All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
57:03
Equality Unmasked - Sam Francis
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Our next speaker is a gentleman with which many of you are familiar, Sagna Francis.
He probably, among all the syndicated columnists in the country, writes most incisively and uncompromisingly about race and American culture.
He marshals his arguments so brilliantly that Patrick Buchanan calls him the Clausewitz of the right.
Even the New Republic has acknowledged that Dr. Francis is, as they put it, a guru of the old right.
Now, Sam Francis has paid a very high price, as many of you know, for his outspokenness.
In what I think is an absolutely chilling commentary on the bounds of free speech in this country today, Last year, the Washington Times fired him as a columnist and as an editorial writer, and it was clear that it was because of his outspoken views about race.
Aside from that, one of the great ironies is Dr. Francis had won the highest journalism honors of anyone on the entire staff of the Washington Times.
Twice he has won the Distinguished Writing Award from the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
In addition to this, he is the author of Beautiful Losers, which is a collection of essays on the failure of American conservatism.
He also writes a very, very highly regarded column in Chronicles magazine and is a frequent contributor to Southern Partisan.
And Dr. Francis will today speak to us on Equality Unmasked.
Francis.
Thank you very much.
A good deal of water has gone under the bridge since the first American Renaissance Conference met in Atlanta in 1994.
At that time, neither the bell curve nor Professor Rushton's work on race, evolution, and behavior had been published, nor even the rather less immortal contributions of the learned D'Souza.
I felt then, in the aftermath of the Atlantic Conference, and when these books were published the following fall, rather optimistic about the progress being made by those who sought a reevaluation of the role of race.
But I have to say that today, my optimism is considerably more muted.
The bitterly hostile reaction to the bell curve in Professor Rushton's work, the dishonest and cowardly treatment of the American Renaissance Conference, In D'Souza's book, the crusade mounted in the press against this conference, similar crusades against talk show host Bob Grant in New York and against other scientists who write about race,
the difficulty that both Professor Levin and apparently Arthur Jensen are experiencing in finding publishers for their own major new works.
And finally, but by no means least, The late unpleasantness that I experienced at the Washington Times all lead me to believe that we, or certainly I, had seriously underestimated the resistance that frank and serious discussion of race would encounter.
I have a little more to tell you about race, and certainly less than what Professor Rushton and Professor Levin and the other speakers here today and tomorrow can tell you.
So what I'm going to talk about today is this very resistance that we encounter, why it exists and why it seems to be so powerful, and perhaps how we can meet and help overcome it.
I'm going to start off with an account of the systematic harassment of two of our speakers today and tomorrow, Professor Rushton and Professor Levin, and I choose them for several reasons.
Partly because they are present and can comment or criticize on my account as they see fit.
Partly because their stories offer instructive lessons for the conclusions that I'm going to draw.
And partly because both of them have displayed a great amount of courage and commitment to their beliefs and scientific findings.
And I think it is advisable that this audience appreciate what some of us have to go through in order to provide you with the edification and entertainment of the weekend.
My account of their experiences is largely drawn from Roger Pearson's book Race, Intelligence, and Bias in Academe, which is a study of how various academics and scientists who have violated taboos about race have been systematically harassed by the political left over the last 20 years or so.
But I'm going to end up with an account of the ongoing vilification of this conference in the press, especially in the local newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal.
And show how that campaign has been organized.
Finally, I will try to draw some conclusions about why these crusades are effective and how they can be resisted and overcome.
In the Rushton case, Professor Rushton's problems began soon after he delivered a paper at the Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco in January of 1989.
His paper, as I understand it, was a precy of the research on racial differences that he later published and will discuss in remarks this evening.
And it immediately generated attacks in the Canadian media.
Professor Rushton, I should say, as most of you know, is a professor at the University of Western Ontario in Canada.
The Toronto Star reported in a headline soon after his speech, That a Canadian professor's study stirs uproar at conference, which was a rather exaggerated account of the reaction to the remarks.
And two days later, the same paper carried a story headlined, Theory Racist, Prof Has Scholars Boiling.
This kind of news coverage, and much worse, continued for some months and was characterized by reporters seeking to elicit statements of condemnation of Rushton or his address from his colleagues or from officials of the AAAS, and by soliciting reactions from various leftist groups in Canada and on the Western Ontario campus.
Rushton's own efforts to debate or explain his theory further on television were seemingly not Very helpful since the debate format was usually stacked against him and dwelt on the supposed political rather than the actual scientific meaning of his theory.
And on one occasion he was greeted with a hostile and jeering audience of some 2,000.
By early February, the mayor of London, Ontario, had formed a committee to investigate Rushton and his theories to determine whether they violated Canadian law.
As many of you perhaps know, Canadian democracy enjoys a law known as the Race Relations Act that criminalizes anyone who willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group and subjects such criminals to a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
At first, apparently, the major demand was that Rushton simply be dismissed from his teaching position, and only later in March did the Attorney General of Ontario Dedicated to bringing dangerous criminals to justice order a police investigation of Professor Rushton.
The police forces of Ontario and Toronto formed a joint special force on pornography and hate literature that was supposed to interview Rushton and some of his academic supervisors at the university for the purpose of discovering whether he had violated the law.
The investigation took six months and eventually concluded that while he had not violated the law, Quote, it is the overwhelming opinion of academics questioned that in many cases your conclusions have been drawn on misinterpreted and or questionable data.
This has resulted in your presentation to the AAAS falling noticeably short of expected professional standards.
Unquote. Apparently in Canada, it is the province of the police to reach conclusions on matters of scientific interest.
The audience, which by now perhaps suspects That there is a dangerous criminal in our midst.
We'll no doubt be relieved to learn that the Attorney General of Ontario then held a press conference at which he graciously announced that Rushton was, quote,"loony, but not criminal." Yet at the same time the press campaign and the police investigation were going on,
university authorities on Rushton's own campus also chimed in with denunciations of his ideas.
The dean of social science at the university published a letter in the university newspaper in which she attacked Rushton's theory.
And in July 1989, he was given an unsatisfactory rating on his performance evaluation by his department chairman and denied a usually routine pay increase.
Under university rules, teachers who receive such evaluations three times in a row can be dismissed from their jobs.
Now the fact is that Professor Rushton holds two doctorates.
Was the author of five books and more than 100 articles in scholarly journals and held a Guggenheim Fellowship.
Rushton appealed the evaluation to the dean's office and asked that the dean recuse herself because she had already published her views of Rushton.
She refused to recuse herself and her office upheld the department chairman's evaluation.
Rushton then appealed the evaluation through a university grievance procedure and arguing on the basis of his credentials and also that during the three years for which he was evaluated, he had published 30 articles in two books and received the Guggenheim.
He finally won a reversal of the negative evaluation.
When Rushton returned to teaching in 1990, local agitators threatened to disrupt his classes to prevent him from teaching, and the dean ordered that he not be permitted to teach his classes in person.
He was supposed to make videotapes of his lectures and students were supposed to listen to them in a private room in which he could not be present.
Questions were to be called in by phone.
Rushton again appealed this ruling and won, but the dean appealed the decision.
Eventually, the department decided to ignore the dean's ruling and return Rushton to teaching his classes in person.
In 1991, Rushton's classes were disrupted on at least three occasions by protesters, and he was physically attacked on one such occasion.
As I understand it, going to the hospital, being sent to the hospital with chest pains.
Despite warnings from the university that it would prosecute disruptors, that had not been done by the spring of 1991.
And student protesters, mainly made up of African or Caribbean students or New Left elements, continued to disrupt his classes and the university, and on one occasion in March 1991, actually disrupted the provincial parliament.
I'm sure Professor Rushton has enjoyed similar adventures in recent years, but my information about them ends in 1991.
Professor Levin's experiences at the City College of New York resemble those of Professor Rushton.
Levin's original crime against humanity consisted of publishing a letter in the New York Times in 1988 arguing that shopkeepers had the right not to open their doors to black males if they feared robbery.
The publication of such shocking opinions apparently mobilized cadres of student leftists to break down the door of the university president in protest.
The president responded to this by admitting that the students did have the right to picket Levin's classes.
But considerably provided Professor Levin with a bodyguard.
The group known as the International Committee Against Racism, or NCAR, which is a Maoist communist group, circulated Levin's letter to the Times on campus.
But the controversy was further excited by an article Levin published in an Australian magazine called Quadrant, in which he apparently argued that the decline of American education was in part due to the rise of radical feminism and to affirmative action and its promotion of lower IQ black students.
The reaction against this article came mainly from the faculty rather than from student activists.
And in October 1988, the faculty senate Voted to condemn Levin's article as racist and as lacking cogency or empirical support.
What the New York Police Department had to say about it, we don't know.
But Levin was given only three hours' notice that the censure was to be considered and was not able to be present at the debate.
Soon afterwards, the university president, who presumably by this time had gotten his door fixed, Issued a letter commending the faculty for their intrepid denunciation of racism and beamed that he had been, quote, a proud witness to the discussion and debate and that the resolution reflected the university's commitment to equality.
This was followed by Levin's being told by the Dean of Humanities and the Philosophy Department chairman that Levin should voluntarily withdraw from teaching his introductory philosophy course.
And if he did not voluntarily withdraw, The chairman would come to the first class and invite the students to transfer to another section.
Believing this arrangement to be temporary, Levin agreed to the proposal, but he later learned that it was intended to be permanent and would be extended to any required course that Levin taught.
This kind of restriction severely limits a teacher's ability to recruit students for advanced work, and it represented a long-term threat to Levin's academic career.
Meanwhile, plans for the Inquisition proceeded briskly, with the president of the university writing a letter urging the Faculty Senate to form a committee to investigate faculty members for bias-related activities.
The Senate refused to do so on the lucid grounds that such a committee would have a chilling effect on academic freedom, if not on their own careers.
But the president continued to badger for such a committee.
And in several interviews, he expressed frustration that he was unable to break Levin's tenure and fire him altogether.
Levin, meanwhile, continued to commit yet more crimes against humanity.
When the American Philosophical Association concluded that blacks were underrepresented in teaching philosophy, Levin published a letter in the Proceedings of the APA arguing that the reason had to do with lower black IQ.
This led the humanities dean at the school to send a letter to each of Levin's students warning them that their professor harbored what the dean called controversial views about race and sex and offering them an alternative section if they were unable to cope with the trauma of being exposed to controversy in the course of studying philosophy.
Finally, the president got down to business by forming a committee to inquire into whether Levin had engaged in conduct unbecoming a faculty member, a phrase usually associated with efforts to break tenure and dismiss the faculty member.
Three of the seven members of the committee had earlier signed a petition stating that Levin was unfit to teach, and one would think that the conclusion of the committee was more or less foregone.
In March 1990, A mob invaded Levin's classroom, earning the praise of the president for its restraint.
In the event, however, the inquisition against Levin did not succeed, in part because he eventually took successful legal action against the president and the humanities dean, as had Rushton against the Toronto Star.
But as Roger Pearson comments in his conclusion about the Levin case, In many ways, the most revealing and disappointing aspect of the Levin affair was the complete failure of his colleagues or the media which covered it to discuss the validity of Levin's views.
At no point did any newspaper publish the relevant IQ data or invite competent psychometrists to comment on it.
The head of the psychology department refused Levin's invitation to debate his claims.
By attacking his academic freedom and defining battle lines along academic freedom lines, academic egalitarians once again managed to obscure the real core of the issue.
Now, there is a common pattern in both of these cases, and I think in several others, that needs to be called attention to.
What happens when an academic violates a taboo on race is that first the media broadcast and typically misrepresent it, and then the professional left, usually on campus, either racial minorities who feel aggrieved or white Marxists, moves into battle by invading classrooms,
staging protests, prayer vigils, disruptions, demonstrations, and all the rest of it.
But for the most part, even though that phase of the attack is the most visible and the most publicized, It is not the heart of the academic criminal's problems.
The heart of his problem comes from a lack of sufficient support from his colleagues and supervisors or from their active hostility.
Derogatory and dismissive comments on the academic's ideas can serve to harm his career and professional stature.
Disciplinary action by chairmen, deans, committees, and university presidents can actually cost him his job or at least disrupt and subvert his academic work.
It makes sense for Marxists and even minority students to be offended at ideas they regard as racist and even up to a point to protest such ideas and again up to a point that is their right.
What makes far less sense is for professional academics and academic administrators to involve themselves in the controversies against the academic taboo breaker and to devote so much of their energies to punishing or silencing him.
And what that pattern, as well as the general hysteria that informs the reaction to any violation of taboos concerning racial equality, point to, in my opinion, is that what we are dealing with in egalitarianism today is not a rational belief.
What we are dealing with in egalitarianism is an ideology that serves various social and political and even psychological functions.
In fact, egalitarianism since the progressive era of the early 20th century, and especially since the New Deal, has become at first an unofficial and increasingly an official ideology of the system in which we live, the government,
the dominant culture, and even the economy of the United States and the Western world.
Egalitarianism has become an ideology that protects, serves, and rationalizes the interests of the elites that hold power in Western society, just as doctrines like the divine right of kings served the interests of monarchies and aristocracies before the French Revolution.
Roger Pearson points to this role of egalitarianism in his chapter on the Rushton case when he writes, Rushton's research had carried him into an area of direct economic and political significance.
His findings had uncovered flaws in the established version of environmentalist social science testimony on which massive government programs had been built in both Canada and the USA.
These not only provided for a massive redistribution of wealth and reverse discrimination in employment, but had provided a vested interest for millions of beneficiaries.
His findings also threatened the well-being of organizations that had been built on the surplus funds which could be culled from supervising this redistribution of wealth and also had potentially adverse implications for the immigration industry.
Little did Rushton realize that his seemingly innocent research would stir up such a tempest.
Those on the left knew the crucial importance of the data he was studying and of the need to keep the public from accepting his opinions.
As well as preventing other scholars from daring to speak their minds on the issues involved.
I think that understanding egalitarianism as the ideology of an elite is important for several reasons.
In the first place, it puts the Marxists and radicals of the left in an entirely different light from the one in which they like to present themselves, that of rebels against the system.
Invariably, when Marxist groups protest against racism, they argue that racism is the tool of capitalism, that a capitalist ruling class promotes racism in order to justify the exploitation of non-whites and to keep white and non-white proletariats divided.
But in reality, there's no truth whatsoever in this theory.
If it were true, we would expect academics like Rushton and Levin, Arthur Jensen and Richard Harenstein, to have received millions in grants from large corporations and foundations.
In fact, they received little or nothing.
And the grants those institutions do make do not support hereditarian views of social problems, but rather environmentalist and egalitarian views.
It was, after all, the Carnegiean Foundation That provided Gunnar Myrdal with $300,000 to produce an American dilemma, for years the Bible of racial egalitarian environmentalism.
The truth is that when Marxists and self-described radicals denounce what they call racism, they are in fact performing as the ideological vanguard of the real elites that hold power and which possess enormous vested interest in egalitarianism and environmentalism.
It is the radical egalitarians and anti-hereditarians who are the real running dogs of the system and not those who challenge egalitarianism and environmentalism.
And it is the hereditarians like Rushton and Levin who are the real radicals or even revolutionaries who challenge the lies and mythologies in which entrenched powers always mask themselves.
APPLAUSE
In the second place, understanding egalitarianism as the ideology of the system and the elites that run it ought to alter our view of how the system and its elites actually operate.
Most elites in history have always had a vested interest in preserving the societies they rule, and that is why most elites have been conservative.
The British aristocracy up to the 20th century is a fairly typical example of such a conservative elite.
But the elite that has come to power in the United States and the Western world in this century actually has a vested interest in managing and manipulating social change, the destruction of the society it rules.
Political analyst Kevin Phillips pointed this out in his 1975 book, Mediocracy, which is a study of the emergence of what he calls the new knowledge elite, the members of which approach society from a new vantage point.
Change does not threaten the affluent intelligentsia of the post-industrial society the way it threatened the landowners and industrialists of the New Deal.
On the contrary, change is as essential to the knowledge sector as inventory turnover is to a merchant or a manufacturer.
Change keeps up demand for the product, research, news, theory, and technology.
Post-industrialism, a knowledge elite, and accelerated social change appear to go hand in hand.
The new knowledge elite does not preserve and protect existing traditions and institutions.
On the contrary, far more than previous new classes, the knowledge elite has sought to modify or replace traditional institutions with new relationships and power centers.
And egalitarianism and environmentalism serve this need to create and manage social change perfectly.
Traditional institutions can be depicted not only as unequal and oppressive, but also as pathological, requiring the social and economic therapy that only the knowledge elite is skilled enough to design and apply.
The interests of the knowledge elite in managing social change happen to be entirely consistent Not only with the agendas of the hard left, but also with the grievances and demands of various racial and ethnic groups that view racism and prejudice as obstacles to their own advancement.
So that what we see is an alliance between the new elites and organized racial and ethnic minorities to undermine and displace the traditional institutions and beliefs of white Euro-American society.
Which just happened to be the power of centers of older elites based on wealth, land, and status.
This process of displacement or dispossession is always described as progressive, liberating, or diversifying, when in fact it merely helps consolidate the dominance of a new class and weaken the power and interests of its rivals.
Furthermore, what this understanding of the real meaning of egalitarianism leads to is that when we see university deans and presidents"caving in" to the demands of the hard left, they are not really displaying traits of weakness and appeasement.
Universities are the breeding grounds of egalitarianism and its applications to society by the elites, and hence they occupy a special and strategic place in the functioning of the system.
If the ideology of egalitarianism were abandoned, many of the functions that universities now perform in the way of research and much of what their faculties do in designing egalitarian social programs and therapy would become obsolete.
When the universities cave in to the left, therefore, they are simply and in reality pursuing their own interests, which are to preserve the political ideology of egalitarianism intact.
And suppress or silence those who dissent from it.
And then they are in that respect, in fact, behaving like any elite.
Like the French aristocracy of the 18th century, for example, when it punished Enlightenment writers who challenged aristocratic ideologies.
Their behavior appears to be weak or degenerate or renegade to us because we look at their conduct from the point of view of those who believe the consequences of egalitarianism are harmful.
And have to live with those consequences.
And also because most of us continue to harbor the illusion that the elites that now prevail in this country and much of the West are still in some sense our elites, that they represent us, when in fact they mainly represent themselves and their class interests and the ideology and agendas that serve those interests.
Thank you.
I think understanding egalitarianism today as the ideology of a dominant elite that uses it to serve its own interests may suggest ways in which we could more successfully confront the ideology and those it serves.
In the past, most of those who have challenged egalitarianism in one form or another have done so through what we might call rationalistic means.
That is, they have tried to cite scientific or empirical evidence logically assembled.
to offer the challenge.
Certainly that is an important and indeed crucial element of the challenge.
But whatever its rational and scientific merits, it has not been enough.
As Pearson points out, none of Levin's critics, and not many of Rushton's either, was interested in debating their ideas or dealing with their scientific validity.
Of course not.
What their critics were interested in was power and in preventing Rushton, Levin, and others from challenging that power.
And that is exactly the point at which they should be attacked and exposed.
What we need to do, in addition to building the scientific and scholarly case against egalitarianism and environmentalism, is to take a page from the book of the left to expose those who resist scientific evidence and who respond to it only with lies and repression as the beneficiaries of the egalitarian ideology they are trying to protect.
We need to show that an entire political and economic industry gains wealth and power from egalitarian environmental ideology, and in a word, unmask or deconstruct those interests.
And we need in particular to show how Americans, as taxpayers, as crime victims, as job and college applicants, and frankly simply as white people, are being exploited and victimized by the lie of equality and the power structure that rests on it.
Thank you.
We need to show also how the media conglomerates, which with universities are sort of the belly of the beast of the new knowledge elite, systematically depict whites in their traditional cultural symbols in inferior, demeaning, and villainous roles, and how they deliberately distort news about race and scientific racial research against whites.
One example of this comes from the crusade against Bob Grant in New York, which was largely conducted by a group that calls itself FAIR.
Fair poses as a watchdog of the press, but the quickest glance at the materials it produces shows that it is, in fact, a hard-left political battery dedicated to ridding the media of anyone to the right of Tom Brokaw.
It has produced dossiers on Rush Limbaugh to prove he is not a reliable source of information and has produced a similar document on Pat Buchanan to document his racism and extremism.
But I'm unable to identify any such dossier produced by Fair on any liberal or left-wing commentator.
One of its abiding bugaboos is the corporate concentration of media ownership, and it loves to thump its chest about its passion to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater plurality and diversity in the media and defending working journalists when they are muzzled.
As a working journalist who was muzzled, I might have made use of Fair's talents, but for some reason they have not knocked on my door.
But Mr. Grant did hear from them.
On March 31st of this year, Fair ran a quarter-page ad on the op-ed page of the Sunday New York Times in the form of an open letter to Michael Eisner of the Walt Disney Company, which was the new corporate parent of Mr. Grant's station.
The ad claimed that Mr. Grant on his program had promoted, quote, the white supremacist American Renaissance Conference in Louisville, unquote, and demanded of Mr. Eisner, is it the policy of the Walt Disney Company to allow hosts on its stations to make racial slurs?
And is it Disney's policy to allow the promotion of white supremacist groups on its stations?
Though Fair did not explicitly demand Grant's firing, it was clear that was the goal it had in mind.
So much for invigorating the First Amendment.
I will comment only briefly on the falsity of the description of American Renaissance in this conference, let alone me as white supremacist, a term none of us has ever applied to ourselves and one which we have explicitly, publicly, and repeatedly rejected.
Fair did not bother to cite any of several published letters by me in major newspapers rejecting this term.
Now, not only is FAIR neither fair nor accurate in what it jokingly calls its reporting, but also it managed to reach all the way out into the boondocks of Louisville to induce reporter David Heath of the Louisville Courier to swallow its bait and then regurgitate it in the form of,
quote, news articles here, articles that are transparently inaccurate and equally transparently based on FAIR's propaganda.
It turns out that while Fair whines and grouses about corporate concentration of media ownership, and I substantially agree with them on much of that, Fair actually receives a good deal of its own cash from such concentrations of mega-money as the MacArthur Foundation and the Turner Foundation in Atlanta,
the tax-exempt preserve of multimillionaire media czar Ted Turner and his wife, the famous North
patriot.
As well as from Barbara Streisand's foundation.
And while poor little old Fair is whining about concentration of media ownership, it's interesting to note that it was in the Louisville Courier, owned by the Gannett chain, that it was able to get its unfair and inaccurate misreporting into print.
And also that Bob Grant's job was largely safe as long as his station was owned by the relatively small ABC Capital Cities company.
But went down the drainpipe not long after Eisner World took it over.
FAIR is in fact dependent on large sums of cash from tax-exempt foundations run by wealthy leftists and assorted bubble heads, and its claims to resist media concentration, to champion muzzled reporters, and to invigorate the First Amendment and freedom of expression are all simply lies that mask its real role as a tool of the real elites that have come to power in this country.
Finally, in addition to unmasking the real role of egalitarianism as a device of power, we need to take yet another page from the book of the left in mustering the courage to stand up and speak up for what we believe in, to develop the kind of solidarity against which lies and repression cannot stand.
We do not yet have that kind of solidarity, and the result is that we are picked off one by one whenever the left or its allies decide to move against us.
It is fairly commonplace for those of us who speak and write frankly about race and equality to encounter audiences where the criticism and hostility of a handful are triumphant, only to find after the speech that we are approached privately by many sympathizers who have sat silent throughout the whole proceeding and said nothing,
but who now rush to our side to assure us that they really agree with us, only they just can't run the risk of saying so.
How sweet.
I and Jared Taylor and Phil Rushton and Michael Levin and the others are supposed to run the gauntlet, risk our own jobs and even our physical security, while others secretly and silently and safely applaud.
If you agree with the ideas you have heard at this conference in which you read in American Renaissance or in my columns or in the books by the distinguished authors who have come here, and if you believe those ideas are important, then you And all of us are going to have to do something yourself.
of.
You're going to have to run risks and take hits, not recklessly, but with prudence.
If we are not prepared to accept some risks and take some hits, then these ideas will never go anywhere.
And those on the left who have the courage to work and fight for their beliefs are going to win.
We all know what their victory would mean.
And until we are willing to display the kind of courage that civil rights workers in the South showed, that anti-war protesters in the 1960s showed, that indeed gay rights activists have shown, until we are willing to risk some of our security and advantages for what we believe in and for what we believe is fundamental for the survival of our civilization and our people,
then we will have no reason for optimism.
And every reason to expect the victory of our enemies and our lives.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you.
I'll be happy to take some questions.
Yes, sir.
Well, I think there are alternative media.
I think the Internet is probably the most hopeful instrument for that, and I think shortwave radio, I'm told, is very useful.
I am actually more hopeful now about the ability to get around media control, control of communications, than I have been in the past.
I was always skeptical about Things like the internet and computers and fax machines and all that until I actually started using them.
And I still don't think that they're going to save the world, but they are very useful instruments and you can have a great many conversations and foreboding ideas on these things.
I really don't think the media conglomerates are going to be able to preserve their Monopoly of ideas with these instruments.
That's mainly what I would recommend.
Other questions?
Yes, sir.
Yes. Yes.
all one by one.
I agree.
Yes, I agree.
I mean, I think what you need is a sort of a right-wing ACLU or something.
A right-wing is not the word for it, but a politically incorrect ACLU or something that will defend, well, people like me.
with that.
Well, there are various conservative groups that do sort of sue governments and that sort of thing, mainly on economic and business regulation grounds.
And I think there have been some challenges like this in the media, maybe.
But frankly, thinking about my own situation, I cannot think of someone who has been fired for the expression of right-wing ideas.
By a right-wing newspaper in the past.
In fact, I can't think of too many journalists who have been fired or silenced where suppressing their ideas is explicitly the reason given.
Usually they come up with some other excuse.
Taste or something like that or libel or something.
In any case, yes sir?
My speech at the American Renaissance Conference in 1994 or D'Souza's account of it.
And did they elaborate any?
And what was wrong?
Yes.
Well, Let's see.
I think there were several things.
I think one thing I said was that the cultural achievements of white civilization could not be replicated by other races for genetic reasons.
That was a big no-no in West Pruden's mind.
It's fairly unacceptable, I think.
We've been talking about it all day long here.
I don't know.
There were a couple of other things.
I don't know.
I gave a good many counterarguments to this, all of which he dismissed pretty readily.
I mean, he was not interested in that.
See, I violated a taboo.
It's not a question of whether I was right or wrong.
And that's the problem.
Yes, Sam?
Sam Dixon?
*laughs * Yes?
I agree internally.
Thank you.
In fact it was the decision I think of establishment or mainstream conservatives in the 1950s to abandon in effect racial arguments and racial science as an element of their political beliefs.
It was that decision that pushed race underground so that no one in mainstream dialogue could discuss it at that point.
If National Review is not going to discuss this You know, IQ differences and scientific findings and all of this, then the next leap over is far right and often not very reliable and not very respectable journals.
And when both ends of the political spectrum decide to drop something, then it disappears.
There's nothing else you can do about it.
It is precisely that decision, and I think it was probably a conscious decision on the part of National Review conservatives in the'50s or early'60s to stop talking about race that led to the long, dark age between, well,
that time and, say, just a few years ago with Rushton, Shockley, and Jensen and the, dare I say it, the American Renaissance of racial studies.
We've lost an entire generation because of conservatives.
Yes, sir.
How many members of the National Press Club would agree with the content of your remarks?
The remarks at the last one, the ones I got fired for, I doubt if very many of them would have agreed with it.
The National Press Corps and the Press Club, it's a fairly left-wing liberal group.
I have had expressions of support as far as my rights go from a number of liberal sources.
Andy Rooney actually wrote a column defending me and excoriating the Washington Times for firing me.
The magazine Liberty recently had an editorial Saying that I was full of crap on most things, but I wrote a more interesting column than most of the people in the Washington Times.
Dr. Francis, my question really is how many people, including people in the White House staff, on congressional committee staffs, are like the Japanese that Mr. Taylor was interrupted
by, simply saying, we all know this.
That is what I want to know.
How many people, and Charles Murray uses the term, whisper.
When people whisper in Washington, how many of them disagree with what you said at the United War of the Congress?
I have no idea how many disagree, but I don't think very many would agree.
I think many more people than let on would agree, but not as many as we would perhaps like to think would agree.
You know, it's
I don't know.
I don't see any other answer to that.
That doesn't mean that they live in integrated neighborhoods or send their children to heavily integrated public schools.
They don't, but they do not see what I think most people here see about race and the reality of race.
I just don't think that.
Yes, sir?
I heard some talk last night that you were probably going to be putting out a newsletter.
Yes. And if so, if you are, I like those people who are probably interested in describing it.
I am putting out a newsletter.
It has actually come back from the printer after being delayed for four weeks.
And it should have gone out in the mail earlier this week.
The mailing list is made up largely of fans who have written me letters over the last four or five years.
Probably if your name is not on that list, if you have never written me a letter, then you're not going to get a copy of it.
But that doesn't mean write me a letter.
I get a lot of letters.
But anyone who would like a subscription, I will give you the address to which you can write.
Write to the Samuel Francis letter, P.O. Box 19627, Alexandria, Virginia, 22320.
P.O. Box 19627, Alexandria, Virginia.
22320. How much?
$35 a year for 12 issues.
Such a deal.
I ask you to wait about a week because your name may be on this list and you may be getting a copy in the mail.
And that will have a subscription form and all that.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Well, technically, Pruden is right about that.
You don't have a right to know because it's a business matter.
He has every legal right to fire me.
I've never questioned that.
I didn't have a contract.
I was just like any other employee of the paper.
However, that's a rude answer that he gave you, and he gave that to many other readers of the paper, some of who canceled their subscriptions.
And he also wrote letters that I can only characterize as lying about why I was fired.
In one case, he said that I had tried to usurp the editorial voice of the paper or something, and in my nine years of the paper, I'd never done that.
He told lies, he contradicted himself, and he finally wound up telling people it was none of their business anyway.
I think that's a very shabby commentary on the Washington Times.
But I have in my personal possession about 50 letters from people like yourself who, and I thank you very much for doing that, who wrote to Pruden to protest that, and several of his replies, which are basically form letters and are I don't want to dwell on myself.
I could be in a lot worse situation.
And I've not suffered unduly as yet from this very much.
And I don't want to go through my life singing poor, pitiful me about what a rough treatment I had.
Somebody said something about Pat Buchanan?
What about that, Begum?
What about his destruction by the media when he came out and spoke of him back and he finished the back?
It was similar, I think, as a political group.
Yes. Well, I mean, what about, I mean, Pat Buchanan got that treatment.
Anybody who challenges those taboos is going to be treated like that for a while.
Hope in what respect?
And politically?
I do not think that the Republican Party would allow Pat Buchanan ever to be its nominee.
I just don't.
I think the Republican Party is dominated by this very elite that I was talking about.
The Republican Party is part of the problem, and it should be destroyed.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Sir, I think I can ask questions better if you would ask one to leave.
What is your doctrine here?
British history.
British and European history.
I do sympathize with you.
Try Samuel Peeps'diary.
Yes, Stan has.
Yes, Stan.
That was another issue.
Another reason why Sam got fired is, you know, vote with your pocketbook and just withdraw from these, you know, stop subscribing newspapers and support people like Sam.
And I want to say one thing.
Anybody after our meetings in between now and the dinner time who wants to go do some workshops and start seeing how we can work together, I'll be outside here in the lobby.
and from the Council of Conservative Citizens, from people in the Southern League, from a wide range of readers and citizens.
And I want to thank many of you who wrote letters to Pruden.
Many of you have been very supportive of me.
I want to thank all of you for that.
Thank you.
Anything more?
One more question.
Yes, sir, in the back.
How would it be possible for us to support academics when they come under fire, like those of you who are in the market?
Yeah. I'm not sure you'd have to ask academics about that because they would know the sort of choke points or strong links or weak links in their own organizations.
It could be that letter-writing campaigns can sometimes hurt people because people don't always know what to say or they say the wrong thing and it just scares the academics or something.
If Rushton or Levin or any other academic has anything to say about it, I'd be glad to hear what they have to say.
Okay, that's all.
▲
Export Selection