Sam Francis (1947 - 2005)

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it ought to be obvious that the dominant powers and authorities in the United States and other Western countries are either indifferent to the accelerating racial and cultural dispossession of the historic peoples of America and Europe or are actually in favor of it.

–Samuel Francis in Race and the American Prospect

Among the many good things that paleoconservative Sam Francis left to us was his analysis of the “managerial elite.” Francis drew his understanding of this concept from James Burnham, who in the 1930s moved beyond his Marxist views to offer a competing theory known as the theory of the managerial revolution. In this view, as traditional capitalism and its ruling class passed from the scene, managers—or more properly “technocrats”—would replace them (p. 384). More specifically, it would include “administrators, experts, directing engineers, production executives, propaganda specialists, [and] technocrats” (p. 385).

(All numbered quotes are drawn from Francis’s “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization,”in Race and the American Prospect. See here and here for further reading.)

Francis laid out the problem starkly:

. . . the realities of twentieth and twenty-first century power that do in fact explain what must be one of the most significant and astonishing truths of human history—that an entire ruling class has abandoned and in effect declared war upon the very population and civilization from which it is itself drawn. (p.377)

Further, he noted, these assaults on whites “are not the results of democratic majority rule or popular consent” (p.377).

What explains it then? Francis argued that the classical theory of elites, along with James Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution, do the job (p. 378). “The two essential characteristics of an elite-ruling class are what may be called Unity and Dominance—unity in that it needs to cohere around its interest and to agree on what its interests are and (in general) how to pursue them, and dominance in that it must be able to make its interests prevail over those of rival groups” (p. 382).

As Francis saw it,

The major common interest that unites the managerial class is its need to extend and perpetuate the demand for the skills and functions on which its power and social rewards depend. The managers pursue that interest by seeking to ensure that the mass organizations they control, which require the skills and functions that only the managers can provide, are preserved and extended. Large corporations must displace and dominate small businesses. A large, centralized, bureaucratic state must displace and dominate small, localized, and decentralized government. Mass media and communications conglomerates and mass universities must displace and dominate smaller, local newspapers, publishers, colleges, and schools. Moreover, the elites that controlled these older and smaller institutions must also be displaced as the ruling class of the larger society and their ideology and cultural values discredited and rejected. (p. 386)

Francis clearly advanced the argument that the managers of these larger institutions are responsible for the destruction of the traditional white societies that came before them. Those old elites “championed traditional religious and moral beliefs and institutions, the importance of the patriarchal family and local community, and the value of national, regional, racial, and ethnic identity, as well as the virtues of the capitalist ethnic—hard work, frugality, personal honesty and integrity, individual initiative, postponement of gratification” (p. 388).

If he was right, then we need not search for another primary cause of the collapse of traditional Western societies. In particular, he offered a competing view to that of Kevin MacDonald and his idea that Jews had unleashed a “culture of critique” on white societies. For Francis, the existence of such a withering critique is not in question; rather, for Francis, the source was and is the managerial elite.

“The managerial ideology,” he wrote, “also demonized the old elite and its institutions and values as ‘obsolete,’ ‘backward,’ ‘repressive,’ ‘exploitative,’ and ‘narrow-minded’” (p. 389). Thus, it had no compunction about destroying the traditional family, local community and religion, or traditional cultural and moral codes. Nor did it have a need for ethnic or racial identities (as far as whites were concerned). In fact, the whole nation-state was superfluous (p. 390).

(I might interject here that since Francis was talking about a historical process not driven by particular racial or ethnic concerns, we would expect similar results from non-white regions which have incorporated the techno-bureaucratic system Francis discussed. Japan and other Asian nations would now fit this mold, yet we observe not even the stirring of any desire to dispossess traditional same-race elites. With a combined population of nearly 200 million, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have substantially adopted modern corporate-bureaucratic structures, yet this has affected their racial composition not at all. China, with its one-billion-plus population, remains overwhelming Han Chinese and also shows no signs of changing.)

That Francis does not attribute this powerful attack on traditional society to be the work of Jews does not mean he saw no role for Jews. On the contrary, he had a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the role Jews played.

In his section “The Agenda of Dispossession,” Francis acknowledged the detailed work done by Kevin MacDonald to document the Jewish role in the dispossession of whites. But for Francis, the Jewish aspiration to cultural and political supremacy over whites is merely fortuitous, for “the Jewish agenda and that of the managerial elite are in this respect perfectly congruent with each other.”

Now a man of Francis’s rare intelligence and insight is not about to downplay the vast role played by Jews in America today. Rather than attributing dominance to this group, however, he takes an alternative tack: “Jews within the managerial elite serve as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class. . . . perform[ing] a support function” (p. 397).

So we’ve reached the crux of the issue: Are Jews subordinate to the (implied) white managerial elite, or are they dominant? This very question divides white nationalists to this day.

Here I will argue that Francis’s belief in Jewish subordination was wrong, but it was intentionally wrong. Put another way, in “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization” and in his other writings, he was writing esoterically because he knew the consequences of writing too candidly about Jewish power.

Consider that Francis noted the new role of managerial bureaucrats in government and the political parties in displacing the previous White, non-Jewish power holders. This new governmental domination is mirrored by that occurring in the universities, foundation, think tanks, national newspapers and magazines, as well as visual mass media. But hasn’t Jewish dominance in these spheres has been so massively documented (by MacDonald, for example) that it would seem “managerial elite” is practically synonymous with “Jewish elite”?

When reading the following list proffered by Francis, does not the informed reader perforce construct a mental image of Jewish dominance: “public bureaucracies, mass labor unions, political parties, mass media, financial institutions, universities, foundations, and other organizations that were immense in size, scale, and technical complexity . . .” (p. 385).

Two institutions that might fall outside the immediate ken of Jewish domination are large corporations involved in manufacturing, and the military (although the last time I checked, Norton Schwartz headed the US Air Force, becoming the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, head of the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, the assistant commandant of the Marines. This is according to The Jewish Forward.)

Unless it wasn’t clear before, the recent economic meltdown has largely proven the dominance of Wall St. capital over individual corporations, particularly those in manufacturing (see this blog for a short description). As for the military, the heavily Jewish neoconservatives have successfully made the US military subordinate to their will. Again, both of these claims need not be demonstrated here for they have been demonstrated so well in other familiar and accessible places.

Francis also listed non-white ethnic and racial groups which are encouraged to openly pursue their own interests, such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and so on. In a footnote, he acknowledged the contribution to Race and the American Prospect made by Kevin MacDonald on the Jewish creation and control of the NAACP. As editor of the book, Francis simply cannot plead ignorance. In the same way that MacDonald shows how the NAACP was a front group in the Jewish assault on white society, so too can we show that many of the other managerial groups cited by Francis have been dominated by Jews. Jews were not and are not merely performing a support function.

A good friend who is following these debates sums up the situation well: “Jewish influence is so pervasive and powerful that other factors can hardly be said to be truly independent. It is not now possible to live in a vacuum, a world that is unaffected by their influence.”

He continues:

I’d like to know what force is larger and more menacing than they are? The only even remotely plausible candidates would quite simply have to be secret societies, because there is no force that is possible to detect in the daylight that is bigger, more powerful, or more menacing. And secret societies are of course notoriously difficult to trace or, in some cases (like the Illuminati) even to prove that they exist. So, to the extent that the Jews are not the tool/pawn of some larger force that is very difficult to verify, it is reasonable to conclude that the Jews are the greatest power in the world today (and the world of the past hundred years). I certainly haven’t seen anything in Francis’s work that has convinced me otherwise.

A similarly well-informed friend adds,

Furthermore, Jews socialize to create a certain elite—the “beheading” of the natural elite. [See my own essay on that topic here.] Their ability to control discourse [as in Israel Shamir’s Masters of Discourse], both through media domination and by destroying individuals such as Irving, Rudolf, Zundel, or organizations like the IHR (they firebombed it), completely distorts public discourse.

It is pointless to argue with philo-Semites of any stripe. Even philo-Semites would be different in the absence of Jews: they’d have to identify a different god to worship and center their lives around!

Again, this position is a common one among those who have studied The Jewish Question at length. Such observers—properly, in my view—have little patience with theories that posit Jews as supporting actors or as people who are overtaken by impersonal forces that supposedly ride herd over us humans.

Sam Francis died nearly five years ago, so he missed the continued rise of the Zionists and neocons, and the transparently Jewish-backed elevation of a non-White to the Presidency, and the present econmic tumult, with its famed minority mortgage meltdown, the bankruptcy of General Motors, and the bailouts to Wall St., followed by the obscene bonuses paid to those bankers. Had he lived, he may indeed have begun to write more openly about The Jewish Problem.

Personally, I sympathize greatly with someone in a situation such as his. He played by the rules, earning advanced degrees at good universities, then went quietly to work in the halls of power, all the while honing his writing skills.

When the time came, he moved to an editorial position at The Washington Times, but as Joe Sobran noted, Sam “stayed at the Times for nine years until he was abruptly fired for speaking (on his own time) at an American Renaissance Conference. The comments in his speech were not at issue. The newspaper objected to his having appeared at the gathering.”

Francis knew the line he was walking and did his best to stay honest to himself and to his readers. He also knew the risks—and paid for taking them.

Still, he had critics among white nationalists who felt he should have done more to expose the threat emanating from the Jewish quarter. One of critics was Victor J. Gerhard, Esq. who posted on VNN this exchange with Francis. Chided for not naming Jews, Francis replied, “You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anything like mainstream media.”

Gerhard upped the ante, however, demanding of Francis:

Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I’ve had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns — they don’t get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.

I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power! Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work. [emphasis added]

Sam shot back:

I don’t deny that Jews have power — certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a satellite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming the actual ruling class because they have no interest in that as long as their interests are secured.

My entire body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I disagree with and have a somewhat different view of the world than what is frankly a monomaniacal obsession with an omnipotent Jew. [emphasis in the original]

Again, I appreciate that Francis was in a difficult situation. John Derbyshire described it quite well in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com, asserting:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

Note that he never says anything about the truth value of such hypothetical remarks; presumably, even true ones that reflect poorly on the Jews would succeed in getting one banished. That is the point.

The fact is, tactics aimed at the protection and advancement of Whites tried till now have not succeeded. They have failed. Consider again the scope of the problem, outlined here by an incredulous Peter Brimelow:

This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland in the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . . What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power.

As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people? . . . How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control?”

The answer is that the founding stock—and two hundred million other Euro-Americans—have come under the rule of an alien elite, along with the multitude of non-White minorities which that elite has recruited.

A serious study of this process will reveal that rather than the Managerial Revolution as postulated by Burnham or Francis being responsible, it has been a race-centered progression instituted by organized Jewry and by Jews individually. I think of it as a “promote-punish-purge” process in which perceived Jewish interests are always paramount.

Francis was purged because his writings were pro-white, an unacceptable position to Jews because only THEY among powerful groups may promote group integrity. From the time German Jews arrived in America during the 1800s, they have actively pursued this “promote-punish-purge” campaign, boosting Jewish power and influence, while undermining and destroying that of their current main nemesis, Whites.

The list of those pro-Whites punished and purged is long, and it is hard to reconcile the vehemence of the attacks against them with the desire of the managerial elite to gain and hold power. Ford, Lindbergh, Coughlin, Pound, Eliot, McCarthy, Carto, Pierce, Oliver, Duke, Dickson, Robertson, Buchanan, Sobran, Irving, Gibson, MacDonald. This list goes on.

Meanwhile, the enemies of Whites—mainly drawn from the ranks of White liberals—have been assiduously promoted for over a century. Ted Kennedy, the public face of the 1965 immigration law betrayal, is but an example.

Had Sam Francis been given his threescore years and ten, I suspect he would have come over to the side of more white nationalists on the Jewish Question and I think he would have done so publicly.

Is it not our duty, then, to honor Dr. Francis’s memory by addressing forthrightly the chief problem facing us today?

“Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land.”
– Walter Scott

One.

Some time in the second half of the 1990s, a terminological change occurred in the racially conscious community.

Many who previously identified themselves as White Power advocates, segregationists, separatists, supremacists, survivalists, neo-Confederates, biological realists, etc. started calling themselves “white nationalists.”

At the time (and I didn’t know much about these things then), I thought this reflected a changing political consciousness.

For what began after 1945 as a “movement” to maintain the integrity of America’s racial character and prevent alien races from intruding into its various “life worlds” had, by the 1990s, ceased to be a realistic project — 30 years of Third-World immigration, “civil rights” legislation, and various measures imposed by the federal government to subordinate white interests to those of nonwhites had irrevocably transformed the American people so that it was increasingly difficult to characterize them as even a majority-white population.

As a consequence, “white advocates” in the late 1990s started making traditional nationalist claims for secession and self-determination because the United States, in their eyes, had become a threat to their people.

Two.

This interpretation was not at all unreasonable. But, alas, it didn’t quite accord with the facts.

I’ve since learned that those calling themselves “white nationalists” are not necessarily nationalists in the sense of wanting to secede from the United States in order to form an independent ethnostate. Most, I think it’s fair to say, are racially conscious conservatives who want to work through the existing institutions to regain control of the country their ancestors made — in order, ultimately, to dismantle the present anti-white system of preferences and restore something of the white man’s former hegemony.

By contrast, white nationalists in the strict sense (i.e., those favoring secession) have no interest in restoring the old ways, let alone regaining control of the central state, whose authority is already slipping and whose rule is increasingly dysfunctional. Indeed, the American state system, as its more astute supporters acknowledge, is now beyond reform.

Instead, white nationalists aspire to create a counter-elite to lead disaffected white youth in a movement to found a whites-only nation-state somewhere in North America, once the poorly managed enterprise known as the United States collapses in a centrifugal dispersion of its decaying and perverted powers.

Without an organizational presence in the real world and with a “public” largely of computer hobbyists, white nationalists at present have no hope of actually mobilizing the white populace in opposition to the existing anti-white regime. Rather, their immediate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it — in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.

White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves in wanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor, therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservatives wish, but to rid themselves of them completely.

A National Revolution, they hold, will alone restore “the white man to his rightful place in the world.”

Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich, the Confederacy, or Jim Crow, as leftists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny without interference from other races.”

Three.

White nationalism is a variant of historic ethnonationalism, what Walker Connor calls nationalism “in its pristine sense.”

All three — racial, ethno, and pristine nationalism — define the nation in terms of blood.

The creedal or civic nationalism of the present regime, which makes loyalty to the state, not the nation, primary, is “nationalist” only in a narrow ideological sense, confusing as it does patriotism (loyalty to the state or affection for the land) with loyalty to the people (nationalism). It thus defines the nation in terms of certain abstract democratic principles, seeing it as a collection of individuals, each more important than the whole.

Though ethnonationalists privilege the nation’s spirit above all else, they nevertheless define it organically, in terms of blood, as an extended family, an endogamous kin group, or a genetic commonwealth.

Unlike European nations, formed around long-established ethnic cores (which had developed in the Middle Ages, as Germanic and other tribal confederations evolved into larger political, regional, and cultural identities), American national identity was, historically, defined in explicitly racial terms.

As Sir Arthur Keith characterized it: “In Europe the stock has been broken up into local national breeds; in America the local breeds have been reunited.”

In both cases, a national identity grew out of a real or imagined blood relationship linking the nation’s members to inherited customs and institutions.

Because the American form of racial nationhood lacks the ethnic dimension distinct to European nationalism, it is a source of some misunderstanding, especially in its purely negative expression as anti-Semitism or Negrophobia.

For example, even Euronationalists who struggle for a continental nation-state tend to reject white nationalism — because it seems to imply the typical American leveling of cultural and other identities by subsuming them under a homogenizing biological concept that negates the particularisms of European nationhood and subjects them to Anglo-American hegemony.

In this, however, our European cousins misunderstand the aim of white nationalism, though some white nationalists in their one-sided reaction to nonwhites may, admittedly, have given cause to their misunderstanding.

White nationalism is a distinctly American (or, better said, New World) nationalism, not a European one, and the two are analogous only at the highest level, where the national community, defined ethnically or racially, affirms it right to control its own destiny.

This is not to say that American racial nationalism — which makes white European racial ascriptions the basis of American identity — has no ethnic or historic component.

The country’s original settlers were largely of Anglo-Protestant descent and this had a formative effect on American institutions and folkways.

The organic basis of the American nation, however, was less English ethnicity than “whiteness.”

Even before the War of Independence (the first American war of secession), more than a quarter of the population was of non-English, mainly North European stock: Scots-Irish, German, Dutch, French Huguenots, etc. By about the mid-eighteenth century, the “American English” were increasingly referred to as “Americans,” a people “selected by a whole series of ordeals which [had] killed off the weak and worthless” and conferred a distinct vitality on their laws, attitudes, and local institutions

The bitterness of the War of Independence and the War of 1812, US-British acrimony and rivalry, which lasted late into the 19th century, in addition to the nationalist compulsion to celebrate an American identity independent of the English — all tended to minimize the significance of the colonists’ original national origins, as they were reborn as pure Americans. In fact, American nationalism arose on the basis of a certain popular revulsion against the English.

Nevertheless, English-Americans were the original native Americans, and all the rest of us have since become American by assimilating something of the ethos derived from their unique genos.

Though Anglo-Protestant ethnicity continues to animate the inner reaches of American culture, it wasn’t, however, the genotypical basis of American identity. Rather, it was the racial experience of transplanted Englishmen in seventeenth-century Virginia, then the “exotic far western periphery . . . of the metropolitan European cultural system.”

In the New World part of this system, the ever-looming presence of African slaves, considered “by nature vicious and morally inferior,” and “savage” red Indians, who posed an ongoing threat, could not but foster an acute racial consciousness.

Given that economic opportunities, vast expanses of virgin land, and new fortunes prevented the old European social hierarchies from forming, these racial bearings acted as the one fixed hierarchy ordering colonial life.

Forged, thus, in conflict with nonwhites, the colonists’ early racial consciousness served to mark the boundaries of the emerging American identity. The historian Winthrop Jordan claims that “Anglo-Americans” were already identifying themselves as “whites” rather than “Englishmen” as early as 1680.

National or ethnic differences in this racially mixed environment were simply less meaningful than differences between Europeans and non-Europeans.

These differences were institutionalized when the American colonists declared their independence, for they declared in effect their intent to become a self-determined people in the evolutionary sense, by becoming a nation, an organic body with its own sovereign state and its own laws of growth.

Then, following the revolution, as republican principles were gradually extended to all white males, the country’s Herrenvolk democracy posed an insurmountable obstacle to the extension of these principles to nonwhites — for the new, explicitly white nation was based not on the liberal fiction of “humanity,” but on the assumption that human nature is a product of blood and race.

Indeed, the white egalitarianism of the early republic, shaped largely in opposition to the Toryism of anglophile Federalists (who represented the bourgeois interests of liberal market society and its connection to British commerce) was premised on the Negro’s otherness and the primacy of white racial ascriptions, all of which further contributed to the nation’s self-consciousness, coherence, and communality, as British and European Americans, largely under the leadership of Indian-fighting, pro-slavery, and expansionist Southerners, came to share not just the same horizontal sense of right and identity, but the same vertical qualities and dignities of their stock.

Different in ways from ethnicity, race formed the psychological bonds that joined American whites and differentiated them from nonwhites, just as the language, customs, and early institutions of the original Anglo-Protestant settlers established the cultural-linguistic framework in which white Americans became a self-conscious nation.

Four.

The ethnogenic process that gradually imposed a common culture and identity on the former colonists, as they became Virginians and New Englanders, and more generally, Americans, was interrupted in the 1840s by the mass influx of Irish and German Catholics — the former seen almost as an alien race. Then, in the late 19th century, this was followed by a second great immigrant wave, from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Today the Third World invasion is taking the ethnogenic process to a new extreme, as the state, with its inorganic definition of the nation, endeavors to “transcend” the perennially white, Christian character of the American people for the sake of its oxymoronic “universal nation.”

At each nodal point in this demographic transformation, except the most recent, native Americans, however resistant to the newcomers, succeeded in assimilating them on the basis of their racial ascriptions, as the Anglo-Protestant character of American identity became progressively more “ecumenical.”

Indeed, it’s increasingly difficult today to talk of “hyphenated-Americans,” given that the different European ethnic strains making up the white population have so extensively intermarried that many now no longer know their ethnic origins. As one historian writes: “Ellis Island whiteness” has come to replace “Plymouth Rock whiteness.”

But there were obvious limits to assimilation. As Woodrow Wilson put it: “We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.” Against this view, many “new,” especially Jewish immigrants, advanced the cause for greater ethnic diversity, as if America’s vocation was to become a boardinghouse to all the world’s peoples. The Old America, though, would have none of this, and, in Stoddard’s words, dismissed such claims with the insistence “that America is basically ‘made’ — and that it shall not be unmade.”

When the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired “mandate of heaven,” endeavored to turn Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state system into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic identity — an assault whose overarching aim has been to undermine the population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices facilitating its “demographic” reconstitution. The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve as an instrument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.”

It was only natural, then, that once the shearing got under way the most racially conscious whites began to see themselves as an oppressed nation in need of their own sovereign state.

Five.

Racial conservatives have offered numerous criticisms of nationalists advocating secession from the United States. The most common of these — made in a period which has witnessed successful secessionist movements (in the former SU, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.), as well as other popular movements resisting a despotic, leveling centralization in the name of regionalism, devolution, and the defense of historic identities — is that the prospect of creating a white ethnostate in North America free of the United States is totally unrealizable . . . a fantasy . . . pure and utter folly.

But this, they fail to realize, is hardly criticism at all.

For those with the courage of their convictions, it’s never a matter of calculating the odds and going with the winning side, but of doing what needs to be done — like that Roman soldier of Pompeii cited by Spengler in Man and Technics, whose Aryan sense of duty kept him at his post, as Vesuvius exploded in fire.

Six.

Viewed “objectively,” neither secession nor a white conservative reconquest has a chance, not one in a universe of infinite possibilities. Both are figments of a few white minds troubled by the prospect of their people’s imminent demise.

But that’s the way all great movements begin.

If a presently unattainable ideal is not first articulated as a mythic possibility, it remains unrealized, for its idealization is part of the process that quickens its realization.

In 1774, only a few believed in American independence. After 1776 it was a critical mass.

Secession, as such, cannot be submitted to the usual criticism, for it’s not a fact or even an idea so much as it is a way of being — or a wanting to be.

Central to its realization, therefore, is not the objective forces opposing it, but the subjective will seeking its triumph.

Many things, of course, would have to change before either secession or reconquest become remotely realizable (though our postmodern age, the Kali Yuga of the Traditionalists, is an age in which time and events have greatly accelerated, as all things hurtle toward the inevitable crackup, the Ragnarok, which precedes every rebirth).

The thought, nevertheless, of whites breaking free of the United States, in this period when the multi-cult empire has experienced the first of its death agonies, seems, from a secessionist perspective, somewhat less of a fantasy than trying to reform it, which sixty years of experience suggest is unreformable.

Seven.

Almost every criticisms that can be made of secession is to be found in Sam Francis’s “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival” (1995).

Sam, who I have paid high tribute to in the pages of this journal, was an important transitional figure in the development of a white nationalist outlook.

Though one of his feet was solidly planted in the white nationalist camp, the other, however, was never quite freed from his former “new right” and paleocon beliefs. Divided, his critique of secession reflected an old-fashioned patriotism unwilling to break from the US — though, perhaps, if he had lived, he might feel differently, now that the dusky helmsman has begun steering the ship of state perilously close to the shoals of what promises to be an even more horrendous fate.

As an anti-secessionist, Sam considered separation from the United States tantamount to surrender — surrender of the country our ancestors created, surrender of its history, traditions, interests.

But Sam was wrong.

Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival — and the prospect of being able to fight another day.

To do that, one must live. But where, how?

For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, we are surrounded by armed forces seeking our destruction; we are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being ordered in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if we’re doomed.

Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life.

In the last sixty years, absolutely NOTHING — not one little thing — has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America.
Nevertheless, the critics of secession drone on: “Why give up the country when you can take it back?”

These two-fisted patriots who think this is the most powerful argument against secession are likely to be singing the same song in the not too distanced future, when colored novelists start writing about “The Last of the Europeans.”

But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for.

The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or sober,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher.

To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865, that “What has been lost externally will be gained internally.”

But more than refusing to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, secessionists see this “abomination of desolation” as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.

One might call this “surrendering large parts of the country to nonwhites” — though these aliens already occupy large parts of it and will continue to do so until whites are completely replaced.

The secessionists’ ultimate consideration, then, is not what will be lost, but what gives whites the best chance to survive.

“Any proposal for separation,” Sam argued, “would simply alienate the most patriotic and nationalist loyalties of American whites and lead them to see separatists as un-American.” Most whites would also “refuse to abandon their allegiance to the US or forsake its territory.”

Here Sam confused loyalty to the state with loyalty to the nation, paying tribute, in effect, to Caesar in his own coin. Given the logic of his argument, one might question what his position would have been in 1774, when secession from the Mother Country was originally proposed? Or what his position would be if the United States should start following in the footsteps of the former Soviet Union? And, finally, one wonders how patriotic most Americans are going to be once they discover that their grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the present US government — at a time when American citizenship will probably be little more than a form of Chinese peonage.

Secessionists don’t care if most whites would refuse to abandon “their” country. “Most” whites, de-Ayranized as they are, allowed a Negro to become president.
Only those who care for their kind and are willing to fight for them can possibly found a new nation.

The flag-waving, Constitution-worshipping types — who know nothing outside the ideology of liberal democracy, old (“conservative”) or new (“progressive”), and who believe that there is something sacred about the unholy United States — will never be mobilized for the sake of “racial preservation”; that ship has sailed.

In secessionist eyes, it’s better to lose a bit of territory and shed the race’s detritus than to lose whatever remains of the white nation — especially in view of the coming age, which is certain to be filled with cascading catastrophes, set off by the imploding contradictions of liberalism’s dystopian regime.

In the context of such a possible secession, Sam wondered how the races could possibly be separated and what would prevent them from “unseparating.” Here again he didn’t see what was coming. Since the end of the Second World War there have been numerous population transfers by partitioned states (the most important of which were sanctioned by the US). These transfers occurred in the recent past, will undoubtedly occur again, and already occur in little ways every day in the US, as the relocation of nonwhites forces whites out of their neighborhoods.

Secession implies both population transfers and territorial partition — historically justifiable measures, sanctioned by US precedent, and executable with a minimum of force, unlike the pipe dreams of anti-secessionists, whose imagined “reconquest” would be of a state with a hundred million nonwhite citizens, all with their hands out.

In its desire for cheap labor, Sam thought a separate white nation, would simply repeat the process that got whites into the present mess — as if the struggle for secession (and all it will entail) wouldn’t lead to an explicitly racial definition of nationality, to an inversion of the market’s primacy, and to a spiritual triumph over the materialism that has corrupted so many whites.

As a conservative, he couldn’t see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alienations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.

A white breakaway state, Sam also claimed, would be surrounded by hostile powers, vulnerable to invasion, and unable to defend itself against the rising demographic tide outside its borders. Again, these are non-criticisms. Any region seceded from the United States would have all the resources necessary for its survival. More crucially, the racially homogenous populace of a seceded white republic would be imbued with the nationalist fervor and irrepressible convictions that are the inevitable offshoots of newly forged nations.

To think that a mutilated United States, with its warring racial factions, welfare politics, and rubber-spine army would be able to crush an armed, autonomous white republic is to abandon the realm of logic. Even at the height of its expansionist powers, National Socialist Germany never thought of invading tiny, mountainous Switzerland, where every citizen was armed and ready to defend his nation. The US Army, need it be said, is no Wehrmacht.

Eight.

European Americans will not survive many more generations under the present regime.

Racially-conscious conservatives are counting on a future white backlash to mobilize in defense of white interests. Through such a mobilization, and a much talked about, though little practiced, “march through the institutions,” they hope to raise white racial consciousness, counter the demographic threat posed by nonwhites, and introduce political and legal reforms to curtail nonwhite power — all of which, of course, are totally desirable.

But they expect to arrive at this Utopia without explaining how they would counter a population half of which will be nonwhite in 33 years (2042); without explaining how they would challenge a government that criminalizes white dissent; without explaining how a system can be fundamentally changed without fundamentally changing the institutions and powers that govern it and make it what it is; without any of these things, racial conservatives mock the notion of secession, as if their own not particularly successful project is the sole conceivable alternative.

Nine.

Unlike their critics, secessionists have a plan, a simple, straightforward one, that offers whites an alternative to an unreformable system and an inescapable death.
This plan has the advantage of being (a) eminently political, (b) based on proven historical precedents, and (c) imbued with the power to generate a will to nationhood.

Given the increasingly totalitarian nature of the existing system, where the mere mention of “race” can be taken as an incitement to crimes against humanity, this aspect of secession, ought, perhaps, to be discussed in historical rather than explicitly programmatic terms.

Much of the history of European nationalism speaks to the American situation today, especially (in my admittedly partisan view) Irish nationalism.

In the 1870s and ’80s, a generation after the An Gorta Mor (the Great Hunger), revolutionary and conservative nationalists agreed to be allies in the common struggle for Irish nationhood. The revolutionary Fenians, preeminently in the form of Michael Davitt’s Land League, which led the rebellion in the countryside, gave the constitutionalists in Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary Party the social leverage to force concessions from the English at Westminster — concessions that eventually won back many Irish lands. Then, once the constitutionalists had gone as far as they could, by about 1912 or 1914, the revolutionary, physical-force wing of Irish nationalism took over, completing the nationalist project.

We American secessionists want whatever works best for the future of our people. If our “constitutionalists,” perhaps in the form of a third party, can create dissension and vulnerability among the “English” in a way that promotes American interests, they are to be supported. But if they should fail, others are likely to turn, as did the Irish, to the methods of Connelly and Pearse.

Those who know Hibernian — or any other European — nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood.
This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.

The situation today may be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable of strategies to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.

Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the alien-dominated US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.
The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation also possesses the mythic potential that the General Strike has in the thought of Georges Sorel.

All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which “are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act”).

For it is myth — and the memories and hopes animating it — that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916 — the White Republic, as I call it — is the secessionist myth, symbolizing the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free people somewhere in an all-white America.

]]> http://www.toqonline.com/blog/toward-the-white-republic/feed/ 31 http://www.toqonline.com/blog/paul-gottfrieds-terrestrial-railroad-journey/ http://www.toqonline.com/blog/paul-gottfrieds-terrestrial-railroad-journey/#comments Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:00:38 +0000 F. Roger Devlin http://www.toqonline.com/?p=3191 Encounters: My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers
Paul E. Gottfried
Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009

Dr. Paul Gottfried, currently Raffensburger Professor of Humanities at unpretentious Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, is a naturally ambitious man whose plans for academic eminence and influence with the mighty did not come to fruition. The book’s cover suggests a Horatio Alger story in which the son of a small town fireman grows up to advise presidents; but in the work itself we learn that he made Richard Nixon’s acquaintance only years after he had resigned the presidency. Referring to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s story The Celestial Railroad, Dr. Gottfried compares his own earthbound journey to the Strasburg Railroad, a quaint tourist attraction in his own Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, which winds through the lovely Amish countryside without ever getting much of anywhere. Many principled conservative scholars in our time could make similar comparisons.

Encounters is not a complete autobiography but a memoir, a series of vignettes featuring some of the more remarkable men with whom Dr. Gottfried has been associated through his long career. They include his father, Herbert Marcuse, Will Herberg, Paul Piccone, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Thomas Molnar, John Lukacs, Pat Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Russell Kirk, Sam Francis, Murray Rothbard, Eugene Genovese, Christopher Lasch, Peter Stanlis, Robert Nisbet, and Mel Bradford.

“I am still embarrassed to admit,” writes the author, ” that I learned true liberal intellectual exchange from a declared Marxist-Leninist.” The Herbert Marcuse with whom Gottfried crossed paths at Yale in 1964 was a “dazzling lecturer” who got his young graduate student reading the reactionary Joseph de Maistre as well as Hegel.

Marcuse was in some ways a bourgeois anachronism. This was evident from the way he dressed to the gallant (but never lecherous) manner in which he spoke to female students. With his extensive humanistic and linguistic erudition, he oozed traditional German Bildung, a quality that contrasted sharply with the careerism and narrow specialization that I encountered among most of my American professors.

A few years later, this “charming Old World academic with a touch of dottiness” was openly advocating violence and identifying himself with the cause of black Communist Party activist Angela Davis. Many find it hard to believe that authentic erudition and personal graciousness could be found in one so completely lacking a moral center. This was perhaps a symptom of an inevitable generational lag in the process of cultural disintegration: those (such as Marcuse) who first betray the scholar’s calling have most often enjoyed the privilege of learning from men who had not. The students they instruct (such as many of today’s humanities professors) typically inherit all of their defects with none of their saving graces.

When National Review published an abrasive obituary of Marcuse in 1979, Prof. Gottfried submitted an impassioned retort, noting his contributions to Hegel studies in Reason and Revolution (1941). NR decided not to publish it: no sense confusing one’s readers with moral complexity, I suppose.

As liberals and neoconservatives joined forces for the Global Democratic Capitalist Revolution, Gottfried discovered that he was able to ally himself with a number of independent-minded leftists. He found in the writings of Adorno and Horkheimer a form of social analysis useful for his own purposes, and associated himself with Telos, a pro-Frankfurt School (but anti-Soviet) journal which sponsored publications like the anthology Toward a New Marxism (1970). When he asked editor Paul Piccone how they could agree on so much, Piccone responded: “because you’re a Marxist but don’t know it.”

For Piccone, “Marxism” meant principally opposition to liberal modernity, including “the kind of managerialization and cultural impoverishment globalism brings about through the market.” Under his direction, the journal shifted toward “the unmasking of bureaucratic structures that stood in the way of renewed, self-governing communities.” Unlike Marcuse, Piccone “spared no venom when he called attention to the evils of communism in practice.” By the late ’80s, he was publishing Gottfried’s work  regularly, spearheading the introduction of Carl Schmitt’s ideas into American intellectual circles and pouring ridicule on the “liberal left academic establishment.” Outraged attacks on the journal’s right-wing deviationism began appearing from former supporters. Even Sam Francis became a fan of Telos when Gottfried shared one of Piccone’s pieces with him. Sam went on to participate in a conference on populism sponsored by the journal.

Eugene Genovese is another extraordinary man of the left with whom Gottfried found more in common than with the leaders of “Conservatism, Inc.” A self-described Stalinist with a taste for tailored suits and sumptuous living, Genovese had been featured in the national press as one of America’s most brilliant historians. Our author was not able to liken him to any other leftist he had ever known, and eventually concluded that he was simply

an antibourgeois elitist trying to fit into American academia . . . . His obligatory references to oppressed black slaves and the Marxist dialectic notwithstanding, his works are essentially tributes to precapitalist societies based on hierarchy and a Christian sense of order. More conventional leftists poured wrath on the master class, but Gene admired the “mind of the slaveholder” and devoted long respectful disquisitions to those Southern Presbyterian theologians who had defended the South’s peculiar institution.

Gottfried recounts how Genovese delivered “a glowing defense of Old Southern virtues and pieties” before an audience of squirming neoconservatives; it went over about as well as “a ringing defense of Hamas.” In 1996, Genovese announced his conversion to Catholicism.

Gottfried voted for Richard Nixon in 1968, vainly hoping he would “turn out to be the authoritarian right-winger and stand-in for Joe McCarthy” the left feared. Eighteen years later, Nixon became aware of Gottfried through his book The Search for Historical Meaning: Hegel and the Postwar American Right. Nixon praised the work in the American Spectator and cited it in his own 1999: Victory Without War (1988). Gottfried thereupon dropped Nixon a short note, which resulted in an invitation.

The president was remarkably knowledgeable about political theory; he spoke to me about Hegel and Hobbes with genuine enthusiasm and a wealth of facts. There was nothing in [his] demeanor that suggested the stiffness of his public persona; the private Nixon was effusive, eloquent and entirely affable.

Gottfried corresponded with the president for about four years, and was twice his guest for dinner. “What struck me on both occasions was how deeply Nixon continued to think about international relations after his retirement from public life.” Gottfried also came to appreciate his host’s rarely-noted sense of humor and stunningly potent gin cocktails.

One of the president’s favorite anecdotes concerned an occasion when he stumbled upon Joe McCarthy putting a headlock on liberal columnist Drew Pearson in the men’s room of a DC hotel. Nixon attempted to mediate the dispute, whereupon Pearson “ran away like a rat that had been cornered but was able to escape.” The very next day, Pearson’s column was dishing dirt on Nixon. “I should have let Joe knock the hell out of him.”

Sam Francis is the youngest figure who features in Gottfried’s memoirs. I note that the dates given for his birth and death are the correct dates for the abstract expressionist painter Sam Francis: no doubt the unfortunate result of a hasty check on Wikipedia. A characteristic vignette shows Sam energetically remonstrating with the aged Russell Kirk. “I am not a conservative but a man of the Right, perhaps of the far Right,” thundered Sam as he explained to the proverbially sweet-tempered father of postwar conservatism the necessity for an antimanagerial mass movement based on the propagation of a Sorelian redemptive myth. Kirk was happy to leave to his wife the task of defending his own views.

Gottfried has himself been strongly influenced by Francis’s ideas, but was never able to swallow his “middle American” populism.

An unfathomable mystery from my perspective is how right wing populists who often stress the doctrine of original sin forget their grim theory when they turn to politics. If one truly believes that human nature is fallen, why do sinners suddenly become angelic when they make electoral decisions? Like Russell, who preached “authority” and “degrees and hierarchy,” I grimaced when the others talked positively about the “people.” When I was recently invited to discuss with libertarians from the Cato Institute whether the people have the government they deserve, I responded that “the government is far better than the masses actually merit.” I doubt that Russell would have come to a different conclusion.

Gottfried also shares with his readers the insufficiently known story of how, following his firing from the Washington Times for impermissible candor, Sam was enabled to stay in the Capital area and continue his writing.

The last years of Sam’s abbreviated life were spent amid his myriad books on the third floor of Robert E. Lee’s childhood home in Alexandria, Virginia. The ample working space and a salary that allowed [him] to continue turning out his syndicated column were the gifts of a marvelous patroness, Sylvia Crutchfield. Sylvia, who had perceived in her otherwise professionally abandoned beneficiary the marks of genius, went about the country raising money on his behalf.

Encounters is not a confessional memoir: it focuses on the author’s relations with others. But Gottfried does allow the reader a few glimpses of his own character along the way. He acknowledges the accuracy of Will Herberg’s observation that he possesses a paradigmatic “jecke” (German-Jewish) personality: “Teutonic pedantry and Jewish moral righteousness seemed equally distributed in my approach to political and cultural issues.” “In the war between the exponents of Nature and History,” he observes, “I generally side with those who stress historical contexts and power relations.”

Gottfried spent his undergraduate years at Yeshiva University, where he felt “a massive cultural barrier” separating him from his clannish and socially graceless East-European Jewish classmates from Brooklyn and Queens. He felt himself becoming religiously more distant from them as well.

I profoundly revered the Old Testament Deity, the God of thunder and judgment, [but] not the proliferating medieval Rabbinic glosses that His Jewish worshippers had produced on His behalf . . . . By the time I was in my third year of college I had come close to accepting, without knowing it, Spinoza’s scheme of human spiritual progress, from the Mosaic code through the visions of universalist prophets like Isaiah, to the teachings of Jesus. It is a cultural predisposition that allows me to appreciate the theological reasonings of Aquinas or Luther more than it does certain other forms of religious exposition–for example, the legal exegesis of third-century Babylonian Jews interpreting the sequence of rituals for carrying out animal sacrifices.

The author relates his decision, in his early fifties, no longer to seek academic advancement.

Besides tending to my domestic obligations, I quietly taught my classes at Elizabethtown College, which as far as I could tell was the only college that would have me. John Lukacs once said to me “If you and I were teaching history at Harvard, it is we who would have to worry about our integrity.” My response was that “happily, we don’t have to worry about that.”

Sam Francis (1947 - 2005)

In a 1994 speech, Sam Francis reportedly asserted that when whites ceased to exist subjectively, they would cease to exist objectively.

The current genetic destruction caused by demographic collapse and replacement immigration (the de facto policy of replacing white populations with non-white populations) seems to be the consequence of a subjective euthanasia which preceded it.

This euthanasia occurred when whites lost control of their culture–when the ability to express basic racial interests and to engage in the associational activities necessary to maintain those interests became impossible. Since then, whites have been completely unable, no matter how hard some tried, to transmit their racial values either horizontally (to their fellows) or vertically (from generation to generation over time).

Racially-slanted “hate speech” laws are the final nail in the coffin, but they affect primarily “micro-speech”–small-scale speech by individuals (e.g., individual websites and postings to forums or social networks, small-circulation newsletters and magazines, self-published books, pamphlets, the occasional white politician, columnist, or celebrity who unexpectedly lets slip a politically incorrect thought)–that has already been marginalized and completely excluded from the level of true culture constructed by elites via the mass media and mass organizations, particularly schools and universities.

“Hate speech” signifies the transfer to the public sector of tasks previously performed by communal vigilantes with the tacit blessing of the government, and marks another milestone in the expansion of communal influence over the police and judicial apparatus. One side effect of the formalization of censorship is to create an unacknowledged, de facto division of prisoners into two classes, labeled by Solzhenitsyn “politicals” and “criminals.” In prisons and camps they remain recognizably distinct populations, despite forcible integration.

Even with the advent of the “anti-racist” racist state, communal vigilantism does not cease. In Canada, Germany, the European Union, and elsewhere, communal organizations retain their autonomy, guiding law-making and participating in law enforcement. This machinery is rapidly becoming the norm everywhere.

The Impossibility of Cultural Transmission

A notable feature of white racial consciousness is the absence of vertical cultural transmission-which is to say, transmission from one generation to the next, whether intra-family, via the educational system, or by means of a dedicated organizational nexus.[1] Vertical transmission has been impossible for a long time. It is rare indeed that anyone obtains pro-white ideas from his family, and never through the educational system, church, or community. More often than not the conscious man’s views are completely at odds with those even of close family members, including parents and children-never mind more distant kin.

Contrast this with vertical transmission within the Jewish community, which is alive and well. Of course, that community is not targeted for eradication, making all the difference.

Horizontal transmission is just as impossible as vertical transmission. The mass media promote only anti-white messages. Whites cannot obtain positive racial images from the media or other contemporary institutions. Such entities are instead the fount of white self-hatred and of the hatred of other groups for whites. We are the only race for which this is true. The racial consciousness of Blacks, Amerindians, mestizos, Jews, Asians, and others is not only transmitted and fostered, but conspicuously glorified by the media, churches, big business, and other influential institutions.

It appears therefore that “white consciousness” arises pretty much de novo each generation among a tiny minority of random individuals possibly selected for higher racial awareness. At some point in their lives they realize more or less spontaneously that something is amiss–specifically, they become conscious of, and instinctively adopt a hostile attitude toward, anti-white racism and policies designed to eliminate their race and the basic rights required to preserve it. Usually, a search for answers motivated from within leads to whatever racial literature or small groups exist. It seems very much a matter of inner-direction, of “seeking out.”

The same analysis applies to individuals who chance upon racial “propaganda” (material designed to persuade) and change their attitudes because of it. They must already have been predisposed to the message, inasmuch as the vast majority of people remain completely unaffected by equivalent exposure. “The truth will set you free” is far from the case. Education alone will not suffice. Small-scale alternative media, even prior to “hate laws,” constitute an extremely weak force in competition with the imperious, brute force exerted by the machinery of the dominant culture. It is imperative to comprehend the incommensurable nature of these vastly different mechanisms of transmission.

Reinhold Begas, "Prometheus"

As the population implosion accelerates, racist states, despite possessing the totalitarian tools and the will necessary to suppress white racial speech entirely, will leave some as “flypaper” to catch, track, and sideline these spontaneously-arising opponents. Moreover, the continued existence (if it can be called that) of “racism” is useful to the state in galvanizing anti-white hatred among the population, whipping up frenzy, and serving as a moralistic unifying force. Germany, for example, is a communist state insofar as white racial speech and association are concerned, but a carefully monitored and controlled white “opposition” still exists.

The odds of a spontaneous “backlash” against the forces of evil seem non-existent. Since the 1960s, the media and academia have tantalizingly promised a “white backlash” (with a bit of a smirk, it always seemed to me) that never materialized. What did not occur in a whiter, freer era is not going to happen in a racist, totalitarian environment in which whites comprise a bare majority of the population, are rapidly dwindling in numbers and social and economic influence, and are discriminated against at every turn.

Depending upon the Weakness of our Enemies

In the absence of naturally-occurring, self-maintaining collective subjective consciousness and the ability to spread it by proselytization (the existing base being socially insignificant), racially aware whites are compelled to rely upon the occurrence of a chance misstep or failure on the part of the anti-white enemy prior to the attainment of complete genetic annihilation.

Although we have seen only Jewish, Leftist, and anti-white triumphs, never failures, this does not mean that a social cataclysm cannot occur. Despite official and unofficial propaganda to the contrary, the present masters of the universe are not God, or even the children of God. They have a long, conspicuous history of failure in the art of civilization.

The financial crisis of 2008 is instructive in this regard. The terrible suddenness and violence with which it drove the world instantly to the brink of total financial collapse revealed a deeply vulnerable system. Had events proceeded, tens of millions of people would have discovered their savings had vanished–FDIC-insured bank accounts, checking accounts, money market funds. Stocks and mutual funds, too, would have imploded. Bankruptcy of firms would have created massive unemployment. Few to this day comprehend the seriousness of what transpired.

The innate psychology of the elite virtually insures an eventual crisis of massive proportions, regardless of the specific form it takes. For example, can a viable social order really be constructed upon the moral foundations of Sodom and Gomorrah?

The need to concentrate power, to murder hated enemies, to imprison, torture, silence all dissent, and to exalt the selfishness and greed of one race over the interests of all others, is simply unworkable in the long term.

Even Communism, triumphant for seven decades, and Zionism, triumphant for six, only survived thanks to powerful allies in the Western establishment. Without their protection and massive subsidization, both would have collapsed. Communism and Zionism were never independently viable.

The anti-white regime, by contrast, is global. It is obsessed with genetically eradicating its dray horse–white people–though there is no outside force to prop it up. China, for a time, might fulfill the beast-of-burden role. One can even imagine a period of efflorescence. But the nature of the elite will ultimately compel it to destroy the Chinese, too.

But none of this matters. They will do what their nature impels them to do. No one can stop them, or, indeed, desires to. Even if everyone and everything is driven into the ground, institutions and elites will facilitate the current pathology and nothing else.

Crisis No Panacea

Willy Meller, Schicksalsstunde (Hour of Destiny)

So, the genetic survival of the white race appears to hinge upon some unexpected catastrophe. But it would be foolish to assume that such an event would automatically redound to the benefit of the white race, or put paid to the totalitarian elite. During the last major crisis, the Great Depression, Jews leveraged already formidable power to achieve racial dominance. Although pro-white movements briefly grew in size and influence, they were quickly crushed everywhere, internally as well as externally. It was Communism that emerged victorious over half the European world while extending its tentacles into the upper echelons of government and academia in the remainder. Communism “collapsed” when Jewish enthusiasm for it waned. Its Orwellian essence did not disappear, however, but became universal.

It is hard to see why the outcome would be fundamentally different this time. The same clique would possess the lion’s share of resources and power after the cataclysm as before, even if overall resources diminished greatly in absolute terms. It would remain the only group with actual experience in ruling at the national and international levels and accustomed to routinely employing the most brutal measures imaginable. Its cultural and genetic unity would remain intact.

Whites, who do not even consciously exist as a race anymore, have not ruled anything for a long time. They have gone soft. They are the victims of precipitous demographic decline, and, even as isolated individuals command fewer resources with each passing day–most of which, as a practical matter, are retained only at the sufferance of the state and powerful vigilante groups under its auspices. Jewry employed the British government to bankrupt David Irving and destroy his ability to function professionally, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has a long, reprehensible history of silencing speech by selectively utilizing the court system to bankrupt white groups with the objective of destroying associational freedom. Many other examples could be cited.

Finally, as in the Depression, World War II, and post-9/11 (another cataclysm that benefited Jewry and harmed whites), the repressive apparatus–the secret police force of the surveillance state–can expand enormously in the midst of crisis. Whites, as always, will remain prime targets of secret police venom.

The Organizational Nexus versus Leaderless Resistance

In response to these grim realities, it has been proposed that whites should create an alternative community and infrastructure, including media. Its purpose would not be to seize power, but to salvage enough from the wreckage, post-breakdown, to insure racial independence and survival.

Unfortunately, the freedom to construct an actual white sub- or counter-culture of this nature hasn’t existed since at least the 1920s–if not before. Indeed, a core concern of governments and Jewish organizations has been to insure by any means necessary that nothing like this ever happens. Law, human rights, freedom of speech and association, the Genocide Convention–everything goes out the window when it comes to accomplishing this one essential task.

Acknowledging this reality, a small faction has ridiculed the (to date) ineffectual organizational approach as “eat, meet, and retreat,” advocating “Leaderless Resistance” instead. This entails individual, uncoordinated acts by rebels not easily monitored, controlled, or crushed by the totalitarian state or its adjuncts. It is hard to fault the underlying logic, inasmuch as the freedoms necessary to attain peaceful racial change have indeed been eradicated.

As a practical matter, however, leaderless resistance has proven no more effective than the organizational method. Both have failed miserably.

Spontaneous, isolated outbursts of rage against the state and its genocidal policies, typically involving violence or vandalism directed against some “minority,” have also occurred. (Due to their emotional rather than coldly rational motivation, and failure to select politically significant targets, such outbursts do not constitute leaderless resistance.) Media and politicians instantly magnify every socially inconsequential act of this kind into a national or international incident, mendaciously imputing guilt to the innate “racism” of all whites.

Such acts are remarkable for their rarity. Equivalent violence by “minorities” against whites is far more frequent, though rarely classified as “hate.” Given the magnitude and nature of the crimes against the white race, similar spontaneous outbursts will occur in the future. It is inevitable. The rulers are fortunate, however. Never before in history has a regime so evil enjoyed so little opposition given the monstrousness of its crimes.

“Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds. They have within themselves the power to become free at any moment,” said Franklin D. Roosevelt, the vain, self-centered cynic who fronted the alien conquest of the West.[2]

Contrary to his words, Roosevelt’s speechwriters understood perfectly well that men’s minds are the prisoners of whoever controls the media of mass communications–in 1939: Hollywood, the great newspapers, magazines, book publishers, and radio broadcasters.

Whites today remain prisoners of fate precisely because they are prisoners of their own minds–minds controlled by others.

[2] Address at the White House Conference on Children in a Democracy, April 23, 1939. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15747

Someone once told to me that at a John Randolph Club meeting back in the ‘90s, a man in the audience asked Sam Francis whether a recent GOP initiative, a big new social program or backdoor amnesty or some such thing, spelled the death of the party. Sam’s retort, “Well, I sure hope so!” The crowd erupted. If the Democrats were Evil, then perhaps there was kind of virtue to the Republican’s status as merely Stupid. But by the end of Sam’s career, he was convinced that the GOP was both and should be dispensed with entirely. . . . More