The Sam Francis Synthesis: A Blueprint for Southern Nationalists

For all of Trump’s many faults, he has caused a positive shift in the review of the 1990s. Before Trump, the 1990s, as a cultural entity, was largely viewed by the mainstream as a carefree American Golden Age, an era of big, dumb, and loud summer blockbusters like Independence Day and shallow pop bands like the Backstreet Boys. And while that 1990s certainly existed, the rise of Trump has also forced a second look at the period, one that focuses on the dark side of the era – the rise of globalization and the serious economic damage to the “lower-middle” and “middle-middle” classes, ethnic tensions greatly increased, Whites becoming a minority in their own countries became a normal prediction, and attacks on icons of Western civilization (from Christopher Columbus to Robert E. Lee) became progressively more open. Appropriately, it was also an era of populist politics in the United States, especially during the first part of the time period, and amusingly enough, both the Left, Right, and Center had their own populist figures. The Left had Ralph Nader and Jerry Brown, the Right had Pat Buchanan and David Duke, and the Center had Ross Perot.

One of the greatest minds of the era, Samuel T. Francis, correctly identified that the real populist threat to the Establishment was what he called “Middle America” – i.e., the traditional core of the U.S., Whites who were small business owners and skilled blue-collar workers. For Francis, their problem was two-fold, in so much as they were fighting a two-front war. While the Republicans (the Establishment Right) was a threat for its vigorous promotion of globalization that threatened their economic wellbeing, the Democrats (the Left) constituted another threat, their desire to tear down the cultural achievements of Middle America and replace them with non-Whites. Looking at the major populist figures of the 1990s, Francis found the vast majority of them to be lacking in some significant way, and thus unable to lead Middle America in a revolt against the elites. Nader, and especially Brown, were both too well connected to the cultural Left to lead this charge, while Perot was too unwilling to take on cultural issues. David Duke had marginalized himself due to his past embrace of the trappings of a certain interwar German movement (among other caustic issues).

So, the mantal to lead Middle America fell on the shoulders of Patrick J. Buchanan. Buchanan alone understood that NAFTA and Heather Has Two Mommies were threats that had to be combatted. Buchanan was able to meet both threats (the Republican moneymen and the Democrat college administrator). As such, he was the only man able to unite Middle America in the fight against both enemies. Nader, Brown, and Perot would only focus on the economic issues, while any given televangelist would singularly focus on the cultural concerns. Buchanan would target both.

Ultimately, the Buchanan movement failed, at least in the short term, and as it was led by Pat Buchanan himself. Part of this is due to mistakes Buchanan made – he was never able to break fully from the Republican Party or even conservatism, which Francis thought would be necessary to see his revolution succeed. Although Pat Buchanan was a Southerner and Catholic, and one who grew up in an era when few Southerners or Catholics were Republican, he was never able to fully escape the stranglehold the Republican Party had on him; in fairness, the two-party duopoly would have made it difficult to do so. He was also never able to break free from conservatism, something else Francis believed would be required. As Sam Francis correctly noted, the global Left won a long time ago; therefore, “conservatism” had lost all its meaning. It was time for the Right to go on the offensive, as revolutionaries. Some of the failure of Buchanan’s movement, though, was not really his fault. An ahistorical economic boom in the late 1990s convinced many that the populists’ warnings were overblown, and the good times were here again – a boom that, as it turned out, was just window dressing for serious decline. Despite its initial failure, the model that Francis created has a great deal of value for the future.

It is worth noting that neither Pat Buchanan nor the late Sam Francis identified as Southern Nationalists, although both men were proud Southerners. Pat Buchanan is an American Nationalist, with some White Nationalist undertones; Sam Francis was a White Nationalist with some American Nationalist tinges. Still, Southern Nationalists can learn from Buchanan’s mistakes and use Francis’s basic model to our benefit. First, we must secede, at least mentally, from the Republican Party, something that the vast majority of Southern Nationalists have already done. The name “Republican Party” should conjure up images of our brave soldiers fighting Yankee hordes under their banner. It should bring up memories of the suffering of Dixie’s patriotic dead, of Southern homes being burned, and Southern women being dishonored. The challenge we face is to make this representation universal for all Southerners. We also must separate from the confines of “conservatism” and realize Francis was correct, the global Left won and now we must use the same tactics they used to achieve their victory and go on the offensive as revolutionaries.

Additionally, we also must remember what Buchanan got right – he was absolutely correct in recognizing both the economic and cultural threats the globalists posed. If we only identify one threat, we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. It cannot be a matter of “either/or” but rather “both/and.” So, when the mainstream Right comes along promising to end Drag Queen Story Hour but says nothing about disastrous free trade deals and when the Left is willing to talk about corporate greed but ignores child mutilation via “gender affirming care,” we must do something very different. We must proclaim: (1) we will restrain corporate greed, (2) you will not lose your job to Bangladesh, (3) we will prohibit Drag Queen Story Hour, and (4) we will end the mutilation of children. This will also give us superior messaging on issues where the duopoly is even more explicit. On immigration, our message will be loud and clear – you would not be a minority in your own land just because some leftist hates Southerners or some businessman desires cheap labor.

It is also worth noting that the economic boom that killed the 1990s populist revolt is unlikely to happen again. Far too many people, especially Southerners, have woken up to the new economic reality and realize just how much they are getting shortchanged. We must hit on this point, and hit it hard. We must not care if the National Review thinks we’re really leftists, they called George Wallace a “Country and Western Marxist.” We are fighting for the soul and survival of our people – the Southern people, not the profit margins of Amazon.

Samuel Francis was largely correct, and Buchanan was the best candidate available to lead the movement Francis envisioned. Mistakes were made, but we must learn from them and press on. We are not dead yet, and the dream of a Free Dixie is not over. It only ends when we’re free. The insights of Sam Francis provide us with a path to victory.