|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 10, No. 12||December 1999|
Republican or Third Party
What are the prospects for our people?
Carl von Clausewitz, the great German military strategist, once wrote that “war is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.” Perhaps the reverse statement is also true. Politics is war by other means — especially in today’s multicultural America. Americans of European descent — whether they wish to fight or even realize war has been declared — are the enemy in a low-intensity conflict that many have called the Culture War. It is a multi-front war waged through politics, economics, culture, demographics, and even religion. Each aspect of the war is important, but of these the real killing weapon is politics.
Stripped of noble sentiment, politics is about getting and exercising power. In past ages, predators, disease, famine, natural disasters and armed conflict governed the evolution of human societies. In the modern era, these factors are under control as never before. Today it is power, exercised through politics, that dictates the fates of peoples and of nations. Thanks to the wisdom of our ancestors, we determine who holds power through elections. But when, as is increasingly the case today, political parties do not represent our interests, it is time to make sure they do — or to establish new parties that will.
Our failure to treat politics as serious business has made us the losers in the Culture War. Laws passed by democratically elected politicians have created an immigration policy promising to make white Americans a minority in the country their ancestors created. It is fear of the liberal media and political reprisals by bloc-voting minorities that leads Congress and state legislatures — all overwhelmingly white — to pass affirmative action laws, and also leads overwhelmingly white judicial bodies to declare these laws constitutional.
It is politics that produces “hate crime” laws that criminalize thought and are enforced mainly against whites.
However, there may be reason for hope. In retrospect, the fragmented and inconclusive 1998 election may have provided the first, faint sign that white Americans are waking up.
The election did continue the trend of white politicians dodging the real issues and non-whites voting as blocs for their own interests. But this time, many whites simply sat out the election, and the party out of the White House at mid-term lost seats in Congress for the first time since the 1930s.
Democrats often won in the South with 90 percent or more of the black vote, and Mexicans helped them oust a Republican from the California governor’s mansion. That much is consistent with past trends. But whites, who do not vote as a bloc and are often taken for granted by both parties, were less willing to settle for the lesser of two evils. This message has become the dominant theme of the 1999 political season, from New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith’s defection from the GOP to Pat Buchanan’s switch to the Reform Party. It is no accident that it is whites — and almost no non-whites — who are going over to third parties. Perhaps the most intriguing implication of the 1998 election as well as Mr. Buchanan’s presidential campaign is that they may be warning signs that a Republican Party that ignores the race issue cannot survive in the 21st century.
Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubinstein made this prediction in National Review a few years ago, in an article analyzing the political impact of the immigration-fed demographic revolution that could reduce whites to a minority by the middle of the next century. The authors correctly pointed out that Republican electoral strength is largely based on the loyalty of middle-class whites. Noting that almost all non-white ethnic groups vote Democrat — sometimes overwhelmingly — they projected that by 2008 a Republican Party consisting primarily of middle class whites would no longer have the numbers to win a presidential election.
Dictating the Destiny
If this happens, it will be one of the most profound changes in American political history. It raises the prospect of Third World ethnic groups dictating the destiny of the nation. Already, because whites do not vote their own interests, Third World groups use moral intimidation and the implied threat of riots to make white politicians meet their demands. But once these groups are a majority they can simply vote to take whatever they want — legally.
In this context it is worth pointing out that not only are there racial differences in intellectual potential, but there are differences in temperament as well. It was our ancestors who created democracy and representative government. We find evidence of this among Europeans in Roman times and even before. But while self-government has worked well for European peoples, there is little reason to believe it can be extended to multiethnic societies, where the temptation to exploit other groups is always strong.
The Republican Party is in a vice. The demographic balance on which it depends is transient. Unless immigration is halted the GOP’s days are numbered — at least as a party that pushes its traditional platform. The GOP therefore has two ways to respond. One is to compete with Democrats for non-white votes and the other is to rally white, middle-class support — something Ronald Reagan managed to do. To follow the latter path, Republicans must build a broader coalition by appealing to the widest possible range of white voters.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are dominated by economic and business interests. In catering to these interests, they have ceded many low-wage whites to the Democrats. Republicans support free trade, open borders and other economic nostrums out of commitment to principle rather than out of loyalty to the people to whom they owe their tenuous congressional majority. But even worse for the Republicans, the internationalist elites in media and entertainment, who have close ties to business, are often as likely to support the Democratic Party as the GOP. Any benefits Republicans may anticipate from big business will disappear as immigration works its changes on demographics and voting patterns.
In order to build a broader consensus, Republicans must appeal to the blue collar workers hit hardest by immigration and cheap imports. Using that base, they should then move to halt and even reverse immigration. Republicans would then guarantee themselves — and us — a stable, long-term future.
Even aside from immigration, the GOP would have broad support if it had the courage to attack racial preferences, multiculturalism, women in the military, homosexual “rights,” socialist education policies, teachers’ unions, and any number of inviting leftist targets. Unfortunately, the Republicans have chosen to become more like Democrats. Much of the feel-good rhetoric of George W. Bush, Christine Todd Whitman, John Warner and the Republican Leadership Council is pitched to the Democrats’ proletariat of non-whites, feminists, homosexuals and other disaffected groups.
Ethnic identity has long played an important role in voting patterns — except for whites. Results vary, but in recent decades roughly 90 percent of blacks and 85 percent of Hispanics have voted for Democrats. If Republicans are to lure these voters, they must adopt Democratic policies, which will alienate whites and will not work anyway.
The 1998 election showed the futility of GOP attempts to sound like Democrats. Despite the efforts of “kinder, gentler” Republicans, blacks voted in overwhelming numbers for the party of domestic socialism. Even more or less solid Republicans lost when they failed to broaden their appeal to more whites. In Alabama, for example, black Democrats lured the “boyz in the “hood” to the polls with free raffle tickets for a car. Whites failed to vote as a bloc and as a result, Fob James, a Christian governor who restored the Confederate Flag and vowed to defend the Ten Commandments with the National Guard, was replaced by a man who owes his election — and therefore his loyalty — to blacks.
One of the biggest Republican insanities was supporting Puerto Rican statehood. Puerto Rico is pure trouble for the GOP — it is both black and Hispanic. Its four million Spanish-speaking non-white inhabitants have no loyalty to America as a traditional European nation. It has twice the U.S. drug addiction rate, over twice the murder rate, and four times the U.S. unemployment rate. It’s average household income is only half that of Mississippi, our poorest state. The chances of any of its two senators and half-dozen congressmen being Republicans are essentially zero.
With all the Republican posturing on behalf of their Caribbean co-linguists, did California’s Mexicans rush to the polls in support of Newt Gingrich’s
“Hispanic-friendly” GOP? Hardly. Unlike us, Mexicans understand who they are and what political solidarity means. One of their organizations is called La Raza, which means, simply, “the race.” Pete Wilson may well be California’s last-ever Republican governor and unless immigration is stopped, Gray Davis may be the last-ever white governor.
The Republican strategy of stealing votes from the Democrats will never work. Republicans will never out-promise the Democrats without simply becoming Democrats themselves. The 1998 election showed how far we have come toward the day when non-white bloc-voting will dictate the future of America. Even with whites at 70 percent of the population, political correctness, affirmative action, hate crime laws, cultural dispossession, and anti-white violence go largely unopposed.
The only possibility for the survival of the Republican Party is to reassemble the coalition of middle-class and blue-collar Americans Ronald Reagan energized and for whom Pat Buchanan speaks today. Whether implicitly or explicitly, Republicans must recognize the legitimacy of race in determining political loyalty. To date, Republicans are reluctant to follow this strategy for fear of media smears, but no movement can succeed if its supporters are afraid of being called names.
There was another little-noticed but important point about Election 1998 that points towards a different political future. GOP losers were often moderates rather than conservatives. These included New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato, who was replaced by gun-grabbing ultra-liberal Charles Schumer; GOP gubernatorial candidate Daniel Lungren, whose pro-immigration stance cost the GOP the California governorship for the first time in sixteen years; South Carolina Governor David Beasley, who issued an executive order instituting the Brady Act and who broke his promise to keep the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina capitol building; and almost every Republican in a tight race who was endorsed by Christine Todd Whitman.
According to Arkansas activist Rod Martin, a likely GOP House candidate in 2000, “the 1998 numbers are especially instructive when examined in this light. Conservatives actually gained more seats than either the Republicans or Democrats, with fifteen pick-ups in the House (twelve Republican and three Democrat) plus Peter Fitzgerald in the Senate . . . Supposedly-moderate Republican Governors who won big actually had impressive records of state-level conservatism in every case, from Tommy Thompson’s school vouchers to . . . Mike Huckabee’s welfare reform successes and background as president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.”
Meanwhile, Democrats continued their assault on the Founders’ Constitution through issues like the Second Amendment. Of the 39 new House members, half are anti-gun Democrats as defined by Gun Owners of America. Interestingly, the three new members whom it found to be solidly pro-gun — two Democrats and one Republican — are all from the South. One new House Democrat from Texas did turn out to be anti-gun. His name is Gonzales, and his voting record tells us the effect we can expect on traditional rights from high levels of immigration.
But what does it mean when moderates lose while conservatives and liberals win? It may indicate that American politics are leaving the realm where compromise is possible.
The middle ground is eroding. People are beginning to realize that unless they get off the fence and defend their families, their heritage, their religion, and their nation, they are going to be overrun by Third World immigrants and crushed by repressive government. What is happening is polarization, a necessary polarization that shocks people out of their apathy. Polarization means choices become genuinely meaningful.
Where is all this leading? History provides a bleak precedent. In 1858, as America slid inexorably toward war, New York senator William Seward spoke of an “irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces.” We live in similarly turbulent and divided times, and many believe that irreconcilable differences are once again demanding resolution. One can find similar words of warning from across the political spectrum, from Pat Buchanan on the right; to establishment figures such as Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, Council on Foreign Relations fellow Michael Clough, and Atlantic author Robert Kaplan, to black columnist Carl Rowan on the left.
Mr. Buchanan has often cited the example of the ethnic strife in the Balkans as a warning against continued immigration. Mr. Kaplan has repeatedly painted a grim picture of the twenty-first century: world-wide mass migrations, starvation, anarchy and constant civil war.
Closer to home, Michael Clough, a senior fellow at the CFR, predicts the breakup of America along ethnic lines. Without giving a timetable, he says the dissolution of the United States is already underway and believes it is irreversible. He writes, “America is destined to become a country of distinct, relatively independent regions, each with its own politico-cultural economies, metropolitan centers, governing elites, and global interests.” He points out that in the face of ethnic fragmentation, “it is less and less possible for nationally-minded elites sitting in Washington and New York to construct policies” that can keep America’s increasingly Balkanized population quiet. Mr. Clough warns that unless there are autonomous regions governing themselves, “the stage could be set for a series of economic and cultural civil wars pitting regions of the country against each other.” He suggests it is “naive and dangerous” for elites “to cling to the idea of one nation, one culture.”
Perhaps the most thoughtful analysis is Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations.” First published as an article in the CFR’s flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, and later expanded to book length, it charts the re-emergence of cultural, religious and ethnic affinities in world affairs after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Prof. Huntington offers strong evidence that major ethnic and religious groupings of the world’s peoples, which he terms civilizations, constitute the new battle ground in the struggle for human survival and predominance in the post-Cold War world.
Prof. Huntington asserts that religion is the most powerful unifying force in human affairs, followed closely by ethnic identity. Ideological fads, be they Marxism or democracy, count for nothing for most of the world’s peoples. And, says Prof. Huntington, the West’s quaint notion that it can “export” democracy, human rights, and other Western values is a conceit we can ill afford in a world where the West’s power is diminishing rapidly. Prof. Huntington even cites as a warning Jean Raspail’s haunting novel, The Camp of the Saints, which describes the destruction of the West by Third World immigration.
I sometimes play a little game in my mind. The game is to guess which of the ante-bellum years we live in. I would guess it is about 1840, give or take a few years. Then, as now, there were those who foresaw the potential for conflict inherent in the political climate of the times. Predictions of conflict do not make conflict inevitable, but they do suggest America is not necessarily stable.
Given the presence in the West of tens of millions of non-European peoples, a figure that could grow to hundreds of millions in the coming decades, it is doubtful all differences can be resolved. Despite the sincere wishes of many men and women — including those whose views must be counted as conservative and patriotic — these Third World aliens are simply not assimilable. The implications are inescapable. The West must act if it is to survive. Given sufficient political will, redress by peaceful means is still possible. But if history is any guide, rational means may not be used — just as they were not used in the 1840s and 1850s.
How can we move toward resolution? The answer is to widen the growing fissures of polarization beginning to appear. This can be brought about only by political activism, which is at present the onlyalternative with any chance of success. In today’s context, the most effective strategy is probably populism — which Pat Buchanan calls economic nationalism. This is probably the only strategy with an appeal broad enough to attract a winning combination of supporters.
If the GOP doesn’t have the stomach for this, if George Wallace was right when he said “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” between Democrats and Republicans, European-descended Americans must build a nationalist movement through a third party. Admittedly, this will be difficult. Most third parties are little better than spoilers, like Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party in 1912, which allowed Woodrow Wilson, our first New World Order president, to win the election — or as Ross Perot may have been in 1992 and 1996, possibly drawing off enough votes to elect William Clinton.
However, in extraordinary times, third parties can gain power. In 1860, Republicans combined Whig protectionism with Unitarian abolitionism to put Lincoln in the White House. We may yet see the GOP fade into oblivion on its own, like the Whigs of yesteryear, but it would be foolish to wait. Time is short and demographics are changing rapidly. We must give Humpty Dumpty a push by supporting third parties.
Unfortunately, none of the parties with any significant following — Libertarian, Reform or Constitution (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers’ Party) — is ideal. While their stand against government is admirable, the Libertarian commitment to personal freedom no matter the consequences leads to support for pornography, legalized drugs, free trade, open borders, and unlimited immigration. The Reform Party may be closest to Pat Buchanan’s message of economic nationalism. Indeed, some analysts believe that in 1992 and 1996 it attracted as many Reagan Democrats as it did disgusted conservatives.
But many Reform Party leaders have little sympathy for the issues that concern Christians and other social conservatives — moral values, abortion, prayer in school, pornography, etc. Its great advantage is that it qualifies for $12 million in federal matching campaign funds. On paper, the newly-renamed Constitution Party represents social conservatives. It is for sound, conservative fiscal policy and for traditional morality. However, it has not attracted large numbers, particularly from the Christian Right. Also, while generally opposed to immigration, it avoids the explicit appeal to ethnic identity that will be required to build a real nationalist movement.
Many threads must be woven together to create such a movement. These include the middle class, blue collar and ethnic whites, Southerners, Christian conservatives, constitutionalists, patriots, and even some disaffected Libertarians. The key is to bring together as many of our European-descended cousins as possible, for only in numbers can there be success. A merger of the Reform Party with the Constitution Party would be worth working for, particularly if Pat Buchanan wins the Reform Party presidential nomination. The result would be a strong base for expansion.
We also need grass roots political activism, with leaders who are willing to confront the race question directly. If the real issues can never be talked about there is no possibility they will enter the political process. Perhaps the most promising organization in this regard is the Council of Conservative Citizens. During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, the media tried its usual hatchet job on the C of CC, but to the left’s surprise and dismay, the C of CC held its ground, and has grown by leaps and bounds ever since.
One thing is certain: the Culture War will not go away. We have no choice but to fight those whose actions — whether their motives are malevolent or merely misguided — would destroy Western Civilization and push aside its founding peoples. We still have the numbers to win — and to win legitimately within the framework of the Constitution. But we do not have much time. We must force people away from the middle. We must polarize them. Most important, we must never let the question of our right to exist as a distinct people be declared off-limits. We must make it the central political question of our time.
Michael W. Masters is chairman of the Virginia chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens.
The Buchanan Reformation
On October 25, Patrick Buchanan officially left the Republican Party and announced he would seek the Reform Party’s nomination for President. Some 100 reporters and three or four hundred supporters packed a hotel ballroom in northern Virginia, where Pat Choate, Reform vice presidential candidate in 1996, introduced Mr. Buchanan as “the newest member of the Reform party and the next President of the United States.”
To much whooping, applause and chants of “Go, Pat, Go,” Mr. Buchanan let fly at his usual targets: the New World Order, “cancerous trade deficits,” “the money boys,” “beltway elites,” “the tyranny of judges,” “that abomination they call Roe v. Wade,” and William Clinton, whom he called an Elmer Gantry “unfit to be Commander in Chief.” He proposed a return to local control, a cut in taxes “to their lowest level in modern history,” retaliatory tariffs, and he even hinted at withdrawal from the United Nations.
Mr. Buchanan was in an unflappably good mood: “They call me an isolationist,” he said, adding, “that’s the nicest thing they call me.” When his microphone stopped working he joked that the thunderous applause he was getting had knocked it out.
Race relations and immigration he relegated to a single passage:
But of all the needs of this nation, none is greater for our peace and happiness than racial reconciliation. The backsliding toward hyphenated-Americanism must end. Let us abolish quotas and set-asides, these un-American devices that reward individuals based on what color they are, or what continent their kinfolk came from. Let us abandon a sterile and futile politics of victims-and-villains, and rediscover what brings us all together as one nation and one people. All of us must learn the English language. All of us must come to know our common history, heritage, and American heroes, so we can get our great Melting Pot working its magic again. Any man or woman from any continent or any country can be a good American. We know that. But it takes time to assimilate the thirty million who have come in the last thirty years. And we need time. Indeed, we need a time-out on legal immigration, to ease the downward pressure on workers’ wages and to defeat the forces of separatism that threaten us and nations all over the world.
This is not exactly a ringing statement, but Mr. Buchanan is the only national contender who wants to stop immigration, and for that reason alone he would deserve our support.
Despite Pat Choate’s support, Mr. Buchanan is not a shoo-in for the Reform Party nomination. New York property developer Donald Trump may seek the nomination, and could spend plenty of money trying to get it. The Reform Party itself is a strange assortment, one of the strangest of which is Lenora Fulani, the black, fringe lefty who ran for president in 1988 and 1992 as candidate of the New Alliance Party. She has amassed a following within the party, and her support would be helpful in winning the nomination. Miss Fulani was in the audience for Mr. Buchanan’s announcement and was happy to talk. No, she said, she did not think Mr. Buchanan is a racist or an anti-Semite. “I know something about demonization,” she said, “and we have to move past that.” As a good Reformer, she seems to be concentrating, as she put it, on “changing how America does politics” rather than on the content of those politics. Her interest is in political reform rather than policies, and she favors term limits, campaign finance reform, and election-day voter registration. She sees the purpose of the party not as pushing a platform but as “creating an environment in which debate is possible,” adding that immigration is a subject about which “we need dialogue.”
Although she has not yet made an endorsement, she spoke favorably of Mr. Buchanan and dismissively of Donald Trump. “He’s a billionaire,” she said. “Why does he have to join our party? He could start his own party.”
The audience for Mr. Buchanan’s announcement was screened to keep out trouble-makers but five or six collected on the sidewalk. They looked like skid row bums, and they waved signs reading “Beware Buchanan, Fourth Reich,” “No More Nazism,” and a valentine that read “To Adolph with Love, Pat.” The leader appeared to be a man named Bob Kunst from Shalom International, which “fights Nazism all over the world.” He warned that Mr. Buchanan would “mobilize the hater mentality” and is “so dangerous it’s mind-boggling.”
It is shaping up to be a strange political season. Black lefty Lenora Fulani, together with many AR readers, is likely to support a candidate who is “so dangerous it’s mind-boggling.”
Jörg Haider’s Steady Climb
Austrian nationalists move close to power.
The Austrian election results of October 3rd were the best ever for Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party, putting it second after the leading Social Democrats (socialists) and just ahead of the People’s Party (conservatives). The Freedom Party has been rising slowly but relentlessly since 1986, when Mr. Haider, then an ambitious and unknown politician, took it over at the age of 36. If the Freedom Party were a corporation and its votes were stock, Business Week would be lauding Mr. Haider as a model CEO, whose radical measures, and forward-looking policies had made his business a stock market hot tip. Since 1986 — when Mr. Haider became chairman of the party and radically altered its policies to include a good dose of patriotism and support for traditional values and an Austrian identity — its share of the vote has risen steadily from 9.73 percent to 27.2 percent in the latest election. Over the same period there has been incessant abuse of Mr. Haider for making positive comments about some aspects of National Socialism and of Austrians who vote for a party that is “hostile to foreigners.” Some people will never forgive a man who praised Hitler’s labor policies, who said that Waffen SS soldiers were “decent and honorable men,” and who wants less immigration.
Caught Between Millstones
In 1986 Austria was dominated, as it had been since the war, by two parties — the Social Democrats and the People’s Party — which shared more than 80 percent of the vote and which much of the time worked together in coalition. The only party of any real size never in government was the Freedom Party, a mishmash of free marketers, anti-Communists, some old Nazis, and almost anyone inclined to join Austria’s non-governing party as a matter of principle. The guiding line of the party was left liberal, and other than offering itself as an alternative to the government parties, there was nothing original about the Freedom Party. It was the old story of a third party caught between the millstones of an established, two party system.
In some ways the rise of Jörg Haider has hoist the establishment with its own petard. First, there is the matter of patriotism. To be patriotically Austrian means to be ipso-facto anti-Nazi, for National Socialism removed Austria from the map. There are ferocious laws in Austria against attempting to recreate a Nazi party (16 years imprisonment), which is partly defined as seeking to reabsorb Austria into Germany. Anschluss is precluded by the Constitution, so the matter is not open to public debate, and it means that anyone proclaiming the virtues of patriotism is doing what the Constitution and the Allies wanted every good Austrian burger to do. Thus, the more Mr. Haider trumpeted Austrian nationalism the more “establishment” he could claim to be. To the outsider, Austria seems very much part of Germany, culturally and historically, but Austrians are quite sensitive about their “special identity.”
Like Germany, Austria was divided into zones and occupied by the Allies. Stalin was prepared to withdraw from eastern Austria on condition that Austria adhere to strict neutrality and not join NATO. Austria was only too glad to avoid the fate of her northern neighbour (Germany was the European hot seat during the Cold War) and an official commitment to neutrality was incorporated into the Constitution in 1955. The Soviet plundering of Eastern Austria in 1945 had destroyed Communist credibility for good. The Social Democrats were not tempted by Marxism and were content to share power with the conservative People’s Party indefinitely.
During the Cold War, Austria was sometimes called the “Yugoslavia of the West.” Its neutrality and the fact that it was not a member of NATO made it possible for Austria to speak out against Israeli policies, something Israel has not forgiven nor forgotten. It was the Austrian-Jewish Bundespresident Bruno Kreisky who had the reputation of being the best friend of Palestine among Western leaders. It was also while the Austrian Kurt Waldheim was General Secretary of the United Nations that the UN condemned Israel for “racism,” and it was the same Kurt Waldheim, active in the German armed forces in the Second World War, whom the Austrians had the temerity to elect as Bundespresident despite or even partly because of an international campaign orchestrated against him.
The current Social Democrat/People’s Party coalition is 13 years old and the Austrian voter seems weary of it. Certainly weariness has played a considerable role in the steady shift to the Freedom Party. The latest results indicate no abrupt change, just a confirmation of a trend that was shocking for pundits only because they finally put the Freedom Party ahead of the People’s Party and into second place.
The origins of the Freedom Party lie in classical liberalism, and Mr. Haider has managed to exploit the traditional liberal free market loathing of waste. Every government scandal and report of mismanagement over the last ten years (and there have not been few) has played into his hands. Polls have pointed to disgust with waste and scandal as the biggest single issue favouring the Freedom Party.
In Austria, constant coalition government made two-party dominance inherently weaker than in other countries. In the two-party systems in Britain or the United States, voters with short memories often believe the opposition of the day would manage more efficiently and without scandal. In Austria the only effective opposition is the Freedom Party, since the two other parties have been in government together for the last 13 years. The latest vote can be seen as a kind of house-cleaning.
No Radical Positions
In contrast to most “extreme right” politicians, Jörg Haider is chary of committing himself to radical positions. In the case of European Union, for example, the Freedom Party is less enthusiastic about European unity than the two other major parties, but in a largely agricultural country where farming subsidies are gratefully received, a strongly anti-Brussels position will lose more votes than it will win, and Mr. Haider knows it. Taking the position that he is personally unenthusiastic but will follow the wishes of the majority on the subject, Haider gets the best of both groups: the support of anti-Europe voters who have nowhere else to go, and the conservative but pro-European rural vote.
Haider, being nothing if not a populist, eschews the racial appeal of parties like the French Front National or the British National Party. The support of right-wingers from other European countries is more an embarrassment to him than a comfort. When Jean-Marie Le Pen of the Front National publicly praised his recent success, he brushed off the compliment and denied he was close to Mr. Le Pen.
Mr. Haider’s main concerns are waste of taxpayer money, the abuse of the asylum system by scroungers (“pseudo refugees”) and the threat to employment posed by massive immigration. This strikes a chord among free marketers and working class people who fear for their jobs. If Mr. Haider was at one time taking votes from the conservatives, recent results show that it is traditional Social Democrat voters who are turning to him now. The slow growth of his party, by contrast with the sudden success of the Front National in France a few years ago, has enabled the Freedom Party to better test and train its cadres. Particularly worrying for the establishment parties must be a recent survey among first-time voters who, like young voters everywhere, showed little interest in politics but among whom eight percent thought it “cool” to vote Freedom Party compared to one percent for the People’s Party and zero “coolness” for the Social Democrats!
Jörg Haider has no scruples about enforcing party discipline. In recent years the Freedom Party was itself shaken by scandal and dissent. In 1998 the Salzburg branch of the party was divided and Haider simply dissolved it, just as he did the Tyrol group. That same year, a Freedom Party member of parliament, Peter Rosenstingl, fled to Brazil, leaving behind massive debts for the Lower Austrian branch of the party, whose coffers he had plundered. A hostile press played this scandal up for all it was worth and the popularity of the Freedom Party began to sink until Mr. Haider’s drastic counter-measures proved effective: all Freedom Party office holders are now obliged to sign a legal document that opens them to prosecution if it can be shown they do not implement the policies of the Freedom Party. Those who criticised this measure were expelled. Mr. Haider has also been forthright in driving out anyone who does not appear to realise who is boss.
The country is now in the midst of complex wrangling over how to form a government. In the 183-member parliament, the Social Democrats have 65 seats, with the Freedom and People’s parties tied at 52 seats each. Any two-way coalition would command a majority, and the Freedom Party is willing to work with either of the other parties. The Social Democrats, however, have officially refused to form a coalition with “racists.” The People’s Party leader, Wolfgang Schuessel, has ruled out yet another coalition with the socialists, so it would be logical for him to form a government with Mr. Haider.
A prominent German politician and leading contender for chancellor in the 2002 elections has urged the People’s Party to do just that. Edmund Stoiber, who is now state premier of Bavaria, says Austrian conservatives are exhausted after 13 years as junior coalition partner with the socialists, and should make common cause with their natural allies, the Freedom Party. Mr. Stoiber stuck to his guns in the face of much outrage over this sound advice. The People’s Party has yet to make up its mind, however, and if Austria continues to drift without a government, it could face new elections next year. This would probably be to the Freedom Party’s advantage, since the voters could well punish the other parties for their dithering unwillingness to get on with the business of forming a cabinet.
The reaction outside Austria to the gains of the Freedom Party has been predictably excessive. Israel’s Foreign Minister David Levy said the entire Austrian government “will be tainted” and that Israel would withdraw its ambassador if the Freedom Party is brought into a coalition. American Jews tried, unsuccessfully, to have Mr. Haider banned from running in the November 7th New York City Marathon on the grounds that he is a Nazi sympathiser (he ran past a few hecklers and was timed at a respectable, under-four-hours). Ariel Muzicant, leader of the 12,000-member Austrian “Jewish community” has said some Jews would leave Austria in the current political climate.
All this has happened before. The election of Kurt Waldheim proved only that Austrians, even left-leaning Austrians, become prickly when outsiders tell them how to vote. Bundespresident Thomas Klestil has spoken of an “exaggerated reaction.” Werner Schneyder, actor and cabaret artist and certainly no friend of Mr. Haider was asked why there were no protests and demonstrations after the election. As he explained to the popular German magazine Focus, “You demonstrate against decisions and plans, not against democratic election results.”
Jörg Haider will need some luck to make much further progress. There are a lot of people, beginning with all the expellees of his own party plotting and grumbling in the cafes of Vienna and Salzburg, right up to powerful interests in New York and Tel Aviv by way of the entire rent-a-mob of the far left, for whom the continued success of Jörg Haider has become intolerable, and who will stop at nothing to ensure that he never becomes Chancellor of the Republic of Austria, his great ambition for the last 15 years.
The Freedom Party’s election guarantee was that it would stop the “foreign infiltration” of Austria. So long as such talk was confined to Austria it was half-way tolerated, but now that the party is close to government, it will be open season on Mr. Haider. His enemies know, however, that if they miscalculate they will create a second Waldheim effect, perhaps even stronger than the first. The Israeli ambassador might see himself honour bound to pack his bags in earnest.
One option for those who want to neutralise the effect of Mr. Haider’s success would be to channel him into pro-establishment politics that do not really rock the boat, but Mr. Haider does not seem to be a politician who can be easily domesticated. The current reaction to his success suggests that his enemies know it. After this election the stakes are much higher — for both sides.
Michael Walker is a free-lance journalist and teacher living in Germany. He edits the yearly magazine, The Scorpion.
Crime in Pennsylvania
Every year the Pennsylvania State Police release a report on crimes and arrests from the previous year. The report for 1998, released in September, confirms that blacks are arrested at considerably higher rates than whites.
Pennsylvania figures make good black/white comparisons because the state has so few people of other races. According to the census bureau, the 1998 population was 85.9 percent white, 9.7 percent black, 2.6 percent Hispanic, 1.7 percent Asian, and 0.1 percent American Indian. Hispanic criminals are categorized as white, while Asians and American Indians are lumped together with blacks in the “non-white” category. This distorts racial comparisons but only slightly.
The first graph below compares the rates at which blacks and whites are arrested for 13 different crimes. In all cases, the white arrest rate is set to one, which is represented by the dotted line that runs near the bottom of the graph. The columns represent black arrest rates. Columns that are lower than the dotted line mean blacks are less likely than whites to be arrested for those crimes; columns higher than the dotted line mean blacks are more likely. The numbers along the vertical axis show how much more (or less) likely blacks are to be arrested. For example, blacks are nearly 19 times more likely that whites, per capita, to be arrested for robbery. At the other extreme, they are less likely than whites to be arrested for violation of liquor laws — only about two thirds as likely.
The crimes are graphed in the order in which the black multiple of the white arrest rate increases, which reveals a pattern. In Pennsylvania — as for the rest of the country — blacks are generally no more likely than whites to be arrested for alcohol-related offenses. Nor is there a large differential for vandalism. The black/white multiple picks up rapidly for non-violent crimes like arson, burglary, larceny, and drug offenses, but is highest for violent crimes, particularly murder and robbery. These are the same patterns found in the country as a whole.
Pennsylvania also collects “ethnic intimidation and hate crime data.” In 1998 there were 227 race-based hate crimes, of which whites were victims in 102 or 44.9 percent, while blacks were victims in 109 or 48 percent. Asians were victims of 16 hate crimes. There were also 25 anti-Hispanic crimes, reported separately as ethnic rather than racial offenses. As for race of offenders, 39 percent were “not reported,” 49 percent were white, and 12 percent were black. Two Hispanic offenders were listed as white.
While blacks are overrepresented as victims of racial hate crimes (9.7 percent of the population but 48 percent of the victims) they are also overrepresented as perpetrators (12.1 percent). In fact, blacks are slightly more than twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes. The second graph indicates this multiple as well as several others. Blacks are approximately four times more likely than whites to be arrested for property crimes and almost ten times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes. These multiples are, likewise, similar to data for the nation as a whole.
The Pennsylvania State Police Uniform Crime Report can be ordered free of charge by calling (717) 783-5556. The report can also be read on-line at www.psp.state.pa.us.
London lefties trample on free speech.
On Friday, September 17, 1999, a small group of disheveled and unruly children was allowed to shut down a conference sponsored by the Galton Institute on the topic of “Man and Society in the New Millennium.” From the ignoble events that transpired on that sunny day, it appears that the current people of once-great Britain do not know better than to reward uncivil behavior. Like parents who give in to temper tantrums from a child, they are training their youngsters toward escalating nastiness.
The venerable British group that sponsored the conference was organized in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society and later shortened its name to the Eugenics Society. Finally in 1988, in response to unrelenting demonization of eugenics, the society adopted the more innocuous name of the Galton Society in honor of Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), the founder of eugenics.
The conference was a two-day event held at the Zoological Society of London, on the edge of Regents Park across the street from the London Zoo. The first day of the admission-by-ticket-only event went off as scheduled and without disruption. An audience of 120 or so heard interesting talks from such eminent professors as J. H. Edwards of Oxford and Fellow of the Royal Society (“Genetics: Old and New”) and Richard Lynn, Director of the Ulster Institute for Social Research (“Quality of Population: Scenarios for the New Eugenics”).
Early on the morning of the second day there were hints of trouble. Before the conference began a few scruffy-looking young people tried to get in by presenting obviously counterfeit tickets. They were turned away and the police called to prevent trouble. The police left as the conference began on schedule without incident. The first speaker was Professor Mike Murphy from the London School of Economics, who spoke on “Prospects for population size and structure at the start of the new millennium.” Needless to say, unless there are drastic changes the prospects range from dismal to terrifying.
I was the next speaker and was called to the podium. While I was waiting to be introduced, a group of only about 10 of the scruffy youth noted earlier marched into the room and took up a position near the podium. They then tried to unfurl a long banner across the front of the lecture hall. The audience waited politely while the children first twisted and untwisted their banner, then turned it right-side-up. They called themselves “People Against Eugenics,” and their banner read DIVERSITY, NOT EUGENICS. Then began an unruly dialogue between various members of the audience and the disrupters.
I left my lecture notes on the podium and retired to a seat in the second row.
There was some shouting back and forth, including calls of “Professor Whitney, where is he? Is he here? Where is Professor Whitney?” I returned to the podium to retrieve my notes and once again sat down and proceeded to take photos.
The mob immediately recognized the much better-known Arthur Jensen, and verbally assaulted him at close range. Walter Kistler of the Foundation for the Future rose to Prof. Jensen’s defense. He urged the mob to let the speakers speak. The mob refused, and since its members had used the word “Nazi” Mr. Kistler suggested that it was they who were acting like Nazis. His attempt to reason with them became a shouting match.
In the meantime members of the Galton Institute were trying to negotiate with the demonstrators. One suggestion was that they could have a few minutes to have their say, after which they could stay and listen to the scheduled speakers. Another was that they schedule their own conference and a deputation from the institute would attend. The children would have none of it. No speech for eugenicists was their stand.
The police returned in some force, but instead of evicting the trespassers, they did nothing; perhaps they were there only to prevent physical harm. The situation slowly deteriorated into groups of restless people wandering around between the lobby and the conference room, waiting and grumbling. Dr. Robert John, head of the International Council for Human Ecology and Ethnology, tried to organize resistance. He strode into the lobby and called in a very loud voice for an effort to present the police with a united demand that the demonstrators be evicted. He also spoke eloquently about civility and free speech, but nothing came of his efforts.
Eventually there was an announcement that the Zoological Society wanted the premises cleared and closed. The police began politely to escort both attendees and mob out of the building. The protesters carried the day, shutting down the conference before I could speak and preventing Professor Jensen from delivering the keynote Galton Lecture.
Afterwards there was some milling around in front of the building while a couple of elderly handlers of the scruffy children passed out a handbill called “No to Eugenics! Diversity not Discrimination!” It said they were demonstrating because “at the meeting are three speakers [Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, and myself] who claim that black people are genetically inferior to white people and also are genetically programmed to be more violent and aggressive. It is unacceptable that such incitement to racial hatred be permitted.”
If anyone was inciting hatred, it was the British press. On the very day of the conference, the Daily Mail ran an interview with Prof. Jensen headlined “Is This Man Truly the World’s Most Loathsome Scientist?” Journalist Mary Riddell couldn’t wait to tell readers what to think. In her second sentence she wrote: “The Daily Mail does not agree with his views on intelligence indeed, we profoundly disagree with them.” She then went on in the condescending tones of the ignorant:
For three decades, Professor Arthur Jensen has lived in the shadow of death and violence. It is difficult, however, to feel sorrow for him . . .
From the White House downwards, the bleak scenarios painted by Jensen — particularly on race — have been reviled. One study was banned shortly after a presidential aide warned that Jensen’s work had no place in the culture of modern America. Liberals have argued that his work, which ignores the effects of poverty and deprivation on intelligence, is misguided and flawed. Learned journals have blacklisted his books as unsuitable for review . . .
One expects the Dr. Strangelove of social science to be a wild-eyed zealot, but Jensen — who is 76 — is a smoothly groomed and mild-mannered man whose tie clip, flannels and gilt-buttoned navy blazer suggest a lifetime of golf club dinners . . .
There is, in all of Jensen’s arguments, a chilliness imposed, one assumes, by a statistician’s existence in which lives are measured by graph or bell curve rather than by love or nurture . . .
. . . the powers of parental love to mould ambition, aspiration and self-determination — whether among blacks or whites — are woolly, unscientific concepts that his cold scientific mind finds impossible to comprehend.
Professor Jensen, for all his apparent mildness, is one of the most chilling men I have ever interviewed. It was an enormous relief to step outside and breathe fresh air once again.
This sort of thing is, if anything, even more common in Britain than in the United States. Peregrine Worsthorne is a “conservative” who writes sensibly on many subjects, but who cannot stomach IQ research. In an Oct. 30, 1994 article in the Sunday Telegraph called “Race and IQ: Never Has a Knife Been Put in More Smoothly,” he writes of intelligence studies:
That these are important questions, and scientifically worthy subjects for research, I cannot deny. Nevertheless, they are so distasteful, so certain to give such deep offense to so many, that people who choose to pursue them — among all the equally important subjects demanding attention — can only be disturbingly insensitive . . .
. . . I still feel that the people involved in this research are pretty nasty pieces of work whom I would not wish to know. And the timing is so particularly cruel, smothering black pride forever, just as it is beginning to breathe freely.
In the old days, theorists of racial superiority or inferiority positively glorified in their insensitivity; made no attempt to cushion the cruelties of their conclusions — sterlization for the inferior. Their American successors are much more concerned and sophisticated, more gentle, caring, and squeamish. ‘It hurts us more than it hurts you’ is the new motif. Never has a knife been put in more smoothly, leaving so little blood on the blade. Crude they are most certainly not: only creepy.
This is just the kind of encouragement louts need to shut down academic meetings.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
More Good News From Europe
In the wake of Jörg Haider’s success in Austria, an anti-immigration party has scored an upset election victory in Switzerland. The Swiss People’s Party or SVP went from fourth to second place in the legislative lower house, with 44 seats to the Social Democrats’ 51. It is now demanding an expanded role in the coalition government, but the full extent of its bargaining power will not be clear until run-off elections for the upper house, which have yet to be held. The SVP campaigned with posters that showed a dark-skinned man tearing up a Swiss flag, and called for an end to immigration and liberal asylum laws. One in five residents is now a foreigner. The SVP also promised to keep Switzerland out of the European Union. (Michael Shields, Anti-immigrant Stance Wins Big for Swiss Party, Washington Times, Oct. 25, 1999, p. A18. Michael Shields, Swiss SVP Renews Call for Extra Cabinet Seat, Reuters, Oct. 25.)
Diversity is Our Strength
A fight between a black and Hispanic inmate at Fort Grant State Prison in Arizona escalated into a two-hour riot when 200 Hispanics responded by throwing rocks at 80 blacks. Inmates armed themselves with long-handled mops and brooms, while prison guards cleared out for their own protection. The outnumbered blacks retreated into the prison yard security office but the Hispanics set it on fire. Prison guards came back and rescued the blacks but it took Tactical Support Units from four different prisons to quell the riot. Eighty inmates were injured, none seriously. The minimum-security jail was expected to be under lock-down indefinitely. (Racial Fight Sparks Riot at Fort Grant Prison, Arizona Star, October 14, 1999.)
On October 21, 200 to 400 Mexican and Armenian students mixed it up in a lunch-time free-for-all at Grant High School that had to be stopped by helmeted police. There were differing reports of the cause. According to one version, fighting started when a Hispanic girl and an Armenian girl attacked each other in the cafeteria and ended up on the floor screaming. According to another, 20 or so Mexicans crossed the “invisible line” that divides Mexican and Armenian turf, and were promptly set upon by Armenians. In any case, hundreds of students immediately joined the fight, which injured 14 students and two teachers. A girl was arrested for concealing a knife in her bra and a boy was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon — a trash can. Police held about 40 students for questioning after the fight.
There has been long-standing tension between the two groups, and the school’s dean says similar fights have erupted at least once a year for the past ten years. School officials have tried “conflict resolution programs,” “cultural awareness classes,” “group mediation,” and “peer counseling,” but nothing seems to work. (Kristina Sauerwein, Ethnic Tension Blamed for Grant High Melee, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 23, 1999. Jesse Hiestand, Armenians, Latinos Clash at Grant High, L.A. Daily News, Oct. 22, 1999.)
On Nov. 2, a school assembly that was supposed to promote racial understanding prompted a brawl between whites and Hispanics at Skyview High School in Nampa, Idaho. Comments made by motivational speaker Raina Beaver must have “touched some nerves,” said principal Ralph Kern. Mr. Kern had to call the police after about 20 white and Hispanic students started fighting. Race, says Mr. Kern, “is a bigger issue than this community is willing to admit.” (Kathleen Mortensen & Lucinda Dolittle, Parents Raise Questions Over Skyview Incident, Idaho Statesman, Nov. 4, 1999.)
New York City is becoming a Spanish-speaking city. At 2.2 million, Hispanics are the largest minority, and one in five New Yorkers speaks Spanish at home. Half the residents of the Bronx are Hispanic. The relentless influx of Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, and now Mexicans has created a huge demand for Spanish language instruction. “Thirty years ago, we started training people to do business in Latin America or Spain,” said Richard Huarte, director of the New York office of Inlingua, a language school that specializes in corporate accounts. “Now people are learning Spanish to deal with people right here in New York.” Spanish is now the most popular language in Berlitz classes; last year for the first time it outstripped English to become the top language.
At Metropolitan Hospital in East Harlem, doctors started taking Spanish lessons two years ago, after a survey determined that 65 percent of the patients prefer to be spoken to in Spanish. The police department is about to offer Spanish courses to any of the 40,000 officers who want to learn. Forty percent of the city’s school children are Hispanic, and administrators are desperate for bilingual teachers. In the last two years they hired 70 teachers from Puerto Rico and 13 from Spain.
Half of all Catholic churchgoers are now Hispanic, and in the last five years the New York Archdiocese has brought in 150 priests and 80 nuns from Latin America and Spain. “We’ve had priests who suddenly realized one day that they were preaching to a group of people who did not understand the sermons,” says Martín Poblete, permanent adviser to the archdiocese on Hispanic affairs.
Forward-looking Anglo mothers who do not, themselves, speak Spanish are making sure their children will be prepared for the future. “I don’t want my child to lag behind,” says Linda Hughes, who lives in Brooklyn, and commutes an hour each way to take her 3-year-old son, Lucas, to Spanish lessons once a week in Manhattan. (Mirta Ojita, To Talk Like New York, Sign Up for Spanish, New York Times, Oct. 18, 1999.)
Protection With Teeth
South Africans have grown so tired of rampant crime and lax law enforcement that citizens have begun to take matters into their own hands. A number of vigilante groups have sprung up, the best-known of which is called Mapogo a Mathamaga. The organization, whose name is from a Sotho saying, “When a leopard faces a tiger it becomes a tiger itself,” was established in 1996 by John Magolego.
In a two month period, criminals killed eight people in his impoverished neighborhood in Northern Province but the police took little interest. The last straw was the killing of an 80-year-old man who was beaten to death and his genitals sliced off for use in black magic. Mr. Magolego and a group of enraged citizens found the killer, held a trial, and executed him.
Mapogo, as the group is called, has now grown from a local organization of 100 members to 90 well-organized branches with 35,000 members. It does not kill or maim; it dispenses merciless floggings on the bare buttocks and sometimes dangles screaming miscreants over crocodile pools. “Criminals must feel pain,” explains Mr. Magolego. “They must be afraid of punishment. That is the African style.” It has been a very effective style. “These criminals know that if they cross us, we will work on their buttocks. They come to understand that we will inflict pain on their bodies if they do not use their ears.” (When Justice Fails, Aida Parker Newsletter (South Africa), July, 1999, p. 7.)
Protection For a Fee
South Africa has what is probably the highest rape rate in the world. In 1998 there were 115.8 reported rapes per 100,000 people (and many unreported) compared with 34.1 rapes per 100,000 in the United States. South Africans now get almost daily accounts of rapes including “jack-rollings” in which a mob seals off an entire street or building and gang-rapes every woman it can catch. South African men think they are more or less entitled to a woman’s favors. A survey found that 12 percent of teenage boys admitted to having forced themselves on someone, and half said that a girl who says no really means yes. Thirty-one percent of boys who knew a rape victim said she had been asking for it. One in three Johannesburg schoolgirls said they had been raped but only one in eight realized it was illegal.
Since about 13 percent of South African adults are infected with AIDS, the attacks can be a death sentence. Some men rape women in the hope of spreading the disease, and others rape children in the belief that sex with a virgin cures it. Cape Town’s Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital reports about 10 cases of child rape every week; recently a six-month-old baby was raped to death. Only one in 400 rapes leads to a conviction.
There has been something of an anti-rape campaign, which was to include a commercial by actress Charlize Theron. In it, she says:
‘People often ask me what the men are like in South Africa. Well, consider that more women are raped in South Africa than any other country in the world. That one out of three women will be raped in their lifetime in South Africa . . . It’s not that easy to say what men in South Africa are like, because there seem to be so few out there.’ The Advertising Standards Authority banned the ad because it discriminated against men.
It is into this market that CGU Insurance, Ltd. has introduced rape insurance — the first offered anywhere in the world. For about $4 a month, the policy will cover psychological and medical treatment, as well as the expensive anti-AIDS drugs not offered by government health services. (Andrew Maykuth, In Rape-Scarred Nation, an Insurance Plan, Philadelphia Inquirer, October 16, 1999, p. A1.)
The United States government has broken ground for a national memorial atoning for the relocation of Japanese during the Second World War. The memorial is located in a prime location in Washington, DC, less than half a mile north of the Capitol. It will consist of a curving marble wall listing the names of ten relocation centers and the names of 800 Japanese-Americans who died in combat during the war. The centerpiece will be a 14-foot-high bronze statue of two cranes struggling to break free from chains and barbed wire. Cranes are a Japanese symbol of good fortune. At the ground-breaking, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii said, “The story of the Japanese Americans is one we must never forget. Yesterday, the Japanese were the targets of racism. Tomorrow it could happen to another group.” (Eddie Evans, U.S. Breaks Ground on Japanese American Memorial, Reuters, Oct. 22, 1999.)
The Japanese were, of course, relocated because of nationality, not race. Chinese and Koreans were not relocated. Moreover, the Japanese were not interned, as is commonly claimed. They were excluded from certain parts of the Western United States, and the camps were free accommodation provided to people who did not have any other place to go. Residents were free to leave them so long as they did not return to the exclusion zone.
Slowly the facts are even beginning to emerge about the treatment of other Americans during the war. Here are excerpts from a story that appeared recently in the San Deigo Union Tribune:
While the wartime treatment of people of Japanese ancestry has been well-documented — they have received a public apology and a $1.2 billion reparations bill was passed in Congress — the discrimination against Italians in America is not widely known.
[M]ore than 500,000 Italian-Americans served in World War II. And 600,000 members of their families were subject to wartime restrictions. Of those affected, 52,000 were living in California. Ten thousand were forced into internment camps.
Almost 60 years later, many Italian-Americans — including former Boston Red Sox star Dominic DiMaggio — are pushing Congress to order the release of classified papers documenting the campaign against their parents. (Dong-Phuong Nguyen, ‘It Wasn’t Right,’ San Diego Union Tribune, Nov. 7, 1999.)
Perhaps some day, the generic press will discover what happened to German-Americans. (For more information on relocation camps and the treatment of European enemy aliens during the war, see “Unlucky to be White,” AR, Jan. 1999.)
Canada has been piously resurrecting ancient treaties with Indian tribes and also wreaking havoc on established commercial practices. In September, for example, the Supreme Court decided that on the basis of a 1760 treaty Micmac Indians have the right to fish in the Atlantic and in eastern Canada out of season and without a license. White fishermen, some of whom had paid the equivalent of C$200,000 were furious. (Canada was a colony in 1760. One wonders who the parties to the treaty were?) The Micmac also have unlimited rights to make a living from “gathering,” so they can also get into the forestry business without permits or red tape.
A 1997 Supreme Court decision held that Indians have priority rights to Canadian natural resources, and must be compensated if anyone else exploits them. The government is now negotiating a C$490 million payoff to just one British Columbia tribe, the Nisga. One accounting company has calculated that the province of British Columbia alone will end up shelling out C$40 to 50 billion to Indians. There are only 700,000 Indians in the whole country, so C$40 billion shared among them equally is more than C$57,000 per Indian.
Apparently it takes a non-white to complain about this. Gurmant Grewal, an immigrant from India and a Reform Party MP, says: “No longer will hard work be the determining factor whether one can make a living in forestry, fishing or mining. Success will be based on race.” (Randall Palmer, Generous Rulings for Canada’s Natives Spur Backlash, Reuters, Oct. 24, 1999.)
Spanish police have circulated a letter to jewelry store owners warning them of a rash of robberies by South Americans, advising that “whenever possible don’t let them into the premises close to midday or evening closing times.” It also urges jewelers to notify the police if they learn of a South American, without a job, who moves into the area. Something called the Movement Against Intolerance immediately flew into a fury and the opposition Socialist Party demanded an “explanation” from the Interior Minister. An unruffled police spokesman explained that “out of 100 violent robberies in the (jewelry) sector over the past year, 90 percent have been carried out by individuals from Colombia and Chile.” (AP, Spanish Cops Criticized for Letter, Sept. 11, 1999.)
Until the 1965 change in immigration laws, very few Indians from Asia lived in the United States. Now there are 1.4 million and they have the highest average household income of any Asian group — $60,903 — beating out even the Japanese and Chinese. Indians are increasingly turning their numbers and wealth into political power. Last summer, when India and Pakistan were skirmishing in Kashmir, Indian-American pressure helped tilt the U.S. government against the Pakistanis. In 1998, when Pakistan and India both exploded nuclear devices, Indians mobilized to explain to Congress why India needs the bomb.
Indians have discovered that money talks, and they have bought access to officials at all levels. At a single event in 1996, Indian business executives reportedly raised $400,000 for President Clinton. The Congressional India Caucus, founded in 1993, now has 115 members and has succeeded at least twice this year in blocking legislation that would have reduced foreign aid for India. In most cases, Indian-Americans work closely with the Indian embassy to advance national interests. This raises eyebrows among the old-fashioned. “We don’t want Indian Americans to be perceived as Indian agents,” explains Ambassador Naresh Chandra. “It’s a delicate line.”
According to the Washington Post, Indian-Americans have modeled their efforts on those of American Jews and hope eventually to rival them in power and influence. (John Lancaster, Activism Boosts India’s Fortunes, Washington Post, Oct. 9, 1999, p. A1.)
As the country gets more diverse, actionable forms of discrimination multiply. Shazad Khaligh is a Muslim immigrant from Iran who worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory for 11 years until 1997. For the last three years, her supervisor was another Muslim by the name of Fred Hadaegh. Miss Khaligh now claims that Mr. Hadaegh thwarted her career, saying that Muslim women do not need education and should not work. She says he threatened to fire her and discouraged her from submitting papers at scientific conferences. Miss Khaligh is suing for both sex and religious discrimination. (Cassandra Stern, Case at NASA’s Lab Alleges Anti-Female Bias by Muslim, Washington Post, Aug. 24, 1999, p. A2.)
Ivy League Idiocy
Cindy Schiller is a student at Columbia University who has several times donated her eggs to childless couples. She thinks it’s a nice thing to do and she also likes the money she earns, but is bothered by the politics of it. “It’s the fact that I’m helping a white supremacist system at work,” she says. “People are getting these fair, blue-eyed children, and that does bother me philosophically.” She thinks it would be “really cool,” to donate to a homosexual couple rather than to upper-middle class white women who are the typical recipients. (Rebecca Mead, Eggs for Sale, New Yorker, August 9, 1999, quoted in Procreation Politics, Washington Times, Aug. 10, 1999, p. A2.)
Going to the Dogs
Dog feces are a serious problem in Mexico City, where there are two million pets and one million strays. They deposit more than 350 tons of waste every day and owners rarely clean up after their pets. “It dries and then it flies into the air. Then I breathe it and you breath it,” says Laura Elena Herrejon of the Pro-Neighbors Movement, which is working to stop the problem. Particles of dried waste also contaminate food served from numerous outdoor taco stands.
Officials are starting a major campaign to enforce laws that require owners to collect dog waste. There are fliers warning of the health risks of “fecalismo,” and banners in parks reading, “Neighbor! . . . you could be fined up to 344 pesos and 50 cents ($35) or jailed for between six and 12 hours, if you fail to pick up your pets’ feces.” (Susan Ferriss, Dog Waste Matters in Mexico City, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 7, 1999, p. B2.)
Third World Meets First
In the Washington, DC, suburbs Hispanics are considerably more likely than others to die in fatal pedestrian accidents. Many come from third-world boondocks with few cars, and cannot cope with American traffic. Many also apparently walk around drunk. In Montgomery and Prince George’s, the Maryland counties bordering the district, Hispanics are eight percent of the population but account for 21 percent of the pedestrian fatalities. In Fairfax, the Virginia county, they are likewise eight percent of the population but account for 23 percent of fatalities. Hispanic victims are also more likely than other pedestrians to have high levels of blood alcohol.
The federal government has decided to solve the problem. It has a $200,000 contract with a DC communications company to produce short video melodramas in Spanish that teach traffic safety. They are full of steamy intrigue, jealousy, and betrayal, just like the telenovelas to which many Hispanics are addicted, but the plots turn on traffic accidents. In one story, for example, the hero is hit and killed on his way to a cafe for a tryst with his hot, new, blond love interest. (Sylvia Moreno & Alan Sipress, Fatalities Higher for Latino Pedestrians, Washington Post, Aug. 27, 1999, p. A1.)
Telenovelas notwithstanding, the Hispanic pedestrian problem is likely to get worse. The Mexican government recently concluded that the country is so unpleasant to live in that eight million Mexicans will probably try to go to the United States during the next 20 years — as many as are here already. (Massive Mexican Emigration Predicted, Washington Post, Aug. 27, 1999, p. A20.)
The Czech city of Usti nad Labem has built a seven-foot-high wall down an entire city block, separating Gypsy apartments from homeowners on the other side of the street. The Czechs had complained about rats, garbage, and noise from the apartments, which are filled with 150 Gypsies who were thrown out of ordinary housing because they haven’t paid rent. Gypsies blocked earlier attempts to put up the wall, but workers returned with police protection and built it in a single night. The usual people have whooped about “racism,” but the Usti city authorities refuse to be intimidated.
The Czech government worries about the wall because the Czech Republic is applying for membership in the European Union and hopes to be admitted by 2003. The European Commission has said the Czechs must improve things for their 300,000 gypsies through “efforts to combat discriminatory attitudes.” EU Commission President Romano Prodi has hinted that the wall could be enough, all by itself, to keep the Czech Republic out of the EU. The Prague government has ordered the city to tear down the wall but so far, Usti is standing by its wall, which the city claims is strictly a local matter. (Petr Josek, Czechs Complete Segregation Wall With Police Help, Reuters, Oct. 13, 1999. Jan Lopatka, Czechs Still See 2003 EU Entry, But Walls Remain, Reuters, Oct. 15, 1999.)
Tainted Yanqui Food
In October, heavy rains, floods, and mudslides in Mexico killed 381 people and left 200,000 without shelter. People in the Mexican state of Baja California, which was not affected, donated thousands of pounds of non-perishable food to the state’s Civil Protection Office, to be used for disaster relief. The federal government refused to accept much of it — cans of soup, bags of noodles, spam — because it was made in the United States. The government had made a point of declining foreign assistance, and rejected the American food, claiming it had not gone through proper import procedures. (Sandra Dibble, U.S-Made Donations to Flood Victims are Refused, San Diego Union Tribune, Oct. 16, 1999.)
Just Another Lynching
On October 15th, white police in Charleston, SC, arrested a black after shots were fired outside a school dance at North Charleston High School. Several people in the crowd were heard to say “Yeah, we’re going to get us a white boy.” Early the next morning more than a dozen blacks attacked Troy Knapp, 35, and Gary Thornburg, 34, as they rode bicycles near the school. They beat both men — one into a coma — and stole their bicycles. The violence stopped only when a dog from a nearby house broke his chain, ran up to the mêlée, and started snarling at the attackers.
Police have arrested seven people, including five juveniles, in connection with the attack and have charged them with second-degree lynching, or mob violence. All the suspects were at the dance the night before, but police insist that race had nothing to do with the attack. (Herb Frazier, Police Charge Seven Suspects in North Charleston Beating, Post and Courier (Charleston), Oct. 19, 1999.)
Diversity Unpopular in Greece
Until the early 1990s, there were practically no immigrants in Greece, but there are now an estimated 650,000 illegals. This is too many for 23-year-old Pandelis Kazakos, a security guard at a television station, who has confessed to killing foreigners. On October 19th and 22nd he went on shooting sprees, in which he killed an Iraqi and a Georgian, and wounded seven other immigrants. In response, the Greek government urged citizens to condemn and isolate “racists.” (AP, Greek Man Admits Killing Immigrants, Oct. 22, 1999.)
Night Vision Racists
Leonard Chappell is president of the Charlotte County, Florida, chapter of the NAACP. On October 18, a white police officer clocked him going nearly 20 miles per hour over the speed limit and gave him a ticket. Mr. Chappell immediately accused the officer and the department of “racial profiling,” and the department duly investigated. Police authorities examined video records of the stop and found that the white officer had behaved appropriately in the face of abuse from Mr. Chappell. As for racial profiling, it was impossible for the officer to know who was in the car before he stopped it — at 1:30 in the morning. (Chad Binette, Local NAACP Leader Tries to Use Racial Profiling to Beat Speeding Ticket, but Video Tells the Tale, Herald Tribune (Sarasota), Oct. 27, 1999.)
Actions Speak Louder
William Clinton and his wife have long trumpeted the benefits of “diversity,” and “inclusion.” In his second inaugural address, for example, Mr. Clinton claimed that “our rich heritage of racial, religious and political diversity will be a Godsend in the 21st century.” At a Democratic fund-raiser, Mrs. Clinton wanted to know: “Do we wish to live in a society divided by income, race, or religion or do we attempt to build a community and honor the principle of inclusion?” The Clintons seem somehow to have forgotten these sentiments when they chose their new home in Chappaqua, New York. Their zip code, 10514, is 93.69 percent white, 0.72 percent black, and 1.64 percent Hispanic. Perhaps the 5.4 percent who are Asian will provide them with sufficient diversity. The median household income is $110,000, with 56 percent earning more than $100,000. (Bob McManus, Westchester County, 10514, New York Post, Sept. 9, 1999, p. 27.)
More Wretched Refuse
On October 16, more than 5,000 protesters, including thousands of illegal immigrants, demonstrated in Washington for amnesty. The vast majority were Hispanics, but organizers boasted they had attracted illegals from four continents. Fakhral Alam general secretary of the Bangladesh Society of New York said there are about 100,000 illegal Bangladeshis in the United States. Referring to the 1986 law that amnestied three million illegals, he said, “it’s time for another amnesty. These people aren’t going back anyway. They’re staying.” (Philip Dan, Demonstration Presses for Immigration Rule Change, Washington Post, Oct. 17, 1999, p. C5.)
Criminal Heads South
The morning of October 24, a white couple and their three children ages two, three, and seven were asleep in their home in Modesto, California. A man thought to have been Pedro Aguirre, a Mexican national, entered the house and bludgeoned the man, almost killing him and possibly leaving him brain damaged. He beat the wife nearly to death and then raped her, while the horrified children looked on. He took the three-year-old girl outside the house and raped her, too, whereupon he was seized with nostalgia for his homeland.
Mexico essentially refuses to extradite criminals to the United States. The government requires much bureaucratic paper shuffling before it will even arrest a suspect wanted for a crime in a foreign country, and it then takes six months to a year before he is tried. Many Mexicans who commit crimes in the United States prefer to take their chances with lackadaisical Mexican law enforcement. (Crystal Carreon, Family Stunned by Attack, Modesto Bee, Oct. 29, 1999.)
God Save the Queen
On November 5, Australians voted in a referendum to keep the Queen of England as head of state rather than become a republic. In an affirmation of the country’s European heritage, Australians voted approximately 55 percent to 45 percent to remain Her Majesty’s subjects. (Rohan Sullivan, Queen Victorious in Australian Vote, Washington Post, Nov. 7, 1999, p. A29.)
Race undoubtedly influenced the vote. In the 1950s, 95 percent of Australians were of British or Irish descent, and until the mid-1970s, a “White Australia” policy kept the country European. There was never a question of rejecting the monarchy. Since then there has been a great deal of non-white immigration, mainly from Asia, and before the vote, immigrants were explaining why they wanted to dump the Queen. “The Monarchy is simply not relevant to modern Australia,” said Natasha Stott Despoja, who is a Senator and member of the campaign for a “Yes” vote. A Jason Yat Sen Li complained that “the monarchy no longer represents Australian values such as diversity,” and insisted that “any Australian — from whatever background — should have the opportunity to become our head of state.” (David Grossman, Race Plays Its Card in Republic Vote, BBC On-Line, Nov. 3, 1999.) There was also much jabber to the effect that a vote for the Queen might be interpreted in Asian countries as insufficient identification with Asia. If Australia continues to accept large numbers of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants, subsequent referenda are likely to go the other way.
Although this was scarcely reported in the media, a proposed preamble to the Australian constitution was also voted down. The text was full of multi-culti bumf such as:
[We are] proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries; . . . [we are] honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country; [and we are] recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants; . . .
Perhaps journalists take this sort of thing so much for granted they don’t think it worth reporting. Australians were not fooled.
Good Germans, All
In May, Germany finalized a controversial overhaul of its citizenship laws, which makes it much easier for non-Germans to become citizens. Anyone born in Germany will automatically be a citizen, and naturalization will be much easier for longtime residents. Children will be permitted dual citizenship until age 23, at which time they must choose a single nationality. The new law takes effect January 1, and the government is promoting it with a campaign of billboards, brochures, and newspaper ads. Currently there are about 7.3 million resident aliens — 10 percent of the population — and one million are expected to become Germans next year. (Germany Expects 1M New Citizens, Las Vegas Sun, October 25, 1999.)
The Abridged Rushton
J. Philippe Rushton has just published an abridged edition of his brilliant analysis of racial differences, Race, Evolution, and Behavior (reviewed in AR, Dec., 1994). The new book is a 100-page, pocket-sized version that explains the essentials of r-K theory and outlines the scientific basis for Prof. Rushton’s view that Asians, whites, and blacks differ in ways that consistently fit evolutionary and behavioral patterns. The new version is written in clear, straightforward language and includes charts and figures. The abridged edition sells for $5.95, with steep discounts for bulk orders. For example, 25 copies would cost only $2.00 each. Transaction Publishers, which brought out both editions of Race, Evolution, and Behavior, is taking orders, toll-free, at (888) 999-6778.
Reasons to Emigrate?
Inter-American Dialogue, a policy analysis center whose members include former President Jimmy Carter and five former Latin American Presidents, has issued a grim report on prospects for Latin America. Among its findings:
- Poverty has increased for the second decade in a row, “leaving most Latin Americans poorer in 2000 than they were in 1980.”
- “[A]verage growth will not reach 3 percent per year, substantially below the 6 percent the World Bank estimates is necessary to reduce poverty in the region.”
- Judicial systems, legislatures, and political parties remain “weak and discredited in many countries and scarcely function in some.”
- “Corruption is widespread.”
- “[A] disturbing number of countries, including Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Jamaica, will have a lower per capita income in 2000 than they had 10 years earlier.” (Gloomy Outlook for Latin America, AP, November 4, 1999.)
Out of Iberia
The traditional theory about the peopling of the Americas is that about 13,500 years ago, Asians trotted across an ancient land bridge that joined what are now Siberia and Alaska. They made stone projectiles of a distinctive kind called Clovis points. Now two prominent archeologists have pointed out the uncanny similarity between Clovis artifacts and older materials from what is called the Solutrean culture, found on the Iberian peninsula. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian, and independent researcher Bruce Bradley point out that the two types of projectiles are virtually indistinguishable, and that Solutrean finds in Europe date back more than 18,000 years. In fact, there are no Clovis features not found in Solutrean materials. The two men therefore conclude that Europeans crossed the Atlantic and settled North and perhaps even South America well before the Asian land bridge was free of ice and passable.
At present there is only speculation about how Early Europeans could have made the voyage. Judging from the kind of craft used by primitive peoples in Arctic regions, it is not farfetched to suggest that Solutreans may have sailed in skin boats. With favorable winds and currents they might have managed the voyage in three weeks. (Joseph Verrengia, First Americans from Europe? AP, Nov. 3, 1999.)
The Yahoos Never Rest
There was the usual braying about “racism” when the Senate rejected the nomination of Ronnie White for the U.S. District Court. Mr. White, currently on the Missouri Supreme Court, is black. Mr. White is also so soft on the death penalty that 77 of the 114 Sheriffs in Missouri urged the Senate to reject Mr. White. The National Sheriff’s Association recommended thumbs down, too. Back in his home state, Mr. White’s hostility toward the death penalty is well known. In one case a man stalked and slaughtered a sheriff, two sheriff’s deputies, and a sheriff’s wife. He got the death penalty, but when the case came to the state supreme court the only judge to oppose carrying out the sentence was Ronnie White. In another case, a man raped and then beat a woman to death with a lead pipe, and once again Mr. White was the only judge who wanted to spare him. His reason was that the trial judge had switched political parties and was now opposed to affirmative action. That, said Mr. White, meant the judge was a bigot.
President Clinton claims that non-white and female nominees for judgeships take longer to confirm than white men. That is because the women and minorities he appoints are, by choice, lefties with dubious records. When Mr. Clinton appoints people pleasing to a Republican-controlled Senate, they breeze through without regard to race or sex. (Thomas Jipping, Race Over Record, Free Congress Commentary, Nov. 3, 1999.)
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — Professor Ellis has it exactly right in the Nov. issue when he draws the parallel between multiculturalism and Marxism. The discouraging part is that this parallel must be explained at all. Any high school student with even a cursory familiarity with de Tocqueville should understand how multiculturalism undermines the very fabric of American democracy.
The problem, of course, is that de Tocqueville, along with the other white men of that era, are no longer taught. Afrocentric, feminist and homosexual studies have replaced them. Dogma has replaced logic and reason. Political correctness has replaced individualism. Things will not change until the education system returns to its primary function — education — and this will not happen until white, heterosexual men snap out of their lethargy, refuse to be cowed by name — calling, and take back their country.
Jerold Weiner, Blairstown, N.J.
Sir — As one whose experiences with the Japanese have run somewhat parallel to those of Alton Tolbert [“Notes on the Japanese”], I’d like to point out that his use of the term “white” may be slightly misleading. The word I’ve generally heard used by Japanese under circumstances he cites is gaijin (foreigner), rather than hakujin (white person). I do not believe they feel more bias towards “whites” than towards other non?Japanese. The term gaijin — literally “outsider” — may seem so rude to some Japanese that they may attempt to lessen the inferiority they assume we must feel by substituting the longer, politer form gaikokujin (foreign-country person) or the less emotionally-burdened hakujin.
In conversation, sometimes a Japanese would understand me perfectly well until he noticed my foreign features, and then he would stammer or continue his side of the conversation in broken English. Even if I wrote my query in Japanese characters and handed it to the man, he might still continue in broken English. I have never encountered this problem with women or children in Japan. Perhaps they feel their lower social level puts them close enough to the foreigner’s that more relaxed communication is possible.
F.M. Burton, Pocatello, Ida.
Sir — I am not a Christian but “Germany: Islamic Gangrene” in the Nov. issue made me think of the ultimate irony. After having fought so hard for a post-Christian, deracinated Europe, the white, liberal elites who have controlled the world for the second half of the twentieth century may get their reward in the form of an Islamic Republic of Europe.
J. Tanneyhill, Columbia, S.C.
Sir — AR criticizes A1 Gore for groveling to Hispanic voters but George W. Bush leaves him in the shade. This “conservative” has started running ads in Spanish in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The Hispanic population in these states is mercifully low — less than two percent. So why run ads that may hurt him with white voters? Obviously he is sending a message to his amigos in Texas and California that if he is elected president he will give them what they want. Anyone who thinks Bush, Jr. will do anything about affirmative action, bilingual education, immigration or multiculturalism is fooling himself.
Peter McCallister, Rochester, N.Y.
Sir — With no elective offices up for grabs in 1999. the only matter of importance on the November ballot in New York City was the referendum to change the City Charter, or “constitution.” The proposed change that got the most publicity was on the issue of “mayoral succession,” which would be a hot issue if Mayor Rudolph Giuliani goes to the U.S. Senate in 2000. Almost overlooked was a section of the proposed revision entitled “Immigrant Affairs.” It is filled with the usual “multicultural diversity” nonsense and warned of “anti-immigrantpassions” sweeping the nation. Declaring New York City “the nation’s preeminent ‘world city,’” it said immigrants were entitled to all city services and welfare and, to best ensure that immigrants take full advantage, “an individual’s alienage and citizenship status is irrelevant under local law.” In other words, it doesn’t matter if aliens are here illegally; they are still entitled to handouts paid for with New Yorkers’ tax dollars.
This concept is expanded upon in a section called, “Protecting Confidentiality.” To protect alien lawbreakers, the City wants to maintain a policy to prohibit “City employees from providing information about immigrants to federal authorities . . .” The document goes on to cite recent federal legislation and court decisions it regards as “antiimmigrant” and asserts that immigrants must be able to “avail themselves of City services without increasing their chances of being deported.” The Charter also recommended the formation of a “language bank” to provide translators for aliens who deal with City agencies, justifying this by “the crucial role that immigrants play in the City’s life.” Since the City Charter takes precedence over municipal ordinances, these provisions slipped into the referendum would have been very hard to change. On November 2, New York City voters rejected the Charter revisions 76 to 24.
Frank Borzellieri, Queens, N.Y.