Rabbi Mayer Schiller wrote in 1995: If current trends continue, some time in the middle of the next century the majority of this nation’s inhabitants will be nonwhites. As has been shown repeatedly in the pages of American Renaissance, the presence of large numbers of nonwhites irrevocably changes the character of a school, neighborhood, city or state. Most whites find these changes so disagreeable that they simply move away. However, they can do this only because there are still many areas of the country that are overwhelmingly white. What will happen if whites become a minority?
Even before whites are reduced to a minority, the shift towards a largely nonwhite population will be felt in all areas of life. Taxes, crime, and disease will rise. “Reverse discrimination” will become the norm. Ever larger parts of the country will be essentially off limits to whites, even as government resorts to ever more draconian measures to enforce integration. Legislatures and schools dominated by nonwhites will rewrite our history, belittle our heritage, overturn our monuments, and abandon the cultural norms of our civilization. This is the great crisis of our times.1
As the demographic tide shifts, it will be futile to defend “the canon” of Western literature or, in the South, to try to keep the Confederate flag flying over state houses. A faculty that is largely black and Hispanic will not teach Melville; nor will nonwhite legislators assemble beneath a banner they see as a symbol of white consciousness…
It is important to note that there are black and Hispanic conservatives who are struggling to persuade their people to behave responsibly. They deserve the support of all fair-minded people. Their writings and movements should interest AR readers because they raise the question that all who believe in racial differences — be they genetic or deeply cultural — must answer honestly: How are we to approach those minorities who live and advocate lives of civility, who even acknowledge the European nature of our nation and live in deference to it?
We should support minority efforts at self-help. We should welcome black and Hispanic spokesmen who advocate self-reliance, religion, and the virtues of our civilization. Much could be accomplished if theirs were the dominant minority voices.
But even in the unlikely event of a triumph by minority conservatives, our attitude towards them should be no different from that toward Asian immigrants (who often show lower levels of crime and poverty than whites). We can welcome a small number of people of different races into this nation if they embrace our civilization, but we cannot allow the nation to lose its European identity. No people is obligated to abandon its national identity — in which race plays a significant part.
Any large group of nonwhites, no matter how well-intentioned, will eventually change our society in permanent ways. A nation dominated by blacks, Asians, or Hispanics, or one that is a majority-less farrago of races cannot help but be different from one that is dominated by whites. We have every right to prefer to live in a society of our own making, and we should not be compelled to open our nation and culture to the changes that large-scale racial incursion inevitably bring. For this reason, long-run demographic change demands a solution beyond anything that can be offered by minority conservatives.
What, then, are whites to do?
One undesirable possibility would be to abandon an increasingly third-world United States and return, en masse to Europe. This would assume that Europe had solved its own racial problems by strictly limiting nonwhite immigration. But would Europe want another 100 million citizens? In the waning days of white rule, the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa tried to prevent mass exodus by making it illegal to take assets out of the country. A black-Hispanic American government would probably do the same thing, turning most whites into penniless refugees.
Another possibility, which is nothing more than an extension of what most whites do now, is enclave existence. Today, whites pay a substantial premium to live in their own neighborhoods, free of blacks and Hispanics. They are also willing to pay for private schools for their children, in addition to the taxes they pay for public schools. For most whites, this is an acceptable exchange.
However, as the population shifts, as crime increases, and the government resorts to ever more ingenious methods of forced integration, enclaves will become precarious refuges. In South Africa, ever since the breakdown of apartheid, white neighborhoods have started hiring private security patrols. This is already happening in some American suburbs, and may become the norm in the future. Whites will develop various ways to barricade their neighborhoods against the “rising tide of color,” but will a nonwhite government allow whites to live separately and to protect themselves by private means? It is more likely that government will force “low-income housing” into all white areas; even if it does not, whites in their enclaves will still face oppressive taxation and systematic “affirmative” persecution.
What then remains? Separation. Whites should enter into serious dialogue with black and Hispanic nationalists who seek to establish racially based nations within the territory of the United States.
Opposition to this idea is most likely to come from whites. Many blacks and Hispanics already have a firmly developed racial consciousness, whether instinctual or sophisticated. Many have no interest in the study or practice of European culture, and this is neither wrong nor surprising. What remains to be achieved is a large-scale awakening of racial consciousness among whites, without which no serious dialogue can begin about the mechanics of separation.
Those who are daunted by the prospect of separation should once again consider the alternatives. Current trends will ineluctably reduce whites to minority status, and there is every sign that hostility to whites and to their culture only grows as nonwhites gain numbers and influence. Aside from emigration, the probable outcomes are some kind of violent resolution of racial conflicts or the reduction of whites to a persecuted minority in an increasingly lawless, third-world society. The former would be horrible for all people and the latter would be intolerable for the people whose ancestors built this nation.
At present, the idea of dividing the nation into racial zones seems impossible. (For fairness sake, in the interests of those who wish to continue the grand experiment, there could be a multiracial area. It would be interesting to see how many white liberals would want to live there.) However, there are still large parts of the country that are predominantly white. They could secede. This seems a wild prospect today, but as we move into the next century the burden of racial redistribution of wealth will become increasingly unbearable, and the spectacle of city after city following the path of Detroit and Washington will continue. Who is to say what the citizens of Montana or North Dakota may decide to do?
Indeed, it need not be whole states that secede. Groups of counties could declare independence from Washington. If these efforts were coordinated to occur at the same time their effect could be very powerful. How would the central government react? Given the size of the country and the notorious mismanagement of third world governments, it may not matter how it reacts.
Of course, none of this can happen without profound change in the hearts of whites and this does not now seem likely. Nevertheless, there is simmering unrest in the land. Given clear thinking and courageous leaders we may be able to move beyond the clichés that now govern us.
HERE IS ANOTHER ARTICLE BY RABBI SCHILLER:
To hate a human being because of his race, religion or nationality is a horrible thing. The history of all mankind is marred by the outbreak of unspeakable violence against people perpetrated, not because of anything they did, but merely because of who they were. Bigotry is a vile thing, its prejudgment of a man in direct violation of Judeo-Christian morality as well as the norms of Western Civilization.
Yet, it is also clear that so much of what makes life worth living is to be found in group identity. We are who we are not only as individuals, but also as members of larger entities, i.e. families, neighborhoods, towns, nations, races, religions and civilizations. No man is born into a total vacuum of identity. We are the products of genetic, familial and cultural forces. In the end meaning is provided solely by these extra forces which provide our perceptions and action with conceptual or at least visceral coherence.
Whether these extra personal loyalties be of a metaphysical nature deriving their essence from an essentially spiritual (God centered universe) or be they merely an inherent part of the rational world is a question beyond the confines of this brief essay. What is relevant for our purpose is that man needs identity, meaning and purpose and becomes confused and demoralized without them.
Accordingly it is one of the moral imperatives of our era to articulate a philosophy and seek to implement a policy which will allow men to realize themselves in a group without falling prey to hating or harming other groups. This is far from an easy task. Indeed, there are those who would maintain that the enmity which often goes hand-in-hand with group identification is inevitable and it is best to pursue policies which will inexorably weaken those loyalties. It is an alluring position and one to which the “respectable” media and politicians of our era are all pledged.
It is, an illusory, immoral and unnatural agenda, however. Illusory, for history’s testimony is that widely diverse people cannot and will not live peacefully together. Immoral, because its ultimate results will be the end of the truths and virtues of the world’s various faiths, races and nations. Unnatural, because group identity is a fundamental need of all men.
The way out of our current impasse on matters of race, ethnicity, etc. would seem not to lie in the direction of totalitarian coercive mixing, but towards voluntary disentanglement by men of good intentions.
All any man really desires is a sense of physical security, some orientation towards a life of meaning, a community whose ways are familiar and pleasant to him and a place to call his (and his peoples’) own.
Sadly, today all the above is granted certain groupings but not others. Europeans, White people and those attached to traditional faiths and lifestyles of the West are told by the powers-that-be that they alone among mankind’s tribes are forbidden to have or even articulate a collective identity.
Perhaps this is due to their having overstepped the proper boundaries in the past, or alternatively to their own current weakness and gullibility. Whatever the reason none can deny the current threat to Western Man. Other peoples define themselves as groups, only European Man is forbidden to do this.
A solution to our crisis will be found to the degree that all of the world’s assorted tribes can say to each other: “You have your way of life and your place to live. We wish you well. Now let each of us live among our own. We bear you no ill will.”
It is in the spirit of separation founded on mutual respect that I have attempted on a personal level over the past decade to communicate with nationalists (White and Black), to patriots of many nations and to committed members of many faiths. My goal has been to strip group identity of hatred and the responses I have received have been almost uniformly encouraging. I have found that when you face a man and say; “Your people are a people with a unique identity. They have a right (perhaps an obligation) to survive as a people. Yet you must realize there are other peoples in the world who have similar yearnings. How can we work this out?” – that most men are willing to act in a positive fashion.
To sum up, groups should speak to each other as groups (away from media terror and self-seeking politicians). Far more important than speaking, though, is listening. To hear the other as we remain ourselves is our contemporary task.
HERE IS A 1990 INTERVIEW WITH RABBI SCHILLER:
Jewish Review: Could you comment on the contradiction which Rabbi Kahane has drawn between the Israeli state and democracy, or between the philosophy of Judaism and majority rule?
Rabbi Schiller: Kahane has asked a very simple question. He asks: if we believe in absolute truth how can we believe in majority rule? He’s also asked another question, and that is whether a society which has a vision for itself (and in this particular case a religious vision, but I think this also applies to ethnic and cultural visions as well) allow for what I call ?1789? or French revolutionary political rights? This is a very big problem and I don’t think that Jews have (confronted) or answered it honestly. On the one hand, for the past three or four hundred years of world history we have been in the forefront of those movements that have championed majority rule, pluralism, and ?bill of rights? type, 1789 rights. Yet when we get to Eretz Yisrael and we have our own country we’re all of a sudden saying ?No, we don’t believe in simple majority rule. We believe that a nation has the right to preserve its own identity.? Now, would we extend that right to Englishmen, to Frenchmen, to Germans, to Americans? I think Kahane is asking great questions. His answer is (and I’m just quoting him here from memory) that there are no nationalisms except Jewish nationalism.? Now that might be an answer, and if you follow the really hard line traditionalist approach the answer would be that there really are no other nationalisms in God’s sight. All other nationalisms are a sham. So, when we’re Jews in Western Europe and America we try to be liberal, pluralist and tolerant in order to protect ourselves, but not because we think societies ought to be that way in order to be healthy societies. We think healthy societies are non‑pluralistic, but when you’re living amongst those ?crazy goyim? who can kill you at every turn you advocate political rights and pluralism.
Jewish Review: Kahane’s view might be that since the gentiles have no legitimate nationalism their society should be democratic and pluralistic?
Rabbi Schiller: That’s probably his position. But I don’t think Kahane thinks about it very much. He’s like everybody else in that he’s not really seriously asking, for example, what a Catholic in Spain should want from his realm.? We don’t spend very much time as Jews thinking what a goy should be doing as a goy.
Jewish Review: Kahane would probably say ?let the goyim worry about it?. He creates his rationale in order to get to a certain endpoint and whatever gets him there is what’s important.
Rabbi Schiller: That’s right. He’s more of a practical political thinker than a philosopher. That’s not a condemnation, just a fact.
Jewish Review: But you hold that even for those who don’t hold his general political position the questions he raises are very important?
Rabbi Schiller: Sure he’s hit us right in the teeth, he really has.
Jewish Review: You’ve said that for the religious right, and I suppose you are also speaking, for example, about the Gush Emunim in Israel, that gentiles are seen as largely a means whereby God punishes, tests or protects the Jews. The gentile’s personal destiny is not only secondary to ours, but in some sense, part of our own destiny. Is this a philosophy that is clearly articulated?