Samuel Todd Francis | |
|---|---|
 Samuel Todd Francis | |
| Born | 4/29/47 |
| Died | 2/15/05 |
| Education | Bachelor of Arts |
| Alma mater | Louisiana State University |
| Political party | Republican |
| Home Base | Washington, DC |
| Groupaffiliations | European-American Rights Organization (EURO) |
| Formergroupaffiliations | Knights of the Ku Klux Klan - National Director. National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) |
| Published By | OPP HQ |
| Published On | 13 March 2004 |
Pat Buchanan called this guy the "Clausewitz of the Right". We tend to disagree. Carl von Clausewitz based his strategic theory on reality. Francis based his on whatever the hell he wants reality to be.
Francis was an author, published a newsletter, and was once a staff columnist and staff writer for the Washington Times. According to another racist author named Samuel Dickson, Francis was fired from this position "because of his espousal of his views in connection with the survival of our people in this country." It has been noted among us here at One People's Project that not much is spoken of the exact reasons of Francis firing. We decided to do a little research and ask a few questions.
Memo to Sam Dickson: if the survival of your people means having to make excuses for slavery and the role Europeans had in it, you are already dead.
In 1995, Francis wrote a column (which was published in the racist Southern Partisan magazine) attacking the Southern Baptist Convention for adopting a resolution which stated that they "lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest."
Like many of today's slavery apologists, Francis spun it to suggest that individuals, not the organization, were making the apology, and since they never owned slaves did not have anything to apologize for. He then took it one step further to suggest that the Southern Baptists, who he wrote were founded in a "schism with their northern brethren over slavery," were "repenting" for a sin where no sin was committed. As far as he was concerned, slavery was not contrary to Christian ethics, and it was only after "the permeation of the psuedo-Christian poison of equality into the tissues of the West" did that change.
"Not until the Enlightenment of the 18th century did a bastardized version of Christian ethics condemn slavery," he wrote. "Today we know that version under the label of 'liberalism,' or its more extreme cousin communism."
Now let us look at what Francis just said there: Liberals and Communists condemn slavery, while Christians support it. No way in HELL were any right-wing conservatives going to let that idea go without a response! This column raised such a furor, former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp denounced it at a reception the evening after it was published. This event resulted in Francis' salary at the Times cut in half, but when a speech he gave at an American Renaissance conference in May 1994 came to light his fate was sealed at the paper.
American Enterprise Institute's Dinesh D'Souza, who attended that conference, noted the conference in his book The End of Racism, itself a controversial book even among conservatives for its rationalizing of racism, D'Souza referred to Francis' remarks in particular, among them his characterizing singer Garth Brooks as "repulsive" because "he has that stupid universalist song, in which we will all intermarry (that might have been the song "We Shall Be Free" which sparked a lot of controversy among the conservative and racist fan base of country music at the time for its call for unity)." D'Souza also quoted Francis as calling for a revival of the conquistador spirit among whites, saying that they should reclaim the civilization that he believed only they created and that it "could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people."
A year later, while Francis was still embroiled in his column controversy, the Washington Post published an excerpt of that chapter where D'Souza wrote of the conference and included the quotes by Francis. For all its conservatism, not to mention its support of many questionable people and causes on the right, the Washington Times could not stand behind Francis and his views and after being there for nine years he was shown the door.
Prior to this, Samuel Francis had been around for some time. Long before his stint with the Times, his pieces were appearing in the Southern Partisan, and he was also on the research staff of Paul Weyrich's Heritage Foundation. Francis is known for some of the most vile attacks and propaganda against blacks and Hispanics. He believes that multiculturalism is a tool to destroy the white race. To him it is "very much a conflict...over the question of which race which culture is going to be dominant."
He has called for the deportation of Hispanic immigrants, legal or otherwise, and after September 11 he was among the xenophobes in the country using the tragedy to further their anti-immigration agenda, saying that the tragedy proved that they have been right all along about immigration. Speaking at the Council of Conservative Conference in 1999, he warned against the "Africanization of American youth" and used the example of Colonial Williamsburg's portrayal of slaves as victims, and how it had affected the white visitors to the park. He notes a white child saying that he wanted to go back and help the slaves escape to fight on the British side.
"Here's this nine year-old white child who has been taught to deny his own, not only race and culture, but also his own nation," he says.
Like his friend Jared Taylor, he has promoted racial separatism, saying that African-Americans should not be allowed to have decision making rights in this country (He will only support laws to protect African-Americans from physical harm). In American Renaissance, he wrote an article entitled "The King Holiday and Its Meaning", He attacked the holiday and King, smearing him with charges of being a communist, and of low intelligence and morals. In the article Francis writes:
"By placing King --- and therefore his own radical ideology of social transformation and reconstruction --- into the central pantheon of American history, the King holiday provides a green light by which the revolutionary process of transformation and reconstruction can charge full speed ahead. Moreover, by placing King at the center of the American national pantheon, the holiday also serves to undermine any argument against the revolutionary political agenda that it has come to symbolize. Having promoted or accepted the symbol of the new dogma as a defining --- perhaps the defining --- icon of the American political order, those who oppose the revolutionary agenda the symbol represents have little ground to resist that agenda."
Evidently, Francis was more concerned that his old brand of divisive politics are dying out than he is about King being honored. Which is why he supported Pat Buchanan for president.
"On the distinctive issues of trade, immigration and foreign policy...," Francis writes, "he offers real and serious alternatives that the other parties, their leaders and their pet apologists in the media are determined to ignore."
Well, we know what Francis meant by that, and we were ready to deal with this joker if he was supposed to be the Clausewitz of the Right. After all, it was Clausewitz that said
"War is merely a continuation of politics"-- or "of policy"--"by other means."
Since what Francis called "alternatives" do more for him than the rest of us, we figured he can go down along with his hero Pat. Sam Francis eventualy did however. He died on Feb. 15, 2005 from complications following heart surgery. It might have had something to do with the fact that he didn't have a heart to begin with.