January 2005

American Renaissance magazine
Vol. 16, No. 1 January 2005


What We Owe Our People
South Africa: A Distorted Economy
Fighting in the Trenches
O Tempora, O Mores!
Letters from Readers


What We Owe Our People

A scientist explains the genetic basis of nationalism.

Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, Peter Lang, 2003, 388 pp., $38.95 (softcover)

With the publication of On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter has made a vitally important contribution to our understanding of the significance of race and ethnicity in human affairs. Dr. Salter, an Australian who has been a researcher since 1991 at the Max Planck Society in Andechs, Germany, offers a perspective that is no less significant than that of Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, or anyone else whose work throws light on scientific questions long obscured by taboo.

On Genetic Interests by Frank Salter

Dr. Salter demonstrates through principles of population genetics that racial or ethnic groups are equivalent to large, extended families, and that ethnic loyalties are as legitimate as family loyalties. Indeed, he argues that members of an ethnic group may have more compelling duties to the group even than to their own families. He then outlines the social and political implications of his position, with particular emphasis on the role of the state and the disastrous consequences of mass immigration.

His views bring Dr. Salter into almost perfect harmony with the positions of American Renaissance. His book can therefore be seen as a scientific justification for racial consciousness and activism.

What is Genetic Interest?

According to Darwinian theory, the goal towards which all living things strive is to make copies of their distinctive genes. This is seen most clearly in the devotion of parents to children. As Dr. Salter writes, “The importance of genetic continuity is an end in itself, for humans as well as for other species.” From an evolutionary point of view, “propagating one’s genes is life’s raison d’être.”

Perhaps the most important conceptual breakthrough in On Genetic Interests is to recognize that loyalty to one’s ethny — Dr. Salter prefers this term to race, nation, or ethnic group — is just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children. This is because each ethny is a storehouse of its members’ distinctive genes, just as children are carriers of their parents’ genes. A person’s children are very concentrated stores of his genes, but his ethny is a vastly larger, though more dilute, pool of the same genes. Given the size of most ethnies, they are repositories of far more copies of a member’s distinctive genes than even his own children, and therefore have a theoretical genetic claim to loyalty even greater than that of his children.

An ethny is an extended family. The larger one’s ethny, the larger a store it becomes of distinctive genes, so its members have an interest in seeing their numbers rise or at least remain constant. A shrinking ethny is like a family whose members are dying off — either condition represents a loss of genetic interests.

According to the universalist, everyone’s-equal model of human relations that is supposed to govern how we think about race, there is no good reason any of us should care more about our children than we do about the children of strangers. We do, of course, and not because they are objectively superior to other children but because they are ours, that is to say, they carry our distinctive genes. From a genetic point of view, our ethnies deserve similar loyalties for the same reason.

Dr. Salter points out that different ethnies can be so genetically distant that random members of the same ethny are close kin in comparison to members of the other ethny. Ethnic loyalty thus becomes a continuation of family loyalty. Australian Aborigines and Mbuti pygmies, for example, are about as genetically distant as two ethnies can be. Two random members of either group are — in comparison to members of the other group — so genetically similar to each other they are almost the equivalent of identical twins. Compared to Australian Aborigines, all Mbuti pygmies are, in fact, so similar to each other that actual Mbuti identical twins are, relatively speaking, not much more closely related to each other than any two random Mbuti.

When parents from distant ethnies have children together it can lead to surprising results. Rules of genetics hold that children always carry half the genes of each parent. However, when parents are from the same ethny, they have many distinctive genes in common, so their children actually carry more than half of each parent’s distinctive genes. In this sense, parents who descend from the same lineage and who share many of the same genes are more closely related to their children — in terms of the number of genes they share — than are parents who have children with someone of a distant stock.

Surprising as this may seem, if an Australian and a Mbuti were to have a child together, each parent would be more closely related genetically to everyone in his original ethny than he would be to the child. Complete strangers would be closer kin than the child, and from a strictly genetic standpoint would have a greater claim on family loyalty.

Most ethnies are not as distant as aborigines and Mbuti. However, the same principles apply. Outmarriage with a member of a distant ethny produces children who are relative genetic strangers to their parents.

How do these findings square with the fact that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them? Richard Lewontin famously pointed out that if the total genetic variation of humans is given a figure of 100, 85 to 90 percent of that variation is found within population groups, and only 10 to 15 percent are distinct variations not shared by all groups.

Propagandists have used these figures mistakenly to suggest that someone could be more closely related to a person of a different race than to someone of his own race, but their real significance is to highlight the importance of the 10 to 15 percent. We share 90 percent of our genes with mice, but there is more genetic variation within a single human ethny than the variations that separate us from mice. Yet all humans are obviously more closely related to each other than to mice — they are identical twins by comparison. The small genetic variations are where the important differences lie, and it is in the area of these small differences that all Mbuti are practically identical twins by comparison with Aborigines.

Loyalty to an ethny is the genetic equivalent of family loyalty. Therefore, if immigration replaces parts of a native ethny with aliens, for the natives who remain, this genetic shift means replacement of kinfolk with strangers. Just how drastic the effect can be depends on how genetically distant the newcomers are.

Dr. Salter here makes a striking comparison that he developed in a November 2002 article for Population and Environment that was summarized in the February 2003 issue of AR. He notes that Danes and Englishmen are kindred populations but still genetically distinct. If 10,000 Danes were to take the place of 10,000 Englishmen it would represent a loss of genetic interests to the English who remained, because the distinctive genes of Englishmen would be replaced by those of a different ethny. Dr. Salter calculates how great the loss would be: So many English genes would disappear that it would be the equivalent of removing from the population 167 children or siblings of the native population that remained. (The figure is the same for either children or siblings because a person shares the same number of genes — 50 percent — with a child or a sibling. The loss in genetic interests could be calculated differently, as the equivalent of 167 × 2 = 334 cousins, nephews or aunts.) Because the English gene pool is a storehouse for all Englishmen of the genes common to them and that make them unique, this loss of 167 sibling-equivalents would be a loss of genetic interests for all members of the English ethny.

The loss is far greater if the English are replaced by more distant ethnies. If, instead of Danes, 10,000 Bantus replaced 10,000 Englishmen, it would be the genetic equivalent of the loss of 10,854 children or siblings. As Dr. Salter explains, “Some ethnies are so different genetically that they amount to negative stores of those distinctive genes.” The effect works both ways: If 10,000 English replaced 10,000 Bantus, the loss of Bantu genetic interests would be just as great.

Dr. Salter draws the inevitable conclusion:

[A]n act of charity or heroism by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 English would be adaptive even if the act cost the altruist his or her life and with it all prospects of raising a family (at least a family of less than 167 children), since this would save the equivalent of 167 of the altruist’s children. Preventing replacement by 10,000 Bantu would warrant a much larger sacrifice because the genetic benefit is about 65 times larger; random Englishmen are almost as related as parent and child compared to the relationship between Englishmen and Bantu.” (There is intuitive wisdom in the fact that blacks who live in white societies — but not those living in Africa — refer to each other as ‘brother’ and ‘sister.’ In comparison to genetically distant whites, they are essentially brothers.)

Dr. Salter goes further:

The genetic distance between English and Bantus is so great that, on the face of it, competition between them would make within-group altruism among random English (or among random Bantu) almost as adaptive as parent-child altruism . . . Thus it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning . . .

Extreme as this conclusion may sound, it is justified from a genetic point of view.

Dr. Salter explains that immigration does not appear to be replacement, because natives are not directly eliminated to make room for newcomers. However, the long-term effect is direct replacement, because each part of the world will eventually reach the limits of its capacity to support humans. At that point, the presence of 10,000 Bantus (and their descendants) would mean England could not sustain an equal number of additional Englishmen. The immigration of Bantus would then appear in its true guise — displacement of Englishmen.

The effects of immigration are even more severe if the newcomers are of low productivity and drag down the carrying capacity of a territory. The larger the number of Bantus, the more quickly England would reach the limits of its capacity to support a population, and the number of Englishmen their presence forestalled would be even greater.

On the other hand, highly productive immigrants can be a genetic gain to natives. The white farmers of Zimbabwe were aliens, and their presence was a genetic loss for native blacks. However, they raised Zimbabwe’s productivity so much that many more blacks were able to live and reproduce. Expelling whites is in the short-term genetic interests of Zimbabwe’s blacks, but without them the country can support far fewer blacks — a clear genetic loss. It is in the genetic interests of unproductive people to welcome a certain number of very productive aliens.

Of course, today, most immigrants leave failing societies for successful societies, and are less productive than the host people. As Dr. Salter writes, “When the society is attractive due to wealth or stability, the ethny rapidly declines in relative fitness as the rest of the world floods in.” Natives are both replaced genetically and see the quality of their society decline.

This is why, until the triumph of ideologies that ignore biology, ethnies always guarded their homelands jealously. A population may decline in numbers but later recover if it has a territory to which it has exclusive title. A decline in numbers accompanied by loss of territory — or merely the effective loss of territory due to immigration by aliens — can lead to irreparable damage. Dr. Salter writes that “for all of past human experience and still today control of territory is a precious resource for maintaining ethnic genetic interests in the long run.” This is why “immigration policy for most societies in most ages has consisted of a blanket ban.” From a genetic standpoint, immigrants are no different from armed invaders.

Virtually all people recognize the legitimacy of family loyalty but many condemn group loyalty — at least for whites. Some of these people would argue that culture rather than biological continuity is the ultimate value. However, as Dr. Salter points out, this is a false distinction:

We can conceptualize copies of our genes in phenotypic terms: as shared blood, as family, and as familiar appearance and behavior. Valuing such characteristics is to value the genes that contribute to them.

Intelligence, personality, and appearance are closely tied to genes, and certain traits will disappear if distinctive genes disappear. For that reason, as Dr. Salter writes, “Group genetic interests track cultural values,” so preserving an ethny’s genes preserves its culture.

It is both in the cultural and broad genetic sense that a person’s ethny can be said to deserve even greater loyalty than his family, whenever the ethny is threatened. If a man’s family is wiped out it is a great personal tragedy. However, if his whole tribe disappears, it takes with it far more copies of his genes than he could ever produce as children. It also takes with it the culture and folkways that make his ethny what it is. In this sense, cultural and ethnic extinction is infinitely more terrible than one’s own death or the death of one’s family.

Homogeneous Societies

Despite much talk about the desirability of “diverse” societies, most people like living among people like themselves. If they must live in a multi-ethnic society, they want to be the majority population that puts its stamp on the national culture and way of life.

Dr. Salter points out the advantages of homogeneity. First, it is probably necessary for the development of sound institutions. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.” This is because when a society is composed of “a people without fellow-feeling . . . the united public opinion necessary to the working of representative government cannot exist.”

Liberty reposes upon institutions like the rule of law, freedom of speech, and republican government that require trust among a people, and are not likely to arise in mixed, mutually suspicious populations. Dr. Salter notes that sound institutions established by homogeneous populations can continue to function even after immigration by diverse groups, but suspects that as elections degenerate into racial head counts and free speech is sacrificed in the name of “sensitivity,” multiculturalism eventually undermines even the best institutions.

Dr. Salter also points out that welfare policies are most generous in homogeneous societies, and that even liberal scholars agree that this is probably because taxpayers are more willing to vote benefits to strangers who are at least like themselves. In Moscow, for example, beggars reportedly get the most handouts from people of their own ethny. People generally resist welfare that subsidizes reckless procreation by racial or ethnic aliens. It is natural that they should; in genetic terms, this is collective cuckoldry.

Even aside from outright welfare, since so much modern government activity involves taking money from one group and giving it to another, people are more likely to support a government if they think benefits are going to ethnic kinfolk. At the private level, citizens are also more likely to give blood, support schools, endow parks, and volunteer for community work if they know members of their own group will benefit. Less productive minorities, on the other hand, profit greatly from wealthy societies that offer benefits to all, regardless of ethnic origin.

Dr. Salter also points out that “raising children within national communities would increase the likelihood of them marrying fellow ethnics.” This is good for several reasons. Children from same-ethny marriages are more closely related to their parents. To continue with the previous example, Dr. Salter argues that if an Englishman marries an Englishwoman, his children will carry 92 percent more of his distinctive genes than if he marries a Bantu. In terms of making copies of his own genes, each child with an Englishwoman is almost like having two with a Bantu.

It may also be that parents of the same ethny treat their children better than do parents in mixed marriages, with the biological similarity of parent and child leading to more intimate bonding. The children in such marriages also share more genes with each other, and may develop deeper ties. Identical twins have the closest sibling bonds of all, and the more genes siblings share, the more they become like identical twins.

Another benefit of same-ethny marriages is that children will have no conflicting loyalties if tensions arise between the ethnies in a multi-ethnic society. Mixed children are sometimes unsure of their identities, and may be rejected by both groups.

Dr. Salter notes that it is obviously a genetic loss to adopt a child of a different ethny because the efforts of child-rearing are devoted to alien genes. Such adoptions can even be seen as disloyalty to a homogeneous society, because they mean government benefits to the children force other members of the group to support genetic free riders.

The multicultural societies that result from immigration give rise to many problems for the host population. “From an evolutionary perspective,” writes Dr. Salter, “many collective goods in modern [mixed] societies represent an opportunity for enlightened free riding.” Immigrants benefit from schools, hospitals, parks, museums, and national infrastructure to which they did not contribute and which their own ethnies may not be able to produce or maintain. Natives resent this, but Dr. Salter observes that “multicultural regimes deploy modern forms of ritual indoctrination to defeat inborn discriminatory responses to ethnic diversity, at least by majority ethnies.” As a result, “in mainstream Western societies majority ethnic group strategies have all but vanished and free riding is largely uncontrolled.”

Many multicultural societies even encourage minorities to mobilize for the express purpose of extracting benefits from the majority. Majority members may end up distrusting a government that acts against their genetic interests, and Dr. Salter finds evidence that as a society becomes more varied, there is a decrease in public altruism; people prefer to do good works for their ethnic kin rather than for distant ethnies.

In Europe, white majorities are beginning to understand the high price they pay for multiculturalism. In Dr. Salter’s view, every example of ethnic tension or non-assimilation is a valuable warning sign that the majority population has made a serious mistake: “For a people losing its country, the only thing more disastrous than multiculturalism that does not ‘work’ would be multi-culturalism that did work.”

How should an ethny go about preserving its genetic interests? “It stands to reason,” writes Dr. Salter, “that it would be prudent for a population to defend its most precious collective interest — distinctive genes carried by the ethny — with the most powerful means at its disposal.” The most powerful means, of course, is government. And yet, almost every government has failed in this respect because “no state yet developed has reliably kept its promise as an adaptive ethnic group strategy.”

At one time, nation-states were made up essentially of ethnies, and defended genetic interests — even if not in so many words. Nation states acted naturally in what they took to be the benefit of their citizens, defending national territory against invasion, armed or unarmed. Dr. Salter notes that “the nation state is a psychological substitute for the primordial band and tribe,” and that “the political rhetoric of national identity and mobilization is rich in kinship metaphors such as the founding fathers, the motherland, brothers-in-arms, and fraternity.” No other appeal can elicit the same level of devotion or sacrifice.

Dr. Salter adds that by today’s standards nation-states were frankly xenophobic and benefited from it: “In the past, ethnocentric culture has usually been adaptive. Indoctrination is a powerful strategy for encouraging ethnocentric thinking, one that allows leaders to mobilize the community for defense.” Mobilization can go too far, and lead to aggressive war that wastes lives even if it adds territory, but some level of nationalism is necessary for any people to maintain itself.

The problem with the state, as Dr. Salter sees it, is that “in modern societies, especially Western ones, there is no mechanism for ensuring the loyalty of cultural elites.” Mass immigration, which the government of virtually every white nation has imposed on its people, is the most egregious act of disloyalty. As Dr. Salter explains:

This reverses the state’s role as defender of the people’s ultimate interest to that of an enemy of that interest. The people lose their historical investment in the nation state, which is effectively hijacked for private purposes. Globalism can thus strip ethnies of their most powerful instrument for pursuing ethnic interests.

The state, which should protect genetic interests, now actively dissipates it, and ceases to deserve loyalty: “It would hardly be adaptive to risk one’s life, or that of one’s son, to defend a state apparatus that presided over the replacement or subordination of one’s people.” Indeed, as Dr. Salter explains, “citizens would be justified, based on adaptive utilitarian ethics, to reform or tear down their states and build new ones whose ethnic composition and constitution better serve their genetic survival.”

In this context, Dr. Salter draws attention to the irony of white populations sacrificing themselves in two world wars only to see their governments adopt immigration policies that represent far greater genetic losses than all the deaths on the battlefield. These populations have every reason to replace governments that have betrayed them.

Although many nations in the past were established with at least the implicit goal of protecting and benefiting a particular people, almost none has been explicit about it. Israel is exceptional in that it is an avowed homeland for Jews, but even it has failed to prevent non-Jewish immigration. Dr. Salter writes that a biologically informed ethny should build a government around an explicitly ethnic constitution:

“An ethnic constitution would correct some of the weaknesses in the traditional nation state. Existing constitutions are limited to defending proximate interests. But the ultimate interest is not happiness, nor liberty, nor individual life itself but genetic survival. A scientifically informed constitution that takes the people’s interests seriously cannot omit reference to their genetic interests.” Such an ethnic state would be, essentially, a contract entered into by a people in the name of its posterity.

Dr. Salter argues that the right to live in an ethnic state is as important a human right as any other: “Like the freedom to raise a family, it is in everyone’s interest to have his ethnic interests protected by the power of the state and to be free to invest in his ethny by contributing to collective goods that are proofed against free riders.” A world composed of ethnic states need not be hostile. On the contrary, each state would recognize the validity of every other group’s genetic interests, and could cooperate for mutual benefit. Immigration and the replacement of genes would end.

As Dr. Salter notes, for any territory, immigration policy is the equivalent of controlling evolution, in that it favors the propagation of certain genes at the expense of others. Each territory would, in this sense, guide its own evolution.

Ethnic separation is obviously desirable for states that decide to turn their backs on multiculturalism, but Dr. Salter proposes federalism if ethnies cannot be unscrambled. A weak national government could take responsibility for defense and foreign relations, leaving all other matters, including immigration policy, to local authorities.

Jumping the Tracks

Why has ethnic loyalty been discredited in recent decades while family loyalty — which is based on the same genetic interests — is recognized as legitimate? Dr. Salter is not sure, but notes that “families represent such a high and reliable concentration of their members’ distinctive genes that innate psychological mechanisms have evolved to monitor and protect that ultimate interest . . . This has not occurred in the case of the tribe.” Why not? We have been evolving in families since before we were human, and once we became human, tribal bonds were so tight there were no real opportunities short of outright treason to work for the genetic interests of other ethnies. Tribal loyalties are therefore weaker and more easily subverted.

As Dr. Salter explains, “The novelty of industrial society has tended to decouple social patterns from ethnic interests.” At the same time, “modern indoctrination techniques, most notably universal education and the mass media, tend to break down ethnic solidarity, causing altruism to be directed towards genetically distant individuals.” The result is that, “despite being outfitted with the potential for both family and ethnic feelings, humans are not as instinctively equipped to identify and defend ethnic genetic interests in the evolutionarily novel world of mass anonymous societies.” The loyalty of most whites therefore does not extend past their close kin. As Dr. Salter puts it, “They are, in effect, leaving their ethnic genetic capital to chance — the vagueries of nature and the good-will of competing groups.”

The Left, in particular, insists that people should act as atomized individuals with no ethnic loyalty. Dr. Salter compares this kind of detachment from ethnicity with the way a Martian might view humans. He notes also that the Left no longer even accepts democratic results if people vote to preserve their own ethnies. The destruction of the Vlaams Blok in Belgium because of its “racist” commitment to keeping Flanders Flemish is a recent example. Likewise, the Left constantly calls the Freedom Party in Austria, the Peoples Party in Denmark, the National Front in France, and the British National Party “anti-democratic.” Of course, there is nothing in their platforms against representative government. Apparently, the desire of a white ethny to preserve itself is so outrageous it cannot be accommodated by democratic means.

One of the most damaging current ideological tactics is to try to persuade a people that it is a “credal” or “universal” nation that needs no biological continuity. As Dr. Salter explains, “It is in practice a formula for reconciling, or blinding ethnic majorities to their own decline while serving the sectional interests of minorities and free riding elites.” He continues:

A concept nation is incapable of principled defense against ethnic replacement. The doctrine is as pathological as a conception of the family that did not allow parents to show preference for their children.

This point is worth underlining: Telling people to give up racial loyalty is the moral equivalent of telling parents to be indifferent to their children.

As a practical matter, this kind of propaganda is directed only at whites, and it is only whites who are susceptible to it.

Dr. Salter quotes a person he describes as Australia’s senior demographer:

Some people think that a steady replacement of Anglo-Celts by other ethnic groups is highly desirable . . . Personally, [replacement of Anglo-Celts] does not worry me so long as ‘Australian values’ remain: free speech; freedom of religious worship; equality of the sexes; reasonable equality between social classes (i.e. no aristocracy); and so on.

Probably no Chinese or Nigerian has ever expressed official indifference to the prospect of extinction for his own people.

Dr. Salter hopes that a broader understanding of genetic interests will lead to more sensible public policies. He argues that aside from the strong desire to protect one’s immediate family, humans do not have very strong instincts to protect their genetic interests and that “the set of mechanisms for recognizing and investing in ethnies has become inadequate and often downright maladaptive.” He points out that people have genetic interests, whether they are conscious of them or not, and that they may have to be educated about them. He concedes, however, that “incorporating genetic interests into social theory will be a large undertaking . . .”

The White Dilemma

Much of this large undertaking will involve persuading white “anti-racists” that ethnic loyalty is as legitimate — perhaps even more legitimate — than family loyalty. Dr. Salter writes that “if it is adaptive for a parent to make sacrifices for a family containing a total genetic interest of a few children, it is easy to conclude that efforts to preserve a population carrying the equivalent of thousands or millions of children must be at least as adaptive.” Yet, he concedes, “[T]his commonsense proposition is controversial . . .”

It is controversial, however, only in certain circles; not all groups have abandoned ethnic loyalty to the same degree. Non-whites in their own nations, and non-white minorities within white nations show considerable racial solidarity. It is only whites who must be convinced that they lose something precious if their ethny is displaced. As Dr. Salter concedes, “One either feels protective about genetic interests or not,” and most whites have been trained not to feel protective.

That they could even be trained to lose interest in something vital probably reflects something distinctive about whites, and if whites do not regain their solidarity they will be replaced by groups that never lost it. Dr. Salter puts it this way: “Indiscriminate altruism such as foregoing reproduction to aid nonkin to reproduce, will weed out the genes that code for such behaviour, if maintained over many generations.”

Indiscriminate altruism is not universal. It is probably correct to say that it is only whites who set up racial preferences for minorities, who adopt children of other races, or face dispossession through immigration. When whites took possession of North America, Australia, and New Zealand, they set aside territory for the exclusive use of the natives they displaced, giving them at least a minimal base for ethnic preservation. Non-whites who displace whites will not establish homelands for them.

Dr. Salter also points out that throughout human history, ethnic loyalty has been the norm, and that altruism is a form of true wisdom discovered only recently by a few whites. “It is more rational,” he argues, “to assume that the absence of ethnic duty is a bold experiment, and possibly an immoral one.”

“A nation can take centuries to form,” writes Dr. Salter. “But as several Western societies have experienced, it takes a lapse of only one or two decades in immigration control for an economically successful society to find its unity broken and heading for genetic replacement.”

On Genetic Interests is a powerful argument in defense of all ethnies. Let us hope it will be most widely read by the ones that need it the most.

• • • BACK TO TOP • • •


South Africa: A Distorted Economy

Black empowerment and mass impoverishment.

Now that Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) has spread its shadow over most of the South African economy, even diehard optimists are worried about the future. When black empowerment lead to claims on huge swathes of commercial farmland, citizens in the rest of the economy were disconcertingly silent. Some even thought “the land” was fair game for expropriation. Now that the tentacles of BEE have spread into business, finance, and mining, collaborators have begun to fear for the future.

One of the tenets of BEE seems to be the belief in wealth without work. According to the Financial Mail, South Africa is now the developing world’s largest welfare economy, with an estimated 17 percent of the population as direct dependents of the state. According to Neil Emerick, an independent South African policy consultant, the country is now “one of the world’s biggest non-contributory social security systems,” meaning people get benefits without previously paying taxes.

No one is even sure how many taxpayers there are in South Africa. Mr. Emerick puts the figure at seven million; others say four million. However, there are 27 million voters, which means that at best there are four voters for every taxpayer, and perhaps even as many as seven. Add to this the policy of “empowering” those who neither qualify for nor earn their positions, and the result is dangerous economic distortion.

The country is turning into an “entitlement” state, and those who do produce are being removed or marginalized. Young white people now deliver pizzas because they can no longer get university scholarships. Many others leave for overseas opportunities. Who will replace these future pillars of the economy?

At the same time, BEE deals continue to benefit ANC-connected black elites, while often doing nothing for the economy or anyone else. For many blacks, “empowerment” means having the government blackmail a company into taking them on at a high salary and little responsibility. Some in power are using legislation to enrich themselves under the guise of “empowerment for the masses.”

Even the Congress of South African Trade Unions, which has close ANC ties, has complained about sweetheart deals for big shots. It denounced a recent telecommunications buyout involving Thintana and Telkom as nothing but a grab for money by the black elite.

Where is all this heading? One of the standing critiques of white-ruled South Africa was that a small minority was rich while the majority was poor, but blacks are now building exactly the kind of society they used to denounce. According to Mr. Emerick, empowerment policies have allowed the most affluent 10 percent of black households to take home more than 50 percent of the total income of blacks, while the poorest 10 percent make less than one percent.

If the ruling ANC were serious about its campaign promises, this is a trend it would reverse, but of course it will not. If there is any redistributing to be done, it will be from whites to blacks. The pity is that when wealth moves in this direction, it often ceases to be wealth at all. Black empowerment in the farming sector has already proven a failure. Billions of taxpayer rands (there are 5.9 rand to the dollar) have already been spent to hand over nearly 800,000 hectares (1.98 million acres) of productive farms to new black owners, which means good land usually either goes fallow or turns into squatter camps. In just one year, from 2002 to 2003, as farms shifted into black hands, the agriculture sector lost 22.2 percent of its jobs — more than one in five.

In May 2002, commercial farmers owned 86.2 million hectares (203 million acres) of land, but 30 percent of this must be handed over to BEE recipients by 2010. The government has set targets for black ownership in other sectors of the economy as well. Billions of rands will be spent to transfer ownership into black hands — no doubt elite black hands. A great deal of this money will pay for paper shuffling by lawyers and accountants, and the end result will be that even more of the economy will begin to flounder.

It is not only South Africans who understand this. A study recently prepared by an investor relations firm for the Bank of New York found that worries about black empowerment have soured US investors. During white rule, South Africa was the one safe place for foreign investment, and received a large majority of overseas capital destined for Africa. Now, in a dramatic change, the World Bank’s Global Development Finance Report notes that in 2003, of the $9.2 billion in foreign direct investment that flowed into sub-Saharan Africa, only seven percent made it to South Africa.

The number of companies listed on the South African Securities Exchange has plummeted by 36 percent since 1998 — from 668 to 426 in early 2004 — with another 37 expected to disappear as venture capital and development boards close. Not surprisingly, South Africa’s position in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, which ranks countries by their receptiveness to start-up businesses, continues to fall.

In terms of natural endowments — agricultural land, mineral wealth, population density, deep-water ports, etc. — South Africa has everything it needs to be a top-tier industrial power. As it is, the population at large lacks the capacity to feed itself or sustain a viable economy. A relative few carry the majority. If these few are driven out or marginalized, the country will suffer just as Zimbabwe is suffering.

South Africa is headed down the same path as so many other African states. As one commentator wrote in the Johannesburg Citizen of Nov. 10, 2004, the way for an ambitious young person to get ahead is not through business, medicine, or engineering. “Choose politics,” he wrote, “and get as close to the ANC ruling families as you can.” South Africa will soon be like the rest of the continent: Political patronage will be the key to success, not skill, hard work, and initiative. How long before the bubble bursts?

This article is based on a Nov. 7, 2004 “South African Bulletin” issued by the Transvaal Agricultural Union.

• • • BACK TO TOP • • •


Fighting in the Trenches

A report on mainstream immigration reform.

The annual conference of Patrick J. Buchanan’s The American Cause took place in Tyson’s Corner, Virginia, on December 4. It was called “Preserving a Nation: The Battle to Secure America’s Border,” and the speakers included many of America’s foremost restrictionist politicians, activists, and intellectuals. There was a good audience of about 200, including many young people.

The main subject was illegal immigration, rather than immigration as a whole, and there was little discussion of reforming legal immigration. Some presentations addressed theoretical questions raised by mass immigration, but most were about politics and practical matters. Speakers objected to immigration mainly because it is a threat to cultural continuity, national sovereignty, the rule of law, and the economy, not because it brings racial conflict and displaces whites. Still, many presentations had strong racial undertones.

The first panel was about Balkanization, and opened with a talk by Patrick Buchanan. He said activists must face the “intimidating myth” that America is a nation of immigrants, which makes it easy to paint reformers as anti-American bigots. As liberals see it, “Inside every conservative, there’s a tiny Klansman trying to get out. In my case, a very large Klansman!” In fact, though, we are not a nation of immigrants: Half of us can trace our roots back to the revolution, and only 12 percent of Americans are foreign-born. Nor has America always been open to immigrants. The “Know-Nothing” party of the 1840s, which emerged in reaction to Irish immigration, the deportations of thousands of suspected Communists in the 1920s, and Operation Wetback are examples of vigorous anti-immigrant sentiment. Of the last he said, “No one apologized, because they were here illegally, and Americans thought, ‘This is our country, and if you want to come in here, you obey our law!’”

Mr. Buchanan noted that assimilation has fallen by the wayside, and whole cities are turning into racial enclaves. Most Chicanos do not even consider themselves Americans: He cited a 1998 soccer game in Los Angeles between the American and Mexican national teams, during which Mexicans booed the national anthem, harassed Americans who tried to wave flags, and pelted the American team with beer. He concluded that we are turning our nation into a tangle of squabbling minorities.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies argued that our national myth of immigration is founded on outdated assumptions: “We have a 19th century immigration policy, but we are no longer in the 19th century.” The belief that mass immigration is good for America arose during the early 20th century, when millions came from Europe and successfully integrated. At that time, illiterate immigrants were coming to a country that was itself largely illiterate, and people without education and skills could succeed. Now, success requires education and skills, so it is hard for illiterates to get ahead. The gap between native and immigrant incomes grows wider as time goes on.

There was no federal welfare in the early 20th century; now, illegal immigrants alone cost the federal government $10 billion per year in welfare, education, and incarceration expenses. Early 20th century America encouraged assimilation. Now, multiculturalism encourages Balkanization, and immigrants from nearby countries are especially unlikely to assimilate. Finally, the current wave of immigrants is a potential threat to national security. During the world wars, the term “home front” was a metaphor for the economic and industrial requirements of a united country. “But it’s no longer a metaphor today, and it will never be a metaphor again,” said Mr. Krikorian. If we go to war with their countries of origin, immigrants are likely to fight for their homelands rather than the United States.

The second panel dealt with the abandonment of the rule of law. T. J. Bonner, president of the Border Patrol employees’ union, began by announcing that 10,000 illegal aliens would cross the border that day. Renewed talk of amnesty only increases that number, and terrorists can enter the country as easily as day laborers. The September 11 attacks required only 19, and probably more than that have arrived since then. Nevertheless, the government has cut the current Border Patrol budget by $18.4 million and reduced the number of agents. The Department of Homeland Security has even ordered agents not to talk about the state of immigration enforcement. Indeed, Mr. Bonner said he was probably violating his terms of employment as he spoke.

Howard Foster, an attorney for Johnson and Bell in Chicago, scoffed at the idea of political reform because “the Republican Party is addicted to illegal immigration.” He said it would be better to bring Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) charges against companies that hire illegals. Since hiring illegals lowers workers’ wages to the benefit of corporations, he said it can be thought of as a criminal racket. This is not far-fetched: The RICO Act specifically targets organizations that violate immigration laws for profit.

Mr. Foster has brought suits against Tyson Foods and Zirkle Fruit Company. Tyson posts signs in Mexico promising jobs for anyone who can get in, and Mr. Foster has learned the company has a plant in Sedalia, Mo., in which all the workers are illegals. As for Zirkle, not only are most of its fruit-pickers illegals, so are the hiring staff.

The keynote speaker, Rep. Steven King of Iowa, a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, gave a rip-roaring speech. He said he opposed illegal immigration because it threatens national sovereignty, cultural continuity, and the rule of law. He said that in his last campaign, he got in trouble for supporting cultural continuity when his Democratic opponent said this was “racist.” Mr. King favors racial profiling — at least at airports. On a recent trip he was infuriated by a smirking Middle Eastern man who walked through security unchecked while agents searched one of Mr. King’s relatives.

He noted that press and politicians lament the deaths of Mexicans who die in the desert trying to cross the border, but we should ask how many Americans illegals kill after they get here. He was sure illegals kill many more Americans every year than died in the Sept. 11 attacks. He also opposes birth-right citizenship and “family reunification” migration; “If they love their families so much,” he asked, “why did they leave in the first place?” The most surprising and heartening moment of the conference came when Mr. King suggested that our immigration policy should be geared to let in more white Europeans. He knows there are many Irish who want to come to America, but our immigration rules won’t let them because they have blond hair and blue eyes. Europeans would bring valuable skills and would assimilate easily: “After a few years in the country, you wouldn’t even know they were immigrants.” Rep. King proposed two ways to control illegal immigration: require employers to check social security numbers against a database, and order the IRS to force employers to pay back taxes on illegal labor.

The third panel took up possible solutions to illegal immigration. Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.com, pointed out that America’s view of diversity is very different from that of other countries. He once called consulates to see if he could emigrate to the countries that send immigrants to the United States, and found it would be very hard. Many countries want only immigrants who are racially similar to the natives. “India has a ‘Brown India’ policy,” he said, “just as Australia used to have a ‘White Australia’ policy.”

America treats illegal immigrants quite differently from other countries. Recently, the Malaysian government announced an amnesty for illegals, but “amnesty” meant the chance to leave the country without punishment. Malaysia asked citizens to report illegals who did not accept the offer, and has punished the ones they have caught by caning and deporting them. Americans are not willing to take such steps, but there are other ways to discourage illegal immigration. As a rule, you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax, so we should get rid of all subsidies for illegal immigrants, such as welfare and public education, and find ways to tax them. A tax on remittances to home countries would be a good start. People often say deporting illegals would mean urban warfare, but if that is true, we must consider immigrants as being at war with the United States. We now have troops trained in urban warfare, so “let’s bring them home and get done with it!”

The next speaker was Kris Kobach, a law professor who is trying to repeal the Kansas law granting in-state tuition to illegals. He said that when he worked on the staff of the Ashcroft Justice Department, he was responsible for the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System, a program to keep out criminals and terrorists. He claimed it had not only curtailed terrorism, but had made many Muslim illegals go home for fear they would be found out. Other effective ways to cut down on illegal immigration would be for police to arrest and detain illegals, to hold suspects during immigration proceedings so they do not abscond, and to end subsidies like in-state college tuition. He reveled in the absurdities of the Kansas tuition law, which is clearly forbidden by several federal laws and which the attorney general of the state has refused to defend. Prof. Kobach appears to have a good chance of overturning the law.

In the final panel, Rosemary Jencks of Numbers USA and Bay Buchanan of Team America PAC explained how restrictionist lobbying groups work. Miss Jencks said that Numbers USA had managed to temporarily block the vote on the Intelligence Bill so that House Republicans could argue that strong immigration measures should be added. She said there are reasons to be pessimistic about immigration reform, but reasons for optimism, too. Advocating amnesty is becoming increasingly dangerous for politicians. Pres. Bush initially said he wanted amnesty. Now he says he doesn’t, although he continues to work for it, and the same is true of other open-borders Republicans. Next year, Numbers USA will fight amnesty, the visa lottery, and a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico; they will support the CLEAR Act, by which local police would enforce immigration law.

Bay Buchanan described how her lobbying group pressures open-borders Republicans by running ads exposing their views on immigration, and by funding restrictionist candidates against them in the primaries. Team America PAC helped Matt Throckmorton in his primary against Chris Cannon of Utah. Although Mr. Cannon won the primary, he got less than 60 percent of the vote, which “put a target on his head.” Her group will continue to “soften him up” with ads whenever he votes the wrong way. She described the terror of California Rep. David Dreier after talk-show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Champiou pummeled him on immigration during the election. Mr. Dreier may have learned his lesson: he supported efforts to pass an intelligence bill that included tough controls on immigration.

It is certainly possible to object that this conference did not discuss the deeper reasons why mass immigration is a disaster for our country. However, most of the speakers are hard at work in the trenches of American politics, and their stories of bitter conflict with the open borders lobby were exciting and inspiring. There can be no doubt about their dedication to immigration control, and the value of their practical approach to influencing policy.

• • • BACK TO TOP • • •


O Tempora, O Mores!

Vlaams Blok, RIP

Vlaams Blok

The Vlaams Blok was, until recently, Belgium’s largest political party. It called for the independence of the Flemish-speaking Flanders region of Belgium (Flemings are 58 percent of the Belgian population) and the deportation of all non-white immigrants. On Nov. 9, the Belgian supreme court sentenced the Vlaams Blok to death, upholding a lower court ruling that found the Flemish nationalist party guilty of “permanent incitement to segregation and racism.” The court rejected all of the Blok’s legal arguments, insisting that freedom of speech must be subordinate to anti-racism. The ruling means the Blok no longer has access to Belgian television and will lose $325,000 in public funding. The supreme court ruling is final and cannot be appealed.

Blok party leaders were outraged. “Exactly 15 years after the Berlin Wall came down and the people of East Germany and eastern Europe regained their freedom, it was confirmed today that in the Belgian state, democracy and freedom of speech are under threat,” said party president Frank Van Hecke. “What happened in Brussels today is unique in the Western world: Never has a so-called democratic regime outlawed the country’s largest political party . . . We are the democratic voice of an ever growing number of Flemings who, in an entirely non-violent way, want to put an end to Belgium [through secession]. Our electoral strength is causing panic amongst the Belgian establishment. Today our party has been killed, not by the electorate but by the judges. We will establish a new party. This one Belgium will not be able to bury; it will bury Belgium.”

In the national elections of May 2003, the Blok gained three seats in the 150-seat national parliament, bringing its total to 18. In last June’s regional elections, it received a quarter of the vote in Flanders — more than any other party — but took no seats because the other Belgian parties have conspired to keep it out of government. Under an exclusionary ban known as the “cordon sanitaire,” no other party will form a government or otherwise cooperate with the Vlaams Blok, in spite of polls showing that 44 percent of the Flemish people want the Blok included in a governing coalition.

Blok parliamentary leader Filip Dewinter denies charges of racism. He explains that the Flemish nationalist movement is about “defending our identity against mass immigration and against the multicultural society.” Its members are strongly against Muslim immigration because “the way of life of Muslims is not compatible with ours.” [Court Rules Vlaams Blok is Racist, BBC News, Nov. 9, 2004. Philippe Siuberski, Ruling Forces ‘Racist’ Vlaams Blok Party to Reorganize, AFP, Nov. 10, 2004.]

The Sunday following the supreme court ruling, one thousand members of the Blok gathered first to dissolve and then to resurrect their party under a new name, the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest or VB). “We are changing our name but not our direction nor our program,” Mr. Van Hecke told party members. Part of the transformation of the Vlaams Blok into the Vlaams Belang will mean a “softening” of anti-immigrant rhetoric. Instead of calling for the wholesale deportation of all non-whites, it will focus on removing those “who reject, deny or fight against culture and European values like separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and equality between men and women.” The party has not backed away from its desire to work for the independence of Flanders and the end of the Belgian state. [Blok Changes Name and Pleads Victim Status, Expatica.com, Nov. 15, 2004.]

The Belgian political establishment both loathes and fears the VB, and it is doing whatever it can to discredit it. On a state visit to China, Belgium’s royal heir, Crown Prince Philippe, son of King Albert II, lashed out at the VB, accusing the party of wanting “to tear our country to pieces.” The prince violated the constitutional role of the royal family, which prohibits them from engaging in politics, by saying, “I assure them that they will have to deal with me first.” His comments outraged the party’s parliamentary delegation and even prompted a rebuke from Belgium’s prime minister, who is no friend of the Flemish nationalists. The country’s French-speaking deputy prime minister, however, said the prince’s statement brought credit to the palace.

The political establishment also paints the VB as a threat to the Belgian economy. According to a study published in a French-language newspaper, Flemish employers are worried that the nationalist movement will cause political unrest and hurt business. “Investors are looking for maximum stability,” says the study’s author Benoit Scheuer. “If [the VB] continues to progress, the decision makers may decide to relocate and invest outside of Flanders.”

Belgian political experts say the ban on the VB will backfire, and make the movement for Flemish independence even more popular. The party capitalized on its underdog image as “the only party fighting against the establishment for the common people,” says Antwerp University professor Stefaan Walgraeve. He believes the ban against the Vlaams Blok and its resurrection as the Vlaams Belang “will reinforce this image — an image which is the party’s best life insurance.” A recent poll found that 26 percent of the electorate would vote for the VB if an election were held tomorrow. [Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Prince Attacks Separatists, Telegraph (London), Dec. 2, 2004. Vlaams Belang a ‘Threat’ to Belgium’s Economy, Expatica.com, Nov. 19, 2004. Angus Roxburgh, Fear That Ban on Vlaams Blok Party Will See Far-Right Group Strengthened, Sunday Herald (Glasgow), Nov. 14, 2004. Gareth Harding, Analysis: Makeover for Flemish Far Right, UPI, Nov. 15, 2004.]

Serial Infector

Anthony Whitfield, a black methamphetamine addict, got AIDS in the early 1990s after he was raped in prison. Although he has known about his infection since 1992, he lived the life of a “player,” bouncing from one girlfriend to another, marrying one, and fathering at least two illegitimate children. He almost always refused to wear a condom. He never told the women about his infection, and lied when asked about it.

In May 2003, health officials in Thurston County, Washington, were investigating a cluster of AIDS cases among local women, each of whom had named Mr. Whitfield as a sex partner. The health officials tracked him down, tested him, and told him he had to use “protection.” According to one of his girlfriends, he had unprotected sex with her that very night. “I know because he always came over and had sex with me on the first of the month,” she says. The Thurston County health department also told Mr. Whitfield he had to report all his sex partners, but instead he left for Oklahoma.

Earlier this year, state health officials tracked him down in Olympia, Washington, and presented him with a cease-and-desist order that required him to tell potential sex partners he was infected, and always to use protection. He signed the order and gave the officials the names of more women with whom he was having sex. Two days later, Mr. Whitfield had unprotected sex with one of the women he named. The health department then contacted the police, who arrested Mr. Whitfield as he was loading his belongings into a U-Haul truck, apparently getting ready to leave the state again.

Washington has a law on the books making deliberate exposure to HIV a Class A felony — on par with murder and rape. He was tried and convicted, and on Dec. 21, he was to be sentenced on 17 counts of first-degree assault for having unprotected sex with 17 different women, five of whom have since come down with AIDS. The charges carry a prison term of 130 to 150 years. At trial, his attorney, Charles Lane, tried to argue that the women bore some of the responsibility for consenting to have sex with his client in the first place. “Everyone of them knew he slept around,” he said. “They had the ability to protect themselves and they didn’t.” Mr. Lane also tried to play the race card, telling the judge (the defense requested a trial by judge rather than jury) that the case had “too many emotional hot buttons,” such as “a black man spreading AIDS to a bunch of white women.” The judge wasn’t sympathetic, noting that Mr. Whitfield had said on two occasions that, “If I had AIDS, I’d give it to everyone I could.” The judge found him guilty of having unprotected sex “with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.”

In some ways the most disturbing thing about this case was the reaction of the women — all unidentified but mostly white. Many described him at trial as “a caring man who made them feel ‘special.’” Several remained loyal to Mr. Whitfield and testified against him only under compulsion from prosecutors. [Mark D. Fefer, HIV: Criminal Intent, Seattle Weekly, Dec. 1-7, 2004, p. 19.]

Typhoid Mario

Tuberculosis is endemic in many parts of the Third World, but had largely disappeared in the West until immigrants brought it back. Although highly infectious — and sometimes fatal — it is easily cured with antibiotics, if the patient submits to a full course of treatment. Patients who stop taking the medicine before the bacteria are eradicated risk developing antibiotic-resistant strains of TB and pose a greater public health threat.

Feliciano Morelos, a 19-year-old Mexican farmworker and TB carrier living in California infected 56 people, prompting public health officials to order him quarantined. He refused the order, so police arrested him for endangering public safety. Mr. Morelos, the first person jailed in Santa Barbara County for refusing to obey an isolation order, had to be held in a special jail cell with air filters to keep him from infecting other inmates. [TB Carrier Jailed, AP, April 4, 2004.]

Bye Bye, Berry

Mary Frances Barry

Mary Frances Barry

Black lawyer and activist Mary Frances Berry, who has been a fixture on the US Commission on Civil Rights since President Jimmy Carter first appointed her in 1980, seems to think she holds her seat for life. When President Ronald Reagan fired her for attacking his civil rights policies in 1983, she successfully sued for reinstatement. In 1984, she made the statement for which she is best known: that civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them. President William Clinton made her chairman of the commission in 1993, and re-appointed her to another six-year term in January 1999. In 2000, Miss Berry made headlines when her commission released a silly report that claimed thousands of black Florida voters were prevented from voting during the presidential election. The following year she tried to extend the term of an ally and Clinton appointee, Victoria Wilson. The DC federal appeals court had to order her to seat Peter Kirsanow, appointed by President Bush.

With Mr. Bush’s reelection signaling the end of her 24-year tenure, the President appointed former assistant secretary of education Gerald Reynolds to fill Miss Berry’s post, and former Virginia deputy attorney general Ashley Taylor to take over from vice chairman Cruz Reynoso. At first, Miss Berry insisted she would fight to stay until January 2005, but now says she will leave quietly at the end of 2004.

“The White House has clipped her wings,” says a commission staffer. “She has been stripped of her ability to travel and will be asked to turn over her badge. She will be asked for her keys to the building, although we will still have to change the locks, because there are many people here who are loyal to her who would allow her in.”

Miss Berry, whom critics accuse of running the commission as her own personal fiefdom, may have good reasons for trying to hang on to the bitter end. There hasn’t been an independent financial audit of the commission since she became chairman — the GAO describes it as an “agency in disarray” — and it is currently being investigated by the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution. [Steve Miller, Civil Rights Panel Gets New Chief, Washington Times, Dec. 7, 2004. Terence Hunt, Bush Replaces Outspoken Civil Rights Chair, AP, Dec. 6, 2004. Christopher Jolma, Wearing Out Their Welcome, Insight Magazine, Jan. 14, 2002.]

Sensible Swiss

We reprint the following verbatim and in toto:

BERN (AFP) — The Swiss are more fearful about an influx of foreigners than terrorism or war, according to a survey by the GFS Institute published on Thursday.

Two-thirds of the 714 people questioned felt that the flood of asylum seekers was a big danger, while only 51 percent were worried about terrorist attacks.

Less than 10 percent of the people surveyed were concerned that Switzerland would become involved in a war over the next five years, while in 2000, 28 percent had feared a conventional conflict and 18 percent a nuclear war, the poll said.

At the same time, 71 percent of people quizzed felt that Switzerland’s army was necessary.

Forty-nine percent said it was inconceivable that the country would abandon its neutral status.

[Swiss More Fearful of Foreign Immigrants than Terror Attacks: Survey, AFP, Dec. 1, 2004.]

The Truth Hurts

On Dec. 1, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, county commissioner Bill James, a white Republican, sent an e-mail message to 1,300 constituents in which he discussed some of the problems facing the county’s schools. It read in part: “Most people know why CMS [Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools] can’t teach kids within the urban black community. They live in a moral sewer with parents who lack the desire to act properly. That immorality impacts negatively the lives of these children and creates an environment where education is considered ‘acting white’ and lack of education is a ‘plus’ in their world.”

Mr. James got the typical reaction. County manager Harry Jones, who is black, said his comments “smack of racism in the highest form.” A black preacher, Rev. James R. Samuel, said Mr. James “is not only a product of some moral sewer, he is a product of some disease,” and “a redneck accountant.” Even Mr. James’ fellow Republicans, including Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, joined in, issuing a statement saying, “We fully and completely censure Mr. James’ comments.”

Mr. James has stuck to his guns, writing to Mr. Jones that “to solve the problem you have to discuss it openly and there is no doubt that the urban core is a moral sewer full of promiscuity that leads to illegitimate kids and a continuing cycle of poverty which no one wants to address.” He told the press, “My point was that we’ve got to talk about this and we’ve got to be willing to have the guts to resolve it . . . Candy-coating isn’t going to make the pill any easier to swallow.” He said his black critics “continue to ignore the fire burning in their own home.” He eventually did apologize, but not for the substance of his remarks, saying “It’s not an apology for bringing it up, and it’s not an apology for me believing the problem in the urban black community is moral. I guess it’s an apology for not saying it as well as I could.”

Mr. James represents an overwhelmingly white, conservative Republican district in Mecklenburg County. He is very popular with his constituents, and is almost impossible to beat. He ran unopposed for his fifth term on the council in November. Constituents defended his remarks, which they said weren’t racist at all. Jonathan Roberts, a local realtor, says, “there’s a lot of truth to what he said. You’ve got illegitimate births. You’ve got people not taking responsibility. You’ve got kids who have never heard the word ‘no’ from their mothers — certainly not their fathers, because they aren’t around.” Mr. James also received many encouraging comments by e-mail, his favorite form of communication (his address is wjames@carolina.rr.com).

Not all county residents support him. Mr. James filed a police report on Dec. 3 after receiving several threatening phone calls. At his swearing in on Dec. 6 — a few days after his comments were publicized — 400 people showed up, some brought by area black churches, and many booed him when he took the oath of office. Extra police officers provided security, and one was assigned to guard Mr. James and his family. [Paul Nowell, NC County Commissioner Says Blacks Live in ‘Moral Sewer,’ AP, Dec. 2, 2004. Scott Dodd, James’ Seat is Safe in District 6, Charlotte Observer, Dec. 3, 2004, p. 1B. Carrie Levine, James Apologizes for Wording of Remarks, Charlotte Observer, Dec. 4, 2004. Carrie Levine, James Faces Boos at Swearing-In, Charlotte Observer, Dec. 7, 2004.]

Sensible Spaniards

Spain’s Canary Islands are a desirable destination for illegal aliens from Africa, who see the archipelago lying off the northwest African coast as a backdoor into the European Union. From January to the end of September, Spanish authorities intercepted more than 11,000 illegal aliens trying to sneak into the country by boat from the Canaries. It isn’t known how many drown on the way or avoid detection and make it into the country.

People smugglers used to run illegals from Morocco across the Straits of Gibraltar in small boats, but a crackdown by both governments is forcing them to change tactics. They now buy or rent old, abandoned ocean-going ships, make cheap repairs, and take the illegals greater distances. “Several old ships that are being repaired for use to smuggle migrants have been detected in different parts of western Africa,” says Canary Islands governor Jose Segura. People smuggling is lucrative. Traffickers charge $1,500 to $2,500 a head, and larger vessels mean more profits.

The Spanish government is sending intelligence officers to keep an eye on suspicious ships being refitted in several West African nations. In August, Spanish officials intercepted the Hollgan Star as it was about to sail from Freetown, Sierra Leone, with a cargo of 500 illegals bound for the Canaries. In October, Spain seized another cargo ship off the coast of the Canaries carrying 176 illegals, and in November, when the monitoring of West African ports was first reported, Spain’s spies were keeping an eye on yet another suspicious vessel in Freetown harbor.

Spain was annoyed that word leaked out about its spy operation, but it has no plans to stop it. Spanish agents were working in cooperation with several West African governments. [Spanish Spies Watch Suspected People-Smuggling Ships in Sierra Leone, AFP, Dec. 1, 2004.]

Shifting the Blame

On Nov. 16, an 11-year-old student at Stetson Middle School in Philadelphia dragged another sixth grade boy into a hallway and raped him. Instead of blaming the attacker, the victim’s mother, Damaris Rivera, blamed the school, saying it failed to protect him. Mrs. Rivera even took part in a protest in front of the school, where she used her son as a prop, having him hold a sign that read, “I was raped by the School District.” The attacker’s mother, Carmen Cuevas, was also at the protest and the two women embraced and consoled each other. “He said he did it and that he didn’t know why,” said Mrs. Cuevas, of her son. Like Mrs. Rivera, she too blamed the school and not her son.

Edison Schools, Inc., the private company that runs Stetson, says it has fired the principal and hired more guards. [Vernon Clark, Stetson Parents Put Blame on School, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 23, 2004, p. B1.]

Racial Reality

On Nov. 12, The New England Journal of Medicine published the results of a study of BiDil, a new combination drug for treating heart failure — but only for blacks. In clinical trials, researchers found that BiDil, along with standard heart treatment medicine, reduced the number of deaths from heart failure by 43 percent for blacks. Clinicians were so astonished by the results they suspended the trial on ethical grounds, believing other patients should get BiDil right away rather than wait for the study to end. If the US Food and Drug Administration approves BiDil, it will be the first race-specific medication — but probably not the last. There are 29 drugs that show evidence of being more effective for certain races, and more are being developed.

This troubles race deniers, who believe it is somehow immoral to develop race-specific drugs. They would have preferred that the BiDil studies include whites and Asians as well. Dr. Clyde W. Yancy of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, for example, says the trial should have included people of other races — even though early research on BiDil had shown it had no effect on whites.

Dr. August Grant, former president of the Association of Black Cardiologists, which co-sponsored the BiDil trials along with manufacturer NitroMed, is tired of hearing that complaint. “At times, you can’t win,” he says. Here we have a wonderful trial that shows a clear result, and the issue is raised, ‘Why was this trial done only in African-Americans?’” [Claude Lewis, Race-Specific Drug Adds to Black-and-White Issues, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 12, 2004. Toward the First Racial Medicine, New York Times, Nov. 13, 2004.]

Showing Support

Elmwood Cemetery, owned and maintained by the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, is the final resting place for many Confederate soldiers. Ten years ago, the Sons of Confederate Veterans put up a flagpole to fly the Confederate battle flag over the Southern dead. This bothered no one until earlier this year, when black Charlotte councilman Warren Turner proposed lowering the height of the pole so the flag couldn’t be seen from outside the cemetery. Others now want the flag removed entirely.

The only surprise in this story is that a Nov. 20 rally to keep the flag flying high included as one of its speakers a former head of the Asheville, North Carolina, NAACP chapter, H. K. Edgerton, an outspoken defender of the flag. Mr. Edgerton, who once carried the flag from North Carolina to Texas in a protest “March Across Dixie,” is a proud black Southerner who believes that “Southern symbols are part of a proud heritage that should be defended, not scorned,” and that “Southerners have a cultural experience of their own, and that culture needs to be defended from historical revisionists.”

Elsewhere he has explained how blacks supported the Confederacy: “We made all of the implements of war, we fought, we participated — not one slave insurrection happened during that period of time. They did not have whips and guns forcing them to be there. God in his infinite wisdom brought these people here. He brought about a love between master and slave that has never happened before. If you search this empirically then you will know the only one who cared about the African was the man in the South.” [Bruce Henderson, Confederate Flag Brings Out Support at City Cemetery, Charlotte Observer, Nov. 21, 2004, p. 2B. Clint Parker, The Man Behind the Rebel Flag, Asheville (NC) Tribune, Sept. 26, 2002. Donna Davis, Black Leader Defends Confederate Flag, Responds to Violent Attackers.]

Bad Advice

CosmoGirl is a version of Cosmopolitan for young teenagers. The November 2004 issue includes an “ethics test” to help angst-ridden girls cope with moral dilemmas, including what to do about “racist” parents:

Your parents are always loving and supportive of you, but sometimes they say prejudiced things about people of other races and faiths. Your dad tells you all the time that he does not want you dating, calling, or even socializing with Latinos. But you have a serious crush on a Mexican-American guy in your homeroom. Should you just avoid him?

CosmoGirl’s advice: “Generally it’s right to obey your parents. But here many people would say their beliefs aren’t ethical. So, while it may not be smart to bring your crush home, it isn’t fair to avoid him — he’s done nothing wrong. Ask yourself: Am I morally obligated to obey an unjust rule? Should I agree with all my parents’ beliefs?”

CosmoGirl’s bottom line: “Only you can decide what choices are right for you. Make decisions that you respect and you will lead an ethical life!” [Ethics Test, CosmoGirl, November 2004, p. 141.]

• • • BACK TO TOP • • •

Letters from readers

Sir — John Hunt Morgan’s “Building White Communities” was of special interest to me since I live in a town that is very much like the model he envisions: Edmond, Oklahoma, near Oklahoma City.

Back when it was legal to do so, there was a sign on the edge of town that advised blacks not to let the sun go down on them in Edmond. Even after the local college, Central State College, was integrated, the non-student population of Edmond remained all white. In 1972, the federal government forced a school desegregation plan on Oklahoma City that turned the district into chaos. Thousands of whites began moving to Edmond because our independent school district remained all white. Housing demand increased, so developers built more upscale houses to take advantage of higher land values.

At about the same time, the Arab oil embargo resulted in an oil exploration boom in Oklahoma. As professionals moved into the state to work for the oil industry, many chose to settle in Edmond so their children could attend Edmond’s schools. More houses were built, and the value of the existing home stock increased, because so many more whites wanted to live in Edmond.

Today Edmond is a beautiful town with fine homes on tree-lined streets. Without the burden of black crime, the city has money to spend on parks where white children can play without fear of being assaulted by blacks. There are golf courses, sports fields, and a lake for fishing and boating. Many people still commute to Oklahoma City for work, but business and employment opportunities in Edmond are increasing as the town continues to grow.

It’s not perfect, however. Edmond is no longer all white. The city council allowed the construction of some low-cost apartment complexes some time ago, and they became magnets for blacks. There are now a few black families in most neighborhoods, but they are usually employed and responsible. The good news is that white flight from Edmond is next to impossible. Any direction you travel from Edmond you will find a higher concentration of blacks than we have. There is no place to run, so whites stay here. That makes it harder for blacks to get in, and helps us preserve our community.

A long-time Edmond Resident


Sir — Jared Taylor’s response to Michael Levin’s review of Stephen Kershnar’s Justice for the Past was very interesting. However, he might have mentioned that since Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution forbids bills of attainder — laws passed by a legislature that impose a penalty or inflict a detriment on a particular individual or group of individuals — that alone should halt silly claims for slavery reparations.

Dan Althoff, Atlantic Beach. Fla.


Sir — It is obvious that there needs to be an organized political and social movement to save our race and Western civilization — before we reach the point of no return. As seen in the recent degrading incident involving the white actress and the black player on ABC’s Monday Night Football (neatly dissected by Samuel Francis in his Nov. 26 column), large segments of American society apparently no longer object to miscegenation. The number of people who accept racial differences in IQ seems to be shrinking as well. This only proves how susceptible whites are to media brainwashing.

A “sane” organization needs to step forward to develop a strategy and plan of action involving everything from public boycotts of corporations that promote multiculturalism to political action, including the fielding of candidates. American Renaissance, with your organization and contacts is best suited to fill this role. Will you rise to the challenge?

I am amazed at the bravery and stubborn resistance of the Iraqi insurgents who fight like demons for their benighted sects and culture. The contrast with whites, who do nothing to preserve the greatest race and culture the world has ever seen, is damning.

Name withheld


Sir — I was fascinated by “My Teachers’ Lies” in the December issue. I would guess there are many intelligent Mexicans of Spanish heritage who share the author’s views, but whose opinions are not represented in either the American or Mexican press. I suspect the situation is a little like that of black conservatives in the United States. There is a current of sophisticated dissent among blacks, but other blacks shout it down, and liberal whites ignore it. You have to dig to know it is even there.

Mexicans, in fact, are still notorious for their social separation from pure-blood Indians — the dark brown ones that are coming to the United States in increasing numbers. I would bet there is probably real racial consciousness among the Mexican upper classes. White Mexicans must certainly know that Indians are not capable of running an industrialized country, but this is probably a subject that comes up only after a few tequilas.

Peter Jacobson, St. Paul, Minn.


• • • BACK TO TOP • • •

You must enable Javascript in your browser.