The Morality of Survival
by Michael W. Masters
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=92s 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=92s first, and perhaps only technological
civilization, is usually silenced with words like =93racist,=94 =93bigot,=
=94
and =93xenophobe.=94 Neither the flawed moral system that enforces this
silence nor the people who sup****t 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=92s 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, =93Destiny of Angels=94, Richard McCulloch calls these questions a
matter of =93ultimate ethics.=94
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=96kin****p
and within-group altruism=96to 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=96
seemingly the most noble behavior humanity has ever exhibited=96and has
become _the_ threat to the survival of the West.
As biologist Garrett Hardin demonstrated in his 1982 essay,
=93Discriminating Altruisms=94, universalism=96a chimerical One World
without borders or distinctions=96is impossible. Groups that practice
unlimited altruism, unfettered by thoughts of self-preservation, will
be disadvantaged in life=92s 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:
=93_Universalism=94 is altruism practiced =93without discrimination=94 of
kin****p, acquaintance****p, 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.
=93In 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=85
=93The argument that accounts for the step to familialism serves equally
well for each succeeding step=96except for the last. Why the difference?
Because the One World created by universalism has=96by definition=96no
competitive base to sup****t it . . . [Universalism] cannot survive in
competition with discrimination.=94 [emphasis in original]
Professor Hardin adds:
=93[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.=94 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 moral standards =97 for if they did, they
would not be replacing us =97 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 =93The Path to National
Suicide, An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism=94, has elsewhere
summarized the situation thus:
=93Modern liberalism told us that racial differences don=92t 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,=92 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 =97 and indeed genocidal =97 proposal in the history of the
world.=94
This change of strategy was signaled by the cover story of a Fall 1993
special edition of =93Time=94. 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 pro****tions.
The subliminal message conveyed by this computerized android,
obviously still of predominantly European ancestry, was:
=93Don=92t worry, this is harmless.=94 Or, in the current idiom of
multiculturalism, =93let us celebrate our diversity.=94 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 =93Time=94
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=92s
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=92s population, but since 1980, white births amount to only a
little more than five percent of the world=92s 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
=93peacekeeping.=94
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=92s 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 =93homo cosmicus=94. Europeans would
be extinct, fulfilling the nightmare vision that Jean Raspail
described in =93The Camp Of The Saints=93. 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
=93. . . 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 . . . .=94
The debate about race must be framed in these terms in order to convey
its true im****tance. 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 im****tant.
The Dual Code of Morality
Why, though, does race matter? The answer lies in the biology of genes
and in the impact of genetic kin****p on altruism. For many decades,
altruism was a paradox for theories of evolution. Darwin himself
realized that altruism was difficult to explain in terms of individual
=93survival of the fittest.=94 In his book, =93Race, Evolution and
Behavior=94, Philippe Rushton writes, =93If 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.=94
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:
=93By 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.=94
Over time, kin selection has resulted in a dual code of morality, an
altruistic code for one=92s 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 =93A New Theory of Human
Evolution=94, Sir Arthur Keith wrote:
=93The process which secures the evolution of an isolated group of
humanity is a combination of two principles . . . namely, 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=92
and the `code of enmity=92.=94
Garrett Hardin writes:
=93The essential characteristic of a tribe is that it should follow a
double standard of morality=96one kind of behavior for in-group
relations, another for out-group.=94
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:
=93In 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=96unless
there are limits placed on sharing. To place limits on sharing is to
create a tribe=96which means a rejection of One World. . . . A state of
One World, if achieved, would soon redissolve into an assemblage of
tribes.=94
The in-group out-group distinction still operates today; it is only
the battleground that has ****fted. 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 =93tribalism=94 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: =93Is it moral for ethnic
groups to seek to survive?=94 Since it is impossible to eliminate
=93tribes=94 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, cor****ation, 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 =93code of amity, code of enmity=94 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 =93racism=94 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=92s =93Race,
Evolution, and Behavior=94, 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=92s Law of Exclusion. In his book, The
Mammals of North America, University of Kansas biology professor
Raymond Hall states the law as follows: =93Two subspecies of the same
species do not occur in the same geographic area.=94 [emphasis in
original] One will inevitably eliminate or displace the other. Prof.
Hall specifically includes humans in this rule: =93To 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.=94
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=92s lifetimes. Yet
civilizations do fall, and the warning signs for ours have been
present for more than a century. Rudyard Kipling=92s line, =93East is
East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,=94 presaged the
message of early twentieth century Americans, Madison Grant and
Lothrop Stoddard, whose books, =93The Passing of the Great Race=94 and
=93The Rising Tide of Color=94, 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, =93Why Civilizations Self-Destruct=94,
surveyed historians=92 theories as to why civilizations fall. They
include Oswald Spengler=92s 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: =93No civilization has ever recovered after ruining
its environment.=94
All of these theories have their appeal, yet none is a complete
explanation for what is happening to the West. Pendell=92s 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=92s cousin and author of =93Hereditary Genius=94,
first noted that `men of eminence=92 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 =93History of Rome=94, wrote, =93The original
peoples were wasted in wars and scattered in migrations and
colonization and their places were filled chiefly with Eastern
Slaves.=94 We cannot speak of the spirit of Rome or the culture of Rome,
Frank said, =93without defining whether the reference is to the Rome of
200 BC or 200 AD.=94
Theodor Mommsen wrote in =93The History of Rome=94, =93The 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.=94 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=92s 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 =93The Passing of the European Age=94, said that
a new civilization never arises where an earlier civilization has
died. If Pendell=92s theory is correct and if the hypothesis of Tenny
Frank and others explains the loss of a hereditary capacity for
civilization, then Fischer=92s 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 =93melting pot.=94
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=96catastrophes can and do occur, and in a globally
linked world, the consequences could be shattering.
In =93The Limits of Altruism=94, Garrett Hardin cites Harrison Brown,
author of =93The Challenge of Man=92s Future=94, as the first person to
recognize the vulnerability of the West=92s 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:
=93Looking 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.=94
Prof. Hardin continues, =93Our many technologies form an incredible
network of mutual sup****t, 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.=94
Prof. Hardin suggests two possible causes for the destruction of
modern civilization: nuclear warfare and a population crash brought on
by exceeding the Earth=92s carrying capacity. However, =93genetic
submergence of the peoples with the innate ability to sustain
civilization=94 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 =93im****tation of foreigners,=94 he
wrote in =93Notes on Virginia=94, =93They 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 pro****tion 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.=94
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 =93America Balkanized=94. =93Government 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 ****bboleths 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.=94 Laws against =93hate crime=94 and =93hate speech=94 reflect that
=
other
reality.
If today=92s 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=92s 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 dictator****p. 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 =93rule of law.=94 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 sup****t 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=92Estrange said, =93The greatest of all
injustice is that which goes under the name of law.=94 America=92s
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 =93natural law=94 ever penned. Writing about securing
=93unalienable Rights=94 endowed by =93Nature and Nature=92s God,=94
Thomas
Jefferson wrote:
=93That 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.=94
The rights Jefferson identified, =93Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness,=94 were set forth by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration
of Rights, ratified on May 6th, 1776. Mason=92s work was the basis for
Jefferson=92s statement, but the Mason version is superior because it
eschews Jefferson=92s poetic nonsense about all men being created equal.
Mason=92s language still stands as a monument of Western political
thought:
=93[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.=94
Mason=92s words are preferable to Jefferson=92s for two reasons. First, he
said that men are =93equally free,=94 not =93equal.=94 The difference is
va=
st.
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:
=93People 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.=94
The Ultimate Moral Principle
Mason recognized the role of =93safety=94 as a motive for the creation of
law and government. Others have said the same thing. William
Blackstone wrote, =93self-defense is justly called the primary law of
nature. . . [It] cannot be taken away by the laws of society.=94
Jefferson wrote, =93A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless
=93one=94 of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not =93the
highest=94. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our
country when in danger, are of higher obligation.=94
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. =93Survival is the ultimate principle
upon which all enduring moral systems must be based.=94 This is the
third, and final, cornerstone of any permanent moral order, for any
people who =93divest=94 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=92s attempt to incite a slave
uprising at Harper=92s Ferry, President James Buchanan expressed the
fear felt by white Southerners who saw their very existence imperiled:
=93Self-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.=94 Where law and survival
were in conflict the Founders took their cue from Cicero: =93Laws are
silent in the midst of arms.=94
The West is surrendering the power of life and death into the hands of
third world aliens. In a world ruled by the dual =93code of amity, code
of enmity,=94 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 =93De Germania=94 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? =93Such a belief is
insane=94. 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 =93A New Morality
From Science: Beyondism=94, 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 =93The
Ethnostate=94. Richard McCulloch has elevated this principle to a
=93racial Golden Rule=94 in =93The Racial Compact=94.
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=92s 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 =93The Camp of the Saints=94, he
wrote, =93The Roman empire did not die any differently, though, it=92s
true, more slowly, whereas this time we can expect a more sudden
conflagration . . . . Christian charity will prove itself powerless.
The times will be cruel.=94
Louis Veuillot, the 19th century French writer, captured the dilemma
facing the West in confronting peoples who do not conform to Western
moral principles. =93When 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.=94 The West must
recognize this appeal for compassion by =93the wretched refuse of [the
non-Western world's] teeming shore,=94 for what it is: a form of
beguiling parasitism that can, by definition, only seduce those with
Western moral principles.
In =93The Decline of the West=94, Oswald Spengler wrote, =93One grows or
dies. There is no third possibility.=94 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=96by whatever means we must=96while the
choice is still ours.
Source: Mr. Masters=92 essay, We Are A People, appeared in the July-
August 1995 issue of Southern Patriot. His review of Garrett Hardin=92s
The Immigration Dilemma appeared in the Summer 1995 issue of The
Social Contract. This essay, The Morality of Survival, first appeared
in the July & August 1995, issues of American Renaissance.
=97=97=97=97=96
=93[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.=94 =96 Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints (1972)
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/09/22/the-morality-of-survival/#more-8=
406
|
