Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 20th, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 40,624
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default Sam Francis

Southern Secessionism: An Infantile Disorder

"Why, we could lick them in a month!" boasts the hot-headed
Stuart Tarleton soon after the Confederates fire on Fort Sumter in
Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind. "Gentlemen always fight
better than rabble. A month -- why, one battle." At that point,
young Mr. Tarleton's naive and tedious boasting is interrupted by
Rhett Butler, a rather darker character in Mitchell's novel than
the swashbuckling playboy created by Clark Gable on the screen.
Butler coolly points out that the Southerners do not possess what
modern strategists would call the industrial and logistical infra-
structure with which a modern war must be fought -- the cannon
factories, iron foundries, railroads, and woolen and cotton mills
that the North has in abundance. "But, of course," he concludes,
with the sarcastic smirk that is ever on his lips, "you gentlemen
have thought of these things."

But of course they hadn't thought of those things, at least
the fictional cavaliers gathered at John Wilkes' barbecue that
spring day in 1861, and if the leaders of the new Confederacy had
thought about them more, too many other Southerners failed to give
such mundane matters the consideration they merited. What they
did think about was the glories of the coming conflict and the
rights they were going to vindicate by force of arms, and within a
few years and a few more battles than Stuart Tarleton had
anticipated, he and his twin brother were dead, along with most of
the others who had listened to them, the Confederacy itself, and
the society on which it rested. As for Rhett Butler, he not only
survived but flourished, confident in his philosophy that there
are two times when a man can easily make a fortune for himself --
once when a civilization rises, and once when a civilization

Today, 130 years after the disasters to which the chatter of
valiant fools like Stuart Tarleton led, secessionism purports to
rise from the ashes, this time embodied mainly in the League of
the South, of which most of the editors of this magazine except me
appear to members. Its leaders foreswear the use of violence, so
we need not anticipate that the results will be similar -- at
least not until a good many more Southerners sign up than seem to
have done so in the four years of the League's existence and until
the federal government pays more attention to them than it has
done to date. Nevertheless, if the physical extermination of
600,000 white men over the burning issue of whether four million
black men are to be slaves or serfs is not on the agenda this
time, secessionism promises to be no less a disaster for those of
the American right than it was for the pretty belles and beaux of
Mitchell's novel. It is unfortunate that many of those gentlemen
most dedicated to secession seem not to have thought of the
weaknesses of their position any more than the guests at the
Wilkes barbecue had.

Two main forces appear to drive the resurrection of Southern
secessionism. In the first place, the American right as a serious
political movement has collapsed, leaving its most dedicated
adherents with no obvious vehicle for pursuing its goals of
dismantling the federal leviathan and ending the cultural and
demographic inundation of the South and the rest of the nation.
In the second place, a concerted onslaught against Southern and
Confederate symbols and traditions, most clearly represented in
the attacks on public display of the Confederate Battle Flag,
rightly excites the wrath of Southerners who remain loyal to the
memory of the Confederacy and the culture that the flag and the
war have come to represent. Correctly lacking any confidence in
the Republican Party or the neo-conservative-dominated
"conservative movement," Southerners of the right have decided to
chuck it all and set off on their own, with the goal of invoking
the traditions and identity of their own land and culture as the
basis for resisting federal tyranny and their own racial and
cultural destruction.

Yet neither of these two forces provides an adequate
justification for secession, and neither suggests any realistic
prospect of success. There are, to put it simply, two strong
reasons why secession, for the South or any other part of the
nation, is not a good idea. In the first place, it is not
practical; in the second place, even if it were practical, it
would not be desirable.

Leaders of Southern secessionism often point to sister
movements abroad -- to secessionist movements in Northern Italy,
Quebec, Scotland, the Balkans, and other places -- as well as to
perennial discussions and controversies about a kind of secession
in various states, cities, and regions in this country. Both the
foreign movements and those in the United States are irrelevant to
what Southerners actually propose, however. Abroad, where
secessionism has gathered significant support, it has done so
because those pushing it can claim to be the heirs of real and
ancient nations or at least of subnational regions that exhibit
far more distinctiveness than the American South, today or at any
time in its history, can claim. Scotland, Quebec, the Balkan
peoples, and even Northern Italy all can boast of distinctive
linguistic, religious, ethnic, and historical heritages, far more
distinctive than those of the South, and some can point to some
period in their past when they actually constituted autonomous
states. Indeed, compared to some of these nations or regions, the
American South under close scrutiny begins to vanish as a cultural
unity. There is at least as much difference between Tidewater
Virginia and East Tennessee or between northern and southern
Louisiana as there is between Scotland and England or Northern and
Southern Italy today.

Within the United States, the periodic demands for breaking
Staten Island off from New York City or East Kansas from West
Kansas or Southern California from Northern California are not
secessionist movements in the same sense as what the Southerners
advocate. None of these other movements contemplates leaving the
national political unity of the United States, and how they re-
arrange or fail to re-arrange their own borders and jurisdictions
is largely a matter of their own concern. It makes sense that
over time some borders and jurisdictions will become outmoded, and
to redraw the map every now and then to suit contemporary
interests and needs is unobjectionable. But it is not secession
in the sense that Southerners and most dictionaries use the term,
and to cite such movements (none of which has so far been
successful) as examples of the rising dissatisfaction with the
unified nation-state is fallacious.

Nor do contemporary Southern secessionists make any
compelling case for the separation of their own region from the
larger national unity. Historically, the Southern people have had
an arguable case for separation, and in 1860, with the prospect of
their slave-powered economy being gradually gutted by Northern
dominance, their case was more arguable than ever, though even
then there was less than a universal consensus in the South for
separation. Today, that case simply does not apply. Today, the
modern South has probably profited from federal largesse more than
most other regions, and the argument for States' Rights, which
Southerners invoked from Jefferson to George Wallace, is silenced
by the demands of Southern politicians for more farm subsidies,
more defense contracts, more military bases, more federal
highways, and -- if we include blacks as Southerners, which the
League readily does -- more "civil rights," more affirmative
action, more federal marshals to enforce them, and more welfare.
To find out how practical secessionism is in the South today,
visit any large Southern city -- Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville,
Richmond, Dallas, Fort Worth, let alone New Orleans and Miami --
and ask yourself if the residents (even those who are still
recognizably American) are ready for another Pickett's Charge.
It's all conservative Southerners can do to keep the Battle Flag
flying and Confederate monuments from being obliterated, and the
most vociferous enemies of the flag and the monuments are not the
"Yankees" of yore or even the federal government but Southerners
themselves, either the manipulated blacks of the NAACP or white
Southerners of Confederate antecedents like South Carolina's
Republican Governor David Beasley. The South today and the
Southerners who inhabit it are simply too well connected to
Washington and the rest of the nation to contemplate any serious
movement for the national independence of their region.

But even if secession were possible, it would be a bad idea.
Today, the main political line of division in the United States
is not between the regions of North and South (in so far as such
regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and non-
elite. As I have tried to make plain in columns in this magazine
and many other places for the last fifteen years, the elite, based
in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with
the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the
work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own
political and cultural dispossession at the hands of the elite and
its underclass vanguard. Today, the greatest immediate danger to
Middle America and the European-American civilization to which it
is heir lies in the importation of a new underclass from the Third
World through mass immigration. The danger is in part economic,
in part political, and in part cultural, but it is also in part
racial, pure and simple. The leaders of the alien underclass, as
well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in
explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is
the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief.
The only prospect of resisting the domination of the Ruling
Class and its anti-white and anti-Western allies in the underclass
is through Middle American solidarity, a solidarity that must
transcend the differentiations of region, class, religion, party,
and ideology. White Southerners are a vital part of the Middle
American core, as are their northern counterparts, and neither is
the enemy of the other. Both regional sections of Middle America
face the same threats, experience much the same problems, and
ought to be joined in the same political-cultural movement to meet
the threat together.

If, however, Southerners were to secede, they would be
engulfed by the same forces that threaten the nation as a whole.
By the year 2020, the Census Bureau reports, the only parts of the
South that will have more than a 75 percent white population will
be a thin strip of western Virginia, most of Tennessee, and
northern Arkansas; the rest of the region, especially Texas and
the Deep South, will be dominated by populations more than 50
percent non-white, in some places far more. Dr. Brent Nelson has
calculated that even today, even if 80 percent of the white
population of South Carolina were to support secession in a
referendum, that would amount to only 55 percent of the state's
total population.

I mention this racial dimension of the secession controversy not
because of the obvious conflicts that will arise in its wake but to
suggest that the majority populations of the South in the near future
will either be blacks, who have only hostile memories of what secession
and the historic South meant to them and their ancestors, or Hispanics,
who will sympathize with secession only if it means union with Mexico. It
is unlikely that either the black or the Hispanic populations will
evince much sympathy for Jefferson Davis and his legacy.
But the racial composition of the future South is significant
also because the racial consciousness and solidarity non-whites
will exhibit is already plain, in the frenetic, hate-driven
language of their leaders and organizational vehicles, in their
political behavior, and in the whole fabric of their subculture.
It is a consciousness that readily identifies whites as an enemy
and their institutions and values as alien and oppressive.
The only prospect of white Middle American resistance to this
racial and political engulfment is our own solidarity; instead of
snorting at white Northerners as "Yankees" who lack good table
manners and the rudiments of culture, white Southerners should be
standing firm with them in opposition to more immigration and more
domination by the federal leviathan that serves as the political
instrument of the overclass-underclass alliance.

The key to resisting that domination does not lie in resort
to the dormant right of secession but in revival of the real
federalism to which both Southerners and Northerners subscribed at
the time the Constitution was ratified. It may be argued that the
10th Amendment is itself dormant, but it remains more alive than
secessionism. The Supreme Court has cited the 10th Amendment in
striking down a federal gun control law in the Lopez case in 1994
and the Brady law last year, and even poor old Bob Dole used to
brag about carrying a copy of the amendment around in his vest
pocket. Of course Mr. Dole didn't understand or care what the
amendment meant, but the fact that even he would invoke it means
that it remains a living part of our Constitution. With its
revival as a serious political tool, most of the dangerous and
stupid overgrowth of the federal leviathan would disappear, and
its disappearance would be welcomed not only by Southerners but by
most Middle Americans of other regions who suffer from it.
I do not, of course, believe that secessionism will prosper
as a serious political movement, but I do worry that it will
prosper to the point of becoming a serious political distraction -
- a distraction from the imperative that Middle Americans now face
of constructing their own autonomous political movement that can
take back their nation rather than assisting the new underclass
and the globalist Ruling Class in breaking it up. The time left
for us to do so is shorter than it has ever been in our history,
and until we outgrow the infantile disorder that secessionism
offers, the construction cannot begin. If the gentlemen who talk
of secession have not yet thought of these things, I invite them to do so soon.
Old July 20th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 40,624
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder

A reasonable article except for his appeal to Middle Americans rather than whites. Turning whites into Whites is the only hope.
Old July 20th, 2008 #3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,219

As I read it he did appeal to whites, to racial kinship, but particularly middle class whites who are being exploited the most. I think he's right on target.
Old July 20th, 2008 #4
Senior Member
notmenomore's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,779

Suppose all of the States decided to "secede" at the same time. Where would that leave the federal leviathan?

Could not the dreaded Con-Con II amount to a universal seccession? A new Constitutional Convention to re-write the document? Suppose, for example, that the 14th Amendment should disappear.
No way out but through the jews.
Old August 23rd, 2008 #5
Mike Parker
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,310
Mike Parker

Why does fat Sambo need to use the methods of the Frankfurt School in the title?
Old August 24th, 2008 #6
Nuthin' But Luv, Baby
odin's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,895

Originally Posted by notmenomore View Post
Suppose all of the States decided to "secede" at the same time.
37 states, in unison, can theoretically disband the entire Fed Gov. Theoretically, because Washington would refuse to be disbanded.
Old September 2nd, 2008 #7
Mike Parker
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,310
Mike Parker
Thumbs up

VNN versus Sam Francis


Victor Gerhard to Sam Francis:

Anti-Semitism is saying or doing anything a Jew does not like; whether the statement was true, or the act perfectly justified. That is the real definition. How can you even pretend otherwise when Jews call someone who defends Arabs (Semites) against Jewish tyranny an ‘anti-Semite’?

It’s great that you are pecking around the edges of the problem. I’m just not sure what more proof you need to see that Jews are directing American foreign policy; that Culture of Critique and its mind-boggling account of facts is completely true; that to rail against blacks and hispanics without mentioning Jews is like complaining about symptoms but not the disease.

Maybe this sounds cruel and racist; and yet it is true isn’t it? Personally, I’ve read enough of your writings, heard you speak enough times, and even talked to you on occasion, so that I am convinced you recognize the Jewish problem. It would be an immense help if you could now take off the gloves and let the Jews have it. They have it coming. They are the true enemy of Middle Americans. “Oil” is not the justification for this war but a laughably transparent Jewish hedge, nor are the Christian fundamentalists to blame; if they were not supporting Israel we would barely, as before 9/11, realize they existed.

My friends are going to jail for speaking their minds; every day another one is arrested or visited by the FBI, or raided by the Terrorism Task Force. Now is the time, name the Jew, put THEM on the defensive for once. Otherwise, Middle America is doomed; its sons’ dying in Central Asia, its jobs moving out of the US, its population increasingly non-White and hostile. We need you to act now; a few months from now may be too late.

Your columns could make an immense difference at this crucial moment. We are watching history, and if the Jews triumph here there may be no stopping them, ever. Goodbye White race.

Vic Gerhard
Wilmington, N.C.


Sam Francis to Victor Gerhard:

I just wrote a column on Moran in which I was fairly explicit about this matter. I have another today that is also pretty explicit about the role of neo-cons (not all Jews) in getting us into the war. What more do you want? Peter Brimelow at VDARE told me the first column probably would not be published by any newspaper in this country (we'll see; my columnn last year supporting what Billy Graham said to Nixon was not published by my three best outlets), and without my authority or knowledge he changed a key line that altered my meaning. You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anythng like mainstream media, and anyway, aside from the current war, I think there are other problems besides the Jewish role in stirring up blacks and pushing immigration. Both blacks and Hispanics have now acquired their own racial consciousness and are not necessarily under Jewish control.


Victor Gerhard to Sam Francis:

I agree, you possibly could not go further and expect to be published mainstream, as of today. This is a reasonable argument for using this tactic. I feel (perhaps incorrectly but I doubt it) that the time is past for this tactic. If you did publish a column going further, USA Today would not print it, but plenty of people would read it on the ever growing alternative White media (,, Vanguard News Network, Stormfront, and many more), and it just may put the bar lower for the next guy who dares. As things look today, your tactic, which you have followed for the 15 years I have been reading you, has gotten a good but watered-down message to Middle America, but our situation is FAR worse than 15 years ago.

Much of Middle America is flying an American flag and ’supporting the troops;’ reasonable if you never had another way of thinking offered to you. Your columns are scathing at the beginning and middle, but never offer a realistic answer at the end because you do not name the Jews as the prime movers in the destruction of Middle America. How can someone organize against an amorphous ‘Elite’? You rarely name names, except as examples. You talk of the Frankfurt School and other groups, never saying they are almost 100% Jewish and Jewish-funded and based on Jewish tactics and ideals.

You told me you were reading ‘The Culture of Critique.’ How anyone can read that book and not immediately come to important conclusions based on the Jewish role in the Boasian School, the Left, the Psychoanalytic movement, the Frankfurt School, critique of gentile cultural, immigration policy and more, I do not know. Jewish power is the most important and relevant fact in America today. Yet you do not acknowledge that power. That is a derelection of duty; you are hated by the left and neo-cons regardless of what you do - but do you expect the White right, your true home, to appreciate your half-measures? You are literally a man without a nation.

Precisely how bad must the situation get before you tell the whole truth? Now, how would you have answered that question 2 years ago? Two years ago you would have agreed to open fire if the Government ever did something as tyrannical and insane as the Patriot Act(s), the mass arrests, threats of government torture, Guantanamo detention, the B-52 strikes, the complete control of the Executive Branch by Jews, if not Israeli Jews, hideous airport searches, the Department of Homeland Security, phone taps, and spies controlled by Israel. All on top of a war against 1.1 Billion Muslims that we can never win.

You are being disingenuous when you say you were tough on the Moran critics; not all neo-cons are Jews; and blacks and hispanics are not under Jewish control. You were tough on Moran by the relatively tepid standards of the paleo-cons a la the Rockford institute. Not all neo-cons are Jews, but those that are not Jewish know the score and never deviate from the editorial line DEVISED wholly by Jews. Blacks and hispanics may have thrown off a bit of the Jewish yoke, but the Jewish strategy and mindset lives on and they would have little power to intimidate Whites without Jewish judges, lawyers, financing and media pressure. You know this. As far as Brimelow, he needs a kick in the ass also.

What is it you want? To be published mainstream? To be rich? To be on TV? These I can not help you with. But if you want to save Whites and their culture, get off the fence and attack the enemy. At this point, you are actually furnishing disinformation, confusing the very public who soon will be looking for answers as the situation in their country grows worse. And hey, Sobran gets published. I gave him a thousand dollars of my money because of his honest stance; a thousand dollars I had to make in payments because I’m his poorest charter subscriber.

What more can I expect of you? I want you to finally and forever cast off the chains of Jewish fear, Jewish money, and Jewish influence. I want you to write columns that will stir the public to rise up and change this nation. Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I’ve had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns - they don’t get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.

I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power!

Victor J. Gerhard, Esq.
Wilmington, NC


Sam Francis to Victor Gerhard:

Well, I'm sorry I'm such a disappointment to you. The fact is that I have read the Culture of Critique, as well as the other two volumes, know MacDonald personally, and agree with much though not all of what he says. My entire body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I disagree with and have a somewhat different view of the world than what is frankly a monomanical obsession with an omnipotent Jew. There are reasons why neo-conservatism exists other than Jewish power, and these should be obvious to any one actually involved in politics. I was a witness to many of them. Just one, for example, is the greed and ambition and shallowness of many orthodox non-Jewish conservatives for the "respectability" they thought Jews could give them. You and critics like you always assume that because others don't say what you demand they say, they must be afraid to say it. The fact is, as I just told you, I have just written two columns that will probably harm me more than they help me, so it is not fear on my part. Can you even imagine that maybe I don't agree with your view of the Jews, that the Jews and the Jews alone are solely responsible for everthing bad that has happened and is going on? I really don't think you can. Moreover, as I was trying to tell you indirectly, I depend on outlets like VDARE and Rockford; if they don't publish me, I don't get published, and they would not publish me if I write what you want me to write (which I do not agree with anyway). [Sambo is wrong or lying about VDARE.] Sobran does not get published outside of his own newsletter and maybe the Wanderer. The American Conservative won't publish him. Chronicles won't publish him. His syndicate dropped him. So don't tell me about things I know about more than you. It's fine to publish on sites like VNN., but no one — no one — reads them or takes them seriously outside a handful of people. Sure I'd like to be rich, but do you imagine I thought I would ever get rich writing what I write? I really just don't know how to explain to people like you what the real world is like, because the truth is — take it form someone who went through graduate school, worked in a think tank, in the US Senate, and at a nationally distrubuted newspaper for 9 years — you and your pals do not have a fucking clue.


Victor Gerhard to Sam Francis:

Oooookay….now why will the columns harm you, why won’t Vdare and Rockford publish such a column, why can’t Sobran get published? Oh, and what is this war stuff on the T.V.? Come on, I wasn’t rude to you, nor did I say Jews were every single problem, but that they are far, far more of the problem than recognized by your columns. (By the way, if non-Jewish neo-conservatives want the ‘respectablity’ they feel Jews can give them, that is not ANOTHER reason neo-cons exist, but rather the very one I stated - Jewish Power.) I don’t have a CLUE? You say you agree with most of MacDonald, then when I base my arguments on him, I don’t have a clue? Tell me what part of MacDonald you agree with, can you buck up and do that? Agreeing with even one chapter would put in serious question the honesty of your writing, would it not; as that agreement is never acknowledged by you in your writings. And tell me what you disagree with. I get the managerial elite argument, I’ve read and re-read what you have written over the years, but your very email here implies you won’t get published for criticizing Jews as an ethnic group, though you HAVE criticized black’s and hispanic’s as ethnic groups, and then attacks me with an anger I did nothing to merit.

You are in the same bag as Jared Taylor, who in person admitted he chose not to attack Jews because he had enough of a problem attacking blacks, et al. You fit right in at American Renaissance, I’d say. For all your ‘think tank’ work, did you ever stand on a street with demonstrators as Jews rained bricks down on you for daring to speak out against them, as the police turned their heads? You write about Middle America, I am Middle America. I’m not sure precisely what sentence got you riled. I’d wish you’d tell me so I can use it again. Hey, if people read this exchange, who will they think has a clue, you or me? I’ll wager on me.

Plus, the idea that ‘no one’ takes VNN seriously is ridiculous. The ever-growing numbers of people that do take it seriously are true activists, each worth 100 brandy-sniffing Chronicle’s readers. People that will put their financial and physical well being on the line for the ideals you somewhat endorse. Another point, what is the ENTIRE Muslim world yelling about if not many of the same beliefs about Jews showcased on VNN? Add in much of Europe and Asia and South America, and much of the US population of blacks and hispanics, and, well, that’s not really ‘a handful of people’ is it?

I truly do respect you and your writing had a great effect on my life. Actually, you brought me a long way to the beliefs I have. Yet you, Dr. Frankenstein, feel I don’t have a clue. What is that line about the guilty man fleeing where no one pursues? Sorry, should know it, just too Middle American.

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

Anyway, have to get back to the T.V. and see which of my friends Michael Chertoff has arrested, listen to Alan Dershowitz talk about torturing them, and hear Ari Fleisher’s take on the whole thing, per Richard Pearle. One last thing; you do realize that Jews as an ethnic group are 3% of the American population? A smaller percentage than Austrian Americans? That fact has made it to you right? But since they are not omnipotent, it’s just a minor fact of American politics; voila, the exception proves the rule. Well, as for our discussion, res ipsa loquitur, as we clueless say.

Vic Gerhard
Counsel, White Revolution


Sam Francis to Victor Gerhard:

I had thought that you, unlike several of the others who like to rant about my “cowardice,” “treachery,” “philo-Semitism,” etc., had a little more sense, but appraently I was misguided. Let me try to explain once more in some detail what I am trying to tell you.

1. What you said in your last communication was insulting because it at least indirectly and perhaps directly questioned my integrity, accusing me of cowardice or ignorance or dishonesty or greed or ambition as the only plausible reaons I do not write what you want me to write as you want it written. I have to say that I have received many criticisms as a columnist but this — from the professional (and usualy anonymous) anti-Semites — takes the cake. No one else presumes to tell a writer what to write or how to write, even as they insult his character and intelligence — not religious nuts, not racial nuts, not libertarian nuts — except maybe the Jews themselves. But leave all that aside.

2. VDARE, Rockford, etc. won't publish openly anti-Semitic pieces because (a) they like most gentiles are irrationally afraid of Jewish power and (b) they also have rational concerns over Jewish power. Both have Jewish "friends" who give them money, publicity, support, etc. and they are afraid — I believe not entirely without cause but in an exaggerated way — of losing that. Also, like most people they would like to do something else besides attack Jews and sometimes there are Jews with whom they need to work in order to do those things. (Rockford just held a conference in the Middle East on a prospects for peace there; it wasn't my idea and I don't see the point, except that some donors [non-Jewish] gave them money to do it.) Therefore, they are very careful about antagonizing Jewish supporters. As you may know, they were virtually destroyed in the late 1980s by neo-con defunding because of positive remarks they made about Gore Vidal and because of their opposition to immigration. Nevertheless, they have consistently published pieces critical of Zionism, including several of my recent columns on the Iraq war and Jewish neo-con-Israeli power, and of foreign entanglements, perpetual wars, etc. Chronicles also published a review of MacDonald by Paul Gottfried which I strongly disagree with but they allowed MacDonald to write a long response, more than the American Conservative allowed. I do not control either RI or VDARE and often disagree with how they are run, but essentially they do not attack the Jews because they are more interested in other problems.

2. Unless you really do believe that Jews are the causes of all problems, which you deny, you have to admit there are other problems. You ask what I disagree with in MacDonald. I can't really comment on the general evolutionary theory since I'm not an expert, but I have no problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with his characterization of Jews in general, though some people tell me it's less true of some Jewish groups (Sephardic) than others (Ashkenazic) or at some periods of history than at others. What I do not agree with Kevin on is that while he's right about the way Jews are, that doesn't mean they are always successful. They may have pushed open borders as a means of underming what they saw as a hostile society, but that doesn't mean their efforts were the reason we have open borders or that other groups didn't want open borders for their own reasons. I dealt with immigration partly when I was in the Senate and frankly the role of the Jews was not at all apparent, as it was in foreign policy, and many social issues. The main enemies of immigration control on the right are (1) libertarians and (2) Catholics; the same was true at the Washington Times, and I knew Jews who were opposed to more immigration at both places. Libertarianism tends to be Jewish-led, but it exists as an independent force in its own right among gentiles. I recall in 1995 Bill Gates visited Sen. Alan Simpson to lobby him on H1-B visas; Simpson caved. Neither is Jewish and neither did what he did because of Jewish power or influence but because of business and political interests. Business interests have been the main reason we have immigrant workers pushing out American workers in meat packing, textiles, poultry processing, etc. The Jews may serve as lawyers or lobbyists for these groups but Jewish groups per se have had little to do with immigration policy in recent years.

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

4. Your line about standing on street corners getting attacked by Jews is frankly childish. No I didn't. I just lost my job and my career for what I wrote about race (and I can tell you Jews appear to have had something to do with that and have certainly used it against me ever since). I'll bet Kevin MacDonald never did either. I have a clue for you: Standing on street corners and yelling anti-Semitic slogans isn't a very effective way to challenge much of anything. Hyde Park is full of characters like that. What I have tried to do — explicitly at the Times and later as well — has been to make explicit and serious discussion of race respectable. That means picking your shots and not saying everything you'd like to say because you know it will simply baffle or alarm many readers, but it does mean that you can tell many, many people a lot of things they didn't know or hadn't thought about. I think I was beginning to succeed when I was fired, and that may have been the real reason I was fired. Last summer when the National Alliance had its march on the Israeli Embassy I asked a friend who was planning to attend why and what good it would do? I told him all you will accomplish is give the Post the chance to portray all of you as a bunch of Nazi goons at a time when some opinion sectors were starting to turn on Israel. That's exactly what happened — pictures of swastika flags, jack boots, etc. that understandably frighten and alienate most Americans and allow the Jews to say, "See, we told you what all those critics of Israel were like!" The idea that people like Linder and VNN accomplish much of anything outside of mutual masturbation is ludicrous. Frankly, I had never heard of Linder until he started attacking me and some people told me about it. With all due respect, I had never heard of your column until you told me you write one.

Finally, I have been gratified (one of the few gratifications I ever get in my profession) by being told by dozens of young people that I had taught them something they would not have known otherwise. No one but you and your friends have ever denounced me for being a hypocrite, a coward, a liar, a traitor, etc. I would have thought that you would have expressed some appreciation for what I have done, but the fact the you don't and can find only the most hateful things to say about me tells me all I need to know. As I told one of your colleagues recently, from now on I can only regard the whole bunch of you as my enemies and as enemies of the cause for which I am working.


Gerhard to Sam Francis:

I have though about this a lot, and there is much more that could be said, but I don’t think we are going to agree no matter what is said.

I do have to say that if your foremost cause is the continuation of the White Race, then there is no possible way we can be enemies as you described.

Though it sounds fawning, no one has structured my political awareness like you in your writings. I learned more reading your Chronicles columns, especially Revolution from the Middle, than in four years of undergraduate study.

Vic Gerhard


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 PM.
Page generated in 0.14345 seconds.