Richard McCulloch’s The Racial Compact – Part Four – Separation for Preservation
Below is a condensed version of Richard McCulloch’s modern classic The Racial Compact: A Call for Racial Preservation, Racial Independence, Racial Rights and Racial Good Will. This series of essays calls for “a new concept of racial relations that promotes the continued existence, independence and legitimate rights and interests of all races, providing a preservationist alternative to the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism.”
Separation: The Preservationist Imperative
by Richard McCulloch
“A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.”
— Abraham Lincoln, June 26, 1857
IN 1988 I had the opportunity to meet William Gayley Simpson, author of Which Way Western Man. At that time he was in his nineties and in declining health. He compensated for his lack of conversational endurance by distilling the essence of his thought into one very terse and pointed message: “Separate or die.” Those were his last words to me, and that is fitting, for that simple phrase tells us two vitally important things. First, that racial separation is necessary for the long-term preservation of the Northern European race, the founding and still the majority American racial type, which I refer to as the Nordish race. It is a simple matter of either-or — either racial separation or racial death. Second, that the alternative to racial destruction, the solution to the Nordish racial crisis, is racial separation. Not immigration restrictions, segregation, white supremacism or other half-measures, nor anything that need harm other races or violate their legitimate rights and interests. [Note 1] None of these things can save us. Only separation can. Separation is the preservationist imperative.
The reason separation is necessary for racial preservation is simple — the evolution and continued existence of different races is made possible by reproductive isolation. When different populations are reproductively isolated they cannot interbreed or intermix, and consequently evolve in different directions, developing into different races with their own unique and distinct ensemble of genetic traits. Reproductive isolation requires an absence of physical contact. As a practical matter, this requires geographic separation.
There is already a law of biology (Gause’s law of exclusion) which states that multiple animal species with the same requirements cannot coexist in the long term in the same habitat. One will eventually replace the others, which will become extinct. This law can also be applied to human races occupying the same territory: one race will eventually assimilate or replace its competitors. Since it is a fact that every human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact, there should also be a law of sociology which states that different races sharing the same habitat (i.e., lacking the race-creating and preserving condition of reproductive isolation) will eventually intermix and blend into one race, destroying their racially unique traits. The more extensive the contact and interaction between the races the more rapid the process of interbreeding will tend to be, but whatever the rate, slow or fast, it will occur, with the most racially destructive consequences for the race with the more recessive genetic traits.
For the Nordish race, with its many recessive genetic traits, the consequences of extensive intermixture are racial destruction, and as intermixture is unavoidable in a multiracial environment, the inevitable consequence of multiracial conditions is the destruction or extinction of the Nordish race. Since the Nordish race requires racial separation for its continued existence or preservation, to oppose racial separation is to effectively oppose the preservation or continued existence of the Nordish race, to effectively propose and support Nordish racial destruction or extinction, and this is the position of the presently dominant or “mainstream” elements.
Since intermixture is an unavoidable consequence of multiracial conditions, those conditions themselves are the proximate cause of intermixture, and the blame for racial intermixture and its destructive consequences belongs to all those who promote, support or defend multiracial conditions and oppose the separation-isolation which is the only effective means to prevent intermixture and secure racial preservation. This is true even for persons who ostensibly oppose racial intermixture, for if they support multiracial conditions of existence — or oppose separation, which amounts to the same thing — they are in fact supporting the cause of intermixture. They might say they favor the reimposition of a segregationist, white supremacist or “traditional” society, where intermixture is prohibited by law and custom, but a multiracial society is not a “traditional” society. The “traditional” society of the Nordish race, the type of society in which it was created and preserved for many thousands of years, is a monoracial society. Such a society provides reproductive isolation, the condition required for both racial creation and preservation, and does not need to prohibit intermixture by law or custom because by its very monoracial nature it prevents intermixture far more effectively than any law or custom ever could. Thus the only effective cure for intermixture, the only way to prevent it from destroying the Nordish race, is to restore it to its traditional, separate monoracial existence.
Unfortunately, the fact that separation is required for Nordish preservation is either not known or evaded by far too many people, thus permitting multiracial conditions to proceed toward their inevitable consequences without those consequences being recognized and addressed. It often seems as if everyone in the “mainstream” behaves and speaks as if they were racial ingénues, ignorant, thoughtless and naive regarding racial realities and consequences. Even those race-conscious conservatives regarded as being on the extreme right fringe of the limits of “respectability” on the racial issue (typically defined by opposition to affirmative action and support for immigration restrictions), by their evasion or denial of the requirement for racial separation for racial preservation, offer no more than palliatives to soothe the symptoms of this fatal disease without effecting a real cure. In fact, many mainstream conservatives and liberals actually view intermixture as a cure, as a means to promote national unity and prevent ethnic differences from fracturing or tearing the country apart, and thus as highly desirable. Such intermixture (euphemistically referred to as assimilation) is of course the true end of multiracialism, revealing it as a sham, a temporary or transitional social condition which provides the means for racial destruction by the assimilation of (i.e., intermixture with) incompatible elements. Multiracialism is thus the prelude to Nordish extinction. The prelude might seem long, lasting generations or even centuries, but the extinction that follows is forever. Racial preservationist alternatives — i.e., separation if multiracial conditions already exist, or immigration restrictions to prevent the creation of multiracial conditions where they do not yet exist — are not considered, but are evaded or denied.
The pattern of evasion or denial of the necessity for racial separation for racial preservation, the unwillingness or inability to face racial realities and the consequences of multiracialism, is made possible by the fatal fantasy of the Nordish race. This fatal fantasy is the false belief or misconception that the Nordish race can continue to exist in a multiracial society. [Note 2] It is the escapist fantasy for Northern Europeans who refuse to face the threats to their survival. This misconception is fatal because it permits people to evade and deny the consequences of multiracialism rather than face them and take action to prevent them. When the ultimate destinations of two different paths cannot be clearly seen, there is a natural tendency to take the easier path and deny the need or desirability of the more difficult course. Separation would certainly be difficult, and so its necessity for preservation has long been evaded and denied. But this pattern of evasion and denial is itself the first difficulty, the first obstacle along the path to separation, that must be overcome before separation can be achieved. Separation will be achieved only when enough people want it to be achieved, and this will probably happen only when it is widely recognized as necessary for racial preservation. Therefore the first important step on the road to racial separation and preservation is to free the Nordish people of the fatal fantasy, so they can see, recognize, understand and face the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism rather than evade them.
The current process of displacement, replacement and destruction of the Nordish race is caused by four interacting processes — non-Nordish immigration, a high non-Nordish birthrate, a low Nordish birthrate (actually below the replacement level for more than 20 years), and racial intermixture. In a multiracial society all of these processes result in members of the Nordish race being replaced by members of other races. But in a monoracial society both intermixture and immigration by members of other races would be effectively prevented, and the differential birthrates of two races in different countries could not result in the replacement of one by the other. A low Nordish birthrate would result only in a smaller population. Also, it could be recognized as a problem, and its causes addressed and hopefully corrected. In contrast, the currently dominant racial nihilist ideology and value-system of the multiracial society is so hostile to Nordish preservation that any attempt to recognize, address or solve the problems threatening Nordish existence would face strong resistance and condemnation, and in any event would be ultimately futile without separation.
Racial nihilism, the ideological foundation of multiracialism, regards the very existence of different races (or at least the Nordish race) as something regrettable or even evil — as if the original sin of our ancestors was their divergence into different races — and thus something not worthy of preservation, or even acknowledgment. The only traits it considers valuable and important are those which all humans share in common, which are universal to all, not any which are particular to a certain group, in which they differ or are unique and distinct. It promotes the destruction of racial diversity through racial intermixture to create one universal race, and welcomes the growing population of racially-mixed persons as its ideal. As Shirlee Taylor Haizlip writes in The Sweeter the Juice, “Genes and chromosomes from Africa, Europe, and a pristine America commingled and created me… I am an American anomaly. I am an American ideal. I am the American nightmare. I am the Martin Luther King dream. I am the new America.” In a multiracial society racially-mixed persons are not — as the fatal fantasy would have us believe — an aberration, or — as an Alabama school principal naively remarked — a mistake. They are in fact the natural, normal, unavoidable and inevitable end product of a multiracial society. They are the personification of the racial nihilist and multiracialist version of the American Dream — that America is, must be, and was meant to be a multiracial society — that has now been exported to the formerly monoracial Nordish homelands of Europe.
This was not the dream of our Nordish-American ancestors. Quite the opposite. They desired a monoracial nation, and with the exception of the Southern states — where the black population was concentrated — that is essentially what they had. Until the 1890s the non-black population of America was overwhelmingly Nordish, and the country and its culture had a distinctly Nordish racial identity and character, which remained predominant until the 1960s. (One indicator of the extension of this predominance into the 1960s is the fact that all the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts were Nordish.) Yet, ironically, the prevailing hostility to racial conservation, and acceptance of the racial nihilist version of the American dream, is shared by many who are identified as “conservatives.” Those mainstream conservatives who are not explicitly hostile to racial conservationist concerns are generally indifferent to them. Most are interested in conserving the political and economic system, some in conserving the Western cultural heritage, but it would be difficult to find a prominent conservative willing to publicly express an interest in conserving the race that created the heritage they profess to cherish.
As an example, consider a statement by John O’Sullivan, former editor of National Review, widely regarded as the premier publication of American conservatism. In an article entitled “America’s Identity Crisis” (Nov. 21, 1994, p. 76), in which he ostensibly defends American nationality and cultural continuity by supporting immigration restrictions, he effectively denies all concern for racial identity and continuity, saying “[I]f…black Americans were to become the majority in 2050 (which is, of course, demographically unrealistic), we would view this with indifference. A changing ethnic balance resulting from differential ethnic birthrates among people of the same nationality…should not make white Americans feel culturally dispossessed.” But what about racially dispossessed? He divorces race from nationality and culture, asserting that only the latter are a legitimate matter of concern, and that other “white” Americans should share this racial nihilist view. Yet he still invokes the soothing fantasy that there is no need for concern by reassuring the reader that a black majority is demographically unrealistic, displaying the long outdated tendency to define the racial issue in narrowly white-black terms. But it is now universally accepted by the pundits — they say beyond serious dispute — and acceptable to publicly state in the mainstream media, that although blacks alone will not be a majority by 2050, “non-whites” as a whole certainly will be. So Mr. O’Sullivan, or his spiritual descendants, will have the opportunity in 2050 to view a majority non-white America with indifference, unless separation intervenes. In fact, he would probably be indifferent to know that the Nordish race, currently (1995) 57% of the population as a whole, 50% of the population under the age of 15, and 47% of births, will by 2050, at an immigration level of 880,000 per year (i.e., the current official legal level; 40% below the current actual legal level), and allowing for differential birthrates and intermixture, be reduced to 32% of the population as a whole, 20% of the population under the age of 15, and 19% of births. Even if all immigration were stopped it would still be reduced to 41% of the population as a whole, 28% of the population under the age of 15 and 27% of births.
Anyone who has witnessed the dramatic worsening in the Nordish racial situation in just the last thirty years should be aware of how rapidly the process of destruction can develop. If present trends continue, I project that by the year 2050 the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S. will be reduced by 25-30% (the lower figure based on zero immigration) due to the effects of intermixture alone. By 2050 intermixture alone will likely cause the Nordish population in the U.S. to be reduced by 15-18 million (the lower figure again based on zero immigration). Furthermore, the loss will not stop in 2050, but will only accelerate with each generation. [Note 3] Are there any mainstream conservatives who, if they were aware of this, would not be indifferent to it, who would wish to prevent it and conserve the Nordish race?
Far too many people fail to think in long range terms about the eventual consequences of multiracialism. Do they really think that the multiracial society can continue indefinitely, go on forever just as it is at this moment, never changing? Unfortunately, few people seem to give the subject serious thought. This lack of awareness and urgency is largely due to the fact that racial destruction is a gradual process, occurring incrementally, not all at once. Yet it is not something that will suddenly occur as a singular event in the distant future, nor something that is not imminent and can therefore be evaded or ignored. It is a process that is occurring now and has been occurring on a significant scale for more than a generation. Great loss and destruction has already occurred. Many members of the Nordish race have already been lost through intermixture, and many more are being lost every day. Would Mr. O’Sullivan still be indifferent to the demographic changes that will occur — even if all immigration were stopped — if he understood that they were not only a matter of shifting proportions, not even only a matter of Nordish displacement and replacement, but a matter of Nordish racial destruction and extinction, of the eventual nonexistence of his race, as a result of the multiracial conditions he defends? If he were still indifferent with this knowledge he would not be alone. A common reaction to it is a shrug explained by the remark that “We won’t live to see it,” or a desolate rhetorical “Who cares?” This indifference and lack of caring is both a product and a cause of the prevailing ideology of racial nihilism.
Racial nihilism is now so dominant that it is not considered morally acceptable to advocate or support racial preservation, to be pro-race, to love or value racial differences or view them as important and desire their continued existence. It is barely acceptable to support cultural preservation, and few “conservatives” are publicly willing to conserve more than this. Cultural preservationists are somewhat protected in their opposition to multiculturalism by the fact that many “liberals” also oppose multiculturalism for fear that it will obstruct and slow the process of intermixture-assimilation. But they need not fear. Multiculturalism probably will not slow the process of intermixture enough to really matter. The growth of multiculturalism only means that Western culture will be replaced along with the race that created it, to the dismay of those conservative grave diggers who are only too happy to bury the Nordish race, but who become grave robbers in their ghoulish desire to preserve the culture and institutions of the West disembodied from the race that created them. Yet for racial preservationists multiculturalism does provide another supporting reason for separation. Cultural preservationists should be made aware that separation for racial preservation would also be the surest means — perhaps the only means — to achieve their goal of cultural preservation. It should be presumed that race and culture go together, that multiracialism and multiculturalism go together, that racial and cultural replacement and destruction go together, and that racial and cultural preservation go together. Only willful evasion and denial, or folly, or madness, would permit any other presumption.
Separation is the only preservationist solution effective in the long-term, and to fail to realize this — or worse, to deny it — is to fall victim to the fatal fantasy. After generations of this fantasy, of evasion and denial of racial realities, the racial situation has reached a crisis point where we can no longer afford to continue this racial madness and folly. We can no longer afford to be racial ingénues, innocent of racial knowledge, ignorant of racial reality and the racial consequences of our actions, deluding ourselves with the false hope that minor changes, or a return to an earlier stage in the process of racial replacement, will suffice to prevent the process from reaching its fateful conclusion. Such minor measures, or attempts to restore the status quo ante, can do no more than slow the process. Only a major measure — separation — can effectively assure racial preservation.
The first goal of a separation-for-preservation movement would be to raise the issue of racial preservation to public awareness, to place it on the public agenda, to make it a subject of debate and discussion in the forum of public opinion, where it must be addressed and can no longer be evaded. Every politician, every holder of public office or would-be holder of the public trust, would be required to clearly state their position on the issue of racial preservation, to go on the record as for or against, pro or con. Eventually, it must become the overriding, dominating issue of our time, taking precedence over all others, so that all other issues become secondary, and differences on all other issues are subordinated to alliances based on agreement on the issue of racial preservation. The first supporters of racial separation-for-preservation will be those who already love and value their race and only need to know that separation is necessary for its preservation and can be achieved by moral means. Later supporters — the majority — will be those who require a more extensive process of education to convince them that separation-for-preservation is both necessary and morally right, for reasons ranging from the traditional liberal concern for rights and independence to a conservationist ethic in favor of preserving human racial diversity. Their support will be critical and decisive. If and when the Nordish race wins their support it will be saved. If it fails to win their support it will be lost. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that a separation-for-preservation movement be based on an ideology with well-defined values, goals and methods that are morally acceptable to the majority of the Nordish race.
As a practical matter geographic separation will always be required for reproductive isolation. In the past geographic distance and barriers in themselves were usually sufficient providers of geographic separation and reproductive isolation. But due to the transportation advances of the modern age, we can no longer rely on geographic distance and barriers alone to provide reproductive isolation. We must provide it for ourselves by creating monoracial nations with well-guarded borders that effectively prevent entry by members of other races. (A multiracial society is unable to protect itself from immigration by foreign races because it has no racial identity, and therefore no racial identity to protect.) Given the projected rapid rate of demographic change in the U.S., with the rapid decline in the Nordish portion of the population, the sooner a partition is achieved the more favorable the terms will be for the Nordish-American people. In another essay, Racial Partition for Racial Preservation, I propose a partition settlement that would be appropriate for the present generation. [Note 4]
The original meaning of the Indo-European word “paradise” in the Avestan (Old Iranian) language was “walled-around” (pairi, around + daeza, wall), and referred to a walled-in park or garden. (From this the Greeks referred to a garden or park as a paradeisos.) The wall was necessary to protect the life-forms in the garden by separating them from the life-forms outside. Without that walled separation the life-forms outside the garden would not be kept outside and the life in the garden would be overwhelmed and replaced. If the Nordish race is to have its paradise, a place where it can survive and its life be preserved, it must also have a “wall” that effectively separates it from other races and provides it with the protected monoracial habitat and reproductive isolation it needs for its preservation. Without a wall of secure borders separating the Nordish race from other races there will be no protected habitat, no reproductive isolation, no paradise for the Nordish race where its existence can be safely preserved, but only the wasteland of the multiracial society where it cannot live, only die, where its existence cannot be continued, only destroyed.
The monoracial existence of our past was a racial paradise. We lost that paradise first with the creation of new multiracial societies, then with the transformation of our old monoracial societies into multiracial societies, exchanging our monoracial paradise for a multiracial wasteland where our race cannot survive. We must regain that lost paradise if our race is to be preserved.
Separation is the preservationist imperative. It is necessary for Nordish racial survival. This is the bottom line, the point where no retreat, appeasement or surrender is possible without surrendering the very existence of the Nordish race by perpetuating the multiracial conditions that are destroying it. Thus separation must be the clear goal of all our efforts. Anything less is simply not worth the effort. I realize that this goal will be difficult to achieve, but the truly amazing thing is that so far we have not really even begun to try. To date, no serious effort of any significance has been made by Nordish-Americans to promote and achieve the goal of racial preservation by political-geographic separation. To achieve this goal we will need to gain the support of the majority of Nordish-Americans, with the other Nordish nations hopefully then following our lead on the path of racial preservation as they are now following us on the path of racial destruction. This admittedly seems to be a daunting task, but it is one that must be undertaken. The future existence of the Nordish race depends upon it.
1. Legitimate racial rights and interests are primary or vital (life-essential) rights and interests and those secondary or non-vital rights and interests which do not violate or conflict with the primary or vital rights and interests of other races.
2. Works of science fiction set several centuries in the future which feature a still-thriving Nordish population in a multiracial society (such as the various Star Trek series) are among the most obvious and misleading examples of this fatal fantasy. Imperial Earth , by Arthur C. Clarke, which portrays a future where the Nordish race no longer exists due to racial intermixture, is one of the very rare truthful exceptions to this rule, although Clarke only mentions this fact as an aside midway through the story, and treats it as a matter of no concern or importance.
3. Allowing for intermixture, my projections in generation intervals of 30 years for the under-15 age group of the Nordish population in the U.S., which in 1992 was 27.7 million, are as follows: 2020 = 22.4 million; 2050 = 15 million; 2080 = 9 million; 2110 = 5 million; 2140 = 2.7 million (i.e., a 90% reduction in 150 years). This projection is based on the assumption that fully 50% of each Nordish generation would strictly discriminate on racial grounds in their selection of a mate and refuse to mate with a member of another race or a racially-mixed person who is only partly of their own race. The other 50% would not racially discriminate in their choice of a mate, with the consequence that the racial proportions among their mates would reflect the racial proportions of the population (specifically, the pool of prospective mates) as a whole. (Thus the 15 million Nordish-Americans of the under-15 generation of 2050 would comprise only about 20% of their generation of Americans as a whole, so that 50%, or 7.5 million, who racially discriminated in their choice of a mate, and 20% of the remainder, or 1.5 million, who did not racially discriminate but by chance chose a mate of their own race, totaling 9 million, would produce the 9 million Nordish-Americans of the generation of 2080.) Since each Nordish generation would constitute an ever smaller proportion of the total population, it would be increasingly difficult for 50% to racially discriminate successfully in their choice of mates. Even among the current generation of Nordish youth, who have been heavily indoctrinated with the racial nihilist belief that any kind of racial discrimination is morally evil, it is unlikely that 50% would practice strict racial discrimination in the choice of a mate.
4. If partition is not achieved in the current generation, it is likely that the Nordish racial grouping would have to settle for much less favorable terms of partition in the future, with a much smaller proportion of territory, as by 2020 (allowing for intermixture) they would be only 53% of the population, and by 2050 only 38%. Of course, by that point their situation would be so desperate that they would be fortunate — and probably unlikely — to obtain any terms of partition.
* * *
Source: The Racial Compact