Continued from page 1
gration threatens our national interests because there would be no nation tohave interests; we could no longer mention the settlement and conquestof North America by whites, if only because we would have confessedthat that settlement and conquest have been failures from which we are nowrunning as fast as we could. By con-senting to national disintegration andseparatism, in short, we would have tostart all over in the project of con-structing a culture, a country, and a political order. If only for practicalreasons, it is much easier to stay withthose we already have than it is to in-vent new ones that do not exist savein the mind’s eye.Moreover, whites should not em- brace this proposal because at the pre-sent time and for a long time to come,there is no need to. There may wellcome a time when partition is the onlyrecourse left to whites, but that time isfar off. The fact is that descendants of Europeans are still a large majority of the American population and still re-tain far more wealth, political power,and even cultural dominance thannonwhites.
If whites wanted to do so
,they could dictate a solution to theracial problem tomorrow—by curtail-ing immigration and sealing the bor-der, by imposing adequate fertilitycontrols on nonwhites and encourag-ing a higher white birth rate, by refus-ing to be bullied into enduring“multiculturalism,” affirmative action,civil rights laws and policies; and byrefusing to submit to cultural dissolu-tion, inter-racial violence and insults,and the guilt that multiracialists incul-cate.Ending all of these threats to thewhite European character of theUnited States would involve no vastconstitutional or political changes, butit would involve an uncompromisingassertion of white will and identity.The fundamental problem with whitestoday will not be solved by givingaway any more of what remains of their country and their heritage but byasserting their own will and identityin order to retain the primacy of their heritage in their own country. It isthat lack of will and identity, that lack of racial and cultural consciousness,that must be remedied before we re-sort to any dissolution of the country(or indeed any other resolution of theracial crisis).If national breakup is a plan thatwe neither can nor should accept,there remains the other kind of racialseparatism in the form of the reloca-tion of one race by its removal tosome other territory outside theUnited States. Rabbi Schiller consid-ers this contingency in his suggestion(and subsequent rejection) of whiteremoval to Europe. He rejects this proposal, rightly, in reflecting thatEurope would not particularly wantanother 100 million residents. Whilethat is a powerful reason for rejectingthe suggestion, there is another that isat least as compelling: However much
Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor James P. Lubinskas Contributing Editor George McDaniel, Web Page Editor — — — — — — American Renaissance is published monthly by the New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contribu-tions to it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, PO. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: AR@amren.com
American Renaissance - 3 - March 1995they may deplore their acceleratingdispossession, most whites might notwant to jump ship from the nationthey created, and live in countrieswhere they have no roots.Yet, if emigration to Europe is not practical for whites, emigration to Af-rica or other black majority regions isnot practical for American blacks ei-ther. It is highly unlikely that verymany black African countries wouldwelcome large numbers of American black emigres and even more unlikelythat very many American blackswould want to go. “Back to Africa”may have been feasible in the days of the American Colonization Society,when Africa was a diplomatic toy of European and American imperialism, but today, with independent and sov-ereign (however dilapidated and re- pressive) nation-states in Africa, massmigration there is not possible unlessthe African states were simply forcedto accept it. Moreover, in the unlikelyevent that foreign nations were willingto receive large numbers of black American immigrants, none (except perhaps for other white majority na-tions) has the infrastructural capacityto assimilate them.
Yet even if physical relocation(within or without the United States)were to occur, and even if it were vol-untary on all sides, there remains the problem, which is hardly ever consid-ered, of how the separated raceswould be induced to remain separate.Let us assume that Rabbi Schiller’s proposal has been implemented, that black and white “racial zones” have been established, and that democrati-cally chosen representatives of bothraces have accepted such a partition.The brute fact is that there will stillremain immense pressures for the breakdown of this separation—for thesame reasons that the United Statestoday finds itself practically unable tocontrol its own borders. (These rea-sons, as I shall argue presently, aredeeply rooted in the white race.)Whites will want cheap labor, andmany nonwhites will want to supplyit. If the black zone in any way resem- bles most of the black majority nation-states or American cities today(detailed accounts of which
If whites wanted to do so,they could dictatea solution tothe racial problemtomorrow.