|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 13, No. 12||December 2002|
Twelve Years After
AR’s contributions to our movement.
The previous issue marked the twelfth anniversary of the establishment of American Renaissance. In this issue, a long-time friend and contributor to the magazine offers his observations on what AR has — and has not — accomplished.
The mere fact that American Renaissance has lasted for all of 12 years is a reason in itself to celebrate. I recall when, in 1989, Jared Taylor first approached me and asked to meet with me in Washington to discuss founding a newsletter that would deal honestly with racial differences and race relations. I was eager to meet with him and sanguine about starting a magazine or newsletter, but I was not especially hopeful that it would last or have much impact without major financial assets.
I cannot say, 12 years later, that it has had tremendous impact, and that in no way suggests a criticism of AR or of Jared Taylor or anyone who has ever written for AR. At the end of 2002, whites in the United States are an even smaller majority than they were in 1990; their racial consciousness has not grown appreciably, and the political and cultural threats to them and their nation and civilization are as powerful today as they were 12 years ago.
The Democratic Party is even more tightly controlled by and dependent on minorities than ever. The Republican Party is even more frightened of racial (and even of simple cultural) honesty than it was in the days of George Bush I. The best racially tinged political issue and the best issue for the Republicans is immigration control, but after winning a governorship and several congressional seats on the issue in California in 1994, the Stupid Party was apparently so frightened of its own success that it completely dropped immigration and is now indistinguishable from the Democrats on this question (except that the Democrats move ever further to the left on it).
The same is true of affirmative action, hate crimes legislation, multiculturalism, and white Southern heritage symbols. When Mississippi voted overwhelmingly to retain its state flag with a Confederate flag design in its corner in 2001, the state Republican Party refused even to take a position. In California last year, Gov. Gray Davis came close to endorsing reparations for slavery, but his Republican opponent refused to take a position on that issue as well. The Republican Party, far from becoming an ally, even obliquely, of racially threatened whites, has become either useless or an actual enemy.
Yet no racially conscious third party has emerged to fill the void, and virtually no substantial portion of the dwindling white population seems to want or demand one. Pat Buchanan, after three presidential campaigns in which he avoided even indirect racial appeals, has decided that nothing can be done to save the life of the white West. Ross Perot has vanished and never showed any sign of dealing with any racial issue, directly or not. David Duke has retired to self-imposed exile in Russia. The National Alliance’s William Pierce is dead. Wilmot Robertson has ceased publishing his racially forthright journal Instauration. There is the Council of Conservative Citizens, a growing grassroots organization of racially conscious activists, and there are a few (generally low-subscription) periodicals that deal, more or less gingerly, with race-related issues. But by and large racially conscious whites have little reason to celebrate substantial progress.
To all appearances, then, American Renaissance is something of an evolutionary relict, rather like the platypus or the coelacanth. Its continued existence seems not to betoken the arrival of a triumphant new species or some sudden leap forward on the evolutionary ladder but rather a surviving curiosity of natural history, a living fossil that should have vanished long ago but which somehow managed to persist in the strange, deep waters of a primitive ocean. Certainly that is the most charitable view of AR that its enemies on the left like to take.
But it is not an accurate view. What attracted me to Jared Taylor and AR is what seems to attract most of their other readers — not that AR is the last, quaint representative of a dying breed gnashing its fangs at a world that has passed it by but that it is in fact the harbinger of a new breed. The left senses this truth about AR (and for that matter about the CofCC) when it tells us that such publications and groups are “Klansmen in coats and ties” or “more dangerous” than Timothy McVeigh. Both have succeeded in learning how to discuss, and in teaching others how to discuss, the scientific, social, and political realities of race without reliance on the old rhetoric of what was called “white supremacy” and “hate.” The older rhetoric may have been appropriate for its time, but just as conservatives in the post-World War II era of the 1950s needed to adopt a new rhetoric in place of that of the political right of the pre-Depression and pre-World War II era, so racially conscious whites today need to learn a new rhetoric about race. In so far as American Renaissance has accomplished any significant achievement, it is that it has begun to develop and disseminate just such a rhetoric, and it is largely the absence of such a rhetoric in American political culture that makes white racial consciousness so weak.
The older rhetoric of race among racially conscious whites assumed that the political and cultural dominance of whites was secure or at least intact, and that non-white racial consciousness was weak, non-existent, and not a serious political or cultural force. Hence, the older rhetoric could rely on a broad base of agreement among whites — about such matters as the importance and meaning of the U.S. Constitution, the danger of communism, the heroic stature of such figures as Washington and Jefferson, and a whole universe of assumptions about human nature, human society, science, religion, ethics, and cultural values — assumptions that can no longer be taken for granted. So secure was this cultural consensus among almost all whites that racial consciousness really did not need to appeal to race itself very much or very directly. Today, that shared cultural (and political) fabric is in tatters, and appeals wrapped in it no longer work.
To give an example, I recall in 1978 an occasion when Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith spoke to an audience of congressional staffers in Washington. Talking about the black terrorists led by Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe who then threatened his country, Mr. Smith kept saying to the mainly white audience that the terrorists were “communists” or “Marxists” — and so they were (at least they mouthed the slogans of Marxism and took weapons from the Soviet and Chinese communists).But using what was by 1978 a Cold War anti-communist rhetoric simply didn’t persuade anyone in Washington anymore except the most right-wing staffers and congressmen, most of whom (even then) regarded “white supremacy” or South African “apartheid” as far more evil and dangerous (or at least as more politically explosive) than communism.
Much the same kind of implausible rhetoric was common among Southern Democrats (and non-Southern conservatives generally) who opposed desegregation in the 1950s and ‘60s. Almost all of them appealed to the Constitution, to states’ rights, and to the alleged communist or philo-communist tendencies of the “civil rights movement” and its leaders (much of which was factually correct). In the 1950s and ‘60s such rhetoric worked, in the sense that most white Southerners and many white Northerners accepted its premises — if the “civil rights movement” really was influenced by Reds and if what it was demanding really was unconstitutional, then desegregation could wait. By the late 1960s, in large part due to the political and propaganda successes of the “civil rights movement” and its allies and the New Left, such rhetoric no longer worked.
Both Ian Smith and the Southerners might have argued that the civilization that existed in Rhodesia and the American South was unique to whites, that there was no evidence blacks are capable of either creating or sustaining it, that there was considerable evidence, scientific and historical, that they could not, and that “majority rule” in Rhodesia and “integration” in the South was likely to lead to the destruction or serious impairment of the civilization and to physical danger for whites. Even if such arguments had been no more successful in the 1950s or ‘60s than those that were actually offered, those who offered them would today at least be able to say that they had been correct. Much of the urban South, at least, has been destroyed by racial integration, and whites in “Zimbabwe” are facing utter economic dispossession and actual genocide by their new black masters. Meanwhile, the communist threat has largely vanished, and the U.S. Constitution is increasingly irrelevant.
More recently, a similar development has occurred with immigration. Not too long ago, an effective argument against immigration was that so many immigrants from such different cultural backgrounds in so short a time would not assimilate to American culture and would “Balkanize” the country. The pro-immigration response was always that the immigrants would assimilate, and various facts (or non-facts) were dredged up to bolster that claim. Today, neoconservatives still give much the same argument, claiming that the immigrants are all on the path to college educations and middle-class affluence, will become doctors or lawyers or software engineers, and vote Republican. Liberals have long since dropped any such claims, and now generally admit that the immigrants are not assimilating. They argue that it would be “racist” to insist that they assimilate, and even glory in the “diversity” that mass immigration is importing into our dull and drab civilization. As the perceived legitimacy of the concept of “assimilation” and the very notion of a culturally unified nation dwindles, so does the effectiveness of a rhetoric appealing to it.
What is happening or has happened in almost all these instances is that the common cultural and political framework that enabled racially conscious whites to deflect non-white drives for power has eroded or vanished entirely. Its erosion has come about in large part because of its deliberate subversion by its enemies (not always for racial purposes), while at the same time the emergence of explicitly non-white racial consciousness and the political unity this subversion generates has rendered appeals to traditional white values and institutions ineffective. When blacks themselves regard Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and even Abraham Lincoln as well as all other early American icons as mere bigots, slaveholders, and white supremacists, when they dismiss the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as fraudulent documents that merely empowered racial oppression, then political dialogue and a shared political culture cease to be possible — unless whites themselves give up these icons as well, which is what seems to be happening. Those who seek to resist or defeat the non-white quest for power have no prospect of success if they appeal to a Constitution that non-whites respect only in so far as it can be exploited for their own purposes. What is happening, in other words, is that all the social, cultural, political, legal, and constitutional (as well as religious, moral, etc.) integument of the white race has been stripped away — delegitimized or “deconstructed.” What remains, of course, is the bare biological reality: race.
For the most part the older rhetoric of “white supremacy” and what was called “hate” never talked about race at all — at least not seriously. It talked about the Constitution, communism, the common cultural framework that most Americans, white and black, Southern and Northern, shared. When it did talk about “race,” the result was often simply a pathetic litany of cliches, racial horror stories, often pseudo-science mixed in with a certain amount of fundamentalist (or pagan) religion, and outright drivel laced with plenty of racial epithets and insults. Not a few racially conscious whites seemed to do and say virtually everything to confirm the claim of their enemies that they really were filled with hatred and engulfed in ignorance. Some — skinheads, “neo-Nazis,” etc. — still do; for them, making themselves as repellent as possible and inciting fear and disgust rather than doing something constructive on behalf of their own race seems to be their chief purpose.
Anyone familiar with American Renaissance knows that, whatever its flaws (Jared can tell you I am the world’s greatest expert on its flaws), it avoids this kind of rhetoric entirely. Not only does AR avoid it, neither the publication nor Jared Taylor himself nor anyone who has ever written for it that I know of even has any disposition to use such rhetoric. Nor does AR appeal to states’ rights, the Constitution, or traditional segregationist practices. The rhetoric it has developed is the rhetoric of race itself, of what should be called “racial realism.”
This rhetoric, in the first place, is grounded in a fairly careful scientific view of race — that race is indeed a natural reality and not just a “social construct,” that it includes not only gross morphological and physiological features but also affects IQ, personality, and behavior, and therefore that race is a socially and historically significant force. More than any other publication in the English-speaking world, AR has actually tried to explain and popularize the earth-shaking discoveries about race by major scientists and thinkers like Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, the late Glayde Whitney, and many others. Similarly, the AR rhetoric of race also makes fairly sophisticated use of statistics to support claims about differences in racial achievement and behavior (education, crime, etc.).
But perhaps most significantly, the rhetoric of American Renaissance in a sense does the opposite of what the older rhetoric tried to do. Whereas the older rhetoric tried to defend the race in terms of the culture (e.g., desegregation should be opposed because it is unconstitutional, “communistic,” “un-Christian,” or “un-American”), the new racial rhetoric of AR defends the culture in terms of the race (e.g., the Constitution itself, as well the culture and nation, are important achievements of the white race; no other race has created anything similar to them, and there is no prospect of any other race creating them or adapting to them; similar ideas about the racial foundations of white science, religion, and other cultural achievements are common in AR). The meaning of this rhetoric is that in so far as white Americans still care about their culture — the Constitution, religion, science, art, language, literature, aesthetics, social institutions, and morals — they must care about the race that created them and sustains them and without which they cannot exist. It does not, as far as I can recall, argue that race by itself is sufficient to create and sustain our civilization, but it does insist, clearly and unequivocally, that race is necessary.
Certainly AR is not the only racially conscious publication ever to make such arguments, but it has made them perhaps more consistently, more deeply, and more responsibly than almost any other. And, finally, AR has developed this new rhetoric of race in an entirely civil and indeed humane way, never advocating at any point in its history the denial of the legitimate rights or humanity of any racial group but always firmly insisting on the rights, dignity, and accomplishments of the white race, on the centrality of the white race to the past and future of the American nation and the Western world, and on the dangers that our race faces from non-white and anti-white inundation, from virulent anti-white ideologies and movements, and from the guilt, fear, greed, corruption, and short-sightedness that today afflict whites themselves and especially their leadership class.
The extent to which American Renaissance has succeeded in spreading this new rhetoric of racial realism to other whites and in igniting and developing a more mature racial consciousness among whites is perhaps less important than the mere fact that the new rhetoric and the consciousness it seeks to communicate and build have begun at all. Sooner or later, regardless of the limitations that restrict the circulation and influence of American Renaissance, that new rhetoric and consciousness will spread, through means currently beyond the reach of this newsletter — or else whites and the collective achievement they created that we still call “Western civilization” will disappear.
The Global Bell Curve
Uncommon sense on wealth and poverty.
Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Praeger Publishers, 2002, $64.95, 298 pp.
Why are some countries rich and others poor? Why are some pleasant and well-run while others are pestholes? This question has attracted attention since at least the mid-18th century, when Montesquieu noted in De L’Esprit des Lois that rich countries were in the temperate zones and poor countries were in the tropics.
In earlier times it was common for the people of better-favored nations to assume that if a country was poor it was because its inhabitants were inferior. Mid-way through the 20th century, straightforward thinking of this kind fell out of fashion, in favor of complicated economic and even psychological theories of development. IQ and the Wealth of Nations marks a return to a simpler, more realistic view: that populations differ in average mental ability, and economic achievement reflects these abilities.
Both authors of this important study are well known to AR. Richard Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Psychology of the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, has written several books reviewed in AR, including Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations and Eugenics: A Reassessment. He has also written for AR, most recently a summary of his innovative work on racial differences in tendency towards psychopathic personality. Tatu Vanhanen is Emeritus Docent of Political Science of the University of Helsinki, Finland. His remarkable book, Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism, was reviewed in the June 2002 issue. Both authors are unconstrained by racial taboos, and are therefore able to offer a convincing explanation for national wealth differences.
Previous theories have assumed that all populations are equally intelligent and hard-working, and that it was only a matter of time before all countries grew rich. According to “convergence theory,” for example, poor countries needed only to copy the achievements of the West. Since they would not have to bother with the uncertain work of innovation they would soon catch up.
For a long time, Marxists argued that capitalism could enrich some countries only by impoverishing others. The authors quote from a book, Development and Underdevelopment, published as recently as 1998: “[T]he gap between rich and poor ultimately will disappear, but only when the capitalist world system that has been in place since the sixteenth century itself disappears.” Some anti-capitalists endorsed the absurd view that poor countries could develop only by completely cutting themselves off from world trade and world markets.
There have also been theories about the influence of “culture:” Lucky whites got a good one, while blacks got a bad one. The culture argument has proven to be admirably adaptable. Back in the 1950s, when China, Korea, and Taiwan were poor, it was fashionable to blame the stifling effects of Confucianism. Now that these countries are growing rich, it is fashionable to credit the discipline and orderliness of — Confucianism. Some people have also proposed that hot weather slows people down and prevents development, but this theory doesn’t explain why Chinese have been so successful in Singapore and how whites managed to build an industrial economy in South Africa.
One of the better theories of development was that government intervention was the problem, and that free markets would drag the poor out of poverty. Communism proved that regulation hobbles development, but in the poorest countries, what passed for government had no power to regulate anything. Markets were free, but the people were still poor.
In the 1960s and 1970s, newly independent Third-World countries were going to be laboratories for all these exciting theories, and uplift artists swarmed the tropics promising great things. The uplift artists have come home, their theories in tatters, and with many former colonies poorer than when they were run by whites. The whole field of “development theory” has been more or less silenced by lack of success.
The Role of Intelligence
Prof. Lynn and Prof. Vanhanen explain that the average intelligence of the population predicts national income better than any other demographic characteristic. They note that within individual countries, income and intelligence are closely correlated: smart people generally make more money than stupid people. It would be surprising if this association between intelligence and wealth did not apply to nations as well.
In developed countries, approximately one quarter of children either rise above or sink below the socio-economic level of their parents, and IQ measured at an early age best predicts which children will rise or fall. People of high intelligence do even simple jobs better than the less intelligent, and the association between IQ and job proficiency increases dramatically with more demanding jobs. Even the US military has quietly accepted the fact that even donkey work requires a minimum level of intelligence: It does not accept anyone with an IQ lower than 80.
Intelligence influences more than jobs. The chart below, which summarizes data presented in The Bell Curve, shows that IQ levels are excellent predictors of many important outcomes. Intelligent people tend to make their way through life more successfully than the unintelligent. As this chart, which summarizes data for whites shows, Americans in the highest range of intelligence have essentially no chance of dropping out of high school, going to jail, or being poor.
Intelligence can make a life-or-death difference. Low IQ people not only fail to look after themselves, and are therefore more likely to die of accidents and preventable diseases; they are also more likely to neglect or kill their own children — and each other.
Within the same country bright people tend to live in desirable places and dim people in less desirable places. Their neighborhoods differ dramatically, just as the texture of life differs dramatically from one country to another.
The authors have collected a huge amount of data on national IQ and national income that suggest a powerful association between the two. Cross-national comparisons of intelligence and income are not easy or always accurate, but the authors have carefully documented their exhaustive search for what appear to be the most meaningful data available. They have also presented reaction-time data for the limited number of countries for which it is available. These are the records of the speeds at which people perform certain simple physical activities known to specialists as “elementary cognitive tasks,” (see AR’s review of The g Factor), and they correlate strongly with results from paper-and-pencil IQ tests.
National IQ findings reflect the very ample data collected in the United States and around the world on racial differences. African IQs are consistently low, while in Latin America IQs range from a high of 96 in Argentina and Uruguay, where the populations are mostly white, to about 80 in Guatemala and Ecuador, where most of the population is Indian or Mestizo. Hong Kong gets top score, with an average IQ of 107. Given the very high IQ scores of American Jews, the score for Israel is a surprisingly modest 94, doubtless brought down by Sephardic Jews.
For the 82 countries for which good IQ and national income data are available, the authors find a relationship between intelligence and GDP per capita. There is a strong positive correlation, as indicated by the sloping trend line. There is nothing surprising about the finding that more intelligent populations are richer than less intelligent populations. It is the “outliers,” or countries that fall well above or below the trend line that are most interesting.
Only a few of the countries on this chart are named, but in the text the authors provide careful analysis of all the data. The former Communist countries, for example, are much poorer than one would except from the IQs of their populations. China, especially, has been held back by its backward economic system, as has North Korea. In 1950, North Korea had a per capita GDP that was about 73 percent that of South Korea. The North languished under Communism while the South embraced capitalism, and by 1990, the north had only 25 percent the per capita income of the South. Because Koreans are all essentially the same stock, it is clear Communism impoverished the North. Presumably Eastern European countries were held back to much the same degree.
Some countries are well above the trend line, meaning their incomes are higher than would be justified by national IQ. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are easy to understand: Their wealth derives from natural resources exploited with the help of outsiders. South Africa is wealthier than it should be because its economy was run by whites. As blacks continue to take over, and as whites leave, its per capita GDP can be expected to fall.
The authors find that as a rule, no country with an average national IQ lower than 90 can sustain a complex, industrial society. Average IQ is important not only because a generally high level of intelligence provides the basic mental infrastructure of a country but also because the higher the average IQ, the larger the percentage of people with IQs in the 130 to 160 range, who provide the real leadership of most countries. However, once the threshold of 90 is cleared, average national IQ loses much of its power to predict wealth. With an average IQ of 98, for example, the United States has a considerably lower score than South Korea at 106, yet it enjoys a much higher national income. All the countries to the right of the United States on the chart have higher IQs but less income. The United States has benefited from size and natural resources, and from an economic system that encourages growth.
The authors find that as countries change from older forms of government to free-market democracies, the correlation between intelligence and wealth becomes stronger. Using historical data, they find that in 1820 the wealth/IQ correlation was only .540, whereas the correlation in the chart above indicated by the trend line is a considerably stronger .72. In the past, countries with similar IQs might have had vastly different levels of wealth because they had very different political and economic systems. As the rules for gaining wealth became better known, and more countries tried to follow them, differences in performance become more constrained by intelligence, and similar countries achieved similar levels of wealth.
The historical data make this clear. In the 1950s and 1960s, Americans were much richer than the equally high-IQ populations of Europe and North Asia. The reason is that even setting aside the effects of the world wars, countries outside America were not as well organized for producing wealth. Americans still enjoy a wealth advantage, but it is not nearly so great. The gap should continue to narrow as North Asia and Europe — including the former Communists countries — adopt free markets and their people reap the benefits of their intelligence. This is an example of the “convergence” the optimists spoke of, but it requires populations of similar intelligence. Asians have shown themselves quite capable of absorbing and even improving on the technology of the West. Africans cannot even understand it well enough to use it.
The authors point out that, consistent with their high national IQ, the Chinese were well ahead of Europeans culturally and technologically in every period of history up until about the 15th century. They speculate that Europeans pulled ahead only because they began to understand free markets, a concept only now gaining acceptance in China. The authors note also that democracy often comes along with free markets but is not nearly as important for economic growth. Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan are good examples of countries that used markets to great advantage and did so without the messiness of democracy.
Japan was held back by internal regulation and several centuries of self-imposed isolation from the rest of the world. However, after Commodore Matthew Perry opened the country by force in 1853, it performed one economic miracle after another, and with its 1905 victory over the Russians became the first non-white power to defeat a white nation in modern times. The Japanese needed no foreign aid; once their country was open to the world, they quickly absorbed the ideas and technology they needed to become a world power. Democracy was imposed on them only after 1945. Once China shakes off the last remnants of a planned economy it will have even greater potential to grow into an economic and military power. Continued authoritarian control is not likely to diminish this potential greatly, once China establishes efficient markets.
As the authors point out, people in developed countries have thought for so long in terms of eventual equalization of wealth that they are terrified by any other kind of analysis. Development economics is as willfully blind to racial differences as the other social sciences, and its policy prescriptions have been just as wrong-headed. A realistic view of racial differences would have led to different North-South relations just as it would have led to different domestic race relations. Independence was inevitable for many Asian countries, but race-realist metropolitan powers would have known their African dependencies were not capable of self-government. Race-realist native leaders would have understood that prosperity required European tutelage, and continued direction by whites would have spared black Africa many horrors.
If the West had better understood race, the history of southern Africa would have been dramatically different. Apartheid and minority rule might not have continued unchanged, but there would have been little international pressure on Rhodesians and South Africans to hand over their countries for destruction.
The authors themselves do not draw these conclusions. They have little to say about the fact that the poor we will always have with us. They do suggest that rich countries could subsidize contraception for the poorest people in the poorest countries in the hope of raising national IQ, but they are not optimistic this will happen. For the most part they simply accept that nations, like people, are unequal, and that any effort based on contrary assumptions is largely wasted. The West once understood this, and did not expend its treasure and sentiment on causes that usually make things worse. IQ and the Wealth of Nations is an important step back towards common sense.
The NOI Connection
The part of the sniper story that disappeared.
The arrests of John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo have been a relief for most Washington, DC-area residents, but for racially conscious whites, the media coverage of the “DC Sniper” is one more example of bias and double standards. Columnists Andrew Sullivan, Jonah Goldberg and Mark Steyn have compiled lists of media-approved “experts” on serial killers who told us the killers must be “angry white males” — the standard media scapegoat. On the very day of the arrests, the New York Times was reporting that suspects were being profiled for “possible ties to skinhead militia groups.”
Of course, the culprits turned out to be blacks, with at least one killer belonging to the Nation of Islam. This did not sit well with many blacks. “Urban” radio stations in the DC area buzzed with predictable theories of government cover-ups and racist conspiracies. One caller to WMMJ-FM claimed the “brother” the police got was the wrong man, and that “the real sniper is out there laughing at them.” A poll on the web site www.blackamerica.com indicated that over 20 percent of blacks believe the police were “scapegoating” Mr. Muhammad and his young sidekick.
The media are careful not to draw attention to the race and religion of the snipers. Thus CNN refers to Mr. Muhammad as “Mr. Williams,” despite the fact that he became a Muslim and legally changed his name long before the killing spree. CNN denies any bias, but for some reason it never refers to the athletic accomplishments of Cassius Clay or Lew Alcinder.
Needless to say, the media would be in full cry about the identities and associations of the snipers if they turned out to be part of a “skinhead militia group,” but we can hardly expect the media to seize on the connection with the Nation of Islam (NOI), especially since some of its members were responsible for what was probably the worst case of serial murder in American history.
The Zebra Killings
The Zebra Killings left 15 people dead and eight more wounded or mutilated in the San Francisco Bay area between 1972 and 1974. They got their name from the radio channel (channel Z) used by police investigators, but the name took on a more sinister meaning as it became apparent that a group of blacks was systematically stalking and killing whites.
Zebra (1979), by crime writer Clark Howard, remains the definitive book on the murders. Using court records, police reports, witnesses and interviews with the killers themselves, Howard pieced together the horrible details of the murders and the unrelenting hatred that inspired them.
The majority of the attacks were carried out by five members of a group within the Nation of Islam called the “Death Angels.” Jesse Lee Cooks, J.C. Simon, Larry Green, Manuel Moore and Anthony Harris believed whites were created 3,000 years ago by a black mad scientist named Yacub who wanted a race of inferiors over which he could rule. Death Angels believed they could earn “points” towards going to heaven if they killed whites. For them, whites were not human beings but “grafted snakes,” “blue-eyed devils” and “white motherf*****s.”
Mr. Howard describes the vicious nature of the attacks, which were mostly carried out against women and old men who could not fight back. The first victims in San Francisco were a couple named Richard and Quita Hague. The Hagues were out for an after-dinner walk when Death Angels abducted them at gunpoint and forced them into a van. They beat Richard unconscious with a lug wrench, sexually molested Quita and hacked her with a machete. They decapitated her as she begged for her life. Before leaving, the attackers hacked at the face of the still unconscious man. Miraculously, he survived and was able to give valuable information to the police.
Whites continued to die in what appeared to be random attacks. Death Angels killed Vincent Wollin on his 69th birthday with a shot in the back. They shot Mildred Hosler, an obese, older woman while she frantically tried to get away. Ilario Bertucci, a 135-pound, 81-year-old man, was killed while walking home from work. Marietta DiGirolamo, a 5’1” woman died on her way to a neighborhood bar. In none of these cases did the victims do anything to provoke the murderers. They were whites in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There were some high-profile victims. Death Angels shot and almost killed Art Agnos, who later became mayor of San Francisco. A member of the California Commission on Aging, Mr. Agnos was attending a community meeting in a black neighborhood to discuss building a government-funded health clinic in the area. The killers were hunting for whites that day. As the meeting let out, Mr. Agnos stopped to talk with two women. One of the killers came up behind him and shot him twice in the back. The bullets ripped apart his lungs, spleen and kidneys. Bystanders called an ambulance, and Mr. Agnos survived.
The case was solved when one of the Death Angels came forward with information on the others. Anthony Harris, afraid he was about to be arrested, and hoping to get $30,000 in reward money that he could turn over to his wife and child, told the authorities who the killers were. Police went on to arrest eight men, all with prior records. These men committed most of the killings but not all of them. Some of the murderers are still free to this day. The Nation of Islam paid for the legal representation of every one of the killers except Jesse Lee Cooks, who immediately confessed. The Death Angels are still in prison but come up from time to time for parole.
See No Evil
The Zebra Killings and DC Sniper attacks suggest that the NOI is a very dangerous extremist group. Yet Louis Farrakhan is probably the most admired leader in black America. What other black could attract half-a-million people to a rally? Almost every important black politician and leader — including Jesse Jackson — participated in his “Million Man March.” Until recently, the group received government funds for “security services” at housing projects. Compare the gracious and respectful way Tim Russert and Phil Donahue treat him with the rude, confrontational way they treat David Duke.
Of course, the Zebra Killings have faded from memory, and the racial and religious identities of the DC Snipers are being buried too. No one is calling for an investigation into how NOI teachings might have inspired Mr. Muhammad, despite reports that friends say he routinely made disparaging comments about whites, Christians and Jews. We learn in Zebra that NOI gave its members sacred “Lessons,” explaining that whites are “sub-human devils.” The possibility that these teachings may have helped inspire at least two sprees of serial murder don’t seem to interest journalists, who would rather write about largely non-existent anti-Muslim and anti-black violence committed by whites.
But after the huge publicity the sniper attacks got before the killers were caught — while everyone was sure they were white — the media can hardly drop the story now. The whole country has therefore heard about John “Williams” and John Lee Malvo, while the atrocities of Reginald and Jonathan Carr continue to be only local news (see next story).
Guilty in Wichita
Jury will decide on sentence for Carr brothers.
On Monday, November 4, after deliberating for twelve hours over three days, the jury in the Wichita Massacre case found Reginald and Jonathan Carr guilty on 93 counts — including capital murder, first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, aggravated robbery, burglary, and cruelty to animals. Reginald Carr was convicted on each of the 50 felony charges he faced for his role in the week-long crime spree in December 2000 that left five people dead and two injured. Jonathan Carr was convicted on 43 of 47 felony charges.
As this issue goes to press, the trial is in the penalty phase, with the jury hearing testimony to help them decide whether the brothers deserve to die for the sexual torture and killing of Jason Befort, Brad Heyka, Aaron Sander and Heather Muller. In Kansas, capital murder is defined as the premeditated killing of a rape victim, or of more than one person. It would be hard to think of a crime that better fits the definition.
The evidence against the Carrs was overwhelming. Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston and Chief Deputy Kim Parker called more than 90 witnesses and submitted more than 800 exhibits, tying the Carr brothers to each of the crimes: the kidnapping and assault of Andrew Schreiber, the shooting of Ann Walenta, and the murders in the soccer field.
Mr. Schreiber identified Reginald Carr as one of his assailants, the man who shot out the back tire of his car. Police recovered a .380 shell casing at the scene that was later traced to the gun used to shoot the other victims. Before she died of her wounds, Ann Walenta identified Reginald Carr from a police photo. The bullets removed from her body also matched the gun used in the other crimes.
But the star witness was the survivor of the massacre, H.G. She positively identified both brothers as the men who broke into her boyfriend’s house, raped her and Heather Muller, robbed the five friends, and later shot them as they knelt in a soccer field early on the morning of Dec. 15, 2000. Again, the shell casings, bullets and bullet fragments recovered at the scene were from the same gun.
H.G. had yet another link to her assailants. More than a week after her dramatic testimony, as she watched the continuing trial on a local television station, Reginald Carr’s lawyer questioned medical personnel about a venereal disease from which his client suffered. H.G. immediately called DA Foulston and told her that shortly after she was raped by the Carrs, she found she had the same illness (which is unspecified in press accounts). H.G. had not previously told prosecutors she was infected because she wanted to keep the matter private. Mrs. Foulston immediately entered this new discovery as yet more evidence of Carr guilt.
Trial testimony brought out many facts about the Carrs and the circumstances surrounding their crimes. Reginald was at one time married to a white woman named Mandy, with whom he had two children. At the time of the massacre, he was living off and on with Stephanie Donley, a white nurse whom he met in a bar in Dodge City, Kansas. It was at Miss Donley’s apartment that Reginald Carr was arrested on Dec. 15, 2000. She testified that she knew neither brother had a job, but noticed that they were suddenly flush with cash about the time the crimes took place. She said Reginald Carr, whom she knew as “Reggie,” told her he won the money fighting his pit bull. She said “Reggie” borrowed her car the afternoon of Dec. 14 and didn’t come back for 12 hours. When he returned, he hauled in clothing, electronics and a big-screen television. A few minutes later the police arrived. She also confirmed that Reginald Carr suffered from the sexually transmitted disease. So far, she has not publicly discussed her feelings about her boyfriend’s antics.
At the time of the crime spree, Jonathan Carr had just taken up with 21-year-old Tronda Adams. Miss Adams testified that she met the brothers at a mall early on Dec. 7, the day they attacked Andrew Schreiber. After she started going out with Jonathan, she told him she had a violent ex-boyfriend, and he gave her a gun for protection. Late on the night Ann Walenta was shot, Mr. Carr came by her house “to trade guns,” presumably to ditch the murder weapon. He gave her a gun, which she identified as being the same as the Lorcin .380 semi-automatic used in the crimes and later recovered. At some point Jonathan must have gotten the weapon back from her so the Carrs could use it to kill the four people in the soccer field. Months after the Carrs were arrested, a prison inmate working on a road crew found the weapon by a highway. Ballistics tests confirmed it was the gun used in all the shootings.
Miss Adams testified that on the night of the Massacre, Jonathan Carr called at 3:30 am, asking if he could spend the night. This was about an hour and a half after the killings at the soccer field. “He said there was a lot of police out, and he just didn’t want to ride around,” she said. Miss Adams was living with her mother, Toni Greene, who gave permission for Jonathan to spend the night. When he arrived, Jonathan was restless and flashing a lot of cash.
The mother, Miss Greene, testified that she got up before Miss Adams and Jonathan. As Jonathan slept on the couch she went through his coat pockets, curious to know more about the young man her daughter had started dating. She was surprised to find the diamond engagement ring Jason Befort had bought for H.G., and wondered if it was for a girlfriend in Cleveland she had heard about.
When Miss Adams got up and turned on the news, she saw Reginald Carr being arrested. She asked Jonathan Carr what happened that night. He refused to reply but she insisted that he talk. She says he then began to cry.
Miss Adams, who was in another room during this conversation, learned about the murders from news broadcasts. When a reporter said the police were looking for a white Plymouth she recalled that Jonathan was driving such a vehicle. She looked out and saw a white Plymouth parked in front of her house, and went to a neighbor’s house and called the police. When Jonathan Carr heard sirens, he ran out the back door but police caught him two blocks away. In the Plymouth they found two clocks belonging to Brad Heyka.
There was yet more evidence of guilt. ATM records showed that the amount of money the victims withdrew matched the amounts the Carrs were carrying when they were caught. Police also matched footprints found in the house and soccer field to shoes belong to the brothers.
DNA evidence showed that Jonathan Carr’s semen and hair were found at the house where the rapes took place. Both brothers had Heather Muller’s blood on their underwear. Miss Muller, like Aaron Sander, was preparing to take religious vows, she to be a nun, he to be a priest. She was a virgin when the Carrs raped her.
The Sedgwick County coroner said autopsies showed the three men had bruises and welts from being beaten with a golf club. Later the Carrs may have used the same club to beat H.G.’s pet schnauzer to death, the killing that gave rise to the animal cruelty charge.
Throughout the trial, prosecutors showed the jury very graphic evidence, including bloody crime scene photos. The Carrs’ lawyers objected, but the judge overruled them. The Kansas Supreme Court has determined that gruesome crimes lead to gruesome evidence, including photos, and prosecutors may introduce such evidence to prove the aggravating factors that justify the death penalty.
The prosecution took three weeks to present an overwhelming case; the defense finished in just a few hours. Jonathan Carr’s lawyers did not call any witnesses. Reginald Carr’s lawyers tried to challenge the DNA evidence, but were unable to refute it.
In her closing argument, DA Foulston contrasted photos of the victims while they were alive with those of the bodies lying in the snow. Lawyers for the Carrs objected strongly to the photos, which had at least one juror close to tears. Kim Parker also spoke for the prosecution, calling the Carrs cold-blooded killers: “These are crimes driven by greed, driven by selfishness, driven by lust, by twisted sexual gratification, disregard for the value of human life, disregard for life — to kill a dog.”
In closing arguments for the defense, lawyers for each brother tried to blame the other. “The evidence shows that the crime scene had all sorts of DNA,” said Reginald Carr’s attorney. “All of it that could be identified was Jonathan Carr.”
Jonathan’s lawyer focused on the single gun that was used in each crime. “One gun, one shooter,” he said, emphasizing the fact that Andrew Schreiber could not identify Jonathan Carr. He admitted that some evidence did implicate his client, but told the jury not to “go back and just check the boxes guilty on all counts.” “It shouldn’t be guilty by association. It should be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” he added. The jury duly found Jonathan Carr not guilty of the four felony charges stemming from the assault on Mr. Schreiber.
Neither Reginald nor Jonathan Carr reacted when the jury handed down the 93 guilty verdicts. But as Reginald Carr left the courtroom, he appeared to smirk and wink at the victims’ families. Unbeknownst to the jury, he had been shackled for most of the trial because he threatened deputies.
During the death penalty phase, the jury heard testimony as to why the Carrs should — or should not — die. The prosecution presented “aggravators,” aspects of the crimes that call for the death penalty. The rapes, multiple killings, and forced sex acts are three such aggravators. The defense offered “mitigators,” or arguments for leniency. The jury must vote unanimously to impose a death sentence.
The defense called the Carrs’ mother, who testified the boys grew up in a violent broken home, and asked the jury not to give them the death penalty. “I know the other families are out there,” she said, “and they’re probably hating me to death right now, but I’m asking you to spare their lives.” She blamed herself for how the brothers turned out, saying that she was “not a huggy, kissy person.” She also said the family never celebrated holidays, not even Christmas.
The Carrs’ older sister said she was sexually abused by her father, and that her mother’s live-in boyfriends beat up her brothers. She also testified that Reginald Carr told her he shot the four young people in the soccer field, but added that the older brother often admitted to things Jonathan Carr had done in order to protect him. The jury also heard from the women who bore Reginald Carr’s children. Both Richele Kossmen, who has a seven-year-old fathered by Carr, and his white wife Mandy Carr said they had a hard time believing he could have committed horrible crimes. They also described Mr. Carr as a good father, and both seem to be prepared to take him back. “If Mr. Carr would walk out of here today, would you resume that relationship?” Mrs. Foulston asked Miss Kossmen. “I sure would,” she replied. Mandy Carr, who married Reginald when she was 21 and he 16 and just out of prison on drug charges, says she still loves and supports him. She testified that his crimes and his attention to other women have not affected her feelings for him.
The defense also offered medical and psychological experts who claimed the Carrs are mentally incapacitated because their temporal lobes, which control short-term memory and risk assessment, have been damaged — possibly by injury. A psychologist testified that Reginald Carr’s early exposure to sex, drugs and violence may have predisposed him to crime. The defense seemed to be using contradictory tactics, trying on the one hand to depict the Carrs as appealing characters whose crimes are out of character, and also trying to suggest they have been so deformed by circumstance they should not be held responsible for what they did.
If the jury fails to agree on the death penalty, Judge Clark can sentence the Carrs to consecutive life sentences for each of the four capital murder charges, guaranteeing they will never leave prison. If the jury does vote for death, barring appeal, Reginald and Jonathan Carr will die by lethal injection.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Sport of Kings
King Mswati III of Swaziland wins his brides the old-fashioned way — he kidnaps them. Not content with the nine he already has, the 34-year-old absolute monarch wants three more. He looked women over during the annual reed dance festival, and had his aides spirit away three of the best. Families in Swaziland are usually glad to marry daughters off to kings, but Lindiwe Dlamini was horrified that he picked her 18-year-old daughter Zena Zoraya Mahlangu. She decided to sue to get Zena back. The royal family was not amused. “We have traditional forums where such issues should be addressed and we are surprised this woman decided to go to court,” says royal advisor Malamlela Magagula. “The [king] wondered whether [the] mother was really a Swazi citizen or not.”
The Swazi High Court tried to interview the woman several times after taking the case in October, but the royal family would not permit it. In late October, the king sent the attorney general, the national security chief, the police commissioner, and the head of the army to visit Chief Justice Stanley Sapire and other judges, demanding that they either dismiss the case or resign.
This angered many Swazis. The Law Society of Swaziland said, “Their conduct blatantly undermines the independence of the judiciary and directly interferes with the smooth administration of justice and the rule of law.” “This is a national crisis,” added Jan Sithole, secretary-general of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions. The Human Rights Association of Swaziland called the kidnapping “degrading, dehumanizing and traumatic to the dignity and person of women folk.” Even Amnesty International complained about a woman’s “right not to be subjected to forced marriage.”
None of this matters to Africa’s last remaining absolute monarch. On Nov. 4, the king officially announced his engagement. Two days later, the girl’s mother postponed the lawsuit, but reserves the right to reinstate it. The officials sent to intimidate the court apologized.
Last year King Mswati irritated many of his subjects when, after decreeing that as an AIDS-prevention measure women under age 18 were not to have sex, he went on to marry a 17-year-old. He later paid a fine of one cow. The king may have as many wives as he can manage. His father, King Sobuza II, had more than 100. [Thulani Mthethwa, Mother Sues Swaziland Royal Family, AP, Nov. 4, 2002. Fiancée’s Mom Postpones Lawsuit Against Swazi King, AP, Nov. 5, 2002.]
Many slaves were exported from the West African port city of Ouihdah, in what is now the nation of Benin. Africans native to the region helped load the slave ships and often rounded up the cargo. In 1999, Benin president Mathieu Kerekou apologized for the role his ancestors played in the slave trade: “We must acknowledge and share responsibility in the humiliations.” Last August, Benin’s ambassador to the United States, Cyrille Oguin, again admitted that people of his region were slave traders, and repeated the call for forgiveness and reconciliation.
The government of Benin hopes apologies will be good for business. Mr. Oguin says American blacks still resent their African brethren, and hard feelings prevent them from investing in Africa. “No amount of money can fix anything that has already happened,” he adds. “This apology is from the heart. And that is more valuable than money because of the psychological impact. Once we have that confidence that we have spiritually addressed those concerns, then the relationship in business, trade and culture will follow and become larger, stronger and long-lasting.”
“The apology is too late,” says Charlene Crafton of Prince George’s County, Maryland. “The damage has been done. The apology cannot compensate for everything we’ve been through.” [LaWanda Johnson, Benin Apologizes for Slavery, Washington Afro-American, Sept. 21-27, 2002, p. A1.]
The city of Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, has approved nearly $200,000 for a feasibility study for a 30-story-tall statue of Nelson Mandela. The city is planning a colossus half again as tall as the Statue of Liberty, to be set on a plinth 50 yards high. The plinth would house a “museum of freedom,” devoted to the events leading to black rule. The city expects tourism revenue to recoup most of the $20 million or so the project would cost, and plans to ask the French to pay for the casting, as they did for the Statue of Liberty. [Rory Carroll, ‘Colossus Mandela’ Planned, Guardian (England), Oct. 21, 2002.]
Rape is Normal
A study on sexual violence in South Africa has found that many children think rape is normal and acceptable. A survey of 9,300 children under age 18 found that, depending on the part of the country, 12 to 20 percent of boys, and five to 13 percent of girls admit having forced themselves on others. “Girls in the 10 to 14 years age group made shocking revelations,” says Neil Andersson of Community Information Empowerment and Transparency: Africa, which conducted the study. “Many claimed to have had sex with other children [boys and girls] without their consent. They have tough attitudes about sex, similar to the attitudes of adult men,” he added. The study also found that by age 18, 30 percent of children who attend schools have had sex in some form forced on them. “The children believe that this is what they have to do to be successful in life,” says Mr. Andersson. [Suthentira Govender, Girls and Boys Think Raping Fellow Pupils is Normal, Sunday Times (Johannesburg), Oct. 6, 2002.]
South African Diversity
Asian Indians make up about three percent of the population of South Africa. Many South African blacks think Indians benefited unfairly under apartheid, and they see them as oppressors who pay low wages and despise blacks. These feelings are echoed in the lyrics of a song by black playwright Mbongeni Ngema, who wrote the musical “Sarafina!” The song is called “Amandiya” or “Indians,” and is about the exploitation of blacks. Some of the words are: “Oh my fellow brothers, we need strong, brave men to confront Indians. Everything was taken by Indians and then they turn to oppress our own people.” Indian leaders say Mr. Ngema is racist, and want radio stations to stop playing the song. Former president Nelson Mandela wants Mr. Ngema to apologize.
No apology is likely. “If there wasn’t this reality, I wouldn’t have written this song,” says Mr. Ngema. “People would rather not deal with it, but the African-Indian problem is a very deep rooted one. As long as I can remember, people have been talking about how oppressive Indians are to Africans.” [Rachel L. Swarns, A Hit Song Puts Ethnic Tensions at Center Stage, New York Times, June 10, 2002.]
Blacks have killed 12 white farmers as part of Zimbabwe’s campaign to drive whites off the land. Four men who murdered David Stevens on April 15, 2000, have actually gone on trial. The militants of the Zanu-PF party are charged not only with the murder but with drinking Mr. Stevens’s blood. A witness testified that one of the killers drained blood from the corpse, mixed it with alcohol, and shared the cocktail with the others. Blood-drinking may not be uncommon. In October, Jocyline Chiwenga, the wife of Zimbabwe’s army commander, threatened to kill a white farmer, saying she had not “tasted white blood” for a long time. She was furious that the farmer had taken legal action against her after she had him thrown off his land. [Basildon Peta, Mugabe Men ‘Shot White Farmer and Drank His Blood,’ Independent (England), Oct. 25, 2002.]
Most American cities with any appreciable number of illegal Mexicans have been encouraging — under pressure from the Mexican government — local businesses to accept ID cards issued by Mexican consulates. Even many police departments now recognize matriculas consulares, which appear to be part of the Mexican government’s attempt to regularize the status of illegal immigrants (see AR, Oct. 2002). One south Florida city has resisted local Hispanic groups and pressure from the Mexican consulate in Miami. On Sept. 17, the Lake Worth city council voted 3-1 to table a proposal to recognize the matricula, effectively killing the ordinance. [Bill Douthat, Lake Worth Commission Kills Mexican-ID Proposal, Palm Beach Post, Sept. 18, 2002.]
On Oct. 2, the Chicago City Council voted 44-0 to require all companies doing business with the city to disclose whether they ever profited from slavery. Insurance companies must disclose information about policies written on slaves, and other companies must publicize any profits they or their predecessors made from slave labor.
Alderman Dorothy Tillman, the notorious anti-white council member who proposed the measure, says, “I believe people would like to know if a corporation they’re contemplating doing business with has its roots in trading in human cargo.” “The insurance industry is just the tip of the iceberg,” she adds. “The financial industry, textile industry, tobacco industry, railroads, shipping companies and many others got rich off the suffering and free labor of our ancestors.”
“We are the first city in the country to pass this ordinance,” crows Mayor Richard M. Daley. However, he adds, “It will not prevent companies from doing business with the city.” Last year, California became the first state to require insurance companies to publicize information on policies written on slaves. Supporters of this kind of disclosure hope it will help descendants of slaves win reparations. [Jerry Crimmins, Chicago Requires Its Contractors to Disclose Slavery Ties, AP, Oct. 3, 2002.]
On Black Hair
The following is from an article in a black Philadelphia newspaper:
Our hair . . . contains many microscopic (tiny) knots. These knots make the hair more prone to breakage while combing. So it is important to comb the hair gently with a wide-tooth comb, never pulling.
Good Black hair care begins with washing and conditioning. Washing our hair every seven to 10 days is important for healthy hair and scalp. However, African-American women often tend to under wash their hair. Our hair must be washed more than once a month! [Susan C. Taylor, MD, Uniqueness of Black Hair, Philadelphia Tribune, Oct. 13, 2002, p. 6-F.]
Elise Lemire, assistant professor of literature at the State University of New York’s Purchase College and author of Miscegenation: Making Race in America says the rate of interracial marriage is “an excellent indicator of the levels of racism in America.” “Ninety-seven percent of whites are marrying whites,” says Prof. Lemire, who has a black husband. “It’s a subtle kind of racism that people don’t ordinarily measure.”
According to the latest figures released by the US Census Bureau, while interracial marriages in United States have more than doubled since 1980 — from 651,000 to 1.4 million — they account for only 2.5 percent of all marriages. However, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago says Americans increasingly accept the practice. As late as 1990, it found that 64 percent of non-black adults opposed black-white intermarriage, but in the most recent survey, the number dropped to 32 percent.
In Utah, which is 90 percent white, the overall rate of intermarriage — five percent — is higher than the national average. Since blacks are fewer than one percent of the population, most interracial marriages involve whites with Hispanics or Asians. Still, 68 percent of Utah’s black men who married in 2000 chose white women, up from 11 percent in 1990. Only 23 percent of black men in the state who married wed black women, a 13 percent decrease since 1990.
This doesn’t sit well with the women. “Many African-American women complain that is why they can’t find any eligible men — because they have been grabbed by a different racial group,” says France Davis, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Salt Lake City. “Many [black] women end up frustrated and ultimately throwing in the towel as far as a meaningful relationship and marriage.”
Nationally, only 95,000 white men are married to black women, while three times as many black men are married to white women. Prof. Joel Wade of Bucknell University says — rather fancifully — that this is a legacy of slavery. “White plantation owners were able to force black female slaves to have sex with them,” he explains. “[Black women] have that history in mind, that associating with white males is perpetuating the master/slave image. There is a reluctance on their part to even consider it.” [Brooke Adams, Barriers to Interracial Marriage Falling, Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 13, 2002.]
Purnell Swett High School in Lumberton, North Carolina, has 1,200 Lumbee Indian students, 300 blacks, and a few dozen whites. It is not a harmonious mix. On Oct. 7, dozens of Indians fought a handful of blacks, and 30 Indians and nine blacks were suspended. Two days later, 100 Indian students and their parents protested, saying Lumbees were treated more harshly than blacks. At the end of the month, a letter began circulating at the school in which an anonymous Lumbee wrote, “I am a soldier in the Lumbee’s army. I will never surrender to the enemy.” The letter uses rude language to describe blacks.
“This is a hate letter,” says Lillie McKoy, a spokesman for Swett High’s black parents. “My fear now is that someone will get hurt. A child can’t learn if he’s not safe.” Frightened black parents are rushing to have their children transferred to other schools. [Racial Fight, Letter Put School on Edge, AP, Nov. 2, 2002.]
The US government plans to build a new, $70 million, 107,775 square-foot federal courthouse in Benton, the seat of Franklin County, Illinois. But G. Patrick Murphy, Clinton-appointed white chief judge of the Southern District of Illinois, thinks Franklin County is too white for such an important building, even though the city has been home to the federal district court since 1958. According to the 2000 Census, only 20 blacks live in Benton, and only 72 in the entire county. “Franklin County, for all practical purposes, is white,” says Judge Murphy. “I think it is fundamentally wrong to send the resources of the federal government, particularly in regard to the court system, to a community that is not diverse and is not enthusiastic about letting our employees participate fully in community life.”
Benton mayor Pat Bauer says Judge Murphy, who hails from Marion, just wants to put the courthouse in his home county of Williamson. The judge admits he would like the convenience of working closer to home, but says the blacks who work for the Southern District Court wouldn’t like living and working among so many white people. “Our black employees are not comfortable in Benton,” he claims. “It’s more difficult to recruit when people don’t feel they are welcome in the larger community, the school, the business community.” Judge Murphy does not have the same concerns about his white employees. He now works at the federal courthouse in East St. Louis, a notoriously miserable city with a population that is 97.7 percent black. [Linda A. Krutsinger, Judge Says Benton Too White, Southern Illinoisan (Carbondale), Oct. 10, 2002. Judges Weigh in on Whether to Build in White Town, Register Star (Rockford), Oct. 23, 2002.]
Freaky News Network
In order to bolster sagging ratings, CNN’s cable Headline News recently adopted a list of black hip-hop slang terms, to be used by anchors, in the news “crawl” at the bottom of the TV screen, and in graphics. Among the new terms are bling-bling (jewelry), flava (style) and freak (to dance provocatively or have sex). The network hopes black lingo will attract young viewers. [Timothy D. Pollard, Yo, Yo, Yo! This is the Hip-Hop CNN, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 9, 2002, p. A23.]
Hispanics drop out of school at even higher rates than blacks. In 2000 there were 1.56 million people living in the United States aged 16 to 19, who were neither high school graduates nor enrolled in school. Hispanics account for 16 percent of that age group but for 34 percent of the dropouts. Twenty-one percent of Hispanics in that age group had dropped out of school in 2000, compared to 12 percent for blacks, and just under seven percent for whites. [AP, Census: Hispanic Dropout Numbers Soar, Oct. 11, 2002.]
Ana Belen Montes, a 45-year-old Puerto Rican woman, began working for the Department of Justice in 1979. By 1992 she was a senior analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, specializing in the Cuban military. She was also a Cuban spy. Miss Montes’ 17-year espionage career came to an end when FBI agents arrested her in September 2001. According to court records, Miss Montes gave documents to her Havana spymasters that blew the cover of four undercover agents (who were caught by the Cubans), details about US surveillance of Cuban weapons, and other secrets so sensitive prosecutors say they cannot be publicly discussed.
Miss Montes made a bargain with federal prosecutors in March 2002, whereby she agreed to tell everything she knew about Cuban intelligence in exchange for a 25-year sentence. At her sentencing hearing on Oct. 16, Miss Montes refused to apologize. “I believe our government’s policy toward Cuba is cruel and unfair, profoundly unneighborly, and I felt morally obligated to help the island defend itself from our efforts to impose our values and our political system on it,” she told the judge. “We have displayed intolerance and contempt toward Cuba for most of the last four decades. We have never respected Cuba’s right to make its own journey toward its own ideals of equality and justice.” With time off for good behavior, Miss Montes could be free in 20 years. [Ted Bridis, Confessed Cuban Spy Gets 25 Years, AP, Oct. 16, 2002. James Vicini, US Spy for Cuba Sentenced to 25 Years in Prison, Reuters, Oct. 16, 2002.]
Leonard Perna of New Jersey died in 1986 and his children sorrowfully laid him to rest in the family crypt. Police have now learned that someone snatched the body, and that several Newark men — country of origin unspecified — planned to use it for the Afro-Cuban Palo Mayombe cult. Police arrested Eddie Figueroa and his son, Eddie, Jr., along with Franklin Sanabria after they found piles of human bones in the basement of the Figueroa house on Central Avenue. Mr. Sanabria admitted he stole the corpse to use in a ritual to make him a Palo Mayombe priest. Newark police say there has been a rash of body thefts, which suggests the cult is on the rise. [Jamie Schram and Brad Hunter, Voodoo Furor in Body Snatch, New York Post, Oct. 15, 2002.]
The former capital of the Confederacy has honored Gabriel Prosser, a slave who was foiled in a plan to lead a slave insurrection and murder whites. On the 202nd anniversary of his hanging on Oct. 10, 1800, the city council voted unanimously to rehabilitate Prosser. “This resolution seeks to correct an error in history whereby Gabriel has been seen by many as a criminal, as opposed to a patriot and a freedom fighter,” Councilman Sa’ad El-Amin explained. Prosser and his conspirators planned to kill whites, burn down buildings, and then raid the city arsenal. They hoped to take Gov. James Monroe hostage and negotiate their freedom. [Ex-Confederate Capital Honors Slave, AP, Oct. 28, 2002.]
An estimated one percent of South Koreans who give birth fly to the United States to do it so their children will be American citizens. The practice is so common several companies offer package tours for pregnant women, complete with immigration lawyers, pre-natal clinics, and even baby-sitters. Most of these agencies are discreet, but at least one, with a slick web page called birthinusa.com, markets itself with pictures of happy Korean mothers kissing their American newborns and being attended by smiling Korean nurses. The packages cost in the range of $20,000, which includes about a month in the United States because airlines do not let women fly in the ninth month of pregnancy. Los Angeles is the most popular destination because of its large Korean population, but New York, Boston, Hawaii, and Guam are also popular. A considerable number of women from Hong Kong and Taiwan also fly in for delivery. The United States is perhaps the last country that has birthright citizenship. Britain and Australia abolished the practice in the 1980s.
“There is nothing inherently illegal about somebody coming over here as a tourist and bearing a child,” says Thomas Schiltgen, district director of the INS office in Los Angeles. “Doing so doesn’t necessarily violate the terms of being a tourist.” [Barbara Demick, The Baby Registry of Choice, Los Angeles Times, May 25, 2002.]
Early in the morning of June 7, Tampa Bay Devil Rays pitcher Nick Bierbrodt, on a rehabilitation assignment in Charleston, S.C., was in a taxi with fellow pitcher John Vigue at the drive-through window lane of a Hardee’s restaurant. While they waited for service, they were disturbed by the loud rap music being played by a young black on a bicycle. Mr. Bierbrodt told the black to turn the music down. A few minutes later, the black rode up, pulled a gun and shot the pitcher twice in the chest. Mr. Bierbrodt was expected to recover. Charleston police were still looking for the shooter. [Marc Topkin, Bierbrodt Shot in Chest, Times (Tampa Bay), June 8, 2002, p. 1C.]
Back to Brass Tacks
John Denham, the British Home Office Minister, was recently in a debate at the Police Federation conference in Bournemouth, England, and used the phrase “get down to the nitty gritty.” Officers immediately told him this is a phrase they are not allowed to use because it is said to be offensive to blacks. They told him it had been explained to them that this was slave-trader’s slang for the muck left in the bottom of the boat after transporting a cargo of Africans. They went on to explain that they have to watch their language all the time, and never know when an expression that used to be common will be banned. Until recently police called Gypsy criminals “pikeys” but an officer can now be called before a disciplinary board for using it. “Beanflicker” used to be police slang for lesbians, but that, too, is out of bounds. One officer with 30 years service was reprimanded for using the abbreviation WPC (woman police constable), rather than the sex-neutral PC.
According to lexicographers, “nitty gritty” comes from grit-like nits and small lice in head or body hair. It is an expression that does not appear to pre-date the 1960s and the first users were black Americans, not slave traders. [Minister Prompts Race Row Over ‘Nitty Gritty,’ Times (London), May 14, 2002.]
Consider the Genes
In Britain there is something called the Nuffield Council of Bioethics, which was established to report on the ethical questions raised by advances in science. It has released a report entitled “Genetics and Human Behavior: the Ethical Context,” in which it hesitantly concedes that genes really do predispose people to certain kinds of behavior — even criminal behavior. It goes on to recommend that in the future, once we know more about the genetic causes of crime, judges should consider the genetic makeup of criminals when they pass sentence. The council does not, however, conclude that if certain people are biologically predisposed to crime they should be kept out of circulation. Instead, it argues that genes, in effect, absolve criminals of responsibility. “If you found that someone had a genetic makeup of this kind together with certain environmental factors, you might find probation plus anger treatment or therapy more appropriate than sending them to prison,” says Professor Bob Hepple, chairman of the Nuffield Council’s working party. Prof. Hepple also says that although scientific advances may make it possible to produce biologically improved children, this should not be done. It may be all right to prevent genetic diseases, but there must be no tampering with “what we regard as the normal makeup of mankind.” [Michael Holden, Judges Urged to Consider Criminal Genes, Reuters, Oct. 2, 2002.]
‘First Black President’
William Clinton, whom black author Toni Morrison once described as “our first black president,” is being inducted into the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame as an honorary member. He will be the first white. “It is this community’s way of saying thank you to him for the work that he has done,” says Charles Stewart, the hall’s chairman and founder. Mr. Clinton appointed many blacks to high positions in both state and federal governments, says Mr. Stewart, and since he left the White House, has devoted himself to fighting AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. Mr. Clinton says he is thrilled: “Most members of the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame have been personal friends or heroes of mine. To be included in their numbers, after a lifetime of working for equal rights and greater opportunity, is a wonderful gift.” [Black Hall of Fame Plans Honor for Clinton, AP, Oct. 17, 2002.]
Joyce Britton is a black Chicago lawyer who handles adoptions for the Illinois state child welfare agency. She does the paperwork when someone adopts a child who was in the custody of the state. These are “uncontested adoptions,” in which all parties agree to the adoption, and about the only non-routine question is how large a subsidy the state will pay if the child is retarded or handicapped. “An uncontested adoption, my 17-year-old son could do in his sleep,” explains Patrick Murphy, a public official who works in children’s services.
Miss Britton has apparently been doing adoptions in her sleep. According to her billing records from the past year, she worked on adoptions an average of 19 hours a day, seven days a week, without a vacation. On a few days she billed no hours, but on other days she billed as many as 48 hours. She charges $120 an hour, and got $862,000 from the state of Illinois during the past two fiscal years. There is no question that she handles a great many cases, and that she manages to charge close to the maximum of $1,400 the authorities budget for each one. Some suspect she manages to get so many cases from the child welfare authorities because she never tries to get larger subsidies for parents who adopt children with expensive problems. [Abdon Pallasch, Lawyer’s Adoption Billing Not Quite 24/7, But Close, Chicago Sun-Times, June 26, 2002.]
The Dinka of Sudan like to remove the bottom front six teeth of pre-adolescents. They bash them out with a spear, and think the resulting collapsed lip and toothless grin are attractive. They make fun of anyone who still has his teeth, and call him a dog. Missing teeth are not considered attractive in Nebraska, where 500 Dinka were resettled by the federal government, along with 7,000 other Sudanese.
Dinka without bottom teeth say they find it hard to speak English and eat American food. And their neighbors stare at them. “Here in America, we look ugly,” says David Ajak, a 21-year-old living in Lincoln. “In church, at work, people ask ‘Why don’t you have teeth?’”
Thanks to a local dentist with the unlikely name of Randy Toothaker, the Dinka may no longer be asked that question. Dr. Toothaker has performed dental restoration surgery on a few of the Dinka, and plans to apply for a $750,000 taxpayer-funded grant from the National Institutes of Health to help 100 more. The procedure, which involves implanting titanium posts into the bone under the gumline and capping them with artificial teeth costs $10,000. [Jeffrey Zaslow, A Nebraska Dentist Offers African Refugees a Rare Gift: Their Smile, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 15, 2002, p. A1.]
Fed Up in Hartford
Like most policemen, officers in Hartford, Connecticut must attend sensitivity training. On Aug. 28, instructor Margaret Steinegger-Keyser, a black South African, told a group of officers that her country was now more of a true democracy, and less oppressive of minorities, than the United States. When white officers questioned her about the endemic black-perpetrated violent crime and unrest in South Africa, she became defensive and combative, prompting five white officers to walk out. “I’m a Gulf War vet, and I shouldn’t have to sit and listen to someone badmouth my country,” says Officer Darren Besse. Because of the walkout, the Hartford PD has temporarily suspended training. [Matt Burgard, Friction Stalls Sensitivity Training, Courant (Hartford), Sept. 20, 2002.]
No Love Lost
The Columbia Heights area of Washington, DC, is changing. During the 1990s, the Hispanic population grew by more than 5,000 while the black population dropped by 6,800. Neither group appears to appreciate the diversity. Hispanics yell unkind things at the blacks, who tell the Hispanics to go back where they came from. “A lot of black people in this area feel like they’re being overrun,” says Franklin Hall, a black who runs a clothing store and who says he may have to start learning Spanish. Hispanics complain that blacks rob them, and that they are afraid to go to the police because so many are here illegally.
On Sept. 29 Florentin Bustillo, a 48-year-old from El Salvador, decided to do something about the blacks. He had been drinking with friends when a Hispanic man joined the group, saying he had just been beaten up by blacks. “I feel like killing me some black people,” Mr. Bustillo shouted, first in Spanish, then in English. He started off after a black, threatening him. “Come on,” the black is reported to have said, and Mr. Bustillo drew a ten-inch knife and started slashing the air. The black man pulled a gun from his waistband and fatally shot Mr. Bustillo.
Jim Graham, who represents the area on the Washington, DC, city council, says there is plenty of racial tension in Columbia Heights, but it rarely leads to killing. [David A. Fahrenthold and Mary Beth Sheridan, Cultures Clash Following Fight, Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2002, p. B1.]
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — I enjoyed reading Jared Taylor’s reflections in the November issue on publishing AR for the past twelve years. I was especially pleased to learn that he is received more warmly on radio talk shows. As a resident of one of the most liberal cities in America, I almost never hear a white person publicly offer an opinion that deviates from the PC standard on race. The fact that Mr. Taylor receives more calls from supporters is very encouraging.
However it would be nice if that support were translated into action, particularly on immigration. I agree with Mr. Taylor that “immigration is the greatest worldwide threat to our race.” I see poll after poll showing that most Americans strongly oppose current immigration levels, yet both major parties seem to want to let in as many immigrants as possible. As we saw on Sept. 11, and most recently in the case of the DC sniper, there are many in this “nation of immigrants” who wish to harm us.
In the Sept. issue, George Halstead outlined three strategies for sending messages to politicians. He should have added a fourth: We need an umbrella organization to bring together all the elements of our movement. After all, if we don’t hang together, we will hang separately. Organization and involvement are the only solutions. That’s how the anti-white left took over my hometown.
J. Smith, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Sir — Congratulations on your twelfth anniversary and your fight for truth before dogma. One important aspect of the work of American Renaissance is keeping the truth alive for those of us who live in Europe and do not enjoy your First Amendment rights. I doubt whether your magazine would have escaped the attentions of the thought police in England during the past twelve years, whilst were yours a publication from the European mainland the likelihood is that the editor would be languishing in prison. We are often reminded that in any discussion of race, “The truth is no defense.”
I have long taken the view that your Revolution was merely a progression on the views of our philosophers John Locke and David Hume. Sadly, we in the home country remain subjects rather than citizens. For example, opinion polls show that on both sides of the Atlantic 75 to 80 percent of the public favor capital punishment for brutal murder. In your country even arch-liberals like William Clinton cannot gainsay your wishes, whilst our politicians ignore us in the interest of what they see as humanity. Keep firing on all cylinders.
John Atkinson, England
Sir — When I read the concluding paragraphs of Mr. Taylor’s reflections on 12 years of AR I felt as though a great weight had been lifted from my shoulders. It really does make no difference what our chances of success may be. Whether we will one day regain our pride as a race or whether we are destined to disappear from history, it does not change our duty or our calling. Racial consciousness and commitment are simply central to what we are. Provided we do our best for our people, we can face the future calmly, confident that we have done what faith and loyalty require.
Susan Cort, Birmingham, England
Sir — Thank you for continuing to provide updates on the Wichita Massacre trial. I don’t watch cable TV or own a computer, and my local fishwrap never printed word one about this story. If not for AR, I would never have heard of it. I hope those swine fry.
Ken Baker, Martinsburg, W.V.
Sir — America is no longer a nation. We are now a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country. One possible solution is local pluralism. Pluralism would allow semi-autonomous ethnic communities, such as neighborhoods, developments, villages, suburbs, businesses, and universities to preserve ethnic identity, and practice and develop their cultures. People would simply declare themselves an ethnic community, and those who don’t fit in would move off. Integration and assimilation are thus avoided.
While all areas outside the ethnic communities would be open to integration, the important thing is that when people came home from downtown, work, or wherever, it would be to a place where people look alike, speak alike, have the same customs and traditions, have their own schools, stores and media, and live in comfort and security among their own — a homeland once again.
Herbert Metz, North Palm Beach, Fla. (americanpluralismsociety.org)
News of this kind is important for two reasons. First, it discredits the lefties who have based their foolish policies on environmentalist rubbish. But just as important, it is a warning to anyone else who might try the same tricks. Beware! Frauds will be exposed.
In fact, fraud is harder than ever to get away with because most social scientists recognize a certain principle, even if they do not endorse it publicly. It is that race and sex differences in outcomes are extremely durable. Anyone who claims to have dramatically narrowed the gaps will face a great deal of professional skepticism. Now, what we need is for policy-makers finally to recover from the 1960s.
Arthur Black, Mobile, Ala.