|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 18, No. 2||February 2007|
Banned in Halifax
No diversity of opinions about diversity.
Last November, Prof. David Divine of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, agreed to meet Jared Taylor in a debate on whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness. Late in December, he backed out of his agreement, claiming he had been unaware of Mr. Taylor’s background, and was now unwilling to let him speak. AR secured a venue in Halifax, where Jared Taylor planned to give the following talk on Jan. 16, the day after Prof. Divine gave his.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. As I believe you all know, this meeting became necessary after Professor David Divine of Dalhousie University backed out of an agreement to have a public debate with me on the question: “Racial Diversity: North America’s Strength or Weakness.” On December 21, he announced that after looking into my background, he decided to turn the debate into a monologue, in other words, to have a discussion about diversity in which diversity of opinions was not allowed. The place and time had been set. The university had even designed a spiffy poster advertising the debate. But no, a debate with me “would not be a useful way to explore the topic.”
Prof. Divine said that as part of his monologue he would be kind enough to summarize my views for the audience — and then explain why they are wrong. How he proposed to summarize my views without hearing them is a mystery to me, but that makes his job a bit easier, doesn’t it? Rather than face a real opponent, he wanted to set up a straw man to knock down.
I contacted him early this month to tell him I was coming to Halifax anyway. I urged him to stick to his agreement and debate me. I pointed out that if my ideas are wrong he should have no trouble refuting them. He refused to meet me. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe Prof. Divine is a coward. I think he is afraid to face a serious opponent in a serious debate on the subject of what amounts to the state religion of Canada: the assertion that multiculturalism and racial diversity are great strengths for a country.
And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that an assertion — a belief — is all it is. How, exactly, is racial diversity a strength for Canada or any other country? Does it raise per capita GNP? Does it improve crop yields? Does it lower crime rates? Does it reduce green house gasses? Does it lower taxes?
No, it doesn’t do any of those things. I’m not sure I have ever heard its boosters say specifically what it does. I will tell you what racial diversity does: It results in conflict, tension, and hostility. At its worst, racial diversity can lead to race riots, racially-motivated murder and assault. At its best, when communities of different races try to live together they simply leave each other alone. The result is relatively peaceful voluntary segregation. Except for a few bohemians, people of different races do not often mingle naturally and happily.
Think honestly about your own lives. How racially diverse are your dinner parties, your ski outings, your church services, your backyard barbecues? If racial diversity were a strength, people would be drawn to it naturally. They would mix spontaneously with people unlike themselves. And yet, they do not. They do not because racial diversity is not a strength. It is a source of tension and conflict. People may submit to racial diversity in their public lives but turn their backs on it in their private lives.
Now, you probably think that every major Canadian institution from the federal government on down takes the view that racial diversity is a great strength for Canada. In fact, they all agree with me. They all assert most emphatically that racial diversity is not a source of strength but a source of conflict. The only difference is that instead of the word “conflict,” they use the word “racism.” Whatever “racism” may be, they all agree that it is a very bad thing, and that Canadian society is riddled with it.
Now, if there were no racial diversity in Canada, there could be no racial discrimination, could there? So please remember this: Whenever people complain about racism, bigotry, hatred, racial profiling, discrimination, they are not talking about the joys and benefits of racial diversity. They are admitting that it is a source of tension and suffering.
To repeat, your government and institutions agree with me, not with Prof. Divine. That is why every province and territory has two major bureaucracies that fight racism: a Human Rights Commission and a Human Rights Tribunal. Then there is the federal Human Rights Commission — 200 people work for it full-time — the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada, and dozens more city and local bureaucracies fighting racism. Every university has an office for fighting racism.
And that’s not enough. The Canadian UNESCO Commission wants to establish a Canadian Coalition of Municipalities Against Racism. Saint Paul University in Ottawa wants what it calls a National Justice Initiative Against Racism and Hate. In 2005, the federal government launched Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism, which was to spend $56 million over the next five years combating racism. You have Parliamentary Committees on Visible Minorities and Standing Committees on Multiculturalism. It’s hard to keep up with all the bureaucrats whose job it is to sniff out racism and eradicate it. None of this would be necessary were there no racial diversity in Canada.
How bad is the race problem? The Ontario Human Rights Commission says “Racial discrimination and racism” are “pervasive and continuing.” The Canadian Race Relations Foundation says “racism is serious and pervasive.” The Canadian Commission for UNESCO says racism “imperils democracy.” The federal Human Rights Commission says “hate and, in particular, its manifestation on the Internet pose a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society.”
How can racial diversity be a strength if it gives rise to something that “imperils democracy” that “poses a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society?” This question deserves an answer, ladies and gentlemen, but because Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me, I’m afraid it will not get one. In fact, I suspect Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me because he knows this question has no answer.
Let’s go back to Ontario, where there is the most racial diversity in Canada, and where we should therefore find the most strength. Try a search on the web site for the government of Ontario on the word “racism” and see how many hits you get. I got 4,852 when I tried it in December. And I didn’t even try “discrimination,” “bigotry,” or “hatred,” or any number of other promising terms.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission hears 700 to 800 racial discrimination cases every year. Each case takes an average of a little over a year to finish, and the commission is so overworked it has a backlog, despite its $13 million annual budget and staff of 130. And remember: Although the Ontario commission may be the busiest, every province and territory has one, and there is one for the federal government, too.
Right here in Nova Scotia, the Human Rights Commission sponsors a forum every year that “examines the challenges being faced by different racial groups in maintaining and defining their identities in an increasingly complex world.” It also sponsors a series of breakfasts called “Champions of the Workplace,” where employers “discuss successes and challenges related to managing inclusion within their workforces.” If diversity is such a strength I wonder why it has to be “managed,” why there are “challenges,” and why it takes “champions of the workplace” to make it work. The Nova Scotia commission also offers “workshops on issues surrounding diversity, discrimination, race relations, and harassment.” Why does something that is a great strength require workshops?
In Nova Scotia you have an entire ministry devoted to blacks — whom it calls African-Nova Scotians. Why do you need that ministry if racial diversity is a strength?
The city of Halifax itself is abuzz with worries about racism. Just search the Dalhousie University web site for “racism” and you will get hundreds and hundreds of hits. Here are some of the results I got:
Racism within the health care system; Racism in the criminal justice system; The racism inherent in white civilization; Racism in Shakespeare’s The Tempest; Everyday racism in medical school; The systemic racism that is prevalent in Nova Scotia; Contemporary Representations of Racism in Children’s Books; Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights; Racism and Science Fiction; Thinking More Creatively About Racism and How to Tackle It; Systemic racism affects every aspect of our daily lives; Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. By golly, its everywhere. And this is just a tiny sample of the stuff that’s on the Dalhousie site.
Dahousie even has what’s called a Black Student Advising Center. It offers diversity and sensitivity training. It sponsors a special graduation ceremony for black students. It issues a bi-weekly paper called AfricVoice. The paper’s motto is “Informing, Inspiring, Empowering,” and each issue starts with an African proverb. “Stop profiling our young Black brothers as being drug dealers and pimps . . .” says the Nov. 10 issue from last year. The center even gives black students something called “The Black Student Advising Center Survival Guide.”
Survival guide? Why is all this special hand-holding necessary if racial diversity is a strength?
The city of Halifax recently had a classic demonstration of the disadvantages of racial diversity. The local paper, the Chronicle Herald, reports that Education Minister Karen Casey just fired the entire Halifax School Board. Why? According to the paper’s Dec. 20th issue, “Ms. Casey’s decision came after a recent shouting match among about a half-dozen members that involved accusations of racism. ‘Collectively, they are not able to work together in the best interest of students,’ she said.”
So it appears that racism is a very considerable scourge in Canada, but it is reassuring to know that commissions and tribunals and study groups and associations and foundations are beavering away night and day fighting it. They’ll soon have it under control, right? Well, maybe not. A recent survey by Statistics Canada found that, nearly 50 percent of blacks say they have suffered from discrimination or unfair treatment, as have 33 percent of South Asians and Chinese. (No report by StatCan on whether any whites suffer from racism.) A 2003 report on immigrants living in West Central Toronto found that 68 percent had suffered just from housing discrimination, let alone any other kind of discrimination.
In 2004 the Dominion Institute did a big poll and found that 65 percent of Canadians said that over the past five years there has been no change in the level of racism in their communities. Thirteen percent said racism had decreased but 17 percent said there was more of it than five years ago. Is Canada losing the fight against racism? That would seem to be the message of this survey, which was, ironically enough, taken to mark International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
And then there is the report York University wrote for the city of Toronto in 2000 about race, housing, and poverty. “There are huge levels of inequality,” explained the author Michael Ornstein, “and they are very strongly correlated with ethnoracial characteristics.”
Carol Tator, a Toronto-based academic seems to think you are losing the fight, too. The Dec. 24 issue of your local paper, the Chronicle Herald, quotes her as saying, “The problem of racial profiling in Canada both historically and currently is a national crisis across this country.”
And it is not as though the fight against racism only just got started. You have been battling it longer than we have in America. The first modern anti-racist legislation in Canada was Ontario’s Racial Discrimination Act of 1944. We didn’t have anything like that at the state or federal level in 1944. Ontario banned racial discrimination in employment in 1951, and by 1960 every province had passed similar bans. We didn’t get a national ban until 1964. You have comprehensive anti-racism legislation at provincial and federal levels — you’ve had it for decades. You even have a Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, part of whose job is to fight discrimination. And yet the battle still rages.
Let us accept, for a moment, the lefty view of all this, namely that racism — whatever that may be — is a moral failing that afflicts only whites. Non-whites — every man, woman and child — are noble, unoffending sufferers, whose sole aim is to be accepted as the loyal Canadians they are. Parenthetically, this seems to be the view of all your human rights commissions, too, but no matter. If this view is correct, it means whites are a uniquely defective people who break out in helpless spasms of racism whenever they encounter non-whites.
But if that is true, why must whites — and their non-white victims — be put through the ordeal of racial diversity? If, after decades of combating racism whites are still hopelessly racist, what is gained by an immigration policy that brings in yet more non-whites only to make them suffer at the hands of whites, and that degrades whites by bringing out the worst in them? Toronto used to be virtually all-white. There couldn’t have been much racial discrimination. Now, all official sources agree that Toronto is a hive of racial discrimination. How has racial diversity therefore been a strength for Toronto or for Canada?
This, therefore, is one problem with racial diversity. The races don’t seem to get along very well. Just look at all this agonizing and hand-wringing over racism. You may choose to blame all the problems exclusively on wicked white people, but why pretend racial diversity is a strength?
There is a second aspect of racial diversity on which Canada is strangely silent. Have the non-whites who are coming and who are increasing racial diversity improved the country? I realize this is a taboo question, but let us ask it anyway.
One of the unpleasant consequences of racial diversity is that whites, at any rate, have to be very careful about how they talk. In 2005 the chief economist of CIBC World Markets Jeff Rubin was spanked and sent for sensitivity training when he wrote that oil prices would double by 2010 because “this time around there won’t be any tap that some appeased mullah or sheik can suddenly turn back on.” Writing about “sheiks” apparently upset the Islamic lobby.
But I think the “Kemosabe” case was more interesting. As you will recall, that is what Tonto called the Lone Ranger in the TV series. Well, right here in Nova Scotia, your Human Rights Commission worked itself into a lather when a Mi’kmaq lady named Dorothy Moore said her boss called her Kemosabe. He called everyone Kemosabe, but she took offense. The commission appointed a board of inquiry to look into the complaint. It watched a bunch of Lone Ranger reruns and concluded in February 2004, that first, Kemosabe is not an insult, and that Ms. Moore hadn’t clearly shown she was offended by being called Kemosabe.
The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission was determined that “Kemosabe” be found racist and demeaning. It appealed the board of inquiry’s decision to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The court agreed with the board, namely that Miss Moore hadn’t proven the word was an insult, but the human rights commission still would not give up. It took the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada! The Supreme Court had better things to do than watch reruns of “The Lone Ranger,” and refused to take the case.
“We’re disappointed,” said Mayann Francis, head of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. “We thought this case might help establish clearer guidelines for dealing with discrimination and the cultural differences one finds in a diverse workplace.”
Ladies and gentlemen. If this is the sort of thing you get from a “diverse workplace” who needs it?
The Supreme Court did, however, take up the question of whether Sikh students can wear ceremonial daggers to school. The Montreal school board didn’t want students running around with knives, but the Supreme Court said they could, as a matter of religious freedom.
The Supreme Court does not yet appear to be involved, but back in 2005 your federal Justice Department helped fund a year-long, $150,000 study of polygamy. Last year it announced its recommendations. It said there are already so many polygamous Muslims in the country that Canada should get rid of its laws banning polygamy. Go with the flow. Make bigamy legal.
Do bigamists and kids with daggers make Canada a better place? Or are we even allowed to ask questions like that? Without diversity, these questions would not arise.
Let’s return for a moment to the subject of speaking freely. Let’s talk abut white flight. There was a 2004 Toronto Star article about a new Statistics Canada report on the appearance of visible minority neighborhoods in Canada’s big cities. Whites used to live in these places but they have moved out. According to the Toronto Star, StatCan could not bring itself to use the term “white flight,” and wrote only about “rapid replacement.”
Well, someone apparently wasn’t told about how we are now supposed to talk. That same year, 2004, Toronto city councilman from Scarborough Mike Del Grande told his local paper that “a lot of white people are moving out” of his ward. Another councilman immediately jumped on Mr. Del Grande: “To hear someone say white people are leaving and Chinese are coming in can be nothing other than a racist comment,” said Joe Mihevc. Poor Mr. Del Grande had to apologize: “I should have said many older residents of the community (are moving out),” he said. “I didn’t say it in a politically correct way.”
Now, what is going on when a city councilman says something that is obviously true, is accused of racism, and is forced to say he should have spoken in code rather than speak clearly? You can’t even describe what is going on before your very eyes, much less talk about why whites are leaving and whether they might even be justified in leaving. This doesn’t sound like a strength to me.
The vice principal of Queens University unbosomed what strikes me as a significant truth about Canada. Recently he was quoted as saying, “Our Canadian culture has been squeamish about gathering race-based statistics because no one wants to see ethnic makeup reduced to numbers on a page. But unless you get this kind of information, you don’t really know if you have a problem.”
Well, yes. How do you even begin to assess whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness unless you gather the information. Do different groups have different rates of illegitimacy? School failure? Poverty? If they do, does it make sense to add to those groups through immigration? Take crime data. I understand Canada does not keep records of racial differences in crime rates. Too squeamish, I suppose. And yet everyone knows some groups commit more crime than others. Your newspapers talk about it indirectly.
This is from the Canadian Press of December 24, 2005:
Cities like Vancouver and Toronto have been rocked by a wave of gang violence in recent years. Almost 100 men in rival Indo-Canadian gangs in Vancouver have been murdered since 1994, often execution-style, over drug deals gone bad. Toronto’s gang violence, on the other hand, often involving gun-wielding young black men, has escalated to the point that a coalition of African-Canadians recently called on Prime Minister Paul Martin to declare the issue a national crisis.
‘Of the more than 70 murders in the Toronto area so far this year, a large portion of them have involved gang members — as many as 30 in the black community and many others among Asian, Latino and Tamil gangs,’ said Tony Warr, Toronto’s deputy police chief.
Here’s the Globe and Mail of Oct. 17, 2005, telling us that on a per capita basis Winnipeg has become the murder capital of Canada. “Most of the victims of violent crime are aboriginals, Third World immigrants, gang members, homeless people or transients. Winnipeg’s West End . . . has long been in thrall to a gang known as the Mad Cowz, made up mostly of young African immigrants, many in their teens.”
In the Vancouver paper The Province, issue of Oct. 21, 2005, we read, “A violent ethnic war between Filipino and Vietnamese youths in the Lower Mainland will likely escalate, Vancouver police said yesterday.”
Here is a March 16, 2006 story in the Calgary Sun, with the headline: “Feared Gang Hits Calgary.” A gang of white people? No. It is MS 13 from El Salvador.
In 2005, black violence got so bad in Toronto that one councilman, Michael Thompson, urged the police to pull over young blacks randomly and see if they were armed. Mr. Thompson said this wasn’t racial profiling, but that “the police now have got to take measures — drastic measures.” There was criticism of this, of course, but Mr. Thompson was not hounded out of polite society as you might suspect. He is black and thus enjoys the benefits of protective coloring.
Now, as we saw, Canada is too squeamish to collect crime statistics by race, but the United States is not. We know, for example, that blacks commit robbery and murder at approximately eight to ten times the white rate, that Hispanics commit these crimes at three to four times the white rate. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be in youth gangs, and blacks are 18 times more likely. I would suspect there are equally striking racial differences in Canada, but no one knows because the government doesn’t want to know.
We find yet another interesting diversity issue in the case of Toronto’s now-defunct zero-tolerance policy on crimes in schools. Students were committing so much robbery, drug dealing, sexual assault, and weapons violations that in 2000 the province passed the Safe Schools Act, requiring that any student guilty of these offences be expelled or suspended. Just four years later the province had to drop the policy. Why? Non-whites were being expelled and suspended all out of proportion to their numbers. More than 1,000 children under the age of seven had been suspended — for things like robbery, weapons possession and drug dealing — and the majority were black. So Toronto had to junk the zero-tolerance policy.
This story illuminates two things: First, we learn that non-whites were the major source of the problem; you did not have a rash of crimes like this when the schools were overwhelmingly white. Second, a sensible, non-discriminatory solution had to be ditched because non-whites were getting more of their share of the punishment. Here, racial diversity both caused the problem and made it impossible to apply an obvious solution.
While we’re on the subject of Toronto schools, in 2005, a black school board member proposed setting up an all-black school. Lloyd McKell, who had the title of executive officer of student and community equity, said all-black schools might be a necessary way to fight high dropout and expulsion rates.
Just last April right here in Halifax, a black educator named Wade Smith said integrated schools were doing such a poor job with blacks that he thought Halifax needs a school just for blacks. I thought segregation was supposed to be bad for blacks. Now, it turns out integration is bad for blacks. Racial diversity seems to be very tricky business, indeed.
Back to Toronto, in 2005, a coalition of 22 black community groups — but let’s stop right there. A coalition of 22 black community groups? Twenty-two race based associations? What do they all do? Why are they needed? Why are they racially exclusive? How many more are there that are not part of this coalition? Are they all glorying in the strengths of racial diversity? Anyway, a Toronto Star article begins like this: “A Toronto coalition of 22 black community groups disgusted by gun murders in the city wants a separate set of rules and institutions for blacks — from a government department to a diversion program for minor crimes.”
The article then quotes Zanana Akande, a former principal and an Ontario cabinet minister in Bob Rae’s NDP government. She says: “Blacks have now reached the point of such disgust, such frustration, such a feeling of rejection . . . that well-trained, well-qualified, capable people have given up and said, ‘You know what? Maybe we should have our own [institutions]’.”
The article continues: “Margaret Parsons, executive director of the African Canadian Legal Clinic went further, saying Canada’s vaunted policy of multi-culturalism has blinded authorities to systemic racism against blacks, even as they adopt policies of inclusion and integration.”
The white man just can’t get it right. Here he is, adopting policies of inclusion and integration, but they only blind him to systemic racism against blacks. And we are still supposed to believe racial diversity is a strength?
Outright segregation makes white people nervous so, according to the Toronto Star of last July 19, blacks will have to settle for a new “Africentric” curriculum that is supposed to boost black pride and improve grades. There is even going to be Africentric math, with a unit on racial profiling. Does anyone think that will really improve grades?
Of course, now you have a bit of a problem with Muslims, too. In a July 25, 2006 article from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, we get another revealing headline: “Study: Conflict Likely Between Canada, Its Muslim Citizens.”
But maybe that shouldn’t be surprising. Last summer police arrested a group of young Muslims — “homegrown terrorists” you have been calling them — who were going to storm the Canadian Parliament, hold politicians hostage, and maybe even behead the prime minister. According to the Globe and Mail of last June 29, the wives of the four main conspirators shared “among other things, their passion for holy war, disgust at virtually every aspect of non-Muslim society and a hatred of Canada.” Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised if Canadians don’t care for this.
At the same time, so many of Toronto’s Muslims were taking their children out of classes that were supposed to teach them the right attitude toward homosexuals that Ontario’s prime minister got involved. In 2004, Dalton McGuinty issued a personal plea to Muslim parents to let their children take these classes. Diversity seems to be tricky for all sorts of reasons.
So far, I haven’t said anything about Canada’s oldest experiment with racial diversity, which is relations between whites and aboriginals. If diversity is a strength, this one should be well developed because it has been around the longest. Somehow, it doesn’t seem that way. It was news even in the United States when Indians took over the town of Caledonia, Ontario, which they claimed was on their land, and chased out the white man. McLeans magazine warns of more to come. An article from just last December 27 begins like this: “Canada should brace for more dramatic displays of aboriginal defiance in 2007, warn native leaders who say the First Nations frustrations that boiled over in a small Ontario town this year may well be a tipping point for decades of simmering aboriginal anger.” Decades of simmering aboriginal anger. It sounds like another source of strength gone bad.
On the very day of the McLeans article, the Mohawk Nation News wrote: “Don’t get any ideas that we will become Canadians. No way! We can and will handle our own affairs. So get out of our way while the going is good. Canada, you know, everything belongs to us. We’re getting it all back.”
So what are we to conclude from all this? Ladies and gentlemen, let us face facts squarely. Racial diversity in Canada, just as it is in America, is an ordeal. Sometimes, a difficult, agonizing ordeal. It is a source of resentment, guilt-mongering, and endless charges of racism.
If it were a strength, non-white groups would not set up countless race-based organizations to protect and advance their interests. If it were a strength, no one would need diversity managers or sensitivity training. If it were a strength, Canadians would not naturally separate on racial lines.
Take a look around the world. Wherever people are killing each other most diligently, they are killing each other because of diversity. The Tutsis and Hutus slaughtered each other because of ethnic differences. The Tamils and Sinhalese slaughter each other in Sri Lanka because of religious and ethnic differences. Arabs and blacks slaughter each other in Darfur because of racial and religious reasons. Arabs and Israelis slaughter each other because of ethnic and religious differences.
The Soviet Union broke up because of racial and ethnic differences. So did Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Zimbabwe is expelling white farmers only because they are white.
Diversity of the kind Canada is promoting is one of the most obviously divisive forces on the planet. To keep jabbering, as Canadians are supposed to do, that diversity is strength is like repeating the three official government slogans from George Orwell’s 1984. Let me remind you what they were:
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
“Diversity is strength” fits right in, doesn’t it?
And to add to the Orwellian atmosphere, I must point out that Canada has laws against free speech that touch on this very subject. All I have done this evening is quote government sources and read newspaper articles, and yet several people warned me that for giving this talk I could be arrested for “inciting racial hatred.” Others said that as an American I could be turned away at the border for the same reason.
Isn’t this exactly what desperate, totalitarian regimes do? Promote lies and then punish people who speak the truth?
We are living in dangerous times, ladies and gentlemen. If your government will lie to you about this, what will it lie about next? If it forbids dissent on this subject, what will it forbid next?
With your immigration and multi-culturalist policies you are dicing with the future of your country. If there is even a small chance that by replacing European Canadians with Third-World Canadians you will end up with a Third-World country, do you not owe it to your children and grandchildren to think seriously about the demographic future of your country?
There are those who would prefer that you never think about this. That you remain ignorant of any dissenting argument about race. It was in order to keep you ignorant that I was shut out of yesterday’s event. But as Orwell warned, just as freedom is not slavery, ignorance is not strength.
Breaking the Great Taboo
Sam Francis’s final call for racial consciousness.
Samuel Francis (ed.), Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of Our Nation and Our Time, The Occidental Press, 2006, 446 pp., $34.95 (hardcover), $19.95 (softcover).
Race, as the late Samuel Francis writes in the introduction to this collection of race-realist essays, is the Great Taboo of our age, as sex was for the Victorians. Just as the Victorians punished people who “talked about sex, made jokes about sex, or wrote too openly and frankly about sex,” so do the racial Victorians of the 21st century, denying as they do the reality of race, punish people who assert that race lies at the heart of many of our most intractable social problems.
Dr. Francis should know. He suffered firsthand the consequences of violating the Great Taboo. At the first American Renaissance conference, held in Atlanta in 1994, he said:
[W]e as whites must . . . reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites . . . The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people. If the people or race that created and sustained the civilization of the West should die, then the civilization also will die.
For this and other observations he was fired from his job at the Washington Times, the “conservative” Washington newspaper. A lesser man might have groveled to keep his job, and perhaps submitted to sensitivity training. Not Sam Francis. He spent the remaining decade of his life writing and speaking on a variety of topics, including the racial crisis whites face. He spoke at every AR conference until his death in February 2005, and his speeches were always among the highlights of the program. He was, in the words of American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, “the premier philosopher of white racial consciousness of our time.”
Race and the American Prospect was Dr. Francis’s last book. He conceived of it, chose the contributors, edited their essays, and wrote two chapters. The book as a whole is an exhortation to whites in North America, Europe and Australia to reclaim their racial birthright before they and their descendants are displaced by non-whites in their ancestral homelands. It is not a screed, but a sober, scholarly, well-reasoned examination of the crisis that we as whites face in an era of mass immigration, multi-racialism and multiculturalism.
What is racial consciousness and why is it important to whites? Simply put, racial consciousness is the conviction that a biologically unique group has a right not only to survive, but to thrive, that it is entitled to protect its interests as a group in the geographical territory from which it sprang or in which it developed. Racial consciousness asserts the right of a race to fashion a society and institutions that serve and advance its interests, and from which its people and their descendants are the main beneficiaries.
Racial consciousness is both natural and moral. It is particularly important to whites because it is to them, and to them alone, that it is now prohibited. As even a cursory glance through Race and the American Prospect will show, this was certainly not always the case. But as Dr. Francis explains in the introduction, over the last century the West has suffered a “racial revolution” that has “eviscerated” white racial consciousness and identity “through the pseudoscientific denial of race, the political and cultural demonization of whites, and the political and legal destruction of white cultural power.” The same revolution has encouraged non-white, and indeed anti-white racial consciousness among minority groups. Thanks to mass immigration, within this century non-whites are likely to displace whites as the majority in many of their historic homelands.
Dr. Francis lays out three reasons why whites must recover an explicitly racial consciousness. First, science has rejected the “race is a social construct” fallacy. Races are biologically distinct, and one cannot replace another. If whites were to be displaced, no other race could replicate their contribution to human society. Second, independent of the scientific reality of race, whites are entitled to survive and thrive for their own sake, just as all members of a family want that family to survive and thrive. Finally, whites must recover racial consciousness for reasons of self-protection. Every non-white group in Western nations explicitly promotes its own interests. By abandoning racial consciousness, whites have unilaterally disarmed in the face of non-whites who promote their racial interests, often at the expense of whites.
The essays in Race and the American Prospect expound on these three reasons why white racial consciousness needs to reassert itself, and what is likely to occur if whites do not wake up to the crisis they face. The essays examine various aspects of the crisis — from the scientific to the historical, from the religious to the philosophical — and some seek to explain how white racial consciousness, which was so deeply ingrained not just in America but also in Britain and Europe, was lost.
In “The Reality of Race,” Kevin Lamb, editor of The Occidental Quarterly, offers a detailed analysis of current scientific thinking on race. Science confirms what racial liberals deny: that race is real, and that it is racial differences that primarily account for the success or failure of different groups. No one who understands genetics any longer subscribes to the environmentalist “blank slate” model developed by Frankfurt School sociologists. Those who explain black and Hispanic underachievement in terms of “racism” and discrimination have an agenda that is political, not scientific.
In “Racial Differences in Intelligence, Personality and Behavior,” Prof. Richard Lynn shows that observations about racial differences throughout history, before the revolution in genetic science, have proven more accurate than those of modern-day sociologists. His conclusions are well known: East Asians have higher IQs than whites, who have higher IQs than blacks. Blacks are more likely than whites, who are more likely than East Asians, to engage in destructive behavior and suffer from what Prof. Lynn calls “psychopathic personality.” There is no moral dimension here. Racial differences are the result of evolutionary development in different environments. They do explain, however, why not all population groups fit well into white societies.
The difficulties blacks face in white American society are examined in detail in Joseph Fallon’s “The Cost of Racial Pluralism in Black and White.” Using data and charts, Mr. Fallon shows that from rates of criminality and welfare use to disease and unemployment, blacks are at the bottom on most indices of social health. The trillions of dollars spent to lift blacks out of poverty since the 1960s — money largely taken from white taxpayers — has not had the transformative effect the architects of the Great Society hoped for. Today, the Great Society’s spiritual heirs blame persistent white “racism,” and demand even more money and penance from whites.
Having failed to solve the black-white race problem, American elites made things worse in 1965 by opening the United States to mass non-white immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. In “Immigration and Race,” Dr. Wayne Lutton, editor of The Social Contract, offers a detailed examination of US immigration from colonial days to the present. For most of its history, the US had an explicitly racial immigration policy. The first naturalization law restricted citizenship to “free white persons,” and until the late nineteenth century, nearly all immigrants were from Northwestern Europe: Britain, Ireland and Germany, along with some Dutch and Scandinavians. Chinese and Japanese were excluded on racial grounds. When the source of immigration shifted to Eastern and Southern Europe, old-stock Americans responded with the 1924 Immigration Act, which established national-origin quotas based on the populations of each ethnic group present in the country at the time of the 1890 census (this was later changed to the 1920 census).
Supporters of immigration restriction were unapologetic about their desire to retain the Northwestern European character of the nation. As Congressman William Vaile of Colorado, a prominent supporter of the 1924 act, explained, “the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country.” Others helped, but “they came to this country because it was already an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.” No public official today would dare make such a statement.
The immigration restriction movement of the early 20th century was the last hurrah of classic white racial consciousness. Following the Second World War, immigration “reformers” worked tirelessly to abolish the national-origins quotas, and scored their great triumph with the 1965 Immigration Act.
Sadly, the story of mass immigration has been played out in all English-speaking countries — Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even Britain. Derek Turner, editor of the British magazine Right Now! demonstrates in “The Dis-United Kingdom” how mass non-white immigration is rapidly turning Britain into a multiracial society, with all the attendant problems: crime, social disintegration, and cloying political correctness. In some ways, the racial situation in Britain is even worse than in the United States, and it beggars belief that Britain, the land of the Anglo-Saxon, a racially homogeneous society for centuries, may be majority non-white by the end of the century.
It is extraordinary how rapidly white consciousness disappeared after the middle of the 20th century. Jared Taylor, in “The Racial Revolution,” shows just how deeply racial consciousness was imbued in the men who created and developed the United States. Nearly all of the historical figures of the American past, from Thomas Jefferson to Dwight Eisenhower, had a clear view of themselves as white men living in a white civilization. Even so-called progressives or liberals like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were explicit in their view of America as a white country. By modern standards, nearly every prominent American before the mid-1950s was an irredeemable “racist.” Today, the race-realist views of Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, or Samuel Gompers are air-brushed out of the history books. If today’s Americans knew the truth about the great figures from their past, they might more easily reassert their legitimate interests.
Atlanta attorney Sam G. Dickson, in “Race and the South,” takes a well-deserved swipe at Southern neo-Confederates who deny there was a racial element to the War Between the States. The neo-Confederates refuse to admit that Southern secession was driven primarily by the South’s desire to keep black slaves. Mr. Dickson cites leading Confederates like President Jefferson Davis, Vice President Alexander Stephens, and General Robert E. Lee to show that it was slavery — and therefore race and not states’ rights — that drove the Southern cause.
White racial consciousness was not restricted to Southerners, or even Americans. Brent Nelson and J. L. Woodruff in “Race and the Left” and “Race in Philosophy” demonstrate that many European social and political philosophers, even those on the left, were critical of blacks and other non-whites, and viewed European civilization as the apotheosis of human achievement. Mr. Woodruff makes a particularly trenchant point. Throughout most of modern history, European and European-derived societies have been so far ahead of non-white societies, that whites did not even think of non-whites in the same terms as themselves. Thus Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, wrote “All men are created equal,” but believed blacks were an inferior race. The enemies of white racial consciousness have seized upon statements like this and applied them to non-whites, something Jefferson would have found absurd and even dishonest.
Who is responsible for what Dr. Francis calls the “evisceration” of white racial consciousness? In what will be the most controversial chapters of Race and the American Prospect, both Kevin McDonald and Richard Fausette blame Jews. In “Jews, Blacks and Race,” Prof. McDonald writes that Jews view themselves as an out group in Western societies, and have developed an evolutionary strategy of undermining traditional white societies to make them safe for Jews. In his view, this means eliminating white racial consciousness. Thus Jews were at the forefront of the social movement to re-label America as a racially and culturally pluralist nation, in which no one group was dominant. This revisionist notion glorifies “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Politically, Jews were the force behind the immigration reform movement that abolished the national-origins quota system, opening the country to mass immigration. Prof. MacDonald writes that both movements undermined the US as a white nation, and both were seen by Jews as in their interests.
Mr. Fausette, in “Race and Religion,” looks at the decline of Western society from a Biblical perspective. Jews have adhered to God’s plan by maintaining biological purity in the form of what he calls “Orthodox breeding” communities; non-Jews have not. By accepting aliens into their societies they have violated God’s view of how a people should live, and therefore will suffer the punishment of having their “altars pulled down.” By placing responsibility for our plight on another group, these two chapters are a departure from the general themes of the book, which are directed towards the thinking and behavior of whites rather than that of others.
Dr. Francis takes a different view of who is responsible for what whites face today. Relying on his study of James Burnham’s theory of managerial elites, he writes in “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization” that since the New Deal, a new globally oriented, technically sophisticated managerial elite has used its mass-organizational skills to promote its interests and power. This new elite sees any vestige of traditional America — or any other traditional society — as an obstacle, and uses all means at its disposal, including finance and propaganda, to destroy it. It happens that the group interests of Jews coincide with the interests of the new elite, which explains why many Jews have risen to prominence in the institutions the elite has developed since the New Deal.
Race and the American Prospect concludes with Richard McCulloch’s “Racial Preservation,” which outlines how whites could recover and pass on racial consciousness. For Mr. McCulloch, white racial consciousness is love for our people, not hate for any other. It means keeping white racial interests firmly in mind. All public policy must be viewed through the prism of whether it is good for whites. We should not be concerned with the interests of other groups, for they will look after themselves. We should always oppose multiracialism, because it is inherently anti-white and will ultimately lead to the disappearance of whites through race-mixing.
Race and the American Prospect is generally quite readable — a testimony to Sam Francis’s editing skills — but the book cannot be called an easy read. It is long, it is serious, it is scholarly. At the same time, the variety of its contents, the high quality of its contributors, and the wealth of information it contains are all proof that the field of white racial consciousness has reached a level of maturity and confidence well beyond what activists of 20 or 30 years ago would have imagined.
Race and the American Prospect is bristling with arguments many Americans would find eye-opening — if they were ever to hear them. Access to the public is the challenge all dissident movements face. Let us hope that this solid work of reference becomes the volume to which Americans turn as the reality they see around them conflicts ever more sharply with the myths they are told to believe. That would be the legacy most befitting the memory of Sam Francis.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Black school children in Britain are three times more likely than whites to be expelled, and five times less likely to be considered “gifted and talented,” and the British government can’t figure out why. In November 2005, it commissioned a study to find out why blacks account for 1,000 expulsions (the British call them exclusions) and 30,000 suspensions every year.
The bureaucrats had to decide whether blacks behave worse than whites or whether teachers are racist. The report at least hinted that you could make an argument that blacks need more discipline: “On the face of it, this view (that blacks are being influenced to behave more aggressively by factors outside school) is supported by statistical evidence that black pupils are most likely to be excluded for ‘violence against a pupil’ and more likely than average to be excluded for ‘violence against a member of staff.’” The poor dears could be victims of media indoctrination: “The portrayal of images heavily dominated by the experience of black Americans has encouraged growing levels of aggression and a view that violence is a product of poverty and disempowerment. Such cultural factors have encouraged young men to posture aggressively as a means of ‘getting respect’ and resolving conflicts.”
But having wrestled with this possibility, the report retreated to implausible but safer ground. It would not be right to suggest blacks behave worse than whites because “this would be regarded by many as a racist viewpoint.” So what’s the explanation? “The exclusion gap is due to institutional racism decisions made by schools and their staff which have the cumulative effect of producing a racist outcome . . . While a compelling case can be made for the existence of institutional racism in schools, there is a comparatively weak basis for arguing that street culture has a more persuasive influence on black young people than it has on other young people.” Put bluntly: “The exclusions gap is caused by largely unwitting, but systematic racial discrimination in the application of disciplinary and exclusion policies.”
Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour government had no problem saying the police were racist after the investigation of the Stephen Lawrence murder, but the minister in charge of reviewing the report kept quiet about it. Maybe Labour did not want to call the British school system racist for fear of offending the teacher unions. The report surfaced only after The Independent got hold of a copy. Teachers say they punish only those who deserve it, and race has nothing to do with it. [Ian Griggs, Institutionally Racist: Report Tells How Black Children are Being Discriminated Against in Schools, Independent (London), Dec. 10, 2006.]
Another BNP ‘Exposé’
The race hate charges against British National Party chairman Nick Griffin and activist Mark Collett, on which they were acquitted last November, originally stemmed from a clandestinely filmed documentary called Secret Agent, made by a BBC reporter who sneaked into party meetings. Having reporters “expose” the BNP appears to be a new hobby for the British media. A writer for the Guardian, a left-wing London paper, spent seven months “under cover” as an organizer for the party, and has just emerged to write about it. He could find very little dirt, but did print the names of several prominent BNP members, including a senior healthcare regulator, an associate of Prince Charles, a servant at Buckingham Palace, and Simone Clarke, a principal dancer with the English National Ballet.
Miss Clarke has since had considerable media attention, but is holding her ground. She says immigration has “really got out of hand,” and that “if everyone who thinks like I do joined, it would really make a difference.” She says her boyfriend encouraged her to do something rather than rail at the television news, and she refuses to apologize. “I’ve never been clearer in my head that I’m moving in the right direction and at the right time. I’ve had nearly 300 emails supporting me from all over the UK and from as far away as Australia, America and New Zealand. I don’t regret anything. I will stay a member.” Of the 11 principal dancers in the company, nine are immigrants and only two are British. Miss Clarke’s boyfriend and father of her child is a Chinese-Cuban immigrant — and also a dancer.
The ballet company wishes to distance itself from her views. A spokesman sniffs, “We are an equal opportunities employer. We pride ourselves on the diversity in the company.” Miss Clarke may therefore lose her job. Lee Jasper, equalities director for the mayor of London and chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism, says, “The ENB must seriously consider whether having such a vociferous member of an avowedly racist party in such a prominent role is compatible with the ethics of its organization . . . I think she should be sacked.” A spokesmen for the Commission for Racial Equality says it is monitoring events and “will be interested to see what action the ENB takes given that it has a member expressing such views in public.”
Another prominent Briton named as a BNP member is Annabel Geddes, who once headed the London Tourist Board. According to the Guardian, she says Pakistani immigrants are a “bloody bore” and blacks are “ghastly.” She is quoted as telling the undercover reporter, “I’m a racist. We’ve got to keep little UK basically Anglo-Saxon.”
The Guardian is shocked that the BNP is recruiting affluent, upscale members and that they would associate themselves with a nationalist party. The paper also feigns shock that the BNP encourages its members to practice security (they obviously have good reason to), and to behave in a way that reflects positively on the party. [Ian Cobain, Inside the Secret and Sinister World of the BNP, Guardian (London), Dec. 21, 2006. Jack Malvern, BNP Ballerina Stumbles Into the Spotlight, Times (London), Dec. 22, 2006. High Muir, BNP Ballerina Defies Rising Clamour to Sack Her, Guardian (London), Jan. 1, 2007.]
Critics are accusing German television of being “too white” because there are hardly any non-white news readers and reporters. They suggest that since 20 percent of the German population are immigrants, television should go multiracial as it has in America and Britain. The critics are finding a sympathetic ear in the “conservative” government of Chancellor Angela Merkel. “We have to make immigrants more present in German television,” says Maria Böhmer, the German minister of integration. “I keep hearing from immigrants that they don’t see themselves represented by the public sector broadcasters . . . For example, having a Turkish anchorwoman needs to become a normal thing. We need more reporters who themselves know the immigrants’ world and can convey it. The media have an obligation here.”
Sociology professor Rainer Geissler says Germany must be “more welcoming” to foreigners to make up for low German birth rates, and putting non-whites on camera will help immigrants integrate. The television networks apparently agree. Two have already promised to recruit non-whites, while two more have hired diversity consultants to help hire non-whites and monitor programming. [German Media Too White, Says Government, Der Speigel, Dec. 20, 2006.]
Reversing the Decline
In 1946, with their country in ruins, German women had 922,000 babies. In 2005, with their country one of the richest in the world, they had just 690,000. The German rate of 8.5 births per 1,000 residents is the lowest in Europe. The government thinks the population will decline from the current figure of 82.4 million to 69 million by 2050, and worries this will hurt the economy and the pension system. To halt the trend, the government is increasing the child benefit it pays parents during the first year of a child’s life — from $400 per month to a maximum of $2,375 per month. This should increase annual payments to parents from the current $1.2 billion to $5 billion a year.
France and Sweden already offer subsidies at around the new German level, but also offer state-sponsored daycare for babies and pre-school children. Britain offers mothers “baby bonds,” or $490 vouchers for starting trust funds. Russia, which faces perhaps the most dire demographic crisis of any white country, offers parents $9,600 for second and subsequent babies. [Stephen Graham, Germans Get Incentives for Having Babies, AP, Jan. 3, 2007.]
Hope Trumps Experience
Since Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe began taking white-owned farms in 2000, the number of white farmers has decreased from 4,500 to 600. As recently as 2005, Mr. Mugabe vowed to keep grabbing land until there was “not a single white on the farms.” Now, with the country — which used to export food — on the brink of starvation, he has changed his mind. He is now offering 99-year leases to white farmers willing to return. Incredibly, 200 have filed applications. “We wanted to come back, because it’s home,” says one. [In Reversal, Mugabe Seeks White Framers, UPI, Dec. 17, 2006.]
More on Michigan
Opponents of Michigan’s affirmative action ban were buoyed in late December when a federal judge delayed implementation of the ban for six months, allowing the state’s three major public universities to continue applying race preferences in admissions for the current academic year. But on Dec. 29, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, ordering the universities to comply immediately. A spokesman for the University of Michigan says the schools are reviewing the appeals court decision and will soon decide whether to keep fighting or obey the law. [Jennifer Chambers, Mich. Universities Consider Next Step After Prop 2 Ruling, Detroit News, Dec. 30, 2006.]
Sense and Segregation
Segregation in US public schools has been increasing for the past decade, and a new study from Rice University in Houston, Texas, purports to show why. Rice sociologist Michael Emerson believes that better-educated whites, regardless of income, are more likely to remove children from public schools when the number of blacks increases. “We believed from prior studies that education has a significantly positive impact on racial attitudes,” says Prof. Emerson. “We found when studying behaviors, however, that acquiring more education is not a means of combating segregation. Education may broaden an individual’s world, but it also leads to greater negative sensitivity toward blacks’ presence in public schools.” The study also finds that highly-educated whites live in whiter neighborhoods than less-educated whites. Prof. Emerson says the study reached a “sad” and “profound” conclusion: formal education is not a liberal cure-all. He thinks the government needs to impose integration. [Pam Sheridan, Does Education Help Breed Segregation?, Sallyport (Rice University), Fall 2006.]
New York’s Finest?
On Dec. 26, as Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York” played in the background at Madison Square Garden, Mayor Michael Bloomberg saluted the latest — and most racially and ethnically diverse — graduating class from New York City’s police academy. About 300 of the 1,359 rookies are foreign born, and from 65 different countries. Twenty-eight percent are Hispanic, 17 percent are black, eight percent are Asian, and only 46 percent are white. Eighteen percent of the new officers are women. City officials are proud of their diverse class, explaining that they tried very hard to hire women and non-whites and people who speak foreign languages. Mayor Bloomberg called the class a “gift to the city.” [Ernie Naspretto, Fine Show of N.Y.C.’s Diversity, New York Daily News, Dec. 27, 2006.]
In order to fight the so-called “War on Terror” the Pentagon believes it needs to recruit officers and soldiers who speak Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages, and who are familiar with Islamic countries. It has begun to recruit Muslim immigrants, and is making the US military more Muslim-friendly. West Point and the other service academies already have Muslim prayer rooms, as have most US military bases. Each year, Gordon England, Deputy Defense Secretary, hosts an iftar, a feast that traditionally ends Ramadan, at the Army-Navy Country Club in Arlington, Virginia. “There is a message here,” he says, “and that is that Muslims and the Islamic religion are totally compatible with Western values.” Muslim soldiers get extra time off during Ramadan, and are exempt from physical training during fasts.
The Pentagon doesn’t count soldiers by religion, but estimates that 3,386 Muslims are in the ranks. Other sources put the figure as high as 15,000. [Richard Whittle, Uncle Sam Wants US Muslims to Serve, Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 27, 2006.]
Winning the Lottery
Lionel Jean-Baptiste came as a refugee from Haiti, settled in Miami, and in 1996 became a naturalized US citizen. He was also a drug dealer. Six months after becoming a citizen, he was charged with conspiracy to sell crack cocaine. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to eight years in prison and got out in 2004. Since 2000, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had been working to strip Mr. Jean-Baptiste of citizenship on the grounds that he had been selling crack even before 1996, while he was waiting for citizenship. This meant he was not a person “of good moral character,” as naturalization law requires. Mr. Jean-Baptiste appealed, but to no avail, and in 2006, he was sent to a detention center for deportation. He is the first naturalized citizen in 44 years to lose citizenship because of a drug conviction.
Unfortunately, Mr. Jean-Baptiste is still with us. In September, a federal judge ordered him deported to Haiti, but Haiti refused to take him, insisting that Mr. Jean-Baptiste renounced his Haitian citizenship when he naturalized. The US then tried to send him to France and the Dominican Republic, but they didn’t want him either. Because the US Supreme Court has ruled that foreigners who cannot be deported cannot be detained indefinitely, the government had to let Mr. Jean-Baptiste go. He couldn’t be happier. “God is good,” he says. “I feel like a lottery winner.” [Jacqueline Charles and Larry Lebowitz, Haitian Who Lost US Citizenship is Released, Herald (Miami), Dec. 22, 2006.]
Not Black Enough
US Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) is clearly the media favorite for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. As he tests the presidential waters in early primary states, he is greeted by large, enthusiastic — and overwhelmingly white — audiences. In fact, those most cool to the Obama presidential boomlet are blacks.
Many believe Sen. Obama, whose father was a Kenyan immigrant and whose mother is white, is not authentically black. Stanley Crouch, a black newspaper columnist, says Sen. Obama “does not share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves. While he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own — nor has he lived the life of a black American.”
Political analyst Ron Walters believes that what appeals to whites about Sen. Obama — his white mother, growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, Harvard education — alienates blacks. “For some African-Americans, he has not really affirmed their identity. He has affirmed his own mixed identity, but he has not strongly affirmed the right and the claim of African-Americans in this society to equal treatment,” he says. Black radio host George Wilson agrees: “There’s a feeling that if white folks like him so much he must not be good for us. For some blacks it’s a turn-off.” [Stephanie Griffith, Obama’s Toughest Sell for White House Bid May be to Other Blacks, AFP, Dec. 21, 2006.]
Two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security went after foreigners who prey on children. “Operation Predator” has so far netted more than 6,000, an average of eight per day. Eighty-five percent are illegals. “We are seeing an alarming number of illegal aliens with criminal records for everything from homicides to rapes of children as young as three years of age,” says Sid Francis, a former New York City detective who investigated sex crimes. Det. Francis accuses politicians, the news media, and pro-illegal immigration activists of covering up for criminal aliens. “If anything, the president and the two houses of Congress are actually helping these fiends enter the US to assault citizens and their children. They appear more intent on locking up border patrol agents than stopping illegal alien thugs.”
Assaults on children are particularly heinous, but represent only a small fraction of the crimes committed by illegal aliens. According to research from the National Association of Police Chiefs, during one recent nine-month period, federal agents arrested more than 100,000 aliens on non-immigration, criminal charges. This figure does not include arrests by state and local police. [Jim Kouri, Thousands of Illegal Aliens Preying on Children, Conservative Voice.com, Jan. 2, 2007.]
In 1977, a New Jersey jury convicted Assata Shakur (real name Joanne Deborah Chesimard) of murder for the 1973 killing of state trooper Werner Foerster during a routine traffic stop. Miss Shakur, a member of the Black Liberation Army, was wanted at the time on several felony warrants, including bank robbery. Sentenced to life, Miss Shakur escaped from a prison in Clinton, New Jersey, in November 1979, and the FBI believes she is now living in Cuba. In 2005, the Bureau put her on its list of most-wanted domestic terrorists, and offered a $1 million bounty for her. Miss Shakur keeps a high profile for a fugitive. She runs a web site, www.assatashakur.org, on which she proclaims her innocence: “I have been a political activist most of my life, and although the US government has done everything in its power to criminalize me, I am not a criminal, nor have I ever been one.” Miss Shakur is the godmother of murdered black rapper Tupac Shakur, and is a cult figure to hip-hop “artists” and assorted political radicals.
In 1989, City College of New York let students name a community center room after Miss Shakur and Guillermo Morales, a former member of FALN, the Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off bombs in New York during the 1970s. Like Miss Shakur, Mr. Morales is also believed to be living in Cuba. Apparently, police groups have only now learned of the name, and are outraged. “We use tax dollars to support an institution that indemnifies a cold-blooded terrorist? She’s a cowardly, cold-blooded convicted murderer who’s part of a murdering sect,” says Dave Jones, president of the New Jersey State Troopers Fraternal Association. “She’s no different from those people who flew those planes into those towers and destroyed all those innocent lives.” Mr. Jones’ and other police groups are demanding that City College change the name of the room.
The college has no such plans. “This is not the college or the administration’s idea of a good name for this room, but we believe the university is a place to discuss and argue ideas, some of which are not widely supported,” says spokesman Mary Lou Edmondson. [Sara Bonisteel, Report: Police Groups Angered by ‘Terrorist’ Honor at New York College, Fox News, Dec. 12, 2006.] Would she sing the same tune if a student group named a room after Jefferson Davis?
One of the myths about the 2006 midterm elections is that House Republicans’ opposition to amnesty cost the party Hispanic votes, which paved the way for the Democratic takeover of both chambers. Republicans are so convinced their future lies with Hispanics they are willing to sacrifice the interests of whites — their natural base.
Accordingly, Pres. George W. Bush chose Florida Sen. Mel Martinez to head the Republican party, replacing outgoing chairman Ken Mehlman. (Mr. Mehlman proved he was no stranger to pandering when he ditched the party’s winning Southern strategy, which sought to maximize white votes, in favor of “minority outreach.” The fact that he is former chairman shows how successful that strategy was.) Sen. Martinez would be the first Hispanic to be chairman of the Republican National Committee.
The appointment also signals the GOP’s support of the president’s amnesty plan. “Border security only, enforcement only, harshness only is not the message that I believe America wants to convey. I think we didn’t always strike the right tone on that. And I think it was a mistake,” says Mr. Martinez. [Melissa Drosjack, Mel Martinez Aims to Turn Around Republican Party, Fox News, Dec. 22, 2006.]
“Fool Me Once”
Back in 1997, the FBI recorded a conversation between a Hispanic drug dealer and a black Camden, New Jersey, police officer, Michael Hearne. Mr. Hearne was caught on tape telling the drug dealer how to handle a narcotics investigation. Although the FBI did not have enough evidence to indict Mr. Hearne, in 2000 he was suspended from the force for six months. Mr. Hearne went back to work after his suspension, and in 2006, the 18-year veteran was promoted to head the Camden Police Department’s faith-based outreach effort, organizing church leaders to help fight crime.
On the day of his promotion, a friend asked Mr. Hearne to lend him a gun so he could rob drug dealers. In return, Mr. Hearne would get half the cash. He agreed. Unfortunately for Mr. Hearne, the man was an undercover police informant. Detectives arrested Mr. Hearne — in uniform — as he was delivering a shotgun to the informant. City leaders were dumbfounded. “He was a saint and did the work of 50 persons,” said Mayor Gwendolyn Faison. [Sam Wood and Dwight Ott, Arrest of Police Veteran Shocks Camden, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 26, 2006.]
Back in 1980, Hispanics were just 5.3 percent of students in Clark County, Nevada (which includes Las Vegas). By 1990, they were 12.1 percent, and in 2006, 38.8 percent of the district’s 303,000 students. Hispanics now outnumber whites, who are 37.5 percent. “We’re taking over,” says Ron Montoya, principal of Valley High School, where 62 percent of 3,100 students are Hispanic.
The rapid influx of Hispanics “compounds the challenges,” says Superintendent Walt Rulffes. “We not only have the profound challenges of the growing population, but we have to change how we do business because of the change in cultural mix.” Fifty-five percent of Hispanic students are enrolled in the district’s English Language Learners (ELL) program, despite the fact that most were born in the US. The district has even had to give ELL training to 14,000 teachers over the past two years. [Antonio Planas, Hispanic Students Outnumber Whites, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nov. 18, 2006, p. 1A.]
Thanks in part to economic booms in Charlotte, Raleigh and other cities, the foreign population of North Carolina is surging — up 412 percent in the last 15 years, five times the national rate. By 2005, 560,753 state residents were foreign born. Most are Hispanic and many are illegal; 42.2 percent of the state’s construction workers are now Hispanic. The influx has been expensive for state taxpayers. A 2006 study by the University of North Carolina finds that Hispanics consume $61 million more in services — schools, hospitals, prisons — than they pay in taxes. Immigration boosters say Hispanics keep wages low.
Opposition to illegals in the Charlotte area came to a head in July 2005 when a drunken illegal crashed his car, killing a popular teacher and leaving the teacher’s wife in a coma. Mecklenburg County Sheriff Jim Pendergraph responded to the outrage by signing his agency up for a federal program authorized by the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act that lets local police act as immigration agents after they get training from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Twelve of Sheriff Pendergraph’s deputies have received ICE training, and have processed 653 illegal immigrants for deportation since last April.
“This is the hottest issue I’ve ever seen,” says the sheriff. “And it’s going to be the hottest issue, maybe next to Iraq, in the presidential election in two years. Congress has let us down. And a lot of the politicians are doing the three-monkey thing — hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil — because they’re so afraid of political correctness. Political correctness is going to cause us to lose this country.” Sheriff Pendergraph says he is flooded with requests from other law enforcement agencies about the training program. “People see there is something you can do. Every person we remove from the county is one person you and your family won’t meet on the highway.”
The usual people worry that illegals are now afraid to deal with police, but most people agree with county commissioner Bill James, a strong proponent of tougher laws. “My goal is to make being an illegal alien in Mecklenburg County both a dangerous proposition and an uncomfortable one,” he says. [Paul Nussbaum, A Surge in Immigration is Spawning a Backlash, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 15, 2006, p. A1.]
In most American cities, streets named for Martin Luther King are synonymous with crime, poverty and decay. It is not surprising that the people of Portland, a majority-white, historically Irish and German neighborhood of Louisville, Kentucky, opposed a plan by two black city council members to rename one of their streets for King. Nearly 140 people turned out on Dec. 18 for a public meeting to discuss the proposal. Most of the audience was against the plan, some for the usual respectable reasons, such as the confusion the name change might cause, but most seemed to agree with Portland resident Jason Semar, who said: “Dr. King did a lot of great things. However, he is not part of our community. This is about our identity.” He described supporters of the proposal as “troublemakers who knew this would cause a problem.” The meeting became heated, and the two black council members headed for the door, leveling charges of “racism” against the people of Portland, and vowing to “move ahead” with their plan.
Surprisingly, two days later, Barbara Shanklin, the original sponsor, abandoned the proposal. “We don’t want to fight with the people of Portland,” she said, adding that she will try to find some other way to honor King. Louisville already has a Martin Luther King Street: a closed-off, dead-end, one-block stretch of pavement downtown. [Sheldon S. Shafer, Residents Rebuff King Plan, Louisville Courier-Journal, Dec. 19, 2006, p. A1. Sheldon S. Shafer, King Blvd. Backers Rethink Plan, Louisville Courier-Journal, Dec. 21, 2006, p. A1.]
The Harbor Gateway area of Los Angeles has become a battleground between blacks and Hispanics. Hispanic gang members have established a “forbidden line” at 206th Street, and have warned blacks not to cross it. On Dec. 15, a black eighth-grader named Cheryl Green and a group of friends were standing just on the black side of the line, when two Hispanics walked up, pulled out guns, and started blazing away. Miss Green was killed and three of her friends were wounded. Police have arrested Jonathan Fajardo and Ernesto Alcarez and charged them with murder and hate crimes.
Blacks are in high dudgeon and have organized several marches across the “forbidden line” since the killing. Long-time black residents say they live in fear of Hispanics and avoid patronizing stores that are known as Hispanic gang hangouts. “I don’t go outside past five,” says 19-year-old Ashley Williams. [Marchers Cross Harbor Gateway ‘Forbidden Line,’ Daily Breeze (Torrance), Dec. 31, 2006. Second Arrest Made In Racially Motivated Shooting Of Teen, NBC4TV (Los Angeles), Jan. 5, 2007.]
No news reports have pointed out that Hispanics are a victim category for hate crimes but not a perpetrator category, so that when this murder is entered into the FBI’s annual compilation of hate crimes, it will be recorded as a murder of a black by a white.
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — While I was generally impressed with the coverage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative victory in the January 2007 issue of American Renaissance, I would like to make one crucial addition.
The Michigan Council of Conservative Citizens, a chapter of the National Council of Conservative Citizens, was the major ground-level activist organization pushing for MCRI’s passage. This was so well known and so much the case that the Kalamazoo Gazette recognized the council’s efforts in this regard.
The Michigan CofCC and its chairman John Raterink actively worked for the MCRI as follows: conducted a statewide letter-to-the-editor campaign, with many letters printed; participated in phone interviews and debates; wrote a lengthy article that was printed as a guest editorial; held public rallies and functions to support MCRI; frequently made local news because of their work for the initiative; and endured many personal and organizational insults and attempts at sabotage by the far left. As far as I can tell, no other established group did any of these things. It was not the case, as you write, that all whites lined up behind the leadership of a black man and a white woman.
Given AR’s usually comprehensive and excellent coverage on such matters, I am disappointed that you missed the very important contributions of the Michigan CofCC.
Anthony Boor, National Advisory Board Member
Council of Conservative Citizens
St. Louis, Mo.
Sir — I was glad to see your coverage in the January “O Tempora, O Mores!” section of recent findings that human beings are at least 10 times more different from each other genetically than was previously thought. It is yet another example that exposes the faulty bases on which people claim that race is a sociological delusion rather than a biological fact.
The other side will, of course, ignore these findings, since the race-is-a-delusion position is now dogma in many circles. “Anti-racist” documents issued by the European Community now routinely assert that race is a myth, and warn that when they use the word “race,” it is not to be taken as recognition of anything scientific. Canadian “human rights” organizations refer to non-whites as “racialized peoples,” as if race were something artificial forced on them by society.
The next step is to cast suspicion on the legitimacy of dog breeds. Some owners of purebred dogs report harassment from lefties who claim that a concern for blood lines is “racist.”
On an entirely different subject, I greatly enjoyed Prof. Griffin’s review in the January issue of the biography of Brigitte Bardot. Miss Bardot is undoubtedly a courageous woman. Do you think she could be persuaded to speak at the next AR conference? As I recall, you have never had a female speaker, and she would be an auspicious beginning.
Carol Wentworth, Richmond, Va.
Sir — I found David Hamilton’s January article on Churchill interesting, but lacking on an important aspect of his career.
He was certainly a racialist and imperialist British patriot, but he also blundered terribly. It was through his poor leadership that Britain declined to come to a peaceful understanding with Germany during the Second World War, in spite of repeated offers from Hitler to do so.
In consequence, Britain lost scores of thousands of white men in the struggle, was bankrupted, lost many important bases to the United States, and ultimately was so exhausted that it lost its entire empire as well as the moral fiber to keep Britain white and strong.
The war’s outcome — again largely thanks to Churchill’s intransigence — had similar effects on other European nations and extinguished a racially positive regime. At the same time, it very likely marked the end of any real hope for a continued white future, globally speaking, while offering complete victory to the world’s anti-white forces working for our dispossession.
Without Churchill, the limited war could have ended in 1940 or 1941, before becoming a “world” war, Europe’s nations could have kept their empires, and white racial idealism would probably have become the world norm rather than the taboo that it is today.
Sir — The December issue had an alarming item in the “O Tempora, O Mores!” section. Thirteen thousand Burundian “refugees” — an advance party of who knows how many more — are soon to be on their way to the United States courtesy of the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees and the State Department. Do we Americans have to sit quietly and accept this? Is there anything that can be done to stop it?
Robert Michael, Ft. Collins, Colo.