|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol 11, No. 3||March 2000|
Pushing Out Whitey
Whence the Hispanics?
Book Review: The Colorblind Leading the Colorblind
Videos: Our Wandering Ancestors
Freedom Party Enters Austrian Government
O Tempora, O Mores!
Letters from Readers
Pushing Out Whitey
Who speaks for the Hispanics?
Hispanics, as we are so frequently reminded, are the fastest-growing minority group in America. At just under 12 percent of the population, they are poised to overtake blacks, and massive immigration of Hispanics is the main reason whites are projected to become a minority sometime in the middle of the new century. There are now some 32 million Hispanics in the country, and the figure could more than triple to 98 million and 24 percent of the population in 50 years. Who are these people, what do they want, and who speaks in their name?
The four main Hispanic-interests pressure groups are the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), and the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA). They have different histories and go about their work in different ways, but they are essentially united in their objectives. They promote the agenda of a racially- and ethnically-conscious group, largely composed of immigrants, whose interests frequently conflict with those of the majority. Indeed, these groups exist precisely because of these conflicts, and it is at those points on which Hispanic and American interests are most at odds that the groups are most active.
There are several general issues on which all Hispanic organizations agree. They want more immigration of their own people to the United States. They want as many government benefits as possible for non-citizens, whether in the country legally or not. They want to stop deportation of illegal aliens as a prelude to full amnesty. They want to spread the rights of American citizenship — some would include even the right to vote — to non-citizens. They want official recognition of their own culture, language, and national holidays, and as much public money as possible to promote them. To this end they want public school instruction and all government services in Spanish. They want place and street names, public monuments, and official observances to commemorate their history and their culture. They want recognition of Spanish as at least co-equal with English, and they support Spanish as the official language in areas in which Hispanics predominate. They want to expand all racial preference programs, and gear as many as possible to the explicit benefit of Hispanics.
In short, Hispanics want the very things they would achieve if they were able to invade and conquer the United States. Many activists do not hesitate to describe their goal as reconquista.
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which is the oldest and largest of the groups, was established in 1929 in Corpus Christi, Texas, by the merger of three rival, and often feuding, Mexican-Texan organizations: The Order Sons of American [sic], the Knights of America, and the League of Latin American Citizens.
Until the 1950s, LULAC was a middle-class, patriotic citizens’ organization with an agenda of traditional “Americanism” — Mexican-Americans must learn English and assimilate to “Anglo” culture. It stressed an American rather than Mexican identity, and an integral part of its work was promotion of U.S. citizenship and loyalty to the United States. LULAC rejected the idea that the American Southwest should be returned to Mexico, and opposed establishment of Spanish-language enclaves. Because illegal aliens from Mexico were violating U.S. laws and lowering wages for Mexican-Americans, LULAC endorsed immigration control and supported President Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback,” which sent one million illegals back to Mexico.
By the 1950s, LULAC had discovered litigation, and in 1954 it took to the U.S. Supreme Court Hernandez v. Texas, the first “Hispanic” civil rights case. The Court overturned the murder conviction of a Mexican-American in Jackson County, Texas, on grounds that the composition of the jury was unconstitutional. Although Mexicans were 14 percent of the county, none had served on a jury for 25 years. LULAC argued that the absence of Mexicans on the jury violated the convicted murderer’s 14th Amendment rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “persons of Mexican descent were a distinct class” — neither black nor white — and had to be an explicit part of the judicial process.
This victory spelled the beginning of the end for the original LULAC. No longer were Mexicans trying to be like Anglos; they were a separate class with separate goals to be achieved by separate interest groups. The old shell remains: The official colors of LULAC are still red, white, and blue; the official logo is still a shield emblazoned with the stars and stripes bearing the name “LULAC;” “Washington’s prayer” is still the official league prayer; “America” is still the official hymn, and members still recite the Pledge of Allegiance before meetings. But the LULAC that so vigorously championed traditional “Americanism” is gone. Today, it is an ethnic pressure group that opposes everything its founders stood for.
While the original LULAC asserted that Mexican-Americans had no interests other than those of other Americans, today its goal is the group entitlements clearly spelled out in its Legislative Platform displayed on its website (www. lulac.org).
Among its objectives: preferences for Hispanic small businesses; affirmative action hiring policies “to ensure diversity in all workplaces;” establishment of “Hispanic Serving Institutions” that would have “many of the same benefits provided to Historically Black Colleges and Universities;” more Hispanics at all levels of the federal government, especially in “key positions in the State Department, the Foreign Service and the United Nations;” appointment of 60 Hispanic judges; appointment of a Hispanic as the next Supreme Court justice; more “Hispanic-oriented programming in TV and print” as well as more Hispanics in “creative positions” in major media companies.
U.S. citizenship is no longer important to LULAC. “Residents of the United States” are now eligible for membership, and they don’t have to be legal residents. U.S. citizenship is not a qualification for league positions, whether elected or appointed.
In 1954, LULAC supported immigration control and mass deportation of illegal aliens. Today, it opposes both. José Velez, head of LULAC from 1990 to 1994, has said that the U.S. Border Patrol is “the enemy of my people and always will be.” Needless to say, LULAC opposes having the military defend U.S. borders — not even to stop drug smugglers — because “military personnel are not trained for border patrolling and might easily violate the civil rights of those they intervene with.”
In the 1950s, LULAC recognized English as the official language of the United States. Today, it vigorously opposes any official recognition of English. In 1996, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “English Language Empowerment Act” declaring English the official language, the league responded with an “Action Alert” claiming that “English-only is incredibly divisive because it sends the message that the culture of language minorities is inferior and illegal. With a dramatic increase in hate crimes and right wing terrorist attacks in the United States, the last thing we need is a frivolous bill to fuel the fires of racism.”
Compared to the multi-million-dollar Hispanic organizations funded by the Ford Foundation, LULAC is a financial piker. In 1997, for example, it had revenues of only $250,000, of which $67,000 was donations. It received $150,000 in membership fees, which does not exactly square with its claims to have a membership of “approximately 115,000.” That would mean dues of $1.30 a year, whereas annual membership is $25.00. At that rate, its $150,000 take works out to 6,000 members. The “approximately 115,000” looks awfully approximate. At the end of 1997, LULAC had $322,000 in assets, mostly cash. In its IRS filing it listed only two directors — a president and treasurer — both unpaid. At the same time and somewhat mysteriously, it managed to spend $150,000 on salaries and $62,000 on travel.
Every summer LULAC holds a National Convention & Exposition, which can be a big money-maker. In 1996 it appears to have turned a profit of more than $1 million. According to its IRS report for the year, it spent more than $390,000 on conferences and conventions, which must have been flossy affairs.
Ford Steps In
Ironically, one of the reasons LULAC dropped middle-class patriotism for the ethnic hustle was that it had to compete with the more radical Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and National Council of La Raza (La Raza) — which were not popular Hispanic organizations but creatures of the Ford Foundation.
Perhaps the best book about MAL-DEF is Importing Revolution: Open Borders and the Radical Agenda by William R. Hawkins, on which this account draws heavily. MALDEF’s founder, Peter Tijerina, was a disaffected LULAC chapter chairman who didn’t think the league had followed up on Hernandez v. Texas with enough legal activism. He wanted LULAC to copy the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (NAACP-LDF), and in 1966, he sent a league member to the NAACP-LDF’s Chicago convention. On the strength of contacts made at the convention, Jack Greenberg, president of the NAACP-LDF, arranged for Mr. Tijerina to meet Bill Pincus, head of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Pincus agreed to fund a new organization to push Mexican interests exactly the way the NAACP-LDF pushed black interests. Mr. Tijerina was MALDEF’s first executive director, and, in 1970, Mario Obledo, former Texas Attorney General, became General Counsel. The Foundation then awarded the organization a five-year grant of more than $2 million.
Ford handled more than just the money. It appointed the executive director, decided where the headquarters should be, and the type of legal cases to pursue. At first, MALDEF brought cases about education, school desegregation, voting rights, job discrimination, composition of draft boards, and the status of anti-Vietnam war protesters. Ford thought this wasn’t radical enough. It wanted precedent-setting cases to go all the way to the Supreme Court for rulings that would change the country. MALDEF duly redirected much of its efforts towards bilingual education and immigration.
In one of its most famous cases, MALDEF supported the plaintiffs in Lau v. Nichols, in which the Supreme Court required that non-English speaking students be taught in English or “other adequate instructional procedures.” MALDEF brilliantly misinterpreted this to mean education in languages other than English. The fund also sued for free public education for the children of illegal aliens, and got what it wanted in the 1982 ruling, Plyer v. Doe. These are perfect examples — just like Brown v. Board of Education — of clever, foundation-sponsored lawyers getting the courts to do things no democratically-elected legislative body would do.
MALDEF cases are exactly the kind one would expect. It fought California’s Proposition 187 that denied social services to illegals, and once it was voted in, filed a class-action suit challenging every provision. It filed suit in 1997 to abolish the requirement that Texas high school students pass the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TASS), claiming that the “test contributes to the high drop out rates among Mexican Americans and African Americans.” The fund sued in California, claiming school textbooks were biased against minorities. A number of figures associated with MALDEF have demanded that U.S. citizenship be eliminated as a requirement for voting. The fund successfully lobbied for the “motor-voter” bill of 1993 that allows voter registration at welfare offices or when applying for a drivers license, and discourages states from verifying an applicant’s eligibility or citizenship. Needless to say, it is now defending racial preferences at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
MALDEF opposes securing the Mexican border even to stop the flow of illegal drugs. When the Federal government launched “Joint Task Force Six” to combat drug smuggling along the border, MALDEF filed suit to halt the project, arguing that “it would cause irreparable damage to the human and physical environment in the area.” What does MALDEF want? According to Mario Obledo, who rose to become head of the fund, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who does not like it should leave.” In 1998, President Clinton awarded Mr. Obledo the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
MALDEF gets funding from corporations — AT&T and IBM in particular — and foundations. For the period 1991-1995, the total amount of “gifts, grants and contributions” to MALDEF was over $17 million. Between 1996 and 1998, MALDEF received over nine million dollars from just three foundations: the vast majority — over six million dollars — from the Ford Foundation; $1,200,000 from the Carnegie Corporation, and another $1,525,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation. The fund does not even pretend to be a membership organization. Other than gifts, its main source of income is settlements and awards of attorneys’ fees in court cases. In 1995, for example, it collected over $1.1 million spread over a number of different cases. The largest award was $299,000 in something called Lopez v. Del Valle.
Another important source of income for MALDEF is fund-raising dinners, which it holds in places like San Antonio, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago. In 1996, the Los Angeles dinner brought in gross revenues of $306,000 but cheapskates in Chicago came through with only $135,000.
At the end of 1996, MALDEF had total assets of over $7 million, most of which was money in the bank. It reported $2.7 million in securities and another $2.7 million in short-term cash accounts. This was after it had splashed out $120,000 in salary and benefits to its president, Antonia Hernandez, and $93,900 to vice president Teresa Fay-Bustillos. Three other vice presidents — all Hispanics — got just over $50,000 each. A hired gringo, Al Kauffman, was the Senior Litigator who ran the legal work. He got $85,000, and his four best-paid staff lawyers got $50 to $60,000.
MALDEF spends some of its money training Hispanic law students to take over Al’s job. In 1996, Ruth Flores at Columbia Law School got the Valerie Kantor Memorial Scholarship and Christina Mireles at Northwestern School of Law got the Helena Rubenstein Scholarship. Thirteen other Hispanic law students got lesser scholarships; two thirds of the recipients were women, as are the top two officials at the fund.
MALDEF also wants more Hispanics in the media. As it explains, because of “the powerful position the media maintains in shaping and molding the beliefs and attitudes of the general public,” this important work cannot be left in the hands of gringos. The fund therefore dishes out $3,000 and $4,000 scholarships to promising young propagandists who fit the right ethnic profile. In 1996, the fund granted a total of 25 scholarships, all to Hispanics. It is probably safe to assume that citizenship or even legal residency are not requirements for MALDEF grants. If there were a similar organization that boasted about giving scholarships only to whites, MALDEF would file a discrimination suit.
MALDEF is an aggressive, well-funded group designed to advance explicit racial-ethnic interests at the expense of the white majority. Ironically, its support comes almost entirely from “Anglo” sources, without which it would collapse. Ford Foundation and IBM would be indignant at the idea of an organization that promoted white interests.
Ford’s other raven-haired child is the National Council of La Raza (“the Race”), which was established originally in 1968 as the Southwest Council of La Raza. According to its IRS filings La Raza’s purpose is to “improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans.” In 1996, its biggest single expenditure for this purpose was to throw fancy parties. Every year it has a Congressional Awards Dinner, a national conference, and an American Latino Media Arts (ALMA) program at which it gives “Alma” awards. In 1996, these soirées cost no less than $3.9 million, or more than a quarter of the budget. La Raza says the hoopla is “designed to communicate the needs and concerns of the Hispanic community.”
Its other most expensive program is distribution of money to “Hispanic community-based organizations.” In 1996 it handed out cash to dozens of groups no one has heard of: $126,000 to El Hogar del Niño, $9,000 for Chicanos por la Causa, $30,000 to Cabrillo Economic Development, etc. etc. The boodle added up to $1.3 million, but La Raza appears to have spent another $2 million just administering the distribution. La Raza also spent more than $1 million “to improve education by placing academic concepts and skills in a context familiar to Hispanics, and forming a network of interactive community-based Hispanic healthcare providers.” It was no doubt in this latter context that it carried on its books a $81,000 ten-year loan to a dentist by the name of Carlos de la Peña.
La Raza operates a Policy Analysis Center, which claims to be “the pre-eminent Hispanic ‘think tank’,” and uses its findings to lobby for the usual: affirmative action, bilingual education, mass immigration, more hate crimes laws. In 1996, the pre-eminent Hispanic think tank had a budget of about $700,000, or less than one fifth the party budget.
On policy, La Raza sings the same Hispanic song. It says increased immigration control violates civil rights, and that Congress’ 1996 cutback on handouts to immigrants was “a disgrace to American values.” It wants another amnesty for illegals and is willing to make threats to get it: “Our elected officials should not be surprised if their failure to act on reforms of these terribly unjust [immigration] laws is met with a firm response at the ballot box.”
In 1999, La Raza made a big noise about anti-Hispanic hate crimes, warning about “a growing pattern of harassment, hate violence, and law enforcement abuse against Hispanics.” In a report called The Mainstreaming of Hate, it fussed about such people as Samuel Francis, “member of a number of hate groups,” and Jared Taylor, who argues that “the existence of civil rights organizations [like La Raza] require Whites to organize in self-defense.” The glossy, 50-page report never mentioned that the FBI lists Hispanics as a hate crime victim category but not as a perpetrator category; any Hispanic who commits a hate crime is officially “white.”
La Raza is the richest of the Hispanic organizations, with total revenue in 1996 of no less than $14 million, of which $8.5 million was private contributions, $3.2 million was government grants, and $2 million was largely government fees and contracts. In other words, the U.S. government gives millions of dollars every year to an ethnic advocacy group that criticizes immigration legislation as “a disgrace to American values.” The organization makes no pretense of grass-roots or even Hispanic support, and like MALDEF would disappear if its gringo patrons came to their senses.
From 1992-1996, La Raza got a total of $38 million in “gifts, grants and contributions,” and this doesn’t even include millions in government fees and contracts. Over three years, 1996-1998, La Raza received over $5 million from just three foundations: the majority — nearly $4 million — from the Ford Foundation, $850,000 from the Carnegie Corporation, and another $850,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1996, the president of La Raza, Raul Yzaguirre, got over $180,000 in pay and benefits, and his two senior vice presidents got $115,000 and $85,000. Four other employees made more than $50,000.
La Raza literally has more money than it knows what to do with. At the end of 1996 it reported $2.6 million sitting in non-interest-bearing cash accounts and only $114,000 in securities. It listed total assets of $7.8 million, of which $3.8 million were grants receivable.
At La Raza, the ethnic hustle is not as tightly focused or subversive as it is at MALDEF. La Raza likes to throw parties and give money to Hispanic tenants’ organizations. However, any organization that can raise $14 million in a single year has the means for serious work.
Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) is the youngest, most incendiary, and unabashedly anti-white of the four Hispanic organizations. It is mainly a student group, and its first chapter was established at UC Santa Barbara in 1969. It now has chapters of varying size and effectiveness at a number of universities and high schools. It is not possible to confirm numbers like this but according to Miguel Carillo, a Chula Vista High School teacher, there are MEChA chapters at over 90 percent of the high schools in San Diego and Los Angeles.
In English, the group’s name would be Chicano Student Movement for Aztlan. “Chicanos” are Mexicans living in America, and “Aztlan” is the pseudo-Aztec name radicals want to give to the Southwestern part of the United States after they kick out all the white people and make it an independent country.
MEChistas, as they call themselves, combine very militant talk with old-fashioned Communism. Ernesto “Che” Guevara, of all people, is still one of their big heroes. Miguel Perez of MEChA at Cal State Northridge has explained that Aztlan would have a government that would be closer to Communism than anything else and adds, “Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled . . . opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep the power.”
Rodolfo Acuña is a MEChA advisor and a California State University professor. He has said that “the [demise] of the Soviet Union was a tragedy for us” and that “Chicanos have to get a lot more militant about defending our rights.” At a 1996 MEChA conference held to condemn California’s Propositions 187 (ending benefits for illegals) and 209 (ending affirmative action), he said “anyone who’s supporting 209 is a racist and anybody who supports 187 is a racist. . . . You are living in Nazi U.S. We can’t let them take us to those intellectual ovens.”
In 1997, a MEChA representative declared during a rally in front of Los Angeles City Hall: “When the people in this building don’t listen to the demands of our community, it’s time to burn it down!” This was not an empty threat. In 1993, to underscore its demand for full departmental status for Chicano Studies at UCLA, MEChA started a riot that destroyed half a million dollars worth of campus property.
MEChA spreads the word in campus newspapers such as El Popo, Aztlan News, Chispas, Gente de Aztlan (UCLA), Voz Fronteriza (U.C. San Diego), La Voz Mestiza (UC Irvine), and La Voz Berkeley. These choleric broadsides are generally paid for out of school student-activity funds. While an independent Aztlan is a distant goal, MEChA’s shorter-term objectives are essentially the same as the Hispanic groups for grown-ups; it is just nastier about them. For example, the May, 1995, issue of Voz Fronteriza gave the following headline to a front-page article about a Hispanic INS agent who died in the line of duty: “Luis A. Santiago: Death Of A Migra Pig.” “Migra” is a derisive term for the INS.
Voz Fronteriza (“Voice of the Frontier”) is located in San Diego, “Califaztlan,” and celebrated 25 years in print with a photo spread of Pancho Villa-type revolutionaries on the front page and more recent shots of Central American female revolutionaries on the back. It also printed a photo of Lolita Lebrón, a Puerto Rican lady who helped shoot up the U.S. Congress in 1954. Inside was a huge, centerfold of Guevara. The lead editorial sets the tone. Titled, “If You Can’t Take the Heat Get the Fuck Out the Kitchen,” its first sentence is “God damn, the shit has really been flying at UCSD.” Writers like to use “Raza,” capitalized, to mean Hispanic, as in “Three Raza students confronted the power structure last weekend at. . . .”
News stories included information about how the U.S. government plants drugs in Hispanic neighborhoods and warnings like: “The gringo colonial establishment will hunt down and frame anyone who refuses to denounce the principles of Raza self-determination.” One article ends with “Que viva Mao!” [Long live Mao!]
La Voz Mestiza is a sister publication printed at UC Irvine. In a typical issue we learn that “the materialism in the everyday lives of North Amerikkkans makes them blind and incapable of free thought.” One editorial addressed to capitalist whites ends with: “You’ve spilled enough of our blood, now it’s your turn to bleed you fucken [sic] subhuman beasts.” We also learn that “in the US. as well as in other countries the U.S. government only protects the civil rights of its white racist citizens . . . Thus we are caught in the middle between those who want to enslave us and those who call for our extermination.” The back cover is a photo spread of people like Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole, and Jesse Helms with swastikas printed on their foreheads. “ILLEGAL ALIENS,” screams the headline, with the further explanation that they are “demonic, vicious, barbaric, rapist, bestial amerikkkan[s].”
Voz Mestiza lurches occasionally into spiteful feminism, which is a little surprising in a Hispanic publication. One article about respect for women begins: “Ramming his dick up, penetrating, with full force of a 3 inch penis that pretends to be a work-horse of pleasure. She: a hole in the wall for his two minute pleasure.” Yet another fine campus publication supported by the taxpayer.
MEChA has a rather spotty web presence that pushes the same general line. The home page for the University of Oregon chapter boasts that the “site is maintained in the USA by illegal Mecha aliens.”
MEChA does not appear to have a formal, corporate existence and does not have a national headquarters. From an organizational standpoint, it is essentially a network of school-funded student clubs. Since it is not a non-profit organization it cannot accept grants from Ford or Carnegie, but would probably only have to tone down its language a little to get grants.
It is impossible to know how many Mexican-Americans feel as the MEChistas do. Probably very few hate America with such intensity. MEChistas probably get scholarships from MALDEF and become professors of Chicano studies, get jobs at CBS or the Los Angeles Times, or go to work for the innumerable little Hispanic groups La Raza supports. Whatever they do, they probably never completely lose their dream of throwing all the white people out of California and moving into a Beverly Hills mansion.
In the long term, what the more moderate-sounding Hispanics are pushing amounts to the same thing: more Hispanics, more preferences, more “multiculturalism” (which is just another way of saying more Hispanics), which can only lead to eventual domination, cultural and demographic, of the United States. Hispanics have a strong, entirely natural sense of peoplehood, of la raza, and want to refashion America in their own image. They are different from other groups only in that they have stumbled onto an incredibly rich country full of people who not only accede to their ethnic demands but actually help pay for them. These are heady times for the reconquista crowd, and will continue to be until the majority comes out of its trance.
Charles Truxillo is a visiting professor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico. He calls the creation of a Hispanic nation in the southwestern part of the United States within the next 80 years “an inevitability.” “I may not live to see the Hispanic homeland,” he says, “but by the end of the century my students’ kids will live in it, sovereign and free.” He says this homeland, to be composed of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and southern Colorado, should be established “by any means necessary,” but does not think there will be any fighting. The “electoral pressure” of the future majority of Hispanics will do the trick. “We will one day be a majority and reclaim our birthright,” he says. As a teacher of Chicano studies, he considers it his role to help develop a “cadre of intellectuals” who will help bring about secession.
Prof. Truxillo was born in Albuquerque and educated up through his Ph.D. in the United States. He agrees that the Civil War settled the military question of secession but not the moral question. He believes states have the right to secede and that the federal government will not prevent the establishment of a Hispanic homeland. “It could happen with the support of the U.S. government,” he adds.
Prof. Truxillo has an ally in Juan José Peña, vice chairman of the Albuquerque Hispanic Round Table. “I’ve studied lots of civilizations,” he says. “The United States is just like any other empire. It’s not going to live forever. Eventually it will break down because of stresses.”
Whence the Hispanics?
There is a great deal of mumbo-jumbo about who “Hispanics” are and just what their history is in this country. First of all, “Hispanic” and “Latino” are recent, artificial terms that describe no clear racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural group. “Hispanics” have consistently shifted definitions in ways to maximize political power.
From 1820 to 1910, there was essentially no immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Only about 350 Mexicans arrived every year, and Mexican-Americans were officially “white.” In 1930, however, they were reclassified as “non-white” in response to two events. One was a sudden upsurge in Mexican immigration and the other was a combined Mexican and Mexican-American military uprising against the United States.
Between 1910 and 1930, approximately 700,000 Mexicans (three percent of the population of Mexico) crossed into the United States — principally Texas — fleeing the chaos of the Mexican Revolution. This dramatic growth in the size of the Mexican population gave rise to an early “reconquista” movement that hoped to retake the entire Southwest, from California to Texas. Mexican irredentists drew up the “Plan de San Diego,” according to which insurrection was to begin at 2:00 a.m. on February 20, 1915. Mexican-Americans hoped to kill every white man over the age of 16, and expel all other whites. The leaders of the insurgency sought an alliance with blacks, American Indians, and Asians, proposing that most of the United States be divided among these groups, with whites confined to the Northeast and Midwest. Blacks and American Indians rejected the offer but a half-dozen Japanese joined the “Liberating Army for Race and Peoples,” allegedly acting as weapons experts.
The insurrection made no headway anywhere but in Texas. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans waged a guerrilla war from bases in Mexico for 16 months — from February 1915 to June 1916 — during which time they launched 27 raids into the United States. Before the Texas Rangers and the U.S. Army defeated them, the insurgents killed 33 whites, wounded 24 others, drove thousands of Texans off their land, and destroyed considerable amounts of public and private property.
After this irritating experience, both the federal government and the state of Texas decided it would be a good idea to know how many Mexicans were living in the United States. “Mexicans” were therefore counted separately from “whites” for the first time in the 1930 Census. Texas was segregated at the time, and once they lost their status as “whites,” Mexicans became potentially subject to the same conditions as blacks. During the 1930s, one of LULAC’s major projects was opposition to the new categorization of Mexicans as “non-white.” Mexican-American leaders did not oppose segregation itself; they just didn’t want the same treatment as blacks. Within a few years, LULAC succeeded in having Mexicans once again recognized as “white” and treated as such for purposes of segregation.
Ironically, 40 years later in the 1970s, after affirmative action programs had been introduced for blacks, LULAC and La Raza successfully lobbied the federal government to recognize their members as “non-whites” for racial preference purposes. When there were advantages in being white, that’s what they insisted they were; when there were benefits to being non-white they changed color.
What later became the official “Hispanic” category was established by law in 1976. Public Law 94-311 asserted that what it called “Americans of Spanish origin or descent” were victims of “racial, social, economic, and political discrimination,” and ordered the Census Bureau to collect and publish statistics “which indicate the social, health, and economic condition” of this group. It even ordered the Census Bureau to start an affirmative action program to hire more of them.
At the time, LULAC and La Raza supported the new designation, but quickly decided “Spanish origin and descent,” and US citizenship were too restrictive. The next year, 1977, the Office of Management and Budget adopted the shorter label of “Hispanic” and decided it meant: “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.” By throwing in anyone of “Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race,” OMB made “Hispanics” out of all the people from former Spanish colonies, such as Western Sahara, Equatorial Guinea, the Philippines, Guam, the Northern Marianas, Marshall Islands and Micronesia.
Internationally, the Hispanic designation has the odd effect of including a lot of people who clearly aren’t. There are many Indians in Latin America, and they are the majority populations of Guatemala and Bolivia. A great many of them speak no Spanish at all, but they are still “Hispanic,” and get racial preferences if they can manage to get to America. Italians from Argentina would likewise be surprised to know they are “Hispanics.”
Hispanic organizations love to promote a “we were here first” version of American history — a claim the U.S. government endorses. In the introduction to We the American Hispanics — part of the Census Bureau’s “We the American[s]” series of demographic profiles of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and even the Foreign Born, but not whites — the Census Bureau writes: “Our ancestors were among the early explorers and settlers of the New World. In 1609, 11 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, our Mestizo (Indian and Spanish) ancestors settled in what is now Santa Fe, New Mexico.”
Of course, the first permanent English settlement in the New World was not Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620, but Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. The fact that this predates the Santa Fe colony no doubt accounts for why it goes unmentioned. Nor was Santa Fe settled by “mestizos” but by Captain-General Don Juan de Onate who was, along with his party of priests and settler-soldiers, a white Spaniard. Nor, for that matter, did Santa Fe amount to much. As T.R. Fehrenbach explains in his definitive history of Mexico Fire and Blood:
It had a thin, isolated population scattered along the river [Rio Grande]. When Anglo-Saxon explorers and traders found it early in the nineteenth century, New Mexico was still living in the seventeenth century . . .
The Spanish settlement of St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565 does predate the English at Jamestown by nearly half a century and is often cited by Hispanics as proof they were here first. Why doesn’t the Census Bureau mention it? Probably because St. Augustine is an embarrassment that reflects Spanish intolerance of New World rivals, especially if they weren’t Catholic.
Admiral Pedro Menendez de Aviles arrived in 1565 for the express purpose of exterminating the French Huguenots who had founded Fort Caroline in northeastern Florida. After killing all of them, including children and pregnant women, the Spanish renamed the colony “San Mateo,” a name it still bears. Needless to say, Admiral de Aviles was no mestizo either.
Hispanics like to claim not only that they were here first, but that they were present in large numbers in the Southwest when the United States annexed it in 1848. In fact, in 1821, the Spanish-speaking population in the Mexican province of Texas numbered only 3,000 — and this was a vast territory of 389,000 square miles that included most of present-day New Mexico and part of Colorado in addition to Texas. By 1834, ten years after the Mexican Government first invited Americans to settle in Texas, Americans outnumbered ethnic Mexicans ten to one. In 1860, ethnic Mexicans were less than two percent of the total population of Texas — an estimated 12,000 out of a total population of 600,000. By 1900, the number of ethnic Mexicans had risen to 70,000 but was still less than three percent of a Texas population exceeding three million. In fact, in San Antonio, home of the Alamo and cradle of Texas Independence, there were more German immigrants than ethnic Mexicans.
It was the dismantling of immigration restrictions in 1965 that brought in large numbers of people who now claim to have been here all along.
Mr. Fallon lives in Rye, New York.
The Colorblind Leading the Colorblind
Former lefty gets it half-right.
Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, David Horowitz, Spence Publishing Company, 1999, 300 pp. $24.95.
reviewed by Samuel Francis
David Horowitz first made a name for himself as the radical — indeed, communist — co-editor, with Peter Collier, of Ramparts, the New Left’s leading magazine in the 1960s, and later as a born-again conservative. He is the founder and editor of Heterodoxy, a monthly magazine devoted to exposing and dissecting “Political Correctness,” and chronicler of his own misadventures as a red-diaper baby in his autobiographical Radical Son. In the latter part of his career as a neoconservative, Mr. Horowitz has become well known also as one who does not spare the literary rod in chastising “black racism” and the transparent double standard by which liberals, white or black, typically evaluate racial injustice when committed by blacks rather than whites. This is the theme of the essays that make up his most recent book, Hating Whitey.
Hating Whitey is composed of rather brief columns from Salon, the online magazine for which Mr. Horowitz regularly writes, and one of the few non-conservative magazines of any kind that will allow him to write for it at all. As a kind of literary treasure trove of reflections on such subjects as black racism and double standards, the fraudulence of the Establishment Left, and the sheer viciousness of black criminals, especially when hidden under radical garb as “Black Panthers,” Mr. Horowitz’s collection can’t be beat. He offers chilling accounts of Huey Newton and the Panthers, for whom in his leftish days Mr. Horowitz served as an adviser, and of the black murderer Geronimo Pratt, also a Panther until Newton and his pals kicked him out and who was released from prison in 1999 due to the efforts of his lawyer, Johnnie Cochran. But neither the brutality of black racial hatred these essays recount nor the silence of the establishment press about it is isolated. As Mr. Horowitz explains:
In the wake of the Million Man March, blacks burned a white man alive in a Chicago neighborhood, with no accompanying press comment. In Illinois, three blacks murdered a pregnant white welfare mother and her two white children, while ‘rescuing’ her black fetus by cutting it out of her womb. No one called the attack racial even though a second black child of the woman was spared. A black city worker in Fort Lauderdale gunned down five white co-workers, again without the press intimating a racial element might be involved, even though several survivors testified the killer had used anti-white epithets in the workplace before. In Harlem, seven white customers were burned alive in a store torched by a black racist after Al Sharpton and other racial demagogues had led protests against its presence in the neighborhood because the owner was white. This did elicit some editorial commentary, but without a single acknowledgment by any public figure of any color that the black community might have its own racial problem.
One wonders which is more chilling — black racial hatred itself or the outright mendacity and deliberate indifference with which the press and the fashionable left cover it up.
Yet there is a major problem with Mr. Horowitz’s account, which is that for all his candor in discussing such matters and for all his rethinking of the leftism in which he was bred, to this day he still just doesn’t get it about race per se. Thus, as he tells us in his introduction, “The tolerance of Salon’s editors for the views in this book should not be surprising, since they are the same views once advanced by the civil rights movement [Martin Luther] King led.” Mr. Horowitz still seems to thinks that “race” is largely a fiction, and nowhere in the book does he mention, much less discuss, The Bell Curve or the work of Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, and others on racial differences in mentality and behavior.
Nor, for all his exposure of the lefties whom he knew and worked with in his red days, does he have anything to tell us about the “civil rights movement” itself — although we know very well that it was no less a collection of crooks and frauds than the New Left. Mr. Horowitz is exclusively concerned with what he believes is the “betrayal” of the civil rights movement by black leaders today and their indulgence of black racism or their outright endorsement of it. Hence, his columns center only around black-white antagonisms and ignore the impact of immigration and the emergence of anti-white Hispanic racism.
What Mr. Horowitz does not appear to grasp is that his beloved “civil rights movement” was merely the opening stage of a continuing and ever-intensifying revolution — Lothrop Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Color, or what the late sociologist Robert Nisbet called the “racial revolution” in which “color has come close to replacing nationality and economic class as the major setting for revolutionary thrust, strategy, tactics, and also philosophy . . .” Like all opening stages of revolutionary movements, that of the racial revolution was fairly moderate, demanding only “equal rights” and “color blindness” in law and policy. King was the leader and hero of this stage of the revolution, and in this respect it was little different from analogous stages of the French, Russian, and other revolutions.
But, again like all revolutions, it quickly moved on. Once legal racial barriers had been dismantled and equality before the law granted, the revolution began to unmask itself as a demand for racial power pure and simple. Equality of result and outcome as well as “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “racial reconciliation” have now come to serve as rationalizing slogans that are useful for discrediting “white supremacy” and “institutional racism” but are conveniently muted or abandoned entirely when non-white racial power and interests are at stake.
The movement from King’s “color blindness” to present-day Afro-racism is no more bizarre than similar transitions in other revolutionary processes; Orwell’s “All animals are equal — but some are more equal than others” is the classic satire of this pattern. Nevertheless, non-revolutionary power structures are constantly befuddled by it, as is the white establishment today. Having granted the legitimacy of the early stage of the revolution and swallowed the sugar-coated rhetorical and ideological premises of egalitarianism and environmentalism, the old regime finds it all but impossible to resist the demands of the later stages of the revolution that exploit those premises for anti-white racial purposes — even if it wanted to resist those demands in the first place.
Of course, it is to Mr. Horowitz’s credit that he has resisted and refused to embrace the more extreme anti-white implications of the “color blindness” he espouses, and it is because of his resistance that he exposes the racial revolutionaries at all. But because he does not really seem to understand that it is a revolution continuous with the civil rights movement, he misses much of what needs to be said about it and in the end has very little to tell us about how to resist the revolution effectively.
In fact, pretty much all that Mr. Horowitz can do, given his continuing commitment to King’s “color blindness” and his satisfaction with present-day American society, is bemoan and expostulate about the trends that have made “color blindness” a bad joke, and exhort us all to get back to good old Dr. King’s wisdom. Of course, the reason color blindness has become a bad joke and the reason that what King preached was wrong (whether he knew it or not) is that race is real. It is precisely because it is real, rooted in nature and evident in behavior, that normal human beings cannot be “blind” to it and cannot pretend indefinitely that it doesn’t exist or isn’t important.
That is also why just about every other race has now rediscovered it and is in the process of using it to build a mass base mobilized around racial consciousness for the revolt against the civilization that whites have created and ruled. Since Mr. Horowitz’s commitment to “color blindness” and his denial of race mean that he cannot and will not invoke white racial identity and consciousness as a counter-weight to non-white racial forces, about all he can offer with which to resist the anti-white racial hatred and quest for non-white racial power he accurately perceives are expostulation, exhortation, and bemoaning. The damage his insistence on color blindness does is that it prevents whites who become aware of the racial revolution from understanding that the construction of their own racial consciousness — not the denial of it — is the only realistic means of resisting a revolution directed against them that will certainly lead to their political and cultural dispossession and may eventually result (if contemporary anti-white racial hatred and viciousness is any indication) in their physical destruction.
Mr. Horowitz has written a compelling and often powerful account of the rising tide of color that, as it becomes a majority in the United States and threatens to engulf other white societies, will paint a dark future for white people everywhere in the world. It is unfortunate that as well informed about it and as experienced as he is in its inner circles, he does not more fully understand the force that really drives the racial revolution he at first assisted and later deserted.
Samuel Francis, a nationally syndicated columnist, can be reached through his website at www.samfrancis.net.
Our Wandering Ancestors
Remarkable discoveries now on video.
Mysterious Mummies of China, NOVA Videos, WGBH Boston, 1998, 60 mins., $19.95.
Homicide in Kennewick, Channel Four, International (U.K.), 1998, 60 mins.
Recent discoveries of Caucasian mummies and skeletons have raised the possibility that whites took their civilization well beyond Europe far earlier than previously thought. Two recent videos offer evidence, sometimes in amazing detail, of our globe-trotting ancestors.
Mysterious Mummies of China is part of the science and nature NOVA television series, and describes the remarkably well-preserved 3,000-year-old mummies discovered in the Takla Makan desert of Central Asia. The bodies were preserved by the arid climate and not by any human means. Several clearly have red and blond braided hair, white skin and other unmistakably European features. The discoveries first came to the attention of the West when a visiting American anthropologist named Victor Mair saw some of the mummies at a local museum in Chinese Central Asia. Intrigued, he assembled a forensic archeology team to return to China and identify the ancient remains. The video follows the groups efforts to learn who the mummy people were.
The most impressive mummy was found by a Chinese archeologist identified as “Mr. Hua,” who discovered its tomb in the Takla Makan. Along with a young female and a baby who appear to have been sacrificed for the burial, Mr. Hua found a tall, white-skinned, blue-eyed (the color of her eyes is clearly visible in the video), blond-haired, woman with braids, who was probably a noble. She died at about age 40 and was buried in skillfully woven, tartan-like cloth. The 3,800-year-old mummy looks so life-like that Mr. Hua, who has found 17 similar corpses in the area says, “When I brought her out of the ground and held her in my arms, I realized that she was the most beautiful woman on earth.”
Where did these ancient whites come from and what happened to them? The team thinks they may have been related to the Tokharians, a people that founded several settlements along the ancient “Silk Road.” Mummies and skeletons of the Tokharians show striking similarities to the Takla Makan mummies. A mummy of a Tokharian man clearly has red, braided hair and is wearing tartan cloth. Facial reconstruction’s from skulls show a resemblance to the Celtic people of Europe. Grave artifacts like saddles and bread ovens are similar to ones used by the people of western China today.
The video shows the team in areas of China formerly closed to the West, discovering eye-opening rock carvings and cave paintings that show the Tokharians as tall, red-haired, and white. Their writing was in a European script. Interestingly, some are shown with Indian caste marks, which suggest the region was a mixing bowl with the Tokharians taking on characteristics of other people. Prof. Mair says the drawings are consistent with early Chinese accounts of “barbarians” described as red-haired, with blue-green eyes and long noses. He believes the Tokharians were the descendants of the mummy people who, themselves, came from the Urals. Prof. Mair believes they introduced the wheel and certain types of weaving to China; the Chinese may even have built the Great Wall to keep them out. They disappeared after the 10th century and seem to have been absorbed by Asians. Still, the video notes that many people in western China do not consider themselves racially Chinese. They call themselves “weggers” and while Asian in appearance, some appear in the video with light hair, white skin, and blue-green eyes.
There is little doubt that whites had an early presence in Asia and an influence on the development of China, cracking its isolation thousands of years before Marco Polo. The video concludes that “the region on the doorstep of China was continuously populated by whites from 1800 BC.”
There is persuasive but inconclusive evidence that whites were the original inhabitants of North America. Homicide in Kennewick, released in 1998 by the English television station Channel Four, describes the discovery of a skeleton known as Kennewick Man, named after the little town in Washington state near which he was found. Outdoorsmen discovered the skeleton in July, 1996 (see AR , Jan., April and June, 1997), and it has been a source of controversy between scientists and Indians ever since.
The police asked Jim Chatters, a local anthropologist, to investigate the mostly intact skeleton. He knew it was not recent, but the long, narrow skull, prominent nose, and long limbs indicated it was not an American Indian skeleton either. He also discovered an arrowhead in the pelvis of the type used by Indians over 5,000 years ago. Despite the arrowhead, he thought he had the skeleton of an early white pioneer, which would make it about 200 years old. He was astounded by carbon-dating tests that showed the bones to be over 9,000 years old.
Another anthropologist, Katie Mac-millan, agrees the skeleton was Caucasian. “I don’t believe that the person could have been an Indian,” she says, “but how could a white person have been present that many years ago? How could he get here? Where are some of the rest of them?”
The discovery rocked the anthropology community, and the Smithsonian Institution asked for the bones for further analysis and DNA testing. However, before Dr. Chatters could get the skeleton to the Smithsonian local Indians got the police to confiscate Kennewick Man. A 1990 law gives Indians the rights to all ancient bones found in America. It assumes all bones more than 500 years old must be Indian and forbids tampering with Indian graves.
Homicide in Kennewick interviews two Indian leaders who try to make the case that Kennewick Man was their ancestor. Chief Yellowbird is the leader of an unidentified tribe near where the skeleton was found. He calls Kennewick Man “The Ancient One” and says that what science says doesn’t matter. His elders say Indians were the original people of the area, and that’s that. An Indian professor of religion named Vince Deloria doesn’t believe in DNA testing, and says anthropologists have no right to disturb Indian bones. He does admit there are legends among Indian tribes in Nevada of “red-haired giants” who used to live in the area.
The confiscation and reburial of old bones has been a problem ever since the 1990 law, and several anthropologists decided to sue the government to get Kennewick Man back. While the wrangling continues the bones are in storage. Testing has been halted and partial DNA test results are locked in a safe. It appears that the government is letting Indian tribes in to perform rituals over Kennewick Man and that some of the rituals could contaminate the bones and hamper further study.
Indians are obviously afraid testing will prove they are not so native to America after all, but with the exception of a pre-Christian religious group called the Asatru Folk Festival, none of the people suing to get Kennewick Man back seems to have much interest in the racial angle. Anthropologists just want to study the bones.
Some of the scientists on the video hedge their bets about whether Kenne-wick Man was European. At the end of the video Dr. Chatters and a colleague say they believe the skull matches those of the Ainu, a Caucasian-type people who were the original inhabitants of Japan. Others talk of Kennewick Man coming perhaps from Central Asia. None of the experts believes he was an American Indian.
NOVA and Channel Four have done an excellent job producing these videos but neither seems to have given much thought to their political impact. The Chinese have known about the Caucasian skeletons for years but were reluctant to tell anyone about them. As for Kennewick Man, if he turns out to have been Caucasian and killed by Indians, whites may be a little less willing to listen to lectures about how whites committed “genocide” against “Native Americans.” These videos suggest whites have a far-flung history that is only now being uncovered.
Freedom Party Enters Austrian Government
Europe panics as nationalists join coalition.
AR was just going to press as Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party was sworn in as a coalition partner in Austria’s new government. Mr. Haider himself will not serve in the cabinet, but the very presence of his party in several key ministries has set off an unprecedented outcry and plunged the European Union into a crisis that only underlines the conformist spitefulness of liberalism. It should be utterly unremarkable when a party that wants Austria to stay Austrian should take power. It is only in these benighted times — with Europe and America in frenzied opposition — that it is significant. The step Austria has taken to reclaim its heritage points the way for all of Europe.
The Election of 1999
Since the end of the Second World War, Austria has been dominated by two parties, the People’s Party — conventionally conservative — and a typically European socialist party, the Social Democrats. For the last 13 years, they have finished first and second at the polls, and have ruled together in coalition, but the election of last October 3rd blew up that cozy arrangement. Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party finished second, just ahead of the conservatives, winning 52 seats in the 183-seat parliament. The Social Democrats got 65 seats, the People’s Party also won 52 (it got slightly fewer total votes than the Freedom Party), and the Greens, who vote with the socialists, won 14 seats. Since then — for four months — Austria has been without a government.
It would have been logical for the People’s and Freedom parties to form a coalition, since they have much more in common with each other than either does with the socialists. With 104 seats between them they would have had a handy majority. However, the “conservatives” did not want to appear to be playing footsie with a “racist” (see sidebar, page 13) and tried to cobble together yet another coalition with the socialists. It was only after negotiations failed — mostly over how to fix the budget deficit — that the People’s Party leader and current Foreign Minister Wolfgang Scheussel turned to the Freedom Party to hammer out a common program of budget-balancing, privatization, and deregulation.
Mr. Haider was well aware that his presence in an Austrian cabinet would ruffle a lot of feathers so he agreed not even to take a portfolio. Mr. Scheussel would be chancellor, the rest of the ministries would be split evenly between the Freedom and People’s parties, and Mr. Haider would continue as governor of the province of Carinthia, to which he was reelected last year to a five-year term. Even this was too much for a continent that has been demonizing the “far right” for decades.
The whooping started well before the new government was even sworn in, with French President Jacques Chirac expressing “deep concern” at the mere thought of Haider people in the government. The French president of the European Parliament Nicole Fontaine went one better, saying, “The party of Jörg Haider is a vehicle for an ideology poles apart from the humanistic values that are the basis of every democratic society.”
At a January 27th press briefing of the European Commission — the executive branch of the European Union — journalists insisted that officials say something about Austria. A spokesman hauled out the European Union treaty and read that “the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.” He added that members can be expelled for any “serious and persistent” breach of these principles. A journalist from Austria, which joined in 1995, said he never imagined he would ever be considered a citizen of an undemocratic country. Someone even asked a commission spokesman how the EU would be judged, 50 years from now, if it did nothing about Jörg Haider, especially in light of a solemn message the commission had released that very day commemorating the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz!
Pressure began to build on Mr. Scheussel of the People’s Party to break off coalition talks with Mr. Haider. His party sits in the European Parliament with a bloc of ideological cousins called the European People’s Party, and a few bloc hotheads threatened to expel the Austrian members. Israel’s former Prime Minister Shimon Peres warned that Hitler was an Austrian and “came to power by so-called democratic means.” Israel threatened to withdraw its ambassador, saying that “in a country where a government symbolizes and backs opinions that would upset any Jew and non-Jew, there cannot be an Israeli ambassador.” Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, whose office is in Vienna, warned Austria would suffer severe economic damage if the Freedom Party entered government. “Austria doesn’t produce anything that can’t be obtained elsewhere,” he said, predicting world-wide boycotts.
No less a figure than Hillary Clinton piled on. She made public a letter to Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, in which she wrote: “Haider’s record of intolerance, extremism and anti-Semitism should be of concern to all of us.” Her campaign made no secret that the letter was a swipe at Republican opponent Rudolph Giuliani, who appeared at the same Martin Luther King Day celebration in New York as the evil Austrian. “Why didn’t he throw Jörg Haider out of the room?” demanded Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. Mr. Giuliani explained weeks ago that he didn’t even know Jörg Haider was there. How did Mrs. Clinton celebrate MLK Day? At a rally hosted by Al Sharpton.
Back in Europe, pressure mounted for the EU to do something. French president Jacques Chirac said “Mr. Haider’s party is inspired by an ideology opposed to the humanitarian values and respect for human dignity which are founding values of the EU.” His Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine said Austria was on “an absurd and mistaken path . . . greeted throughout Europe with disapproval and repugnance.” The Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel called Mr. Haider “a dangerous man,” saying that if his party entered the government it could easily set a precedent for the rest of Europe. “There would come a time when we would have to take an extremely determined action,” he said, refusing to rule out the possibility Belgium would recall its ambassador.
On January 31st, after an emergency meeting of the European commission, the EU announced unprecedented political sanctions if Austria let the Freedom Party into the government. It would deal with Austrian ambassadors strictly at the “technical” rather than political level, it would refuse to back any Austrian candidates to posts in international organizations, and it would put Austria on a strict monitoring program in view of expelling it from the EU if it misbehaves.
Even Austrians who don’t care much for Jörg Haider were amazed. One major paper, Kurier, complained that “only the regime of the mullahs in Iran was treated like this.” The country’s largest tabloid, Kronenzeitung, wrote that Austria had been put into quarantine “as if it had political leprosy.” Ordinary Austrians were furious. Werner Fasslabend, Austrian defense minister and a member of the People’s Party, said “We absolutely reject the possibility of accepting that foreigners can decide over us.” Wolfgang Scheussel commented that “Austria does not need lessons in democracy.” In the midst of it all, the charismatic Mr. Haider celebrated his 50th birthday at a ski resort, where he handed out beer, did traditional folk dances, and bathed in the adoration of young supporters.
European papers took the tone that Mr. Haider must be watched but that to announce sanctions before Austria had even formed a government was a little hasty. Only in Italy, where editors perhaps had an eye on their fascist past, did papers generally support the threat of quarantine. La Stampa entitled its lead editorial “The Courage to Say ‘Enough’” and wrote that “The European Union yesterday made a courageous gesture.”
Meanwhile, polls show that Austrians are reacting to foreign pressure just as they did when Kurt Waldheim ran for president of Austria in 1986. Mr. Waldheim, former UN Secretary General, was accused of complicity in Nazi atrocities, and the United States declared him ineligible even for a tourist visa but the Austrians cocked a snook at the world and elected him anyway. More snooks may be cocked. Even before the EU started panicking, polls were showing the Freedom Party would probably win 33 percent of the vote if another election were held, well up from the 27 percent that caused hand-wringing last October. The Freedom Party would then be in first place and Jörg Haider could expect to become chancellor.
This has not been lost on his shrewder enemies. The deputy speaker of the European Parliament, Ingo Friedrich of Germany, argued that all the shrieking is playing into Mr. Haider’s hands. “To intervene at this sensitive stage, when nearly a third of voters have backed his party, is not very clever politics,” he observed.
On February first, Mr. Scheussel and Mr. Haider announced the formation of a new government, which required approval by the Austrian president Thomas Klestil. Mr. Klestil had the option of calling for new elections rather than approve the new government, but feared even better results for Mr. Haider’s party if there were elections. He did insist, though, that Mr. Scheussel and Mr. Haider sign a humiliating “Declaration of European Principles,” which included not only the usual salaaming to democracy and human rights, but a pledge to work for an Austria where “xenophobia, anti-Semitism and racism have no place” and to oppose “every way of thinking which seeks to denigrate human beings.” The declaration went on to say:
“Austria accepts her responsibility arising out of the tragic history of the 20th century and the horrendous crimes of the National Socialist regime . . . The singularity of the crimes of the Holocaust which are without precedent in history, are an exhortation to permanent alertness against all forms of dictatorship and totalitarianism.”
This sort of crawling does no more good in Europe than it does in America. The German Defense Minister dismissed the statement as “lip service.” Nicole Fontaine of the European Parliament, sweet-tempered as ever, said the declaration would “clearly not be able to make us forget the insulting, xenophobic and racist statements of Jörg Haider.” Mr. Haider himself was annoyed to have to put his name on the document, saying, “it is an affront for the [Austrian] public that such matters-of-course have to be signed time and again.” The declaration did not prevent the Euro-Parliament from overwhelmingly passing a resolution supporting the EU sanctions and calling on EU leaders to bounce Austria if it acts up.
The Israeli reaction grew yet more shrill, with a Knesset member from the Israeli Labor Party, Avi Yehezkel, calling Mr. Haider a “modern incarnation” of Hitler. Prime Minister Barak said that a government with the Freedom Party “should outrage every citizen of the free world.” Opposition Likud leader Ariel Sharon said, “We all agree that Israel must, with the entire free world, fight against a manifestation of renewed Nazism.” Speaker Avraham Burg opened the February 3rd Knesset session by denouncing Mr. Haider, saying, “55 years after the Holocaust, the Austrian people refuse to recognize the terrible tragedy that the racist Nazi ideology inflicted on humanity.”
Vienna-based Simon Wiesen-thal’s Documentation Center announced it would pull out of a joint project with Austria to teach tolerance to young people. In a letter to Mr. Scheussel of the People’s Party, the center wrote: “[I]t would be unthinkable to pursue such a project which is aimed at combating the very positions of your new partner . . . Neither Mr. Wiesenthal nor his centre will allow his name and reputation to be exploited as legiti-misation for xenophobia and demagoguery.”
The Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel raged that “the new Austrian coalition would force an unacceptable breach in the resistance to a resurgence of fascist ideas in Europe,” and said the Freedom Party’s appeal was based on “xenophobic, simplistic, malignant and discriminatory ideas which attack the democratic principles on which our political system is founded.” He said it would be “immoral” for Belgians to go skiing in Austria.
The White House said it would consider following the European lead in downgrading relations with Austria. The European Commission, however, said it had no plans to move the headquarters of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which is located in Vienna.
Less than an hour before the new government was installed on Feb. 4, Finland broke off relations. “Anti-Nazis” rioted while the ministers were sworn in, and the United States annouced it would recall its ambassador for consultations. Israel duly withdrew its envoy “for an indefinite period,” and said Jörg Haider would not be allowed to visit Israel. The Vienna embassy stayed open, though, and trade was not expected to be affected. The Belgian Defense Ministry, however, said it would cancel a $1 million order for armored ambulances from an Austrian firm, Steyr-Daimler-Puch.
Not all was frothing and hysteria. In the European Parliament, the People’s Party, which is the largest conservative party and is aligned with Mr. Scheussel’s party, denounced the threats against Austria as foolish, unwarranted, and possibly illegal, saying it would support the new government. Edward McMillan-Scott, who leads the British Tory Euro-MPs blasted the Freedom Party but opposed sanctions and noted an obvious double standard: “[N]ot a word was said by these same EU governments about coalitions involving fellow-traveling communists in the French or Italian governments, or in German state governments, or even the British government’s willingness to promote those with terrorist associations as ministers in Northern Ireland today.” The French National Front had made the same point even earlier: “It is repellent to see the European Union isolate Austria, which it considers heretical, while at the same time tolerating France, Italy and tomorrow Spain, where the comrades of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot parade at the heart of coalition governments.”
Others noted that when the National Alliance party — widely denounced as “neo-fascist” and of which Mussolini’s granddaughter Allesandra was a prominent member — briefly entered the Italian government in 1994 there was no outcry. Austrians have not failed to note that the EU is on friendly terms with China and Cambodia, and chides the United States for its hostility to Cuba.
There has also been a brazenly political flavor to the Euro-wailing. For the first time in 13 years, the Social Democrats will be out of the Austrian government. As it happens, Social Democrats and their allies now run the governments of Germany, England, France, and other European countries. There is little doubt that the Austrian socialists got their friends to act as if the sky would fall if the Social Democrats got the boot. Many a puffed-up demonstration of moral outrage was also a calculated boost for the Austrian socialists. European voters have not failed to notice. Despite their own government’s self-righteous wheezing, a Feb. 4 poll showed that no fewer than 79 percent of Germans opposed the EU sanctions against Austria.
So what are we in America to make of all this? Mr. Haider himself summed it up best: “To claim that acting for your own people is racism is incomprehensible — it is Austro-masochism.” Indeed, it is incomprehensible, and it is a great day when a public figure not afflicted with masochism takes the stage. All this condescending blather about “democracy” could not be more contemptible. As Mr. Haider has repeatedly pointed out, the success of his party is what democracy is all about. It is not the Freedom Party that threatens democracy or portends tyranny, but the socialists all across Europe who see people slipping away from their ideological control and want to veto the desires of the Austrian people. As usual, pious talk about “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “democracy” turn out to be nothing more than power-hungry spitefulness when liberals don’t get their way.
As we wish Mr. Haider every success, AR will risk a few predictions. There could well be high-profile acts of “boycott” like the Belgian cancellation of ambulances. A few international conventions and tourist groups will huffily take their business elsewhere. Although the rating agency Standard and Poor is talking about downgrading Austria’s AAA credit rating, there will be no serious harm to the Austrian economy.
Members of the new government may exchange testy words with officials who have insulted them, but Austria will continue to be one of the most civilized and cultured places on earth. The Israeli ambassador may hold out, but within the year other countries will wake up to how childish they have been and will restore full diplomatic relations. Needless to say, no one will apologize. There will be hysteria but in smaller doses when Mr. Haider himself enters the cabinet or even becomes chancellor, as he could well do after elections in 2003. There will be setbacks, but Europe has taken a vital step on the road back to sanity.
Foul Contagion Spread
Why does Jörg Haider strike such fear in European hearts? Reuters News Service obligingly did a careful search of all his public utterances and came up with the most horrifying. The complete collection, which was also published in the New York Times, follows:
Oct., 1990, in an address to war veterans: “Our soldiers were not criminals, at most they were victims.”
June, 1991: “. . . in the Third Reich they had an ‘orderly’ employment policy . . .”
Feb., 1995, during a parliamentary debate he referred to “the punishment camps of National Socialism,” which was taken to mean he thought the inmates deserved to be there. Later that day he said he meant to say “concentration camps.”
Sept., 1995, in an address to veterans including former Waffen SS soldiers: “. . . there are still decent people of good character who also stick to their convictions, despite the greatest opposition and have remained true to their convictions until today.”
Dec., 1995: “The Waffen SS was a part of the Wehrmacht [Germany army] and hence it deserves all the honor and respect of the army in public life.”
And, of course, the Freedom Party has campaigned against the “over-foreignization” of Austria. The context of some of the quotations is unclear, and Mr. Haider has apologized for them all, but Hillary Clinton is sure that Jörg Haider has “a record of intolerance, extremism and anti-Semitism.”
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
The Harp That Once
South Africa’s National Symphony Orchestra, the country’s number-one classical orchestra, is shutting down after 75 seasons. It used to be supported by the South African Broadcasting Corporation, but three years after blacks started running the network they cut the orchestra off. It lived meagerly on corporate sponsors for two years before collapsing. The musicians asked the government for help but the government now has money only for African arts. (Daniel Wakin, Top South African Orchestra Closes, AP, Jan. 20, 2000. Anton La Guardia, South African Orchestra Closes as Funds End, London Telegraph, Jan. 25, 2000.) Similar things have happened here. Oakland, California, used to have a top-flight recording symphony, but when the city went black the orchestra went dark. The New Orleans symphony also went under as city demographics changed, though it managed to revive after promising to put on hip concerts that would attract blacks.
‘Same Kind of DNA’
Many Jews are worried by the high rate at which Jews marry gentiles — an estimated 50 percent world wide, and 52 percent in the United States. Charles Bronfman of Seagram Co. and Wall Street millionaire Michael Steinhardt have founded an organization called Birthright, which has already raised $210 million to sell Jewishness to Jews and persuade them to marry each other. It’s main activity is bringing diaspora Jews to Israel, where they go on tours and get courses in everything from Jewish sex to Jewish business opportunities. In January, Birthright flew no fewer than 6,000 young Jews to Israel — 4,000 from North America and 2,000 from Europe, the former Soviet Union, and South America. Any young Jew who had never been to Israel was eligible for the 10-day, all-expenses-paid trip. Applicants were chosen by lottery.
Mr. Bronfman, who explains that the program’s success will be judged by whether it reduces intermarriage, says: “I’m trying to make Jews. You can live a perfectly decent life not being Jewish, but I think you’re losing a lot — losing the kind of feeling you have when you know throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.” Last we heard, Judaism was supposed to be a religion rather than a sub-race, but never mind. People certainly do care whether friends and neighbors have DNA similar to their own. No doubt Mr. Bronfman will now understand why Jörg Haider and so many other Austrians want to keep Austria Austrian. (Lee Hockstader, ‘Selling’ Jewishness, Washington Times, Jan. 17, 2000, p. A1.)
More Mush From the Wimp
In his State of the Union speech, the Great White Father said the following:
‘Within 10 years — just 10 years — there will be no majority race in our largest state of California. [He got it wrong; whites became a minority some time in the late 1990s.] In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in America. In a more interconnected world, this diversity can be our greatest strength. Just look around this chamber. Look around. We have members in this Congress from virtually every racial, ethnic, and religious background. And I think you would agree that America is stronger because of it.’ The White House press release reports that at this point, Mr. Clinton’s speech was interrupted with applause. (White House press release, President William J. Clinton State of the Union Address, Jan. 27, 2000.)
More Mush From the Times
It’s worth dipping occasionally into the New York Times Magazine to see whether liberals ever learn. Alas, a recent article called “What No School Can Do” shows they do not. It starts with an admission that the 1960s convictions about the surefire ways to make ghetto blacks as smart and productive as whites haven’t worked. School integration, Head Start, and $100 billion in federal school money have made a barely perceptible dent in the racial gap. “Comprehensive school reform” and every conceivable new teaching gimmick still leave the typical black 17-year-old reading at the level of a white 13-year-old. Could unequal outcomes be part of human nature?
Impossible. The mistake, says the Times, was to assume schools by themselves could do the trick. Even middle-class black children are already behind by the time they start kindergarten because, say the experts, of “difference[s] in child-rearing habits and peer culture between the black and white middle class.” Unfortunately, “these are forms of private behavior that are both overwhelmingly important and extremely difficult to reach through conscious acts of intervention.” As for ghetto children, we must change “the ecology of the lower-class child in order to increase the probability that he will be more successful in attaining normative skills.” The solution? Get black children out of their homes and into the hands of liberals as soon as possible. Lather them with uplift for hours a day — from birth, if possible. Since Head Start didn’t work, super-intensive Head Start will. The failures of liberalism can only be corrected with more liberalism. No mention of genes, of course, in an article that is like a physics textbook that never mentions gravity. (James Traub, What No School Can Do, New York Times Magazine, Jan. 16, 2000, p. 52.)
More Mush From Up North
The Lewiston-Auburn area of Maine has a treat in store: Some time this spring about 30 refugees from the West African country of Togo will arrive in this overwhelmingly white community. No one knows if they speak English or can hold down a job. Never mind, says James Carignan, a Lewiston city councilman and dean of Bates College, simply having them around will be wonderful. “Great cities are diverse cities,” he explains. “They are multicultural in character. We are too homogenous at present. We desperately need diversity.” He is sure that “the 30 new neighbors from Togo and those from around the world who will follow them will bring us the diversity that is essential to our quest for excellence.” (James Carignan, Refugees Bring Skills, Ideas and At Little Cost to Residents, Sun Journal (Lewiston), Jan. 2, 2000.)
Last year there was much shrieking when the city of Richmond decided to include Robert E. Lee in a series of outdoor portraits of famous Americans. There were plenty of blacks on display, of course, but a special committee had to be appointed to wrestle with the gigantic moral problem of memorializing the South’s best-loved general. Now someone has burned the mural with a molotov cocktail on the same day someone scrawled “kill white devil” on Lee’s statue on Memorial Avenue. “I would say if you put it [the portrait] back up you are inviting another act of vandalism,” says City Councilman Sa’ad El-Amin (birth-name not reported), who was against putting up the portrait in the first place. A committee of wise men is now pondering what to do. It’s not hard to imagine the national outcry that would follow if an image of Martin Luther King were burned and a white official said fixing it would only invite more vandalism. (Richmond’s Mural Burners, Washington Times, Jan. 22, 2000, p. A11.)
Babel in the Court
Last month we reported on a local court decision that forbad the exclusion of non-English-speakers from jury duty in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. District Judge Robert Robles based his decision on the New Mexico constitution, which clearly states that no one can be kept off juries because of an “inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages.” The state Supreme Court has now ruled that Judge Robles was right, and all courts in New Mexico must provide interpreters to deaf-mutes and illiterate Somalis. Aside from the cost and trouble of hiring interpreters, their presence in the jury room could change the dynamic of jury deliberations, which are supposed to be inviolate. Simultaneous interpretation is never completely accurate, either, but a spokesman for the state airily explains that if there are beefs about language, the parties can always appeal. (Loie Fecteau, Justices: Language No Barrier for Jury Duty, Albuquerque Journal, Jan. 20, 2000.)
Same Old Story
Al Lipscomb is a Dallas city council member and longtime black activist who likes to turn everything into an Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson-style racial issue. Mr. Lipscomb has just been convicted of 65 counts of bribery. He admitted taking 33 $1,000 monthly payments from a local taxicab company, but says these were just gifts and had no effect on his vote. He also appears to have taken $7,000 from a notorious nudie bar in exchange for trying to get the police to leave it alone. His conviction and prosecution are being widely denounced in “the community” as more evidence of white racism. (Robert Ashley, Dallas’ Most Well-Known Civil Rights Activist Convicted of Bribery, Dallas Examiner, Jan. 28, 2000.)
A black teenager in Lancaster, California, has admitted he lied when he claimed skinheads beat him up. The boy, whose name has been withheld because he is only 15, picked a fight with a black classmate, but got the worst of it when another boy pitched in against him. The fight banged up his braces, on which his mother had spent a lot of money, so he decided to blame the damage on “racists.” His mother promptly phoned the authorities, who put out an all-points bulletin. The teenager confessed when his tale began to fall apart and his friends started telling a different story. (Solomon Moore, Black Youth Admits He Lied About Hate Crime, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 27, 2000.)
Unknown but Famous
Remember Patricia Roberts Harris? We didn’t. She was Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Since she was a black woman, she just had a commemorative postage stamp issued in her honor, making her the 23rd in the Black Heritage series. She joins others we had forgotten or never heard of like Jan Matzeliger, Percy Julian, Allison Davis, Ernest Just, and Jean Baptiste Point Du Sable. (US Postal Service Press Release, Unsung Hero for Civil Rights and Public Service Honored on latest Black Heritage Series Stamp, Dec. 27, 1999.)
On a campaign swing through the West, Reform Party contender Patrick Buchanan has been talking more sense about immigration than any other politician in years. At the Arizona-Mexico border he called illegal immigration nothing less than “an outright invasion of the United States,” and walked through a hole in a dilapidated border fence to show that the Clinton admin-istration’s idea of enforcement is “a disgrace.”
In a major address at the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California, Mr. Buchanan warned that Third-World immigration is giving rise to “separate ethnic nations within a nation.” “If we want to assimilate new Americans — and we have no choice if we are going to remain one nation — we must slow down the pace of immigration,” he added. He pledged that as President he would crack down hard on illegal immigration and would cut legal immigration from 800,000 a year to 300,000. He went on to say those parts of the country with many immigrants suffer from a host of social problems, such as high crime rates, depressed wages, and stretched social services. He is one of the few public figures with the courage to point out that the obvious solution is to stop letting in so many people. (Scott Lindlaw, Buchanan Targets Heavy Immigration, AP, Jan. 19, 2000.)
David Duke has started a white rights group called National Organization For European-American Rights (NO FEAR). He announced the founding at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 21st. The next night, 75 members of the group joined him for an inaugural dinner in Philadelphia. Mr. Duke’s speech at the dinner was taped by C-SPAN and covered by local media.
NO FEAR will be based in Mande-ville, Louisiana but already claims membership in 30 states. In his press conference Mr. Duke explained the focus of his new group: “European-Americans face a situation where we’re going to be outnumbered and outvoted in our own country . . . If the present immigration rates continue . . . the European-American people will basically be lost as an entity. We are losing our heritage and our way of life.” (Janelle Carter, David Duke Forms White Civil Rights Group, Boston Globe, January 22, 2000.)
NO FEAR can be reached at (504) 626-7714 or on-line at www.davidduke.org.
Segregation Gets the OK
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state prison systems may practice segregation — of inmates with AIDS. In January, it let stand an Alabama appeals court decision under which authorities kept AIDS carriers out of certain recreational and educational activities. Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina are the only states that systematically test all inmates for AIDS and segregate the infected. Prison authorities note that there is violence, sex, bloody fights, and intravenous drug use going on in prisons, and healthy inmates should be protected from the risk of infection. (James Vicini, U.S. High Court Allows AIDS Segregation in Prisons, Reuters, Jan. 18, 2000.)
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — In his February reply to my article “Republican or Third Party?” Mr. Mercer writes that GOP endorsement of California’s Proposition 209 banning racial preferences hurt support for 209 and contributed to Robert Dole’s defeat in the 1996 election. He says voters rejected the GOP because they “saw Mr. Dole’s involvement as a cynical ploy” designed to lure voters. Mr. Mercer could be right. But rather than being put off by a politician who was ready to fight affirmative action, voters could well have rejected Mr. Dole’s feigned opposition to quotas because they didn’t believe he would follow through. Unlike Mr. Dole, Mr. Buchanan’s opposition to quotas is principled and enduring.
On immigration, Mr. Mercer writes that support for restrictions “is broad but shallow. It is simply not something most non-border state voters get excited about . . .” If that really is true why is it true? Could it be because no establishment Republican carries the immigration banner as a national issue? To a degree, issues are made viable by what politicians discuss — and suppressed by what they ignore. In fact, the big business neocon (i.e. liberal) leaders of the GOP have adamantly opposed immigration cut-backs because they want cheap foreign labor. The GOP leadership installed one of its own, Spencer Abraham, as head of the Senate committee dealing with immigration.
Mr. Mercer writes that the GOP is surfing its way to power on the Third World vote. He cites 49 percent Hispanic support for George W. Bush in Texas and 60 percent for Jeb Bush in Florida. Leaving aside the fact that Hispanic support for the Bushes does not represent the norm, Republicans can pander to minorities only by adopting positions that make them more like Democrats. What manner of Pyrrhic victory is this, when success is measured by how many non-white voters Republicans attract by catering to Third-World appetites?
“Surely” Mr. Mercer writes in his conclusion, “no AR reader wants the havoc Democrats could wreak: worse immigration laws, an emasculated border patrol, public schools turned into multicultural indoctrination centers and pro-quota Supreme Court Justices.” But how will we fare better under a Bush administration that is just as firmly committed to the globalist imperative as the Democrats? In the end, Mr. Mercer’s argument against Pat Buchanan comes down to one point: Mr. Bush, a member of the GOP establishment that has all but abandoned us, is “a decent man who might listen to reason.” Unlike us, Mr. Mercer is willing to invest one last chance in a rotting GOP before he gives up on it. Therefore, it comes down to the question, when is enough, enough?
The reason why we must not support the GOP is because it is dominated at the top by interests antithetical to nationalists. (This by no means precludes support of good Republicans — or even of Democrats like Ohio’s Jim Traficant and Virginia’s Virgil Goode.) The Republicans are just as committed as the Democrats to nation-destroying globalism, free trade, open borders and the egalitarian mantra. The inevitable consequences are consolidation of government power, loss of privacy and personal liberty, outlawing of private firearms, loss of national sovereignty, subordination of Americans to global governance, eradication of European heritage and culture, economic and political dispossession of whites, high levels of immigration and, eventually, genetic annihilation of our people.
Of all the major political figures, only Pat Buchanan even discusses some of these issues, if not always as frankly as we would like. He is not without flaws nor is his judgment infallible — as his flirtation with black Marxist Lenora Fulani shows. But his embrace of nationalist issues puts him head and shoulders above the artful dodgers on the GOP campaign trail. If we fail to support candidates who embrace the issues we hold dear, what will compel the cowards, weaklings and imposters who call themselves Republicans to support our cause?
Michael Masters, Fredericksburg, Va.
Sir — Pat Buchanan is a 100 percent patriotic American and Mr. Mercer’s article in the Feb. issue expresses, I believe, the views that drove him from the Republican Party. He has stated — and I believe — that he accepted the support of Lenora Fulani because she sought him out and agrees with his positions on NAFTA and GATT. Pat has accepted her because she is a member of the Reform Party. He has not changed his convictions one iota to obtain Miss Fulani’s support nor will he do so. He is a man of principle.
Henry Palfrey, Venice, Fla.
Sir — Leaving aside for the moment the question of Mr. Buchanan’s electability and whether Mr. Bush is even a little bit trustworthy, the fact is that neither of these wannabes has publicly faced the question of race squarely. I for one regard electoral politics as a waste of our energies, but those of AR’s readers who still harbor illusions about elections should at least insist on a candidate with the courage to announce himself pro-white, period.
Steve Meisenbach, San Francisco, Cal.
Sir — It was good to see the article in the January American Renaissance on Lothrop Stoddard. I remember him well, having met him many times when he and my father got together. Mr. Stoddard had a vigor and strength in the way he presented his convictions that was most inspirational. It is good that he has not been totally forgotten.
John B. Trevor, Palm Beach, Fla.
There is still time to register for what should prove to be the best AR conference ever. We are pleased to announce that several supporting organizations will be offering valuable packages of complimentary books and videos that will be of particular interest to participants. If you need more information on the conference, please call (703) 716-0900.