EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnMichael WashburnrnART DIREGTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O./. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, ]acob Neusner,rn]ohn Shelton Reed, Momcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIREGTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Mam Street, Rockford, 11. 61103,rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IE 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern New^rnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSanduskv, OH 44870.rnCopviight © 1994 by The Rockford Institute,rnAH rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $28 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIE 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IE and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIE 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarilv reflectrnthe lews of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped enelope.rnChroniclesrnVol. 18, No, 12 December 1994rnPrinted in the United States of Amt-ncarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn SecessionrnIt appears that the reality of the situationrnhas escaped Samuel Francis in his “SecessionistrnFantasies” (Principalities &rnPowers, August 1994), in which he arguesrnthat “secession . . . is for losers.”rnThat, indeed, may be true, but it shouldrnbe pointed out that the secession he wasrntalking about is a withdrawal from a unifiedrnwhole, as in the case of the Southernrnstates withdrawing from the Union,rnwhereas the current term “secession”rn(used for lack of a more convenient one)rnaddresses the dissolution of a melange ofrnincompatible parts, as happened in thernSoviet Union and Yugoslavia.rnThe United States (an ironic name),rnin a process accelerated by the massiverninflux of deliberately unassimilative immigrantsrnin combination with a pervasivernmedia and educational policv of multiculturalism,rnis rapidly approaching therncritical dissociative condition of thernformer Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.rnMaintaining a geopolitical cohesivenessrn(“secession”) in the face of such a disintegratingrnhodgepodge is not an effortrnundertaken nor an accomplishmentrnachieved by losers.rn—Ed RosenblumrnBrooklyn, NYrnDr. Francis Replies:rnWhat Mr. Rosenblum is talking about isrn”separatism,” not secession. If “secession”rnin the strict constitutionalist sensernis meant (and that is precisely the sensernin which most of those people on thernright do mean it), then it is a theory thatrnby its nature applies only to states. If, onrnthe other hand, we are going to talkrnabout “separatism” in the larger sensernof Mr. Rosenblum, then forget the statesrnas well as the Constitution. We are nowrntalking outright revolution, a contingencyrnto which I am not necessarily opposedrnexcept for prudential reasons. We are nornlonger confined to discussion in terms ofrnunits of government recognized by thernConstitution or to obligations and rightsrnauthorized by it. We may now talk aboutrnwhat groups are going to separate, andrnthat discussion may lead us to religious,rnregional, ideological, racial, or economicrn(among other) identifications.rnMr. Rosenblum is certainly right thatrnif unchecked immigration, multiculturalism,rnand what I call “Afro-racism” continuernunabated, then the problem willrnbe how to maintain “geopolitical cohesiveness”rnfor those who do not fancyrnthese developments. However, I am notrnyet willing to say that problem is nowrnupon us. I retain the quaint belief thatrnthrough effectively organized politicalrnand cultural activism on a national scale,rnit remains possible to reclaim the nationrnand its civilization. I think this is whatrnmost Americans who share our views ofrnthe national situation also want, and Irncannot think that very many at the presentrntime would be supportive of a seriousrnsecessionist or separatist movement.rnIn any case, we have not yet seenrnactivism of the kind I believe could berneffective, and until we do see it and givernit a fair try, we should not be willing tornleap to what are at present merely fantasiesrnand forms of right-wing infantilismrnlike secessionism and separatism.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnA s AN ORTHODOX BIBLEbelievingrnChristian, I find that much ofrnwhat is said by the so-called “religiousrnright” and “religious left”—to put itrncharitably—^leaves a lot to be desired andrnis, ironically, un-Christian. This summer,rnon NBC’s Today program, the headrnof the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed,rnsaid: “What we’re trying to do is notrnlegislate our religious beliefs—which arernpersonal and private. We’re trying tornlegislate our public policy views: tougherrnlaws against crime and drugs, schoolrnchoice, a balanced budget amendment,rnthe right of kids to pray, protection ofrnunborn life. These are public policyrnviews.”rnThis is not true. Christians ought torndenounce this glib private/public dichotomy.rnEvery “public policy view” ofrna Christian ought to be based on his orrnher religion, and Christians must hon-rn4/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn