2008, that show the racial conquest of the majority to take place much sooner than estimated.
According to the US census bureau, the dominance of non-Hispanic white people, who today account for two-thirds of Americans, will be whittled away, falling steadily to less than half in 2042 and 46% by 2050. In the opposite trajectory, those who describe themselves as Hispanic, Black, Asian and Native American will increase in proportion from about a third now to 54% by 2050.
Such a rapid demographical shift is in tune with trends that have been seen for some time, but it is happening much faster than experts had predicted even four years ago.
It is important now to backtrack to the summer of 2004, the precise moment when President Obama was thrust onto the national spotlight thanks to the keynote address he gave at the Democratic National Convention. A largely unknown candidate from Illinois at the time, Obama was given a national stage to charm the masses tuned in and lay the foundation for his run to the White House in 2008. This day is the key to understanding the phenomenon that helped Obama steamroll presumed frontrunner Hillary Clinton, and take the nomination for his party in early 2008 and eventually the White House, as an articulate, non-threatening and polished African-American cemented himself as a statesmen, transcending race.
It was not just that Mr. Obama, a half-black and half-white icon of multiracialism, was the star of the convention in the press in the following days. He has been a star ever since and is likely to remain one. . . . Mr. Obama, you see, had a father who was a black native of Kenya and a white American mother. “People like Obama”are multiracial people. His racial identity or supposed lack of it enables him to be both black and non-racial, white and multiracial, at the same time. . . . When he wants to be black, he can be and is. He calls himself black and the media routinely identify him as a “black” or “African-American. . . He joins Tiger Woods and Halle Berry as the model of what the New American is supposed to be — the multiracial utopia where every racial identity is legitimate except that of whites. . . It’s the moment when America ceases to be a nation defined and characterized by the White racial identity of its founders and historic population and is trans-formed into the non-white multiracial empire symbolized and led by “people like Obama.”
Dr. Francis would only live for five more months after this column was written and pass away long before Obama became president. He knew that the nation once defined as White and led by individuals who once understood — and took for granted — the necessity of a strong nation rooted in its historic, European-descended population, would be extirpated into something else if and when a non-White was elected to govern the executive branch of the federal government.
This has happened. The time for thinking fondly about George Washington and the Founding Father of the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, The Greatest Generation and World War II, of apple pie and rock ’n’ roll is over.
The United States is governed today by an individual who would be alien to the people whom Dr. Francis fondly recalled and spiritedly insisted we strive to remember and defend. With Obama’s election, the reality of our displacement has occurred, and Whites must necessarily begin to think realistically (and not fantastically) about our prospects for survival.
Considering the economic costs of diversity the NPI study calculated for the fiscal year of 2007, it is inconceivable to conclude that continued trillions of dollars lost in economic activity due to immigration, affirmative action and diversity over the next decade (the number will continue to compound and eventually double) will be sustainable. The reality of our economic crisis is settling in, as the Federal Deficit for the fiscal 2010 budget will be roughly $1.42 trillion and the government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year. To put that number into perspective, as a percentage of the economy, the deficit would be 12.9 percent of GDP this year, the biggest since World War II. It would drop to 8.5 percent of GDP in 2010.
(Trying to correlate the current economic crisis in credit, mort-gage, banking, finance, automotive — nearly every segment of the United States economy — and discuss it within this narrative is a task for a longer essay. Suffice it to say, the tip of the iceberg regarding the diversity and minority aspect of the recession that started in the fall of 2007 and snowballed into a credit crisis and potential depression in April of 2009 is beginning to unravel.)
On top of the unfolding financial crisis is the recent report compiled by the US Department of Homeland Security published assessment with the provocative title: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”
This incredibly enlightening document showcases the government’s official attitude toward White people who actually consider their interests and deem the current state of affairs anathema to their collective state: they’re the enemy.
Highlights of the study include:
- Anti-immigration: “Rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.”
- Recruiting returning vets: “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.
- Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms . . . may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the White supremacist and militia movements.
- “Lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”
This DHS study is the epitome of Dr. Francis’s concept of anarcho-tyranny. The idea of anarcho-tyranny is that laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against criminality routinely go un-enforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate on repressing law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny.
In a column in the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles, Dr. Francis expounded further on the idea, writing:
What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny — the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through ‘sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word: anarcho-tyranny.
Our government could stem the tide of immigration, stop the proliferation of crime and curb gun-related fatalities without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, but the idea of consolidating power at the expense of the DHS-designated “right-wing extremists” is what drives the new, multicultural America, and will only be exacerbated at a greater pace in the future.
What can be done?
The ultimate question that must be asked is what are the prospects for Whites in the coming years and the prospects of racial separation, which seems to be the most logical hope for sustaining our people. A 1979 article from Wilmot Robertson’s magazine Instauration delineates much of what has been previously discussed in this essay, but with a prescient tone that belies Dr. Francis’ idea of fighting to restore the old America. Eschewing the idea that America can or should be saved, the author — under the nom de plume Cholly Bilderberger — penned a two-part essay which underlined his idea that our country would collapse, indeed had collapsed in every possible manner, save economically. Here, 30 years later, we have reached the point where 500,000 jobs have been lost for five consecutive months and one of the nation’s largest Fortune 500 companies, General Motors, has been taken over by the government and stands on the verge of bankruptcy.
At this point, it is vital to discuss the main point of this essay: The United States has passed the point of political salvation. Whites can-not act in their own interests and indeed have shown absolutely no desire to act in their own collective interests. In Alabama, 88 percent of Whites did vote for McCain over Obama in the 2008 election, but this is more the exception than the rule.
Demographic changes in the next 25 years — if the United States were a viable and economically healthy nation — would spell the doom of Whites in this country. However, based on the information discussed in this essay, a half-century of life left for this country seems just as fantastical as a right-wing revolution starting next week.
We should reflect long and hard on Bilderberger:
The collapse of the American system has already taken place to some degree. It is continuing at a rapid pace, and it will become formal at some point in the future, all going more or less as Yeats described it many years ago: “Things fall apart: the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The collapse will be seen as a disaster by most people, abroad as well as at home, but that is a limited point of view. Actually, it is as organic as any other natural function, and simply the last act in a birth-maturity-death cycle. When a state is dying, one dies with it only to the extent that one is psychologically and spiritually a part of it. Those who are a part of it — the vast majority — will perish with it. Those who are not — the tiny minority — will not, and some of them will survive as carriers of life. The only disaster, once the state is dying, would be prolongation by some artificial means of support.
Readers may be in the latter category: one who no longer has any fear of the collapse of the United States. Dr. Francis believed that if Whites could wake up with a renewed sense of self-worth, we could retake the nation overnight. This is an absurd thought experiment, as the problems of our racial displacement are largely due to the suicidal beliefs of the White majority and the complete lack of desire in protecting the old United States, which no longer exists.
The multiracial government of President Obama and whoever succeeds him will continue to make life harder for Whites and indeed for all those who reside physically in the United States. However, if you reject this country and stop worrying about how the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic and instead embrace that the ship is going down and is not salvageable, then you are prepared for what comes next.
We live in uncertain times. We must understand that as Whites who care about our progeny and the future we bequeath them, we are firmly in the minority. It is vital to realize that no political solution is thinkable or desirable. Violence would be foolish and counterproductive: sustained efforts to confront the government would only buttress the claims made the DHS and increase anarcho-tyrannical policies on the dwindling majority.
Sadly, all Whites can do is wait for the collapse and understand that the continued proliferation of non-Whites in the United States does not doom our race, nor condemn us to the funeral pyre of history, but instead merely dooms America to destruction and perhaps will usher in a glimmer of hope for our salvation.
All we can do is judge the state of the nation as it is currently, with the facts on hand and at our disposal and judiciously conclude that America is no longer viable nor desirable for Whites in its present form. We cannot ameliorate our situation at this juncture, nor can we predict what will transpire when the collapse takes place.
What we can do is to continue our support of organizations such as TOQ, American Renaissance and individuals such as Kevin MacDonald, Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor — groups and men who will continue to awaken White minds and prepare them for the collapse. What comes after the fall will largely be up to the industrious minds that help Whites survive the initial shock of no longer physically living in the United States of America and the safety net of democracy, liberalism and egalitarianism.
The sudden collapse of the United States will have two immediate positive effects for Whites worldwide. One, the proliferation of non-Whites worldwide will automatically cease, as the transfer of money, food, resources and medicine from the first world will stop, resulting in widespread famine, disease and war. Two, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will collapse overnight in Europe; this would open up the potential for the well-organized right-wing movements in England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium and other EU nations to exert political control and establish autonomy.
In closing, this essay has tried to show that the United States is now inits final stages of being an actual, viable nation. The economy, which is propped up through massive borrowing, is on its last legs and the sheer demographic tidal wave, along with the costs associated with maintaining an increasingly larger minority bloc will suddenly and assuredly expose the multiracial experiment as a farce.