All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:00:30
Inequality: Natural, Political, and Social - Sam Francis
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Our next speaker is Samuel Francis.
He writes more incisively and uncompromisingly about the great questions that our nation faces In a country.
He marshals his arguments so systematically and brilliantly that Buchanan calls him"the Clausewitz of the right." Even the New Republic acknowledges him as a guru of the old right.
He even has the recklessness to quote me from time to time in his comments.
Dr. Francis became an editorial writer for the Washington Times in 1986, and his twice-weekly columns, and that's an awful lot of columns, are nationally syndicated.
He has twice received the Distinguished Writing Award from the American Society of Newspaper Writers, and his most recent book, Beautiful Losers, is a collection of essays on the failure of American conservatism, and it is a real pleasure and an honor to be able to present to you.
one of America's most brilliant and uncompromising essayists, Samuel Frank.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jared.
There's an old saying, supposedly an ancient Chinese curse.
May you live in interesting times.
Today, the curse has come true.
The interesting times are here.
What is interesting about the times in which we live is that for perhaps the first time in history, certainly for one of the few times in history, we are witnessing the more or less peaceful transfer of power from one civilization and from the people or race that created and bore that civilization to different races.
In South Africa, the transfer has already been completed, at least in a formal political sense, with the apparent support of most of the white population.
In the remainder of what was once the common imperium of the European peoples in Africa and Asia, the transfer has long since taken place, occurring when the imperial powers withdrew or were chased out of the territories they had conquered.
In Europe, the transfer has probably not quite yet begun on any major scale, and it probably will not begin until the immigration of non-white peoples is considerably further along than it is now in most of those countries.
But in North America, and more especially in the United States, the transfer is well underway.
It is in our own nation that the times are most interesting and therefore most cursed.
We see the transfer of power in almost every dimension of public and private life.
Thus far, the transfer is more cultural than it is political or economic.
It is clear in the rise of multiculturalism, Afrocentrism, and the other anti-white cults and movements in university curricula, and in the penetration of even daily private life by the anti-white ethic and behavior these cults impose.
It is clear in the ever-quickening war against the traditional symbols of the old civilization and the elevation of the symbols of the new peoples who aim at their displacement.
The Martin Luther King holiday of 1983 was the first and most important instance of the trend, but by no means the last.
Indeed, it can be argued that the King holiday was merely the forerunner, and in fact the legitimizing agent of the attacks on other symbols that have occurred since.
Attacks on the display of the Confederate battle flag and on other Confederate and Southern white symbols are now well known.
But the Alamo in San Antonio, as Jared mentioned last night, is another traditional white symbol that is also under attack by Hispanics.
At the University of Massachusetts, at Amherst, protesters have demanded the removal of the university's emblem, the Minuteman of the American War for Independence, as an offensive representation The white male armed with a musket.
And the school's chancellor supported their demands.
The Custer Battlefield in Montana, one of the few monuments to a military defeat anywhere, has been changed to celebrate the Indian victory.
Although what is historically memorable about the Battle of the Little Bighorn is not the victory of several thousand Indians over a small American cavalry detachment, but rather the defeat of the whites at the hands of the non-whites.
The holidays, public anniversaries, flags, songs, statues, museums, symbols, and heroes that a people shares are fundamental to its identity and its existence as a people.
And what we are witnessing on the official level of public culture in the attacks on these traditional symbols and their displacement by the symbols of other races is the effect of abolition of one people and the gradual creation of another.
Of course, this process of racial and cultural displacement is not limited to official culture, which is often merely the plaything of politicians.
It is also true, even more clearly, on the level of popular culture, by which is meant today not the culture created by the people, but rather the culture created by elites for consumption by the people.
Western movies now routinely define the whites as the villains, and the Indians and the Mexicans Or even more fantastically, the blacks as the heroes, or the martyrs as in Dances with Wolves and Geronimo.
Almost all TV and cinematic depictions of the Civil War now unequivocally portray the South and the Confederates as the villains, perhaps at the best misguided, but nonetheless on the wrong side of history.
It is routine also to display almost all criminals, rapists, murderers, robbers, as whites, though the statistical truth, of course, is that violent crime in the United States is largely the work of non-whites.
Political scientist Robert Lichter, a few years ago, showed in a study of how television depicts reality that while during the last 30 years, whites were arrested for 40% of the murders committed in the United States, on television, whites committed 90% of the murders.
Moreover, non-whites are frequently shown as not only heroic, but also as dominant over the whites.
In the film, Johnny Handsome, Mickey Rourke, played a violent and physically deformed white criminal, seeking revenge on the other criminals who betrayed him, all of them also white.
While the tough and competent police detective who arrested him and the brilliant surgeon who corrected his deformities were both blacks.
An inversion of probable reality that was explicitly praised in the reviews of the film.
In the Karate Kid film series, The villains are white toughs who pick on non-whites.
The heroes are non-whites who defeat the whites with the superior fighting skills and ethical codes of the Orient.
It is a staple feature of police movies that they portray blacks as the administrative superiors of the white protagonist, Mel Gibson's Lethal Weapon series being the best known, perhaps, the second installment of which claimed that white South Africans were masterminding drug smuggling into the United States.
While the explicit racial hatred of whites expressed in black directed films is well known, an increasingly common theme in mainstream television and film is that of the dangers represented by the hordes of violent and vicious white supremacists,
skinheads, neo-Nazis, paleo-Nazis, and racist terrorists who lurk in every city.
Behind every storefront, in every small town, everywhere throughout the country.
A few weeks ago, in the ABC production of the eight-hour film of Stephen King's The Stand, a tale of the final struggle at the end of the world between supernatural forces of good and evil, the personification of goodness and of God was an elderly black woman.
While the devil was portrayed as a blond-haired, blue-eyed, white man whose evil followers waved the Confederate flag.
Even at the end of the world, it seems, Hollywood cannot rid us of white racism.
Most of these examples, to be sure, are trivial enough.
Euro-American civilization and the people who created it can survive the artistic contributions of Stephen King and Mel Gibson.
Maybe. But these examples are of interest precisely because they are so trivial and because for the most part, they do not represent the main explicit subject matter of popular culture today.
In the 1960s, a film like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner explicitly explored the subject of interracial marriage and brought it up for discussion.
But today, anti-white themes more typically provide the background and the context of popular entertainment.
And as such, they either sneak into the public consciousness unexamined, or in many cases, are already there.
What is taking place here, both in the erasure and displacement of official cultural symbols, and in the similar process in elite-produced, mass-consumed popular culture, is the expropriation of cultural norms, the standards by which public and private behavior is legitimized or condemned,
and a culture defined.
And while the traditional norms that are being attacked, eroded, and discarded were almost never explicitly racial, the new norms that are being constructed and imposed are explicitly racial.
And they are not only explicitly racial, but also are explicitly and vociferously anti-white.
What is going on, then, is a calculated tactic aimed at seizing cultural legitimacy and cultural hegemony.
And ultimately coercive political power on behalf of non-whites at the expense of whites.
At the most extreme, the anti-white racialist movement resembles the ideology of German National Socialism.
It offers a conspiratorial interpretation of history in which whites are systematically demonized as the enemies of the black race, a myth of black racial solidarity and superiority, and a doctrine of black racial supremacy.
What I've called in some of my columns Afro-racism is the ideological and political apparatus by which an explicit race war is prepared against the white race and its civilization, not as part of rage at the so-called Rodney King verdict, nor as a response to injustice or neglect,
but like any war, as part of a concerted strategy to acquire power.
Of course, it is not confined to blacks, but extends also to other non-whites who care to sign up.
And of course, non-whites are by no means the only peddlers of anti-white racism.
And one of the most remarkable features of our interesting times is the degree to which whites themselves help dig their own racial and civilizational grave.
I have in my hand here a relatively new magazine to which I'm sure you will all want to subscribe at once, entitled Race Traitor, a journal of the new abolitionism, published in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
His motto is, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.
As far as I know, only two issues of the journal have been published, but in this, the second one, there's an interesting exchange between the editors and a white man who is a sympathetic reader of race traitors' advice on how he should help his people destroy themselves.
The reader writes, I agree with your general editorial philosophy that the white race as a concept must be abolished.
It has certainly caused enough suffering, social displacement, and political and ecological damage.
My question is whether all other races, too, ought to be abolished.
I feel there is nothing inherently evil about the white race.
The evil is the concept of race at all, and in the culture that has grown up around it, and the weapons of cultural, economic, and political imperialism it now wields.
And the reader wanted to know, If the editors of Race Traitor agreed that the concept of race itself should be abandoned and abolished.
Well, no, they didn't.
In an editorial reply, the editors of Race Traitor wrote that race has no existence apart from social distinctions.
Without them, the only race is the human.
While people of fair skin, etc., are human beings like any other, the white race is inherently evil and must be abolished by doing away with the social distinctions that describe it.
The editors quote Julius Lester as writing that white is not in the color of the skin, it is a condition of the mind, a condition that will be destroyed.
But they also write that the extent to which black people must identify as black in order to achieve liberation is a question they must resolve.
We are not advocating an ahistorical symmetry.
In other words, race is forbidden for whites, but not for non-whites, or at least for blacks.
While Race Traitor does not seem to advocate physical genocide, it fallaciously assumes that race is merely a social invention rather than a fact of nature.
It argues for the abolition of the concept of race as applied to whites.
What the editors of Race Traitor mean by abolishing race, however, involves a form of psychic and cultural genocide that would be no less destructive of the civilization whites have created.
And by undermining the cultural envelope of the race, It would perhaps in time lead to the physical destruction of the race as well.
Of course, the explicit goal is precisely to destroy that civilization by doing away with the symbols and institutions of the collective consciousness that defines the race as the foundation of the culture.
But the war against the white race and its civilization is not new.
It is a war that is part of the world historical movement that began in the late 19th century.
Perhaps not coincidentally around the time of the Battle of the Little Bighorn in which the American racialist writer Lofferb Stoddard called in the frank language of the 1920s the rising tide of color against white world supremacy in which Oswald Spingler a few years later called the colored world revolution.
It is easy to smile at such formulations today just as it is easy to dismiss The brutal lyrics of rap and the antics and crackpot doctrines of Afro-racism as the provocative public relations and political stunts of musical mediocrities and failed political demagogues.
But Martin Luther King himself explicitly and repeatedly linked the American Civil Rights Movement with what, in a 1960 address entitled The Rising Tide of Racial Consciousness, he called a worldwide struggle.
In his Playboy interview in 1965, King remarked, in an explicit endorsement of racial sentiment, that the American Negro, quote, feels a deepening sense of identification with his black African brothers and with his brown and yellow brothers of Asia,
South America, and the Caribbean.
We recently witnessed just such a display of racial solidarity at the inauguration of Nelson Mandela in South Africa when King's widow, Coretta Scott King, arrived to stand by his side.
Mrs. King, of course, does not travel thousands of miles to celebrate the victories of democracy in Eastern Europe, only to countries where her racial comrades are being empowered.
It is true that both Martin Luther King and Mrs. King and Mandela and many other leaders and spokesmen for the rising tide of non-white racial consciousness espouse a liberal rhetoric that ostensibly promises racial equality rather than domination.
But whether these spokesmen really believe in such a liberal vision or whether they merely wield it as a weapon against white liberals and conservatives who take it seriously, there is little question that most blacks in the United States do not share those liberal views about equality, freedom, and tolerance.
A recent Harris poll conducted for the National Conference, released in March of this year, showed that non-white minorities, Hispanic as well as black, quote, are more likely than whites to apply harsh stereotypes.
To other minorities, but are united in the view that whites are, quote, bigoted, bossy, and unwilling to share power.
And the poll found that each minority believed it is discriminated against by a white-controlled economy and educational system.
Regardless of the liberalism espoused in public by many blacks and other non-whites, these are hardly the attitudes from which a genuinely liberal policy can be expected to develop.
The invocation of liberty, equality, and fraternity by the supporters of the racial revolution of our age may be sincere for some of those making the invocation, but not only contemporary opinion polls, but also historical evidence suggests that it cannot be so.
Historian William McNeill argues in a set of lectures delivered in 1985 at the University of Toronto that what he calls ethnic hierarchy is on the rise everywhere.
And that it is indeed the normal condition of human civilizations.
Other civilized societies, writes McNeil, have almost always accepted and enforced inequality among the diverse ethnic groups of which they were composed.
McNeil's term, ethnic hierarchy, consists of words derived from Greek.
And if those words are loosely, but not too loosely, translated into their Latin equivalents, it is fairly clear that McNeil is saying, That racial domination, in one form or another, is the norm of human civilizations.
That ethnic and racial equality has little historical foundation.
And that the illusion of such equality is about to be rudely dispelled.
The fraudulence of the liberalism espoused by the leaders of the racial revolution was clear to Spengler himself.
The hair he wrote in his last book, The Hour of Decision, may perhaps deceive the fox, but human beings cannot deceive each other.
The colored man sees through the white man when he talks about humanity and everlasting peace.
He sensed the other's unfitness and lack of will to defend himself.
The colored races are not pacifists.
They do not cling to a life whose length is its sole value.
They take up the sword when we lay it down.
Once they feared the white man, now they despise him.
What is happening in our interesting times, then, to summarize briefly is this: a concerted and long-term attack against the civilization of white, European, and North American man has been launched, and that attack is not confined to the political, social, and cultural institutions that characterize the civilization,
but extends also to the race, the biological strain or type that created the civilization and continues to carry it and transmit it today.
The attack or war against white civilization sometimes, indeed often, invokes liberal ideals as its justification and as its goal.
But the likely reality is that the victory of the racial revolution will end merely in the domination or destruction of the white race and its civilization by the non-white peoples, if only for demographic reasons due to non-white immigration into the United States and the decline of white birth rates.
We know from the population projections of the Census Bureau last year that by the middle of the next century, the present white majority of the United States will have dwindled to a minority in its own country.
And given that fact, and the increasing legitimation of anti-white racism in the United States, the situation in this country for whites is not going to get any better, to say the least.
The revolution is already well advanced within the United States, which of all white majority countries on Earth, is already the most influenced and manipulated by the non-white enemy.
But of course the revolution could not have succeeded or gone as far as it has without the active assistance of whites who themselves supported the racial revolution against their own race and civilization and without the passive acquiescence of an even larger number of whites whose allegiance and faith in their own people and cultures have been steadily and stealthily subverted by the infusion of hidden assumptions hostile to them.
Stoddard and Spengler, as well as the late James Burnham and his Suicide of the West, analyzed these self-generated poisons by which the Western peoples prepare their own destruction.
The ideological poison has assumed several different names: Marxism, liberalism, globalism, egalitarianism, and indeed much of the conservatism now espoused by people like Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and William Buckley.
As well.
Thank you.
Whenever I denounce Buckley, I always get to work on the phone.
Thank you.
As well as a good part of Christianity, especially in its modern social gospel form.
But behind all of these ideologies and slogans lies the pervasive venom of universalism, the vision of mankind with a capital M. But now often extended to include animal rights.
So as not to offend our brothers in the field and stream.
But...
In the universalist worldview, there is neither history nor race nor even species.
Neither specific cultures or particular peoples nor meaningful boundaries.
And therefore, there are no concrete duties to race, nation, community, family, friend, or neighbor.
And indeed, no distinctions to be drawn between neighbor and stranger, friend and foe, mine and thine, us and them.
In the happy land of universalism, we owe as much to the children of Somalia, indeed more, than we do to the hapless citizens of Los Angeles, and Marines who could not have been sent from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, and who are not ordered to prevent violation of the Mexican border adjacent to their own base.
In Southern California are speedily dispatched to Somalia.
Even to invoke our identity, our interest, our aspirations is to invite accusations of all the isms and phobias that are deployed to prevent further discussion and to paralyze the formation or the retention of a common consciousness that might at some point swell up into actual resistance to our dispossession.
The principal white response to the incipient race war Thus far, manifested in neoconservative critiques of political correctness and multiculturalism, is merely to regurgitate the formulas of universalism, to invoke the spirit of Martin Luther King, and to repeat the universalist ideals of equality,
integration, and assimilation.
The characteristic defense of Western civilization by most conservatives today is merely a variation of the liberal universalism that the enemies of the West and of whites also invoke.
To argue that non-whites and non-Westerners ought to value modern Western civilization as in their own best interest, and to emphasize the liberal progress of the modern West in the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of non-whites, the retreat from imperialism,
the achievement of higher living standards, and political equality.
Of course, if the liberalism espoused by non-whites is a thin veil for the assertion of their own racial solidarity against whites, Then all such argumentation is vain.
It accomplishes nothing to preach liberalism to those who despise liberalism, along with everything else derived from the White West.
The uselessness of doing so was pointed up by the 19th century French writer Louis Villot in his ironic comment, When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle.
But when I am the stronger...
I take away your freedom because that is my principle.
Or, as Nietzsche put it in a similar thought, the values of the weak prevail because the strong have taken them over as devices of leadership.
Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites under assault need to do is reassert our identity and our solidarity,
and we need to do so in explicitly racial terms, through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites.
Thank you.
The reassertion of our solidarity must be expressed in racial terms for two major reasons.
In the first place, the attack upon us defines itself in racial terms.
And seeks, through the delegitimization of race for whites and the legitimization of race for non-whites, the dispersion and destruction of our own solidarity, while at the same time consolidating non-white cohesiveness against whites.
The historian Isaiah Berlin noted in 1991 that nationalism and racism are the most powerful movements in the world today, and at a time when the self-declared enemies of the white race defined themselves in racial terms, Only our own definition of ourselves in those terms can meet that challenge.
If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us, as the Tutsi people have been slaughtered in Rwanda in the last few weeks, they will do so not because we are Westerners or Americans or Christians or conservatives or liberals,
but because we are white.
Secondly, we need to assert a specifically racial identity
Because race is real.
Biological forces, including those that determine race, are important for social, cultural, and historical events.
I do not suggest that race as a biological reality is by itself sufficient to explain the civilization of European man.
If race were sufficient, there would be no problem.
But race is necessary for an explanation of it.
And it is likely that biological science in the near future will show even more clearly.
How necessary racial, biological, and genetic explanations are for historical and social affairs.
The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people.
Nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.
If the people or race who created and sustained the civilization of the West should die, then that civilization also will die.
A merely cultural consciousness, then, that emphasizes only social and cultural factors as the roots of our civilization is not enough.
Because a merely cultural consciousness will not by itself conserve the race, the people, that were necessary for the creation of the culture and who remain necessary for its survival.
We need not only to understand the role of race in creating our civilization, But also to incorporate that understanding in our defense of our civilization.
And until we do so, we can expect only to keep on losing the war we are in.
The fundamental problem of the American white population was unwittingly identified by Newsweek magazine in its March 29, 1993 cover story on white male paranoia.
In an effort to puncture any tendencies among white men to think of themselves as victims, endangered or exploited, Newsweek pointed out, quote,
From this avalanche of numbers,
Newsweek inferred that it's Still a statistical piece of cake being a white man, at least in comparison with being anything else.
Newsweek is undoubtedly right in its numbers, but the numbers miss the point.
What the numbers in fact tell us is that whites do not act cohesively or think of themselves as a unit, that whites have no racial consciousness.
If they did so act or think of themselves, they would be using their persisting political, economic, and cultural power as quantified by Newsweek in their own interests.
And the very perceptible white male paranoia that Newsweek was talking about, the very real sense of an incipient slippage from a position of control, would not exist.
In the United States today, whites exist objectively, but do not exist subjectively.
And that is, in my view, the fundamental racial problem they face.
The basic reason they, I should say we, are losing the racial war against us.
The very reason we are in a war at all.
Newsweek's numbers offer proof of the objective existence of whites and of white power as measured materially and quantitatively.
The spineless abnegation of their own country and culture that is at the root of white male paranoia offers proof of the absence of a subjective existence.
Whites do not exist subjectively because they do not think of themselves as whites.
They do not act cohesively as whites.
They do not think being white is important.
Or even meaningful.
As long as whites continue to avoid and deny their own racial identity at a time when almost every other racial and ethnic category in or out of the United States is rediscovering and asserting its own, whites will have no chance to resist their dispossession and their eventual possible physical destruction,
a fate that may well lie in the not distant future.
Before we can seriously discuss any concrete proposals...
For preserving our culture and its biological and demographic foundations, we have to address and correct the problem we inflict upon ourselves, our own lack of a racial consciousness, and the absence of a common will to act in accordance with it.
What Benjamin Franklin told his colleagues at the birth of the American Republic remains true today as the Republic and the race and civilization that gave birth to it approach their deaths.
If we do not hang together, not only as members of a common nation, But also as part of a common race, a common people, then most assuredly we will all hang separately.
Thank you for listening.
Dr. Francis has kindly agreed to take the questions.
To what extent do you think that altruism or Christianity misunderstood is fueling our own divide?
I've had graduates who at Catholic University assure me all men are equal because they're spiritually equal.
They fail to distinguish between, but it goes back I guess to Locke and Thomas and Judge of Jefferson.
All men are spiritually equal.
Every human being has value, but all people are not equal necessarily in ability, aptitude,
Yes, I think a bastardized form of Christianity is very supportive of this kind of attitude.
It began in the Enlightenment, which is essentially a secularization of Christians.
Ethics without the balances that pre-enlightenment Christianity gave to that.
You have to recall in all the criticism of Christianity for universalism and suicidal tendencies that the conquistadors who conquered Latin America, the pioneers in this country, all these people were Christians.
So if something happened to Christianity between that time and today, you can't really imagine hippie priests running around in the 15th century.
But, yeah, I think there is a role there of Christianity.
Dr. Sam, you have written powerfully and persuasively about gun control recently.
In your view, what role does the mania for gun control have in this dispossession?
I think the mania for gun control is due to two things.
One is a very legitimate fear of crime by Americans, especially Northeastern urban Americans.
And secondly, it's due to the fact that we are ceasing to live in a gun culture.
Americans, especially in Northeastern urban areas, don't understand guns.
They don't know what guns are.
They don't know what guns can do.
They have no feel for guns.
Boys in the hood do.
Yes, they do.
I myself was raised, I was not from the hood myself.
I was raising the guns in the house so that I'm less frightened of a gun than I am of a power lawnmower.
Well, Sam, what I was really getting at is what is the passion for disarming the largely law-abiding all about?
I mean, everyone concedes that gun control cannot disarm the criminals.
No, I don't think everyone concedes that.
No, I don't think so.
You hear that all the time from Metzenbaum and Schumer and Feinstein and the people who are advocating gun control.
I mean, we get rid of these guns and...
I think criminals won't be able to get them.
It's true, they know nothing about guns.
I mean, either how to get them or what they do.
Their ignorance is just laughable.
Am I speaking to your point at all?
I'm sorry, sir.
What? Yeah, thanks.
In the back, Sam?
If the White Bureau of Communities has any hope of political salvation, it appears it would have to come, in all likelihood of the Republican Party, It's almost hopeless that these people,
decade after decade, come up with the same numbers.
They're going to get a third black vote.
They're going to get a third black vote.
And they abandon completely the concern of their constituency, always pursuing a third of the black folks they never, ever again.
What are your observations on the feasibility of ever curing the Republican Party under this will-of-the-wisp sort of thinking?
There's no possibility of curing the Republican Party.
Republican Party on the street
I will say, you know, for white southerners, particularly, I'm a white southerner, it's always been an ordeal for us to associate with the Republican Party at all.
But when they had Goldwater and Reagan, okay, there was some sensible purpose for it.
I'm not going to defend Goldwater and Reagan, but there was, at the time, some reason for it.
Today, there's just none.
You know, I was told in 1992, I did not endorse anyone in my column.
Bush or Clinton or Perot or anyone, I was told by my one neoconservative friend that a good reason for voting for Bush over Clinton would be the Supreme Court nominees.
Well, alright, that was arguable then.
We now have two Supreme Court nominees.
The first one, Justice Ginsburg, passed unanimously, was endorsed by the Republicans immediately.
George Mitchell was thought to be the nominee for the second one.
bob dole endorsed metro before clinton even nominated uh...
you have but i probably suggested clinton not to nominate
George Mitchell.
Bob Gold thought it was a good idea.
And then finally you have Judge Breyer, who was endorsed by Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy on the same day.
So what is the point of voting for a Republican?
I mean, the main argument that they had for voting for Bush, it collapses.
But, you know, on the black vote, I think that the real reason behind that is not that...
Republicans really expect to get very much of the black vote.
I think they are trying to massage yuppie guilt.
And they're trying to get yuppies to vote Republican.
And yuppies like some blacks.
You know, there used to be a discotheque in Washington.
I've forgotten its name in the late 70s.
But it would allow in a certain number of blacks.
Because it was fashionable to have blacks in the discotheque.
But after a while they would turn them away.
Because you don't want too many blacks in the discotheque.
Because then it looks too black, and the white yuppies won't come, and it will turn into a black discotheque.
Well, this was discovered, and there was a civil rights suit or something, and it went out of business.
But the idea, it's the same thing, the Republican Party is a discotheque, and you have to lure a few blacks into it, but not too many.
Yeah.
You spoke earlier about the cultural forces that are out of a raid with white people right now.
What's your take on country music and its rising popularity?
Well, I think...
I don't listen to it an awful lot, but Garth Brooks, for example, is a fairly repulsive person.
You know, he has that stupid universalist song about...
Whatever it is, you know what I'm talking about.
We're all gay and...
We're all intermarried.
I think that's the one where he flies across the audience.
But anyway, I don't think country music is...
If you're asking, is country music a serious, you know, resistance, a force of resistance to this?
No, I don't think it is.
Do you foresee the fragmentation of the United States as a possibility perhaps to be desired?
I think that's possible.
I don't see any real tendency toward it now.
I think in a sense there's a fragmentation, there's a decomposition.
The culture and the society are decomposing, but it's held together by sort of the high-tech chicken wire of television and the entertainment culture and the economy and all that, you know, McDonald's and the fast food restaurants,
that sort of thing.
And that's, in fact, when pro...
Immigration people like Ben Wattenberg say, well, immigrants are assimilating.
That's what they mean, that they're working for McDonald's and eating Big Macs and shopping at Kmart.
That's what American culture means to Wattenberg.
I don't know.
As far as separatism and secessionism, there's strong odors of all that in the air now among the white right.
You know, we're simply not ready for that.
If we had a secessionist or separatist movement, even if it worked and succeeded, all that would do is simply import into the separating fragment all the evils that we already have, you know, among whites.
I hate to sound religious about it, but we have to purge ourselves of those evils first.
And then we can talk about other options.
Secessionism, separatism, whatever.
Mr. Francis, are you familiar with the work of Dr. Robert Graham in California, who operates the Genius Sperm Bank, who has produced, as of this date, 192 supermen?
Well, I've barely heard of it.
I don't know.
Dr. Francis,
I'm from a part of Louisiana, which for the time being you still call New Orleans.
And the local monopoly newspaper there ran a series called"Together Apart the Myth of Race" which, in many installments, declared that race is, just like the folks from Cambridge said, a sociological myth, mindset.
And they won numerous national awards by their colleagues, essentially, in the field.
What's your take on that sort of thing?
Media back-slapping for declaring such a surge?
We live in the illusion that ideas have consequences and that eventually the ideas that Professor Levin was talking about, about scientific research on race, eventually these will seep down to the actual intellectual classes that will have an impact on them.
I have no faith in that, but many people do believe that.
But, um...
No, I think eventually there will be some change in that.
It's interesting that they had an editorial attacking...
It was a series that consisted of about two or three dozen installments.
It is out of competitive form.
When was it published approximately?
I'm sorry?
When was that published approximately?
Early through mid-1993.
Okay. I mean, you know, 50 years after Franz Boas and his colleagues supposedly destroyed the idea of race, newspapers still find it necessary to have 13 parting scholars.
That's right.
I mean, no one, you know, no one refutes out Kimmy.
You don't have newspapers having 12-part installments refuting astrology.
Even though Ronald Reagan believed in astrology.
I went to a conference that I held, and the guest speaker at the conference was the chief editor in charge of this series.
And this, keep in mind, debuted in the spring of 1993.
And his explanation as for why they pursued this series was that in 1991, they introduced that 40% of the overall vote.
Therefore, they had to re-educate me.
In the past, the white consciousness movement has always excluded people who are biologically white.
Disfavored people.
Is your white consciousness movement any different than these past movements?
What? Well, Nazis have excluded Jews, Eastern Europeans, the KKK excluded whites who were Catholics and Jews?
No, I don't exclude any of those people.
I mean, European Jews are whites.
I mean, you know, whether you consider, you know, Fallasha Jews from Ethiopia, I mean, or Hawkeye Jews from China, I mean, they're not white.
The category of being a Jew is essentially a religious category.
I'm asking the question.
Well, some people use it in different senses.
No, I don't know.
Caucasian is a very broad term, for example, applied to Middle Easterners.
I don't really see that Middle Easterners are what we conventionally think of as white.
But Europeans, Catholics, Jews, I don't see any problem with considering them white.
Yes? Why do you believe there's this sustained attack against white civilization which is food and self-security?
Why is there a sustained attack against our civilization?
Because the non-whites who are attacking it have a sense of solidarity of themselves, their own destiny, their own identity.
And it's a struggle for power, essentially, on a grand scale.
Why are they being aided and embedded?
Oh, bad whites?
Well, through all these things, we've talked about guilt, universalist ideology, It's a very big question as to why whites do that, and I don't have a complete answer to that.
Dr. Francis, do you think that with regard to self-identification, it would be better to say the European-American in this context than white?
Only because the government has so misused the concept.
The Census Bureau defines white as European, Hispanic, Central Asian, Southwest Asian, North African.
The Native have come up with a residual concept called non-Spanish white, which is European, but also Central Asian, Southwest Asian, North African.
There is an attempt to get a lawsuit done by some people in California and Nevada to sue the Census Bureau to actually have a category similar to what they came up with in 1980 for Asia, say, European American.
So would you go along with that as at least a step of clarifying what we're talking about?
Yeah, I have no real objection to that.
Although I suspect that a lot of people like European American or Euro-American, because it's a euphemism, they don't want to say white.
With demographics, it's just that if you look at the census, the actual...
And the population of European-American seems less significant, or at least less dramatic, if you're directed to look just at what the census has for white.
So if you're looking at, let's say, the 1990 census, it says, what's the white population in the United States?
80%. Then you subtract from that all these other categories.
You get the Europeans have 75%.
Yes, I know, yes.
I think it would be lower.
Well, that's 1990.
There could be changes.
And that's conservative.
So that's what I meant for getting, not to try to create a long-winded term or something, but to get more exact readings on how significant the demographic change is, actually, by using such a term.
I was just going to mention in connection with his comment that even though the European-American might be more specific.
It seems to put the emphasis on where you're from rather than what you are.
That's true.
And that might be misleading in a certain sense.
That's true.
I mean, the term volume is...
It's playing their game, I guess.
Afro-American says we're from Africa, but all Africans certainly aren't black.
Right, true.
Samson, since you were talking about the problem being defined in terms of a lack of racial consciousness among white people and dealing with national and international issues in the country, what, in your opinion, would be the issue that would be the biggest
help in rebuilding or remolding that racial consciousness?
Would it be something like affirmative action or states'rights?
Or what would be the issue that we could use as a PR concept to make people start thinking in terms of who they are and what they are?
I think crime, education, and affirmative action are three issues that would be the most useful.
Mainly because those are issues that actually cost whites something material.
You know, the education of their children, their jobs, and their physical safety.
And I think you have to start with that kind of appeal to personal interests rather than larger civilizational interests.
So those would be the best issues.
Yes, ma'am.
Dr. Francis, you cited a number of publications in your address, Newsweek being one of them, as being purveyors of the type of disinformation.
And I'm curious as to what would you have to say specifically to the people who are responsible for writing these pieces?
And what would you have to say towards, aside from boycotting these publications, actually trying to change the type of irresponsibility that they're responsible for?
Gosh, I don't know.
I mean, I know working for a newspaper how things, it doesn't happen to me, but it does happen to reporters in all newspapers, how things get changed by the editors.
So what the reporter turned in at night is not what he reads in the newspaper the next morning.
And it's not always possible to know who changed it or why.
You know, the headline on the story, captions of pictures, takeouts in the story, those things tell the reader what to think, much more than the language.
There is a belief that the news, the media actually creates news as opposed to reporting news and I'm just wondering if you have any suggestions as to how we can start to change it to go into the right direction as opposed to the wrong.
I don't think you can change it because I think what you have to do is have alternatives.
Publications, dare I say the Washington Times is one, but there are others.
American Renaissance is another.
There are others of various hues and descriptions, but I don't think that you can really do anything with Newsweek, Time, New York Times, Washington Post.
You will find in the Washington Post, for example, the Post has moved to the right since the Washington Times has been in existence, for what it's worth.
Now you have George Will in the Washington Post.
They used to carry William Buckley, and they never carried him really.
They published it maybe ten times a year, and I guess he finally withdrew.
Picked up Buckley, and it's perfectly clear why the Washington Post never ran his column.
But I don't know.
There are all sorts of pressures like that you can put on the press.
But I think, Baylen, you have to have an alternative media.
Yes, in the back.
I wonder if you've read of the writings of Gustav LeBond, and whether you think he has any relevance to our problems.
I read his book, The Crowd, which is a classic of mass psychology.
I liked it at the time.
It was a long time ago.
It seemed to me he had very many insights into crowd psychology, the nature of mass society, and mass democracy.
I think Le Bon is probably worth reading.
Frankly, it's been a long time since I read the book.
I wanted to speak a bit about the issue of race, because it is an important question, and whether whites should refer to themselves as whites or Euro-Americans.
I mention this because here's a ray of sunshine that made it cast.
The American Psychologist recently ran a long article, and in the Educational Psychology Review, an important journal in education, ran a long article, both attacking the concepts of race as myths.
And as somebody said, it's kind of ridiculous.
Oh, you said, of course, that you don't have refutation of alchemy.
But nonetheless, the American Psychologist, the most important psychology journal in the world, it's academic, but it's shared by hundreds of thousands of people, was sort of toying with the idea of higher standards for discussions having to do with race than any other topic.
I'm happy to report that both the American Psychologist and the Educational Psychology Review did invite and is going to publish responses by those of us who do believe in race.
I think the scientific view to take, the best view to take, unbalanced, well I do agree the word white is good, that scientifically race is best taken to refer to geographical region from which your ancestors came.
That's a good scientific operational definition.
Blacks are people whose ancestors came from sub-Saharan Africa 20 or more generations ago.
Caucasians are those whose ancestors came from...
West of the Urals, north of the Sahara, 20 or more generations ago.
Same for Asians.
And this sort of feeds into what may be a more prolix and euphemistic definition.
The reason I think this is good is because it demystifies the concept of race.
People have a tendency to attack the concept of race by first attributing to those who believe in it all sorts of nonsense that they don't believe, some kind of mystical essence, and then attacking that straw man.
By having a geographical definition of race, you avoid that problem.
Good point.
That's a good idea.
Just on the word Caucasian, my understanding, I think this is in John R. Baker's book, that the 18th century naturalist Blumenbach actually coined this term, and he did so because he had in his anatomical collection this beautiful human skull that he believed came from the Caucasus Mountains.
and it was such a beautiful skull he thought the white race should be named after so he named it Caucasian and I think it later turned out it actually didn't even come from the caucus it's a good bad metaphor poor mountain
To what extent is the Hollywood TV newsprint media assault daily on the white male orchestrated?
If so, by whom?
I don't know.
I think some of it's orchestrated.
I don't think it's not accidental.
Why it is orchestrated that way probably gets into the other questions about why whites lack racial consciousness and all of that.
It doesn't happen by accident, because if it happened by accident, sometimes you would see very negative portrayals of blacks.
You know, sometimes the devil would be portrayed as a black man or something.
That doesn't happen, usually.
I think certain elites in our society are basically allied with non-whites, and media elites are one of them.
I think that's also true.
Corporate elites and governmental elites and others.
You mentioned the main issues.
We thought were the most important.
I think another one is selection of textbooks by school boards, and there's a state school board committee, I guess, in every state.
I think that we should use the same tactics that every other ethnic group uses, which is, you know, to examine textbooks and to point out bias in textbooks, inaccuracies.
And also, just to have boycotts.
Pull kids out of schools.
Say, we're not going to listen to this kind of garbage.
And to make your point that way, and that's what brings the media in anyway.
I mean, this is going to take time, but what do you think of that issue, like in the schools per se, of having boycotts?
Well, I'm all for it.
You know, I live in sort of a middle class neighborhood, largely white, and every morning the school bus comes through and picks up these kids and takes them to school.
It is inconceivable to me why anyone would send his children to public school anymore.
But on the part about textbook surveys, you have to get parents to understand what's going on.
▲
Export Selection