The Morality of Survival
by Michael W. Masters
"[The West] has not yet understood that whites, in a world become
too small for its inhabitants, are now a minority and that the proliferation
of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction
in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present
moral principles."[emphasis added]
—Jean Raspail, The Camp Of The Saints
The loss of racial identity in the Western world is symptomatic
of a deeper crisis within the European peoples, whose culture and
technology have provided the world with much of what we know today
as modern civilization. At its core, the crisis is the inevitable
consequence of a profound, and perhaps fatal, misunderstanding of
the nature of morality. We have lost sight of ancient and eternal
laws of Nature on which our civilization must be based if we are to
survive. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist
altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have
driven us to the brink of ruin.
Demographic projections based on American and European immigration
policies, as well as the evidence of one's own senses as one walks
the streets of any large Western city, point to a bleak future. Within
a century or two, perhaps less, the peoples of the West, those whose
ancestry derives from the Nordic and Alpine subraces of Europe, will
have ceased to exist as a cohesive entity. How quickly the end will
come depends on immigration rates, differential birthrates among ethnic
groups, and mixed-race childbearing rates. But the final outcome is
fixed so long as we adhere to our present course.
And yet, frank discussion of the outcome, the submergence of the race
that produced the world's first, and perhaps only technological civilization,
is usually silenced with words like "racist," "bigot,"
and "xenophobe." Neither the flawed moral system that enforces
this silence nor the people who support it will outlive the demise
of the West. But when the West is gone, it will be of little consolation
that those responsible will have expired as well. If we are to reverse
course, it is vital that we take steps now, before it is too late.
If, today, the West's moral system is flawed, how can it be corrected? The
first question we must ask is whether it is moral for ethnic groups
as well as individuals to seek survival. And if so, what are the
moral actions we may undertake to secure survival? What must be the
moral basis of our civilization if it is not to be lost? In his book,
Destiny of Angels, Richard McCulloch calls these questions
a matter of "ultimate ethics."
The Moral Dilemma of the West
The dilemma of our people is the product of a deep misconception about
nature and morality. It arises from the mistaken, sentimental belief
that altruism can be extended beyond its evolutionary origin—kinship
and within-group altruism—to the whole of humanity. It results
from failure to accept the role of genetic factors in defining human
temperament and potential.
The standards that govern public debate are reminiscent of the Dark
Ages in that they have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead,
they consist of moralistic assertions derived from a world view rooted
in radical egalitarianism. The long term consequence of adherence
to these principles is rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific
scrutiny.
Most Western people would agree that an innate sense of right and
wrong plays a key role in the Western moral system, a system that
values individual worth and reciprocal fairness. The tragedy of this
moral view is that it has been extended to the world at large—seemingly
the most noble behavior humanity has ever exhibited—and has become
the threat to the survival of the West.
As biologist Garrett Hardin demonstrated in his 1982 essay,
"Discriminating
Altruisms," universalism—a chimerical One World without borders
or distinctions—is impossible. Groups that practice unlimited
altruism, unfettered by thoughts of self-preservation, will be disadvantaged
in life's competition and thus eliminated over time in favor of those
that limit their altruistic behavior to a smaller subset of humanity,
usually their own genetic kin, from whom they receive reciprocal benefits.
Professor Hardin writes:
"Universalism is altruism practiced without
discrimination
of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time
or space . . . . To people who accept the idea of biological evolution
from amoeba to man, the vision of social evolution from egoism to
universalism may seem plausible. In fact, however, the last step
is impossible . . . . Let us see why.
"In imagination, picture a world in which social evolution has
gone no further than egoism or individualism. When familialism appears
on the scene, what accounts for its persistence? It must be that
the costs of the sacrifices individuals make for their relatives are
more than paid for by the gains realized through family solidarity
. . . .
"The argument that accounts for the step to familialism serves
equally well for each succeeding step—except for the last. Why
the difference? Because the One World created by universalism has—by
definition—no competitive base to support it . . . [Universalism]
cannot survive in competition with discrimination." [emphasis
in original]
Professor Hardin adds:
"[W]e must not forget that for three billion years, biological
evolution has been powered by discrimination. Even mere survival
in the absence of evolutionary change depends on discrimination. If
universalists now have their way, discrimination will be abandoned. Even
the most modest impulse toward conservatism should cause us to question
the wisdom of abandoning a principle that has worked so well for billions
of years. It is a tragic irony that discrimination has produced a
species (homo sapiens) that now proposes to abandon the principle
responsible for its rise to greatness." It is to the advantage
of non-Europeans, virtually all of whom retain their cohesion as distinctive,
discriminating groups, to exploit the economic wealth and social order
of the West, benefits many demonstrably cannot create for themselves. When
this cohesive drive is placed in competition with self-sacrificing
Western altruism, there can be only one outcome. In the near term,
Europeans will be displaced by groups acting in their own self-interest.
In the long run, biological destruction awaits us. Since those who
displace us do not, by definition, maintain our morals standards—for
if they did, they would not be replacing us—our flawed moral system
will vanish with us.
The fact that universal, self-sacrificing altruism destroys its practitioners
is its most obvious flaw. Any survivable moral order must recognize
this.
The Cosmic Race
The dream of a Utopia in which racial harmony prevails, has never
come true. Today, racial encroachment is a threat to the very existence
of Western peoples. Lawrence Auster, author of The Path to National
Suicide, An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, has elsewhere
summarized the situation thus:
"Modern liberalism told us that racial differences don't matter,
and on the basis of that belief, liberals then set about turning America
into a multiracial, integrated, race-blind society. But now that
very effort has created so much race consciousness, race conflict
and race inequality, that the same liberals have concluded that the
only way to overcome those problems is to merge all the races into
one. The same people who have always denounced as an extremist lunatic
anyone who warned about `the racial dilution of white America,' are
now proposing, not just the dilution of white America, but its complete
elimination. Race-blind ideology has led directly to the most
race-conscious—-and
indeed genocidal—-proposal in the history of the world."
This change of strategy was signaled by the cover story of a Fall
1993 special edition of Time. The story featured a computer
synthesized image of a woman representing the intermixture of all
of the ethnic population elements of the United States in their present
proportions. The subliminal message conveyed by this computerized
android, obviously still of predominantly European ancestry, was:
"Don't worry, this is harmless." Or, in the current idiom
of multiculturalism, "let us celebrate our diversity." Of
course, this image represents the utter destruction of diversity,
not its conservation.
This computer-generated android is a lie. The American population
base is in a state of rapid change. Whites are now having fewer children,
and there are thus fewer whites of child bearing age than Time
assumes. This is happening worldwide. The question is, what would
be the result of this plan being carried forward on a larger scale,
carried to its logical conclusion in a world sans borders?
Time's
android is but a way station on the road to what some lovingly call
the Cosmic Race.
People of European ancestry constitute something over ten percent
of the world's population, but since 1980, white births amount to
only a little more than five percent of the world's new children. The
birth rate in the West has fallen to dangerously low levels, now about
1.8 children per woman. A level of 2.1 is required to balance deaths. Birth
rates in the third world remain very high, thanks in large measure
to the infusion of Western food, medicine, and "peacekeeping."
Because people are not computer morphs but have discrete ancestors,
let us assume that the fraction of people with European ancestry is
now one-sixteenth of the child-bearing population. When the Time
experiment is complete on a world-wide scale, the resulting human
will have only one white great-great-grandparent. He will be visibly
Asian since about 60 percent of the world's population is Asian. In
round numbers, this amounts to ten of the sixteen great-great-grandparents,
including four from China alone. Three would come from India and three
more from Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Africa would supply
three and non-white Latin America and the Caribbean basin the remaining
two.
In this scenario, which is already unfolding on the North American
continent and in Europe and Australia, the single European ancestor
would leave no discernible residue in homo cosmicus. Europeans
would be extinct, fulfilling the nightmare vision that Jean Raspail
described in The Camp Of The Saints. This is not a condemnation
of any real human being with such an ancestry. Nevertheless, this
process would eradicate the biological diversity that multiculturalists
claim to cherish. In its place would be only uniformity, the irreversible
submergence of all races.
The passing of any race is an event of great significance. The destruction
of an entire population is, in fact, genocide by the definitions of
the UN Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as ". . . the
destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial or national
group. The acts so defined include. . . the destruction of the conditions
of life necessary for the physical existence of the group . . . ."
The debate about race must be framed in these terms in order to convey
its true importance. The battle cannot be won by allowing the other
side to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond
discussion. The consequences are too important.
The Dual Code of Morality
Why, though, does race matter? The answer lies in the biology of
genes and in the impact of genetic kinship on altruism. For many
decades, altruism was a paradox for theories of evolution. Darwin
himself realized that altruism was difficult to expalain in terms
of individual "survival of the fittest." In his book, Race,
Evolution and Behavior, Philippe Rushton writes, "If the most
altruistic members of a group sacrifice themselves for others, they
run the risk of leaving fewer offspring to pass on the very genes
that govern the altruistic behavior. Hence, altruism would be selected
against, and selfishness would be selected for."
Prof. Rushton suggests that this paradox is resolved by genetic similarity
theory, a field pioneered by biologist W.D. Hamilton and others. Prof
Rushton writes:
"By a process known as kin selection, individuals can maximize
their inclusive fitness rather than only their individual fitness
by increasing the production of successful offspring by both themselves
and their genetic relatives . . . . Genes are what survive and are
passed on, and some of the same genes will be found not only in direct
offspring but in siblings, cousins, nephews/nieces, and grandchildren
. . . . thus, from an evolutionary perspective, altruism is a means
of helping genes to propagate."
Over time, kin selection has resulted in a dual code of morality,
an altruistic code for one's genetic kin and a non-altruistic code
for everyone else. Anthropologists have suggested that humans evolved
through a process of migration and tribal warfare between groups
composed of genetically related individuals. In A New Theory
of Human Evolution, Sir Arthur Keith wrote, "The process which
secures the evolution of an isolated group of humanity is a combination
of two principles . . . nmaely, cooperation with competition . . .
. I hold that from the very beginning of human evolution the conduct
of every local group was regulated by two codes of morality, distinguished
by Herbert Spencer as the `code of amity' and the `code of enmity'."
Garrett Hardin writes, "The essential characteristic of a tribe
is that it should follow a double standard of morality—one kind
of behavior for in-group relations, another for out-group." In-group
relations are characterized by cooperation while out-group relations
are characterized by conflict. Liberals have tried to discredit the
role of tribal conflict, claiming that such distinctions have been
lost as groups reached nation size. But in so doing, they miss the
vital message of genetic similarity theory. National ethnic groups
represent the growth and consolidation of genetically related tribes
over time.
Professor Hardin argues that, because of the nature of altruism and
competition, the dual code of morality is inescapable and cannot be
eliminated from human society:
"In the absence of competition between tribes the survival value
of altruism in a crowded world approaches zero because what ego gives
up necessarily . . . goes into the commons. What is in the commons
cannot favor the survival of the sharing impulses that put it
there—unless
there are limits placed on sharing. To place limits on sharing is
to create a tribe—which means a rejection of One World. . . . A
state of One World, if achieved, would soon redissolve into an assemblage
of tribes."
The in-group out-group distinction still operates today; it is only
the battleground that has shifted. Tribal warfare has been replaced
by territorial irredentism and competing birthrates.
The liberal campaign to eliminate feelings of national, cultural,
or racial solidarity among Western peoples was undertaken largely
in the hope that the abolition of "tribalism" would inaugurate
an era of world peace. As Professor Hardin has shown, tribalism cannot
be eliminated. Worse still, any idealistic group that unilaterally
dismantles its own tribal sense will be swept away by groups that
have retained theirs. Unless the current direction is changed, the
West will be destroyed in this new form of biological warfare.
The dual code of morality is therefore the cornerstone on which any
enduring moral order must be based. It is also an answer to the question
of ultimate ethics posed earlier: "Is it moral for ethnic groups
to seek to survive?" Since it is impossible to eliminate "tribes"
from the human race, the answer to this question must be yes. That
which is built inextricably into the laws of the universe cannot be
immoral.
Universalists might try to caricature the dual code of morality as
an invidious double standard, but it is something we practice every
day without even thinking about it. Without it, no group, be it a
family, club, corporation, political party, nation, or race would
exist. It is how groups distinguish between members and non-members.
Employees
of the same company treat each other differently from the way they
treat competitors. Members of the same political party cooperate
with each other and run against opponents. Families draw sharp
distinctions between members and strangers. It is easy to overlook
the dual code of morality precisely because it is so fundamental a
part of human nature.
The "code of amity, code of enmity" explains racial loyalties. It
is an extension of the biologically necessary fact that parents love
their children more than the children of strangers. Such feelings
are normal and natural. Yet "racism" has become the curse-word
that stops discussion. Those who use the word as a weapon say that
racial loyalty is racism when exhibited by whites but is justifiable
pride when exhibited by non-whites. The word is simply a means of
gaining power over people who have exaggerated moral scruples.
The Biology of Diversity
Feelings of racial loyalty are grounded in biological differences. These
are discussed authoritatively in J. Philippe Rushton's Race, Evolution,
and Behavior, but they do not imply that one race has a right to
rule over another. Frank discussion of real differences must not
be considered morally repugnant. Scientific truth cannot be racism,
at least not in the pejorative sense that the word is now used.
Most forms of behavior (by whites) that are characterized as racism
do not involve unprovoked assault on people of other races, but are
simply the natural loyalty of humans for their own group. They are
necessary for survival. Unprovoked violence is a moral evil, but
by all statistical measures, whites are overwhelmingly the victims
of crimes of racial violence, not the perpetrators.
Blacks are twelve percent of the population but commit almost two-thirds
of the violent crime in America, are over twelve times more likely
to murder whites than the reverse, are more than a thousand times
more likely to rape white women than the reverse, and choose whites
as crime victims fifty percent of the time compared to whites choosing
blacks as victims only two percent of the time.
Interracial crime is just one manifestation of a fundamental biological
principle called Gause's Law of Exclusion. In his book, The Mammals
of North America, University of Kansas biology professor Raymond
Hall states the law as follows: "Two subspecies of the same
species do not occur in the same geographic area." [emphasis
in original] One will inevitably eliminate or displace the other. Prof.
Hall specifically includes humans in this rule: "To imagine one
subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another
subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and
oblivion for one or the other."
Oblivion need not come in the form of physical destruction. It may
simply involve the loss of habitat. Harlem, Watts, East St. Louis,
and many other black neighborhoods were once occupied by whites. The
arrival of blacks (or other non-whites) in sufficient numbers makes
it impossible for whites to survive, whereas the process does not
work in reverse. Even without the carnage of inter-racial crime,
whites could be eliminated through sheer loss of territory. Viewed
in biological terms, ethnic diversity is prelude to destruction.
The great majority of people, of any age and origin, do
not concern themselves with the rise and fall of civilizations. Like
fish in water, they are conscious of their environment only when it
changes rapidly and threateningly, a rarity in most people's lifetimes. Yet
civilizations do fall, and the warning signs for ours have been present
for more than a century. Rudyard Kipling's line, "East is East,
and West is West, and never the twain shall meet," presaged the
message of early twentieth century Americans, Madison Grant and Lothrop
Stoddard, whose books, The Passing of the Great Race and The
Rising Tide of Color, helped bring about the immigration restrictions
of 1924.
The 1924 national origins quota system was dismantled in 1965 during
the wave of self-recrimination that accompanied the Civil Rights era. Should
Chinese historians of the twenty-second century be writing the final
history of Western civilization, no doubt they will cite the 1965
Immigration Act as the blow that broke the back of Western man.
Elmer Pendell, in his book, Why Civilizations Self-Destruct,
surveyed historians' theories as to why civilizations fall. They
include Oswald Spengler's analogy to individual aging and death, theories
of moral decay, and theories based on ecological deterioration. Concerning
the latter, Garrett Hardin notes in The Limits of Altruism:
"No
civilization has ever recovered after ruining its environment."
[emphasis
in original] All of these theories have their appeal, yet none is
a complete explanation for what is happening to the West.
Pendell's own hypothesis seems closer to the mark. A civilization
arises when natural selection produces a people of above-average
intelligence. As
the founders conquer natural culling forces, those who would have
been removed from the population due to their lesser abilities survive
and produce more children than the more intelligent founders. Francis
Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin and author of Hereditary Genius,
first noted that `men of eminence' have fewer children than the average.
Eventually
the intelligence level of the population falls below that needed to
sustain civilization.
Pendell suggests another factor in the collapse of civilizations,
the gradual adulteration of ethnically homogeneous founding populations
through losses in wars and, in ancient times, the taking of slaves. The
modern analogue of slavery is immigration. Tenny Frank, in his book
History of Rome, wrote, "The original peoples were wasted
in wars and scattered in migrations and colonization and their places
were filled chiefly with Eastern Slaves." We cannot speak of the
spirit of Rome or the culture of Rome, Frank said, "without defining
whether the reference is to the Rome of 200 BC or 200 AD."
Theodor Mommsen wrote in The History of Rome, "The patrician
body. . . had dwindled away more and more in the course of centuries
and in the time of Caesar there were not more than fifteen or sixteen
patrician gentes (clans) still in existence." In 9 A. D. laws
were passed requiring each patrician family to have three children. Lead
poisoning has been implicated in the failure to reverse the decline
of Roman blood, but the reasons do not change the outcome. Even in
ancient Rome, slaves did not stay slaves forever, and their gradual
suffusion through the population by intermixture would have contributed
to Rome's demise. The same situation, massive infusion of non-Western
peoples and a birthrate below replacement level, threatens the West,
and for reasons quite unrelated to lead poisoning.
After The Fall
Eric Fischer, writing in The Passing of the European Age, said
that a new civilization never arises where an earlier civilization
has died. If Pendell's theory is correct and if the hypothesis of
Tenny Frank and others explains the loss of a hereditary capacity
for civilization, then Fischer's observation has a genetic explanation.
Civilization
cannot arise on the site of an earlier civilization once the hereditary
character of the people is permanently altered. This process is happening
in the Western world today through immigration, welfare, and liberal
policies that promote the submergence of ethnic groups into a global
"melting pot."
Should the West suffer the fate of Rome, there will be no recovery. Whether
or not other civilizations arise among other peoples remains to be
seen. Present economic success indicates that East Asia may be a future
center of civilization. However, modern innovations flow predominantly
from the creative wellsprings of the West. Whether innovation could
be sustained in the absence of Western peoples remains to be seen. There
is evidence that this might not happen; intelligence testing of Asians
shows a relatively small standard deviation, suggesting a smaller
right tail of the IQ distribution and a smaller percentage of innovative
individuals.
Although dire predictions about the future are often ridiculed, it
is wise to remember Rome—catastrophes can and do occur, and in
a globally linked world, the consequences could be shattering. In
The Limits of Altruism, Garrett Hardin cites Harrison Brown,
author of The Challenge of Man's Future, as the first person
to recognize the vulnerability of the West's advanced civilization. Brown
focused on the role of metals in modern civilization and on the technology
required to obtain metals. Prof. Hardin summarizes the situation:
"Looking only at the copper component of the problem, we should
note that preliterate man managed to create the Bronze Age only because
of the ready availability of copper ores assaying greater than 20
percent. . . . Only the most primitive of means are required to process
high grade ores. But now we are reduced to extracting our copper
from ores that assay less than 1 percent, and soon we will have nothing
better than 0.1 percent. It takes a very sophisticated technology
to deal with low-grade ores, a technology that only a large population
of technologically advanced people can muster."
Prof. Hardin continues, "Our many technologies form an incredible
network of mutual support, mutual dependence. If this network were
disrupted . . . it is doubtful if our kind of technology could ever
be rebuilt. . . . On all counts, it looks as though our civilization,
once fallen, will never be replaced by another of comparable quality."
Prof. Hardin suggests two possible causes for the destruction of modern
civilization: nuclear warfare and a population crash brought on by
exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity. However, genetic submergence
of the peoples with the innate ability to sustain civilization
will do just as well.
The Roots of Western Order
The Map of Freedom, published annually by Freedom House, graphically
demonstrates that free forms of government generally track population
concentrations of people of European descent, a strong suggestion
that freedom has a genetic origin. Although there are exceptions,
notably Japan, which lost a nuclear war to the West and had a Western
constitution imposed on it, the world of the free is largely the world
of the Western European. The partially free include newly emerged
Eastern Europeans and a scattering of other nations around the world. Much
of Africa and Asia remains in the not free category.
Thomas Jefferson foresaw this. Fearing "importation of foreigners,"
he wrote in Notes on Virginia, "They will bring with them
the principles of the governments they leave, or if able to throw
them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness,
passing, as usual, from one extreme to the other. . . . In proportion
to their number, they will infuse into it [the nation] their spirit,
warp or bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent,
distracted mass."
Because economic inequality between groups inevitably produces envy,
stable societies are almost always homogeneous. Multi-ethnic and
multicultural societies live on the edge of dissolution. In such
cases, the role of government turns to conflict management, as Brent
Nelson points out in America Balkanized. "Government as
conflict management is an emerging theme of public life in the U.S.,
a theme which recurrently manifests itself in the concepts of dialogue,
mediation, sensitivity, tolerance, and balance. The latter terms are
increasingly the shibboleths of American public life. The fiction
is maintained that these concepts . . . will produce a final resolution
of intergroup conflicts. . . . [T]he reality is something quite other."
Laws
against "hate crime" and "hate speech" reflect that
other reality.
If today's ethnic minorities become a majority it will be beyond the
power of Western peoples to control, peacefully by means of the ballot,
the destiny of the nations that were once their own. There is no
guarantee that protections prevalent in Western societies will be
preserved in societies that become non-Western. There is no historical
reason to believe that governments based on principles of individual
liberty will survive the disappearance of Western peoples.
Post-colonial Africa is enlightening. For the most part, the Dark
Continent is reverting to its ancestral ways, suitably updated by
the infusion of Western weapons, as evidenced by carnage in Somalia
and Rwanda. That this disturbs our heightened Western sense of compassion
is understandable. But sentimentality should not blind us to the
long term implications for our own survival. Nature's books are being
balanced in Africa, and they will be balanced in the West, either
by us or by Nature itself. Just as giving food to people who cannot
feed themselves simply hastens an inevitable population crash, bringing
third world people into the West simply hastens the transformation
of the West into an extension of the third world.
The European tradition of ordered, self-governing liberty is probably
part of our genetic heritage. Throughout the third world, governments
range from anarchy to dictatorship. That too, is surely genetic. Those
few non-European countries that appear to be free have generally maintained
democracy through intimate contact with the West. If Europeans are
marginalized and ultimately absorbed by the third world, the idealism
of Western liberalism that permitted the third world invasion will
have proved to be a lethal genetic flaw.
Few concepts are more ingrained in Western thought than respect for
the "rule of law." The West has a history of order that predates
the eight-hundred-year-old Magna Carta. Roman Law was supreme in
the Mediterranean world for nearly a thousand years. Unique among
the peoples of the earth, the people of the West recognize, at least
in theory, the subordination of government to individual rights. But
laws have been instrumental in bringing on the current crisis. Although
there is virtually no popular support for immigration in the Western
world, it is everywhere proceeding under laws passed by governments
elected by the people.
In the end, laws are no better at ensuring liberty than the people
who make and enforce them. Sir Roger L'Estrange said, "The greatest
of all injustice is that which goes under the name of law." America's
Founders recognized the existence of a natural order to freedom that
supersedes laws made by men. Although the American concept of liberty
owed much to British and French political thought, the American act
of creation, the Declaration of Independence, provided perhaps the
best-known expression of "natural law" ever penned. Writing
about securing "unalienable Rights" endowed by "Nature
and Nature's God," Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, having the foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness."
The rights Jefferson identified, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness," were set forth by George Mason in the Virginia
Declaration of Rights, ratified on May 6th, 1776. Mason's work was
the basis for Jefferson's statement, but the Mason version is superior
because it eschews Jefferson's poetic nonsense about all men being
created equal. Mason's language still stands as a monument of Western
political thought:
"[A]ll men are by nature equally free and independent, and have
certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of
society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;
namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring
and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and
safety."
Mason's words are preferable to Jefferson's for two reasons. First,
he said that men are "equally free," not "equal." The
difference is vast. There is ample evidence that Jefferson understood
the difference as well as Mason, but much of the dispossession of
Europeans in their own homelands can be traced to exploitation of
this egalitarian philosophy by later Western liberals.
Second, Mason states directly the central thesis of natural law: People
cannot, by any agreement, deprive their posterity of rights. Natural
law is therefore the fulcrum on which rests the case that immigration
is genocide. The governments of the West have no right to impose present
levels of immigration and race mixing on their people. Nor are we
morally bound to accept them.
The Ultimate Moral Principle
Mason recognized the role of "safety" as a motive for the
creation of law and government. Others have said the same thing. William
Blackstone wrote, "self-defense is justly called the primary law
of nature. . . [It] cannot be taken away by the laws of society."
Jefferson
wrote, "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one
of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest.
The
laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when
in danger, are of higher obligation."
Their message is simple. Laws alone, independent of their survival
utility, are not, and cannot be, the underlying basis of civilization. In
the end, whoever makes and enforces the laws has the power to determine
who lives and who dies. Survival is the ultimate principle upon
which all enduring moral systems must be based. This is the third,
and final, cornerstone of any permanent moral order, for any people
who "divest" their posterity of the right to existence will
vanish, and their flawed moral system will vanish with them.
All systems of law and government must serve the imperative of survival.
Speaking on the eve of the War for Southern Independence, and in the
aftermath of John Brown's attempt to incite a slave uprising at Harper's
Ferry, President James Buchanan expressed the fear felt by white Southerners
who saw their very existence imperiled: "Self-preservation is
the first law of nature, and therefore any state of society in which
the sword is all the time suspended over the heads of the people must
at last become intolerable." Where law and survival were in conflict
the Founders took their cue from Cicero: "Laws are silent in
the midst of arms."
The West is surrendering the power of life and death into the hands
of third world aliens. In a world ruled by the dual "code of
amity, code of enmity," this decision, which was never subjected
to systematic scrutiny by an informed electorate, is tantamount to
suicide. Sometime in the next century, the sword Western society
has suspended over its own head will become intolerable. What our
response will be remains to be seen. If there is no response, the
long descent into night is sure to follow.
Which Way Western Man?
What would be lost with the passing of Western civilization and its
peoples? Two thousand years ago, the Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote
in De Germania that the peoples of the Germanic tribes possessed
a fondness for personal freedom, an independence of spirit, an unusually
high status accorded women and a deep affection for the land. These
traits have survived twenty centuries. Without the West, will the
spirit of individual liberty persevere? The Map of Freedom suggests
not. Despite the tendency of liberals to denigrate the only culture
on earth that would tolerate their presence, these virtues uniquely
characterize only Europeans and their civilization.
Now, the descendants of those same Germanic tribes, the ancestors
of much of the white world, and the creators of the only advanced
technological civilization the world has ever known, are on the road
to extinction. Do Western moral principles require that its creators
commit suicide in order to fulfill those principles? Such
a belief is insane. It therefore follows that if the West is to
survive it must come to grips, as Jean Raspail foresaw, with the
profoundly
destructive nature of its moral beliefs.
Any enduring moral order must be based on the following principles:
1) a dual code of morality, which is of evolutionary origin, binds
the members of ethnic and racial groups together; 2) universal,
self-sacrificing
altruism in a world in which racial cohesion is elsewhere the norm
is lethal; and 3) the imperative of survival and the primacy of
self-preservation
supersede all laws made by man.
What then, must we do? Raymond Cattell, in his book A New Morality
From Science: Beyondism, called for a reversal of the universalist
creed and creation of many social laboratories where evolution can
proceed without harm or subjugation of anyone by anyone else. Wilmot
Robertson urged this path as the basis of nationhood in The
Ethnostate. Richard
McCulloch has elevated this principle to a "racial Golden Rule"
in The Racial Compact.
The only course that gives cohesive groups a chance to survive is
ethnic separation. Without separation, the dual code of morality
will ensure a long, chaotic period of strife and bloodshed. Eventually,
what racial conflict does not finish, miscegenation, diminished birthrates,
and physical and psychological displacement will. Personal liberty
and individuality, without which Europeans simply cannot exist, will
disappear long before the European genetic heritage is completely
submerged. Lest this outcome seem remote and therefore of no concern,
let the time scale of Rome's decline be always kept in mind. Though
those reading this may or may not live to see the collapse of the
West, the white children being born today may well suffer it.
Jean Raspail also believed that the end was not far off. In the introduction
to the 1985 edition of The Camp of the Saints, he wrote, "The
Roman empire did not die any differently, though, it's true, more
slowly, whereas this time we can expect a more sudden conflagration
. . . . Christian charity will prove itself powerless. The times
will be cruel."
Louis Veuillot, the 19th century French writer, captured the dilemma
facing the West in confronting peoples who do not conform to Western
moral principles. "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." The West must
recognize this appeal for compassion by "the wretched refuse of
[the non-Western world's] teeming shore," for what it is: a form
of beguiling parasitism that can, by definition, only seduce those
with Western moral principles.
In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler wrote, "One
grows or dies. There is no third possibility." The peoples of
the West must come to believe in and act in accordance with the only
moral principle Nature recognizes: for those who live in harmony
with Nature, survival is moral. For those who do not, the
penalty is extinction. Without this understanding, Western Man, progenitor
of law, compassion, technology and a spirit of quest that is unparalleled
in the history of the human race, will perish at the hands of those
who do not possess the same innate spark. For the sake of our children
who are yet to be, let us choose life—by whatever means we must—while
the choice is still ours.
Mr. Masters' essay, "We Are A People," appeared in the
July-August (1995) issue of Southern Patriot. His review of Garrett
Hardin's The Immigration Dilemma appeared in the Summer (1995)
issue of The Social Contract.
This article originally appeared in the July, 1995, and August, 1995,
issues of American Renaissance,
a journal of race, immigration, and the decline of civility.
$20.00 per year for 12 issues.
