Brown decision today is not that it replacedrnforce with freedom but that it replacedrnone kind of free but morally inferiorrnconduct (segregation) with unfreernbut morally superior conduct (integration).rnThat defense is also preposterousrnon its face, if only because conduct thatrnis unfree and forced cannot be morallyrnbetter than conduct that is freely chosenrnand unforced, but its preposterousnessrndoes not mean that it is not seriouslyrnbelieved. Indeed, in one form or another,rnit seems to be the standard defense ofrnthe Brown decision (and in a larger sensernof all subsequent “civil rights” laws andrnpolicies) through the unexamined (orrnperhaps all too well examined) premisernthat racial integration, no matter why orrnhow it is achieved, is preferable to racialrnsegregation, even if the racial segregationrnis voluntary on the part of bothrnraces. But of course this premise needsrnsome qualification; it is not to be takenrnto mean that nonwhites must integraternwhen they don’t want to. As Jared Taylorrnhas also pointed out, it is entirely permissiblernfor nonwhites to retain raciallyrnreserved jobs and positions, racially exclusivernschools, clubs, and universities,rnand racially discriminatory language andrnconduct; only nonwhites are permittedrnto question the desirability of racial integrationrnat all. Sometimes this sort ofrnthing—”double standards,” “reverserndiscrimination,” or “Afro-racism”—isrndeplored by those racial liberals who, likernearlier liberals, actually thought yourncould make their toy train of egalitarianismrnstop at whatever stations you wanted,rnbut more often even the whining ofrndispirited and disenchanted liberals isrndrowned out by those who now disclosernthe real meaning of Brown and the revolutionrnit ignited.rnThe meaning of the revolution hasrnlong been perfectly clear. The revolutionrnconsists of what Lothrop Stoddard, thernAmerican racist writer of the 1920’s,rncalled in the franker language of that erarn”The Rising Tide of Color against WhiternWorld Supremacy.” Regardless of thernalarmist connotations of Stoddard’srnphrase, it ought to be fairiy obvious todayrnthat the cognitive content of the expressionrnis unexceptionable. You may be forrnor against “white supremacy” or a “risingrntide of color” and you may think eitherrnor both of them good, bad, or as morallyrnmeaningless as the death of grasshoppersrnat the end of the summer, but therernis not much doubt, not only in the UnitedrnStates in the 70 years or so since Stoddardrnwrote but also throughout thernworld, that “white supremacy” has beenrndisplaced and that the beneficiaries ofrnthat racial displacement have beenrnlargely nonwhites or “people of color,”rnThis development should not be surprisingrnto anyone who is aware of globalrndemographic trends, let alone to anyonernwho has paid attention to the fate of thernEuropean colonies from the British withdrawalrnfrom India to the recent electionrnin South Africa.rnOf course, it is surprising to many andrnremains shocking to talk about openly,rnbecause the superstitions of liberalismrnand egalitarianism lead those who believernin them to expect the sequel ofrnwhite supremacy to be racial equalityrnand not just domination by a differentrnrace. Yet historian William H. McNeillrnargues in a set of lectures delivered inrn1985 that what he calls “ethnic hierarchy”rnis “on the rise, everywhere,” andrnthat it is indeed the normal condition ofrnhuman civilizations. “Other civilized societiesrnhave almost always accepted andrnenforced inequality among the diversernethnic groups of which they were composed,”rnhe writes. McNeill’s term “ethnicrnhierarchy,” of course, consists ofrnwords derived from Greek; if those wordsrnare loosely (but not too loosely) translatedrninto their Latin equivalents, it isrnfairly clear that McNeill is saying thatrnracial domination, in one form or another,rnis the norm of human civilizations,rnthat ethnic and racial equality hasrnlittle historical foundation, and that thernillusion of such equality is about to bernrudely dispelled.rnIt is already being dispelled, at least forrnsome white Americans. Last summer,rnthe Newhouse News Service publishedrnthe results of a multistate survey conductedrnfor it by the Population StudiesrnCenter at the University of Michigan onrnthe effects of immigration into thernUnited States on “white flight” from regionsrnwithin it. The survey found thatrnwhile “two-thirds of all new immigrantsrnpoured into just seven states,” the “non-rnHispanic whites in those states are fleeingrnto places largely untouched by immigration,”rnBetween 1985 and 1990, “NewrnYork lost more than a half-million whitesrnin its exchanges with other states; Texasrnand Illinois more than a quarter-million;rnNew Jersey nearly 200,000, and Massachusettsrn114,000.” California “experiencedrnan exodus of struggling middleandrnworking-class whites, nearly 100,000rnhouseholds,” What used to occur at thernlocal level of city and suburb, because ofrnthe impact of the Brown decision onrnschool districts, is now beginning to happenrnat the state level because of the combinedrnimpact of nonwhite immigrationrninto the United States and the legal, political,rnand cultural legacy of Brown.rnWhat is happening, in short, is “whiternflight” from entire states as their whiternpopulations are displaced by nonwhitesrnpushing into their territories. When thern”white flight” from European coloniesrntook place in earlier decades, the whitesrnflew to Europe and the United States,rnSince Americans at least are already flyingrnto the interior of their own country,rnit’s not clear to what other nations futurernwaves of white flighters will fly, any morernthan it is clear where the South Africanrnwhites who have now (with U,S. help)rnlost their country will go.rnThe real meaning of the Brown decision,rnand of the subsequent history ofrnthe “civil rights movement,” is not that itrncaused or initiated Stoddard’s “RisingrnTide of Color.” In Stoddard’s view, thern”revolution” had begun some decadesrnearlier. What events like Brown accomplishedrnwas to confirm that certain whiternelites were on the side of the revolution,rnthat the Warren Court, the Eisenhowerrn(as well as the later Kennedy and Johnson)rnadministration, and eventually thernwhole established political, economic,rnand cultural leadership of the nationrnwere supportive of the dethronement ofrnwhites as the dominant group in thernUnited States. No doubt many in thesernelites actually believed their own egalitarianrnclaims, though almost none ofrnthem believed in them so strongly thatrnthey practiced racial integration in thernchoice of their own places of residence orrnin the education of their own children.rnBut whatever their motives, the result ofrntheir official endorsement in the Brownrndecision of a revolution against their ownrnpeople and civilization has been andrnpromises to be the displacement of thatrnpeople as the dominant political and culturalrncore of the nation and the enthronementrnof other and increasinglyrnhostile racial and ethnic strains in theirrnplace. Whether this is an anniversary ofrnsomething you want to celebrate is anotherrnmatter, but at least you should understandrnexactly what it is you are observingrnand being made to observe byrnthe new rulers of what used to be yourrnnation.rnMAY 1994/11rnrnrn