Race And The American Prospect: An Introduction


[Vdare.com
Note:
The late Sam Francis was editing this
collection before his
untimely death. His
views on race may be considered unfashionable, but are
actually milder than those of

every President of the United States
,
(not excluding


Abraham Lincoln
) up
until the John F. Kennedy Administration. See Steve
Sailer`s


review of this book
for
even more irenic views. And Sam`s advocacy  of what is
here called   “white racial consciousness” is
still about ten times less strident than anything said
by


Julian Bond
of the
NAACP or


Raul Lowery Contreras.

This is the last Sam Francis piece we will be able to
run—there isn`t any more, although we have a five year
archive, and more of his work is available at


Samfrancis.net
.]


The following essay is
Sam Francis`s introduction to


Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial
Realities of Our Nation and Our Time,

a newly published collection of essays edited
by Dr. Francis
. The book is available from Amazon
or directly from

The Occidental Press
(P.O. Box 695, Mt. Airy,
Maryland 21771; 301-829-2995;) $34.95 (hbk); $19.95 (pbk).
This unique collection of essays, from fourteen
cutting-edge experts on race, offers an incisive
alternative to the politically correct dogmas of racial
egalitarianism. The table of contents can be found

here.

If an

analogy
between the Victorian sex taboo and the
contemporary race taboo were to be drawn, the essays in
this book are logically the analogue of pornography, or
what conventional Victorians

regarded
as pornography. Every one of these essays
deals with race in a way that the dominant culture of
the present day rejects, forbids, and indeed punishes by
one means or another. Every one of them deals with
aspects of race—its reality as a part of the

biological
and

psychological
nature of man and its importance as a

social and historical f
orce—that contemporary
culture is at best reluctant to discuss at all and
absolutely refuses to acknowledge as true. At the same
time, in contradiction to the stereotype promoted by
“anti-racist”
forces, not one of these essays or
their authors expresses here or anywhere else any desire
to harm, exploit, dominate, or deny the legitimate
rights of other races. This book is not a tract
promoting

“white supremacy”
or the restoration of

forced segregation
.

All contributors to this volume are
white, well educated, and articulate; several are or
have been academics or professional journalists and
authors, and what unites and drives them as a group is a
common concern that their race today faces a crisis that
within the coming century and in the United

States and Europe
could easily lead to either its
physical extinction, its subordination to and
persecution by other races, or the destruction of its
civilization.

Most readers who continue to
believe what the

dominant culture tells them
about the meaning and
significance of race will find this concern bizarre.
Even if race does exist as a biological reality, it
certainly has no meaning for behavior, culture,
intelligence, or other traits that influence and shape
social institutions. Moreover, any effort to take race
more seriously is either a

deliberate and covert attempt
to justify racial
hatred or injustice, or is at best a misguided
enterprise that is all too likely to lead to hatred,
injustice, and even genocide, as it has in the past.
This is the conventional attitude toward race that the
dominant culture in the West today promotes and
enforces, and it is precisely from that attitude that
the authors of these essays dissent.

The commonly held beliefs about
race mentioned above—that

it does not exist
or is not important and that
serious concern about race and racial identity leads to
negative and undesirable consequences—are wrong. Yet it
is precisely those beliefs that make it impossible for
whites who accept them to preserve themselves as a race
and the civilization and political institutions their
race has created. As black historian Shelby Steele

acknowledged
in the Wall Street Journal (
November
13, 2003
), “Racial identity is simply forbidden
to whites in America and across the entire Western
world. Black children today are

hammered
with the idea of racial identity and pride,
yet racial pride in whites constitutes a grave evil. Say
`I`m white and I`m proud` and you are a

Nazi
.”
. Indeed, he made use of the widely shared
(by non-whites as well as whites) demonic view of whites
to reject and deny any white claim to their own racial
identity:

No
group in recent history has more aggressively seized
power in the name of its racial superiority than Western
whites. This race illustrated for all time—through
colonialism, slavery, white racism, Nazism—the
extraordinary human evil that follows when great power
is joined to an atavistic sense of superiority and
destiny.


Louis Farrakhan
,

Al Sharpton,
and

Jesse Jackson,
as well as Hispanic leaders Cruz
Bustamante and Mario Obledo, have no problem exulting in
their own racial identity and the political power they
expect such solidarity to yield. They exult in language
that is explicitly anti-white, in the most

primitive
and threatening terms. Yet they are seldom
called to account for it. When Mr. Obledo,

proclaimed
a few years ago, “California is going
to be a Mexican state, we are going to control all the
institutions. If people don`t like it they should
leave—go back to Europe,”
he received the

Presidential Medal of Freedom
by President Clinton
soon afterward. It is not very likely that a white
leader today who said, as Senator Stephen Douglas in

a debate with Abraham Lincoln in 1858
did say, “I
believe this government was made on the white basis. I
believe it was made by white men for the benefit of
white men and their posterity forever”
would be
awarded anything. Douglas`s comment (and many similar
ones) expressed a sentiment more or less parallel to Mr.
Obledo`s, though Douglas did not go so far as to invite
non-whites to leave the country (it was

Lincoln himself
who

did that).
Douglas in fact won the election and was
the Democrat`s national candidate for president two
years later.

In contrast to Mr. Obledo, when
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in December 2002
remarked that the country

would have been better off
had Strom Thurmond won
the 1948 presidential election, he was denounced from
both the

political right
and left and hounded into resigning
his leadership position in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Lott had
said nothing about race, and there was no evidence he
was even thinking about that aspect of the campaign; but
he was obliged to engage in

protracted and repeated retractions,
anyway—all to
no avail.

One main reason for the obvious
double standard is that non-whites are easily inflamed
and mobilized by the slightest appearance of white
identity, and their mobilization can have disastrous
consequences for institutions—the

Republican Party
—that seek or depend on non-white
votes or market patronage. Yet these are by no means the
only reasons why whites “cannot openly have a racial
identity.”

The truth is that whites deny
themselves a racial identity. Mr. Steele can utter
sweeping generalizations about “the extraordinary
human evil”
(ignoring the long and brutal history of
slavery, conquest, genocide, and repression by nonwhites
in

Africa
and

Asia
that persists to this day) in a major newspaper
owned and managed by whites because most of the white
elite will not question this kind of anti-white opinion.
White tolerance of such anti-white sentiment is due to
the

guilt
that is

injected into white minds.

The consequences of this denial and
demonization of whites and the civilization they have
created and ruled for the last several centuries are
what concern the contributors to this collection of
essays. The processes by which those consequences may
come about are already apparent.

White leaders no doubt assume that
the multiracial future of the country will not threaten
whites or the country because all races accept or are
coming to reject race in the same ways they do. This
assumption is demonstrably wrong. Like most revolutions,
the one led by non-whites like

Martin Luther King, Jr.
moved from a moderate phase
demanding merely equal treatment and the end of legal
racial discrimination to a far

more radical stage
demanding outright racial
privileges for non-whites. It is this radical phase that
established now that threatens to become even more
radical.

“Color blindness” denies a
biological reality that is obviated in two ways. First,
scientifically: The work of scientists like

Arthur Jensen,


William Shockley
,

J. Philippe Rushton,
H. J. Eysenck, Richard Lynn,

Richard Herrnstein,
and a number of others
established that race exists and is a significant factor
in human mental traits. There is little doubt about this
today and fewer and fewer scientists dispute it, though
few also are willing to risk their careers by talking or
writing about it. As long ago as 1981, Arthur Jensen

itemized
a host of such differences:

Different races have evolved in
somewhat different ways, making for many differences
among them. A few of the many physical characteristics
found to display genetic variation between different
races are body size and proportions, hair form and
distribution, head shape and facial features,

cranial capacity
and brain formation, blood types,
number of vertebrae, size of genitalia, bone density,
fingerprints, basic metabolic rate, body temperature,
blood pressure, heat and cold tolerance, number and
distribution of sweat glands, odor, consistency of ear
wax, number of teeth, age at eruption of permanent
teeth, fissural patterns on the surfaces of the teeth,
length of gestation period, frequency of twin births,
male-female birth ratio, physical maturity at birth,
rate of infant development of alpha brain waves,
colorblindness, visual and auditory acuity,

intolerance of milk,
galvanic skin resistance,
chronic diseases, susceptibility to infectious diseases,
genetic diseases (e.g.,

Tay-Sachs,

sickle cell anemia
), and pigmentation of the skin,
hair, and eyes.

As

Kevin Lamb
shows in his essay for this book, the
scientific evidence for the natural reality and social
significance of race is now overwhelming. As Richard
Lynn shows in his essay, racial differences in
intelligence and behavior patterns significantly affect
such societal differences as levels of technological
achievement, political stability and freedom, criminal
violence, and standards of living. What kind of society
and how much civilization a people creates, is clearly
related to their race. Race by itself is certainly not
sufficient to create civilization, but it is necessary
to creating it. Non-whites may indeed create a different
civilization of their own, but it will not be the same
as the one we as whites created and live in, and most of
us would not want to live in it.

The recognition of the significance
of race does not imply or lead to “hate” or
domination of one race by another, but racial
differentiation does imply social differentiation. The
existence of significant biological differences between
groups of human beings means there will be social
differences between them: differences in educational and
economic achievement, personal and political behavior,
and social and cultural institutions. And if there is
social differentiation between races, then competition
and conflict between them is also likely, especially if
they occupy the same territory. “Hatred,”
domination, and racial antagonism may therefore result,
not as relationships to be desired or advocated, but as
the consequence of the natural reality of racial
differences and the effort to ignore or deny such
differences.

The second way in which race has
been rediscovered is as a socio-political force, the
racial consciousness and solidarity discussed above that
in the last century has swept through the non-white
populations of the United States and the world. This
rediscovery constitutes what Lothrop Stoddard in the

frank language of the 1920s
called The
Rising Tide of Color against White World Supremacy

and is identical to what the

late Robert Nisbet termed
the “racial
revolution.”
The “single fact…that stands out”
is “that racial revolution as an aspiration is
becoming increasingly separate from other philosophies
or strategies of revolution.”

What has occurred in the last
century, then, consists of two processes—first, the
evisceration of white racial consciousness and identity,
and second, the development, around the same time, of
the non-white and anti-white racial consciousness that
animates the emerging national non-white majority. The

scientific rediscovery of race
as a socially and
historically significant reality of nature is part of a
reaction against the “racial revolution” and can
be expected to assist in the revival and
relegitimization of white racial identity, but remains
largely an academic abstraction understood by only a
handful of scientists and scholars.

There are three general reasons why
a revival of white racial consciousness and identity is
needed.

  • First, we now know enough
    about the biologically grounded

    cognitive
    and

    behavioral differences
    between the races to be
    able to say with confidence that race deeply affects
    and shapes cultural life. Races with a

    lower level of cognitive capacity
    could have
    produced neither the modern West, with its
    scientific and technological achievements, nor the

    ancient West,
    with its vast political
    organization and sophisticated artistic and
    philosophical legacies. Nor is the inclinations of
    white Westerners to innovate, explore, expand, and
    conquer apparent among most non-white races, even if
    their cognitive capacities are greater than those of
    whites.

 

  • Second, whites, like any race,
    should wish to survive and flourish simply for their
    own sake whatever their merits or flaws. Even this
    minimal rationale for racial survival is denied to
    whites today because of their

    constant demonization
    .

 

  • And third, white racial
    consciousness is necessary simply as a means of
    self-protection. It is an integral component of the

    historic identity of America
    as a culture and a
    nation. As

    Jared Taylor
    notes in his essay in this volume,
    explicit white racial consciousness has been a
    commonplace and important feature of American
    history, a belief that has shaped the events,
    leaders, institutions, and norms that have defined
    us as a people and a nation throughout our past and
    in all regions.

You cannot have it both ways:
either you define the American nation as the product of
its past and learn to live with the reality of race of
the racial particularism that in part defines our
national history, or you reject race as meaningful and
demand that anyone who believes that race means anything
more than that be demonized. If you reject race, then
you reject America as it has really existed throughout
its history, and whatever you mean by “America”
has to come from something other than its real past.

Even more dangerously, the absence
of racial consciousness among whites disarms them as a
group in confrontation with races that possess such a
consciousness.

Blacks
,

Hispanics
, Asians, and other non-white racial and
ethnic groups are able

to act and react
in highly unified patterns,
political and cultural. They protect what their leaders
perceive as their racial interests and, in particular,
to resist,

denounce
, and

attack any manifestation of white racial solidarity
.

Whites may be more or less unified
with respect to objective material
characteristics—income, education, residence, voting
behavior, etc.—but they are not unified and indeed
barely even exist with respect to racial consciousness
and identity. At a time when anti-white racial and
ethnic groups define themselves in explicitly racial
terms, only our own unity and identity as a race will be
able to meet their challenge. If and when that challenge
should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as

Robert Mugabe
has threatened to do to

whites in Zimbabwe,
they will do so not because we
are “Americans” or “Christians” or
“conservatives”
or “liberals,” but because we
are white.

Given the intensity of non-white
racial consciousness, the emergence of a
counterbalancing white consciousness may well lead to
violent conflict between the races. There is in fact an
immense level of violent conflict against whites going
on right now through interracial crime and terrorism; by
mass immigration, legal and illegal; and by the
deliberate refusal of ruling white elites to enforce
their own laws and protect their own people.

The restoration of white racial
supremacy in the United States today is not desirable or
probably even possible. As Sam G. Dickson notes in his
essay in this volume on race and the South, the core of

Robert E. Lee`s personal objection to Southern slavery

was that it encouraged the corruption of the whites, a
corruption that cripples and weakens whites in creating
free social orders and high civilizations. A race that
dominates needs to establish what is essentially an
authoritarian system of political and social control
that inhibits the dominant race almost as much as it
restrains the subject race.

Probably the most desirable and
mutually satisfactory (if not the most likely)
resolution of the escalating racial conflict would be
the voluntary separation of races into distinct nations.
There are obvious problems with such a division of the
national territory—who would get which part, what would
happen to those of one race who refused to leave the
areas assigned to another race, who would be counted as
part of a race and why, how would the separation be
authorized, how would each section be governed, etc.
Moreover, most white Americans would recoil from
endorsing an actual territorial division of the nation
for whatever reason. Racial separatism, far more than
“white supremacy,”
is today favored by most whites
advocating white racial consciousness, but there appears
to be

little prospect
of the larger white population
embracing it in the near future. Nor is “racial
federalism,”
under which local communities or even
whole states determine their own racial arrangements,
laws, and policies, likely. The insistence by nationally
dominant elites that race and immigration policies that
are effectively anti-white be determined entirely by the
centralized state under their own control means that

localism
and federalism are no more probable in race
relations than in most other areas of American public
life.

Nevertheless, if whites cannot
expect a total, permanent, and mutually satisfactory
resolution of the racial conflict through separation or
federalism, they can at least work to achieve results
that would protect or guarantee their own survival and
that of their civilization. The political, legal, and
cultural agenda on which whites should insist includes a

permanent moratorium on all legal immigration
into
the United States, the expulsion of illegal aliens, the
rigorous enforcement of laws against illegal
immigration, and the removal of incentives to further
illegal immigration (e.g., availability of welfare,
education, and affirmative action for illegal aliens and
of automatic birthright citizenship for their children);
the end of all “affirmative action” programs and
policies and of all “civil rights” laws that
discriminate against whites and circumscribe their
constitutional

rights of association; the repeal
of all

“hate crime” laws

and “Politically Correct” policies and
regulations that penalize the peaceful expression of
white racial consciousness and identity; and the
abolition of all

multiculturalist curricula,
“sensitivity
training,”
and

similar experiments
in brainwashing in schools,
universities, businesses, and

government.
At the same time whites must seek to
rebuild their own institutions—schools, businesses,
churches, media, etc.—in which their own heritage and
identity as whites can be preserved, honored, and
transmitted to their descendants, and they must
encourage measures that will help raise their own birth
rates to at least replacement levels. Even these
policies, however, would pit racially conscious whites
against the

dominant elites
that continue to demand white racial

dispossession
and their

non-white allies
. Moreover, none of these measures
will be adopted unless and until white racial
consciousness is far more developed than it is today.
Neither conventional conservative nor liberal ideologues
show any serious interest in these particular measures
or the racial identity they reflect, nor do either of
the major political parties.

Non-white and non-Western holidays
are observed in schools, by businesses and some local
governments, and national leaders (including President
George W. Bush). In San Jose, California, a proposal to
construct a public statue to Col. Thomas Fallon, who

captured the city for the Americans
in the
Mexican-American War, was rejected, and a statue to

the Aztec god Quetzalcoat
l approved instead.
Mexican-Americans at a

soccer match
in

Los Angeles in 1998
booed and jeered the playing of
the American national anthem before the game.

“Hate crimes”
against non-whites are front-page
national news for weeks, and national leaders descend
upon the local community to show their solidarity with
the victim. Yet

even more brutal massacres
of whites, like the rape,
torture, kidnapping, and murder of four white men and
women by two black criminals in

Wichita, Kansas
, in 2000, are

seldom mentioned in the national news
and excite no
commentary whatsoever. O. J. Simpson, despite
overwhelming evidence of his guilt in the murders of his
white ex-wife and her friend, is acquitted when black
jurors

reject incriminating evidence
as “racist.”

It is perhaps significant that
Shelby Steele wrote that whites today “cannot openly
have a racial identity.”
If white racial
consciousness is forbidden and does not exist, there is
certainly a powerful racial subconscious among whites,
as evidenced by patterns of school attendance, housing,
church membership, marriage, and even voting. The

“color blindness”
about which conservatives like
to chirp does not exist wherever races are free to
choose their own associations. Whites, of course, will
often avoid explaining or defending their preferences in
racial terms. They move to the suburbs because tax rates
and crime rates are lower; they send their children to
mainly

white schools
because these

schools are better
; they attend the churches they do
because those are the churches of their parents and
their friends. But all such explanations—lower taxes and
less crime, better schools, the habits of one`s parents
and friends—have obvious racial dimensions.

A recent study by the Harvard Civil
Rights Project, the Washington Post reports,
shows that today “schools are almost as segregated as
they were when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was
assassinated.”
[U.S.
School Segregation Now at `69 Level
By Michael
Dobbs, January 18, 2004]  The segregation is due not to
legally enforced discrimination but to the voluntary
residence and attendance preferences of whites, who
simply

abandon communities
and schools when non-whites
arrive. For much the same reason, Christian churches
also remain racially exclusive. “Just 8 percent of
Christian churches in the United States are multiracial,
defined as one ethnic group making up no more than 80
percent of the membership, according to a 2002 study.”

Voting behavior shows the same
racial patterns. In 2000,

54 percent of whites
voted for the Republican
candidate, George W. Bush, while only 42 percent voted
for

Vice President Al Gore,
the Democrat. Bush received
only 8 percent of the black vote and some 31 percent of
Hispanic votes, while Gore won 90 percent of blacks and
67 percent of Hispanics. Nearly 20 percent of Gore`s
total vote came from blacks. No Democratic presidential
candidate has won a majority of the white vote since
1968, at the latest.

Moreover, as non-white immigrants
occupy more and more of the national territory,
“white flight”
extends not just from city to suburb
and suburb to countryside

but from region to region
. As University of Michigan
demographer

William H. Frey
and reporter Jonathan Tilove wrote
in The New York Times Magazine (August 20, 1995):

For
every immigrant who arrives [in large metropolitan
areas], a white person leaves. Look collectively at the
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and Boston
metropolitan areas—5 of the top 11 immigration
destinations. In the last half of the 80`s, for every 10
immigrants who arrived, 9 residents left for points
elsewhere. And most of those leaving were non-Hispanic
whites…. The places that whites were leaving for were
metro areas like Tampa-St. Petersburg, Seattle, Phoenix,
Atlanta and Las Vegas, all of which attract relatively
few immigrants
. [“Immigrants
In, Native Whites Out,
not online.]

Whites are leaving entire
metropolitan areas and states—whole regions—for white
destinations. And new census estimates indicate that
this pattern of flight from big immigration destinations
has become even more pronounced in the 90`s.

And, in marriages, the overwhelming
fact, despite constant acclamation by racial liberals of
increases in interracial unions, is that whites continue
to cross marry less than any other race, and they do so
in negligible numbers. The 2000 Census reports that only
3.5 percent of whites

marry non-whites
. Given the

ending of legal barriers
to

interracial marriages
nearly forty years ago and the
immense increase of the nation`s non-white population
since that time, this persistent preference of whites
for marriage partners of their own race is strong
evidence of their enduring racial identity as whites.

The clear existence of a white
racial subconscious means that the problem for whites is
mainly to bring what it contains into consciousness.
They need to learn that race, as much as sex, is part of
human nature and the human condition, that it can no
more be expelled or denied or excluded than any other
important fact or force of nature. Whites need to learn
also that racial consciousness is no more a license for
repression, exploitation, hatred, and violence than
recognition of the reality and importance of sex is a
license for

rape
, seduction, and

debauchery
. Obviously there are criminal and
pathological elements that will use sex and race for
criminal and pathological ends, but their existence does
nothing to diminish the legitimacy and urgency of what
those who demand their recognition for healthy purposes
are seeking.

Finally, whites need to form their

racial consciousness
in conformity not only with
what we now know about the scientific reality of race
but also with the moral and political traditions of
Western Man—White Man. The purpose of white racial
consciousness and identity is not simply to serve as a
balance against the aggression and domination of other
races but also to preserve, protect, and help revitalize
the legacy of the civilization that our own ancestors
created and handed down to us, for its own sake, because
it is ours, and because, by the standards of the values
and ideals we as a race and a civilization have
articulated,

it is better.
After generations of denial and
distortion, what we have permitted to be expelled and
repressed now returns, and we now know again, as our
ancestors once knew also, that in the absence of the
race that created that legacy, it would never have
existed at all. If the legacy is to pass on to our own
descendants, it will be because we as white men and
women understood who we were, what it was we created,
how it came to exist, and how it will endure. The essays
collected here are a first step toward that goal.

Sam Francis, who died

February 15, 2005
, was

published on VDARE.com
for the
last five years of his life.