EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, Jr.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnMichael WashburnrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O./. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnChristine Haynes, E. Christian Kopff,rnj.O. Tate, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, William Mills,rn]acob Neusner, John Shelton Reed,rnMomcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopyright © 1996 by The Rockford Institute.rnAH rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for S39.00 per year by The RockfordrnInstihite, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol, 20, No. 7 July 1996rnPnnted in the United States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Politics and RacernNow that Samuel Francis’s two-part installmentrnon his “Rise and Fall” appearsrncomplete (April and May 1996), it’s timernfor the readers of Chronicles to hear thernrest of the story. What he did not disclosernwas the nature of his blatantlyrnwhite supremacist writings that appearedrnin a newsletter called AmericanrnRenaissance.rnIn the March 1995 issue, Mr. Francisrnwrote that whites should begin a “reconquestrnof the United States,” whichrn”would mean the supremacy of whites inrna cultural sense.” Whites could solve thern”racial problem” by, among other things,rn”imposing adequate fertility controls onrnnonwhites.” Mr. Francis also says thatrn”whites must correct their political andrnlegal order to end the political power ofrnnonwhite minorities and their whiternanti-white allies.” He says he supportsrn”equality of legal rights,” meaning thernrights of “personal security, personal liberty,rnand property,” but that this “doesrnnot mean political equality, the right tornvote, or the right to hold political office,rnlet alone . . . the ‘right’ to attend thernsame schools, to serve on juries, to marryrnacross racial lines,” etc. Mr. Francis furtherrnnotes that “the history of the whiternrace is one of the conquest and dominationrnof nonwhites…. The tragedy of thisrnhistory of conquest is that there have almostrnnever been enough whites to avoidrnbeing absorbed by the conquered peoples,rneither racially or culturally.”rnIn the past, Mr. Francis has defendedrnhimself against criticism of these quotationsrnby saying that they are taken outrnof context. But the entire article fromrnwhich they are taken is just more of thernsame. I wonder what possible contextrncould reveal the enlightened nature of arncall for “adequate fertility controls onrnnonwhites” and an end to “the politicalrnpower of nonwhite minorities and theirrnwhite anti-white allies.”rnMr. Francis is entitled to his opinions.rnBut a major newspaper is entitled tornmaintain itself as a public forum andrnto keep its opinion page free of bigotry. Irnwould hardly expect the WashingtonrnTimes to run a syndicated column writtenrnby Louis Farrakhan, even if it did notrnconvey the racist and anti-Semitic viewsrnof its author.rnMr. Francis complains about me andrnmy “wrecking crew” at the Center forrnEqual Opportunity. But his is entirely arncase of self-destruction. The filth hernwrote in American Renaissance does notrnrepresent any respectable strain of conservatism,rnincluding paleoconservatism.rnHe has, indeed, “gone too far.”rnBy the way, Mr. Francis is tellingrn”untruths” of his own when he says thatrn”not once did a single one of [my critics]rncontact me or offer any public criticismrnof anything I had written.” Greg Forster,rna policy analyst at CEO, telephoned Mr.rnFrancis not long after he was fired fromrnthe Times. Mr. Francis could be forgivenrnfor having forgotten about the call,rnbecause it was very brief—Mr. Francisrnwould not answer any questions. Butrnwhat excuse does he have for forgettingrnabout the public criticism of his writingsrncontained in Mr. Forster’s letter to thernWall Street Journal, which was publishedrnon December 1,1995?rn—Linda Chavez, PresidentrnCenter for Equal OpportunityrnWashington, D.C.rnDr. Francis Replies:rnActually, I expect that most of the readersrnof Chronicles are way ahead of MissrnChavez in knowing the “rest of the story.”rnThey have been reading my views—rnon race and many other subjects—inrnthese pages for years, and at least a few ofrnthem have also read American Renaissance,rna newsletter that so far from publishingrn”filth” has in fact published writingsrnby and interviews with some veryrnprominent scientists and academics andrnis always a reliable and sane account ofrnracial realities and relations.rnIt is difficult to restore passages torntheir context after careless or dishonestrnminds have distorted them. Nevertheless,rnI have already tried to repairrnthe damage in my response to GregoryrnForster’s December I, 1995, letter to therneditor in the Wall Street Journal in a letterrnof my own (December 20, 1995) andrnin a subsequent letter (March 21, 1996)rnresponding to inaccuracies in a Journalrnnews story. Of course, in her zeal to impartrnto the readers “the rest of the story,”rnChavez makes no reference to either ofrnthese, though she faults me for not discussingrnForster’s letter.rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn