|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 13, No. 11||November 2002|
Twelve Years of American Renaissance
An editor’s reflections.
With this issue, American Renaissance marks 12 full years of publication. Our readership has never been larger nor our reach greater, but the crises the inaugural issue was launched to combat remain as acute as ever. We can look back with some satisfaction on what AR and other activists have achieved during the past 12 years, but any successes are only the smallest beginnings of a struggle that will continue for decades.
What does AR stand for? What must whites do if they are not to lose their peoplehood and their civilization? And from the perspective of more than a decade of advocacy, are we any closer to achieving our goals? Perhaps it is time to reflect on some of these questions.
AR’s purpose has always been to recall to whites their legitimate and even noble interests as a race, to reinstill in them a consciousness of race without which they cannot survive as a race. It is to remind whites that they are not isolated individuals but a people with common goals. It is to resurrect the pride and sense of destiny that were once ours, and that gave rise to our greatest achievements.
But what does it even mean to survive or to prosper as a race? Most whites have only confused and contradictory ideas about this, while virtually every non-white instinctively understands the importance of racial solidarity. Non-whites feel a powerful tie of race loyalty that requires neither instruction nor reflection, and they support explicitly racial goals that can be achieved only at the expense of others. Whites have an uneasy awareness that non-whites stick up for each other, but most have no idea what this means for whites, and have learned to think it is wrong for whites to do the same.
Blacks and Hispanics, for example, consistently call for more power, representation, and privileges for their own groups. They clamor for “affirmative action,” political appointments, safe electoral districts, and official recognition of their distinctive celebrations and characteristics. They have established large, well-funded organizations to make demands that are emphatically racial. They do not call for better judges or legislators, but for black judges or Latino legislators. A black or Latino is automatically better because he will fight for their narrow racial interests.
Only the most unusual non-whites even pretend to work for the country as a whole or to consider the interests of other racial groups. When non-whites do call for “fairness” or “justice” it is almost always an attempt to make a narrow, racial demand look like a principled appeal. For non-whites, America is like a football game, but with skin color instead of uniforms. They know which side they are on, and take the support of their teammates for granted. That is why non-whites are so angry when one of their own reaches a position of authority but refuses to carry the ball. Most blacks hate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas more than they hate any white man, because to them he is a traitor. He wears the uniform but does not play for the team.
Judges and legislators are, of course, just the beginning. Non-whites want more firemen, teachers, policemen, editors, bureaucrats, fat cats, politicians, movie stars, holidays, and festivals. They want America to reflect them, to be more like them, to celebrate and glorify them. If these gains come at the expense of whites it only makes the triumph that much sweeter.
Non-whites close ranks around their own, no matter how criminal or degenerate. Blacks, especially, like to riot when some thug gets rough treatment at the hands of a white policeman. This is the classic spark for arson and violence, from the pitched battles of the 1960s in Newark and Detroit to the mayhem in Cincinnati in April a year ago. An insult to one — even a hardened criminal — is an insult to all, and a benefit for one is a benefit for all.
As their numbers rise even Asians, who have generally been quiet about group interests, have begun to assert them more vigorously. When the immigrant Taiwanese nuclear physicist Wen Ho Lee was charged with espionage in December 1999, Asians of all nationalities rallied to his defense, and there are now publications like Monolid that cultivate resentment against whites. Wherever Asians gather in sufficient numbers they will assert racial interests, but will never do so as crudely as blacks and Hispanics because Asians can often succeed on their own merits.
Robert Frost once defined a liberal as someone who cannot take his own side in an argument. When it comes to racial arguments, whites are so liberal they do not even realize they have a side. They are a perfect example of unilateral disarmament. They have abandoned and even condemn every sign of loyalty to their own group while they encourage solidarity and group loyalty among the members of every other group.
Before the age of “tolerance” and “sensitivity,” whites had a clear grasp of their group interests. They kept non-whites out of the country through restrictive immigration laws. They prevented them from voting. They maintained the quality of their schools and neighborhoods by restricting non-white access. Their vision of the United States took for granted its European, Western character, which they never imagined could be transformed by mass immigration and claims of “multiculturalism.” This conviction of the essential “whiteness” of America was central to American thought from colonial times until only 50 or 60 years ago. Virtually all whites had the instinctive racial consciousness of the kind non-whites express so aggressively today. It is only by rekindling this sense of solidarity, loyalty, and pride that we can hope to see a real American renaissance, and it is from this vision that AR takes its name.
Whites still have a residual racial consciousness that only requires cultivation. People of all races start out with healthy feelings of racial loyalty, which are evident in every integrated school in America. Blacks, Hispanics, and whites can be assigned mixed seating in the classroom, but at lunch time and on the playground they separate by race. Self-segregation persists generation after generation in the face of every effort to combat it. There are school districts like those of Shaker Heights, Ohio, and Montclair, New Jersey, that go to absurd lengths to spread blacks, whites and Hispanics evenly through every class, extra-curricular activity, and position in student government. It makes no difference; left to themselves the children sort themselves out by race.
Left to themselves, adults do the same. Gary Orfield of Harvard and William Frey of the University of Michigan are always publishing hand-wringing articles about the return of segregation. Prof. Orfield gets press attention every year when he warns that today’s blacks and Hispanics go to school with fewer whites than the year before. He blames increasing residential segregation and the end of court-ordered busing. Prof. Frey writes regularly about the most recent kind of white flight, in which whites are abandoning those parts of the country that receive the most immigrants. And although people seldom write scholarly papers about it, anyone can see that church services and private gatherings are almost always segregated.
This, then, is the great white paradox: Whites claim to adore “diversity,” but they make every effort to avoid it. They make every important decision in their lives — where to live, whom to marry, where to send their children to school, whom to choose as friends, which church to attend — as if it were made for racial reasons, but deny that race had anything to do with it. As one wag puts it, in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are no different from members of the Ku Klux Klan.
Unlike non-whites, who understand their interests and work together consciously to promote them, whites express their racial interests only as individuals. Their choices reflect their deep desire not to be part of a darkening, alien America but they refuse to admit they are fleeing the rising tide of color. They would say, instead, that they are protecting their families from crime and bad schools. Crime and bad schools would hardly be a problem were it not for blacks and Hispanics, and if whites defended their collective interests as actively as other races defend theirs, we would close the country to non-Europeans, expel all illegals, and repeal the anti-discrimination laws that make it impossible to maintain the character of neighborhoods and institutions. Because whites will not act as a group, because they are left to solve the daily problems of “diversity” only as individuals, their sole strategy is flight. They are displaced piecemeal, until even the most stubborn hand over to aliens the homes and schools their ancestors built.
How can we bring this suppressed racial sentiment to the surface? How can we persuade whites of the legitimacy, the necessity, the urgency and morality of acting together as a race?
The first step — and this is one all readers can take — is to break the silence. Most people do not have original ideas; they only absorb the ideas around them. The racial ideas that circulate in this country are unnatural and destructive, but they are in the ascendancy, and only the most remarkable people can single-handedly face down the zeitgeist. This is why it is so important to shine even the faintest ray of light into the darkness. It may illuminate the one obscure stumbling block that has prevented someone from understanding our crisis. What whites are told to think is so contrived, so obviously false, so contrary to their interests, that sometimes the scales fall from their eyes after only a little instruction. Likewise, there are some whites who have kept healthy racial feelings alive despite the zeitgeist, but think they are alone in doing so.
AR has received many letters and e-mail messages from people who say they had feared they were the only people left in America who thought as they did, and are relieved to discover they are not alone. As one woman put it, “Thank, God. Now I know I’m not insane.” Of course, she is not insane. Racially conscious whites are the only sane ones. And yet, when whites see glorification of multi-racialism and miscegenation everywhere, when they see the most alien and disconcerting immigrants held up as lovable examples of “diversity,” when they hear the failings of non-whites everywhere blamed on white wickedness, when every politician and commentator tells them they must celebrate the transformation of their country into a jabbering outpost of the Third World, it is very hard not to deny the evidence of their senses and to go along — at least outwardly — with lies and nonsense. For some, AR has been a lifeline.
Of course, it is because the prevailing racial message is so unnatural and destructive to whites that those who promote it are so intent on quashing dissent. “Watchdog” groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center invariably describe AR as “dangerous,” and would love to see us disappear. If AR is dangerous it is only because it is right, because it makes sense, because it cannot be refuted. It is the highest compliment for AR and other racially oriented publications to be described as dangerous.
Still, there are only a few whites with fully-formed racial consciousnesses, just waiting to learn they are not alone. Most whites cling to conventional, self-destructive thinking because it is all they know. Even when the views propounded by every respected institution are shown to be wrong, it still takes an independent turn of mind to reject them. People do not happily give up fashionable fantasies about equality and harmony in exchange for the disagreeable facts of inequality and friction, and those facts must be put before them repeatedly and persuasively. This is why AR actively seeks out speaking engagements and radio and television appearances. It is our belief that every calm, well-considered racial argument plants a few seeds of dissent. As the editor of AR, I have been a guest on hundreds of radio programs, and these often bring in new subscribers.
Fortunately, argument is not the only thing that changes people’s minds. The most persuasive arguments for our side are the simple facts of demographic change. As aliens spread into every corner of our country, more and more whites find that reality is far different from media-driven fantasy. When I first began to speak on radio, callers overwhelmingly opposed what I said. Not anymore. Now, even “conservative” talk show hosts are surprised by the level of support for the AR point of view.
Although callers sometime mention that they are AR readers, we do not pretend that AR has had any but the slightest role in changing the way Americans think. It is the constant racial double standards, the destruction of neighborhoods, the demonizing of whites, and the alien and unpleasant behavior of the newcomers that are waking up more and more people. The truth can be denied for only so long. Whites can run away only so many times. Eyes are constantly being opened, and the change in the way I am received as a radio guest is one of the most encouraging developments since AR began publishing.
Another reason racialist ideas are better received is that compared to a dozen years ago, there are far more voices of active white dissent. Besides AR, there are the Citizens Informer, the Nationalist Times, Middle American News, and The Occidental Quarterly. The Truth At Last, and the publications and broadcasts of the National Alliance also openly attack racial conventions, although they come with a harshly anti-Jewish message.
Ten years ago, it would have been impossible to find a public meeting devoted to white racial consciousness, but they are now commonplace and well attended. Every two years, American Renaissance holds conferences at which racially-oriented academics, journalists, and clergymen address several hundred people. The Council of Conservative Citizens also attracts large audiences to its meetings. Gatherings of this kind sometimes get media coverage, and have even been broadcast by C-SPAN.
Today, there is no end of Internet web sites offering every possible dissenting view on race and immigration, from environmentalist reasons to oppose a growing population to outright National Socialism. For any white person with a computer, powerful arguments against orthodoxy are just a few keystrokes away. This deeply disturbs the purveyors of lies and foolishness. There is a constant outcry about the dangers of “hate” on the Internet — meaning any opposition to the demonization and displacement of whites — but no one is worried that Marxism or Maoism, for example, are making a comeback via the Internet. Free speech is “dangerous” only when it is plausible, and this is what distinguishes racial dissent from Communism or tree worship or feng shui, or any other body of thought outside the mainstream. We have history, science, tradition, morality, and human nature on our side, which makes our positions impossible to refute.
At this point only a small number of whites fully understand our racial and civilizational crisis, but many have lost patience with the demands of non-whites. For decades, whites quietly put up with “affirmative action,” but lawsuits and referenda have beaten it back, and systematic racial preferences may be only a Supreme Court decision away from extinction.
There are other signs of resistance. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the city of New York considered building a bronze statue of the three firemen who raised the flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center — except that instead of the three whites, the statue would be of a white, a Hispanic, and a black. This proposal was swept away by a mighty blast of outrage. In a show of backbone I would not have expected ten years ago, whites flatly rejected this falsification of history.
Likewise, whites do not conceal their contempt for the idea of reparations to blacks for slavery. I was recently on perhaps a dozen radio programs devoted to this subject, and was encouraged by the essentially unanimous white view that reparations would be larceny. Several whites predicted violence if Congress gave money to blacks. Although the mainstream media do not acknowledge it, there is smoldering resentment among whites that could burst into flame over a new round of handouts. A dozen years ago, demands for reparations were not met with outright derision.
There has also been great progress in the scientific study of race and genetics. The dozen years since AR began publishing have seen the appearance of The Bell Curve, The g Factor, Why Race Matters, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, and a whole series of pioneering books by Richard Lynn. The famous 10-year study by Sandra Scarr and Richard Weinberg that was to prove that black children adopted by whites would grow up as smart as whites proved the opposite. Increasingly, if only for medical reasons, scientists are setting aside the silly idea that race is a “social construct,” and although the Human Genome Project has prompted absurd pronouncements about the meaninglessness of race, it is steadily revealing the profound importance of the kind of small genetic differences that distinguish the races. The gene variations that code for intelligence and other characteristics are already being found. It will inevitably be discovered that they are not distributed equally among all races, and these data will become public knowledge despite every attempt to suppress them. Every new study is another arrow in our quiver.
The myth of racial equality — of racial equivalence, really — has been one of AR’s permanent targets. It is disastrous for at least three reasons. First, it supports the view that anyone can become American. Even after 300 years, the mass of blacks are still not Americans in the sense whites are, and Hmong, Bolivians, and Mexicans are yet more proof that race is an almost insuperable barrier to assimilation. Second, myths about race encourage interracial sex and miscegenation, which often put white women at the mercy of violent non-whites and further reduce our numbers.
Finally, liberals love to blame the failures of blacks and Hispanics on white “racism,” and though fewer and fewer whites accept this blame, the image of wicked whites oppressing noble people of color is still a potent weapon against us. Comparative data from the Human Genome Project will eventually exculpate us completely, but until that day we must continue to use the nearly as conclusive data gathered by researchers like Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Michael Levin, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray, and Robert Gordon. The facts and arguments support us; the challenge is to make them better known.
The social sciences as a whole are finally turning away from the “blank slate” theory that there is no such thing as human nature and that all behavior is learned. Even the worst fanatics are grudgingly conceding that men and women are different, that some children are smarter than others, that genes set limits on what the environment can change. Myths of racial equivalence were a natural extension of the blank slate theory, and the return of a common sense understanding of heredity and human nature will eventually illuminate the question of race as well.
Immigration is the greatest world-wide threat to our race. With perhaps the single exception of Iceland, every white country is besieged by non-white immigrants. Whites have built the most successful societies in human history, and non-whites from failed societies are flooding into them. Once non-whites arrive in large numbers, especially once they have become naturalized citizens, it is very difficult to remove them. In any democratic society, where elections are often nothing more than racial head counts, once non-whites reach a certain percentage of the population there is no longer any realistic hope of preserving our race and civilization except in activist enclaves. A constant flow of non-whites into our lands threatens our very survival as a people.
To cut immigration is therefore the most urgent practical measure we can take, and AR applauds any immigration-control group, no matter what its orientation. In the current “anti-racist” intellectual climate it may be that organizations like Numbers USA, which stresses only the strains that additional people put on our resources and infrastructure, will be the ones that win enough support to change policy. We should endorse any arguments that work.
There are now countless grass-roots immigration-control groups, and more come into existence all the time, and no matter how “anti-racist” a position their leaders take, racial consciousness runs strong among the activists. Recently, I spoke to a regional group that officially opposes only illegal immigration. The organizers were worried I might say something “racist,” but as I got acquainted with the activists it was clear they feel as I do: They don’t want large numbers of non-whites changing their country. I gave a talk little different from one I would give to an AR audience, and received a standing ovation.
Immigration control is an almost exclusively white concern, and would be nothing like the issue it is if all the newcomers were handsome, high-IQ, English-speaking white people. Although there are exceptions, almost all immigration-control activists — even the occasional black or Hispanic activists — do not just see people; they see race.
It is in Europe, however, that immigration control has had the most success in the past 12 years. There is hardly a European country that does not have an explicitly nationalist party that calls for strict limits on immigration. Most Europeans are almost as terrified of charges of “racism” as we are, but parties in France, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Austria, and Holland now campaign openly to preserve their national cultures and populations — and win votes for doing so. Progress has been slower in Germany and Britain, but the successes of European nationalist parties are pushing “mainstream” politicians in a sensible direction. Nationalists have held cabinet positions in Italy and Austria, and it is only a matter of time before a staunch nationalist heads a coalition government or even wins an outright majority.
These parties are seldom openly racialist, but they do not have to be. An appeal to the Danes that their nation remain Danish is difficult to criticize as “racist,” even though its practical effect is to keep out non-whites. European nationalists are probably very much like American immigration activists: Racial sentiment lies just below the surface.
Europeans have a number of advantages over us in the struggle to preserve their people and civilization. “We are a nation of immigrants” is a slogan that has no effect on them, nor can they be attacked for perpetuating “the legacy of slavery.” They did not displace native populations within the last few centuries, and the smaller countries did not even have overseas empires. Europe therefore has much better defenses against the guilt-mongering that paralyzes so many American whites. Although no nation in Europe has achieved the decisive political and psychological breakthrough that would completely remove it from danger, that day will come. Just as Austria faced a period of clumsy European Union sanctions when Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party entered a ruling coalition, any nationalist European government will have to weather a storm of outrage, but the first nationalist government could be the first domino. It may not be long before American activists look across the Atlantic not only for inspiration but for material support.
People often ask if there is still any hope for a white America. No one can answer that question. Sometimes social change is surprisingly quick. Ten years before the fall of the Soviet Union hardly anyone would have predicted it would crumble so quickly. There had been years of growing disaffection, just as racial disaffection grows in America, and collapse in one quarter led to collapse in all quarters. Could there be a similar collapse of racial myths in America? It is impossible to know, but if there ever is a collapse it will be because racial activists have been systematically undermining the foundations.
Ultimately, the odds of victory are not a preoccupation for those who know their cause is just. We fight for our children, in the name of our ancestors. We fight so that generations to come will walk in the ways of their forefathers, so that they will live as men and women rooted in the West rather than as waifs without loyalty or destiny. We fight so that our grandchildren will be the unmistakable descendants — biologically, culturally, and spiritually — of our grandparents. Like all who fight with conviction, we fight for what we love, and if there is justice in this world we will surely win.
Convincing the Conservatives
Patrick Buchanan tackles immigration.
Patrick James Buchanan, conservative columnist, television personality, and three-time candidate for President, heads a 501(c)3 educational foundation called The American Cause. The foundation sponsors occasional debates in which it tries to “match the brightest minds in the business to the most critical issues of our day.” On October 4 and 5 in Arlington, Virginia, it held what it called “The Great Debate,” the first in what will be an annual discussion of immigration. All participants in the debate were to be “conservatives,” in an attempt to arrive at a better common understanding. Your servant was not invited to speak, but attended as part of an audience of approximately one hundred. Questions were not taken from the floor but were collected on note cards, so it was not possible to needle panelists directly.
If this debate is any guide, conservatism is indeed a house of many mansions. There were a few stout-hearted restrictionists such as Sam Francis, Peter Brimelow, Don Feder, and Mr. Buchanan himself, but there were not a few libertarians prepared to throw open the gates to all who want to come. Given that a consistent 60 to 70 percent of Americans favor reducing immigration, it is edifying to note how many “conservative” commentators and opinion-makers flout the public will. “The Great Debate” reinforced the view that the purpose of a college education is to give Americans the right attitudes towards immigrants and the means to live as far away from them as possible.
The debate took the form of several panels, the first of which was a discussion of whether mass immigration is good or bad for the economy. George Borjas, who teaches economics at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, noted that the inevitable effect of adding workers to the economy is that wages fall — but only in those professions filled by immigrants. Since most are unskilled laborers, it is laborers already in the United States whose wages fall. Prof. Borjas said that as a rule, every 10 percent rise in the number of workers in a field reduces wages by about three percent. If we were importing journalists or lawyers or doctors, it is in those professions that we would see downward pressure on wages.
Who benefits from lower wages for manual laborers? The people who hire them.
However anyone who is not a laborer is likely to benefit because some portion of the savings from lower wages is passed on to consumers. Prof. Borjas concludes that there is a net increase in national wealth due to immigration of about $10 billion a year, or about $30 per American. This is a very small gain, given the size of the US economy, and does not include non-wage-related costs such as higher crime rates among Hispanics, the costs of courtroom and hospital interpreters, bilingual education, medical treatment for uninsured immigrants, etc. Prof. Borjas says that when all these costs are subtracted from the $10 billion gain, some economists figure that the real net economic result of immigration is a loss of $70 billion a year. This is still a small figure compared to our national GNP, but the cost is not evenly distributed. According to some estimates, every California household pays, on average, an extra $1,300 a year in taxes because of immigrants.
Prof. Borjas reminded the audience that immigration raises a host of non-economic problems. As the Germans say about the Turkish Gastarbeiter: “We wanted workers but we got people.” Now that 10 percent of the population of Mexico has moved to the United States, we too are dealing with people rather than workers, who are gathering in enclaves that make assimilation impossible. Prof. Borjas also pointed out that it is false to claim we need immigrants because natives refuse to take certain jobs. It is all a question of wages. In those parts of the country where there are few immigrants, natives can always be found to mow lawns and wait tables, though the wage may be higher than in Miami or Los Angeles. Prof. Borjas also noted that today there are so many immigrants they can influence immigration-related political decisions in ways that suit them rather than natives.
Dan Griswold is with the libertarian Cato Institute and disputed even the idea that there is mass immigration. He said only 10 percent of Americans are foreign born, and that there have been times in the past when the figure was higher. Mexican immigration is “considerably exaggerated,” he said, since in terms of the existing national population at the time, there have been even larger flows of German and Irish immigrants. In his view, immigration makes America “more productive at home and more influential in the world.” He argued that without immigrant service workers “you couldn’t afford to hold this conference,” and insisted that high levels of immigration are associated with high economic growth. He conceded that high school dropouts are hurt by competition from immigrants but said the answer is better education, not a reduction in immigration since there is a “pervasive need” for labor. He also insisted that a large population will ensure American influence in world affairs, and that the money immigrants send out of the country is “a hidden blessing” because it does so much good back home. He also disputed the view that Mexicans are creating enclaves, because they are now moving everywhere. He said an increasing population cannot be a threat to the environment because our air is now cleaner than it was 20 years ago, and because the United States is much less densely populated than Europe. Mr. Griswold was asked if immigration should continue until no one wants to come, in other words, until conditions in the United States are as unpleasant as the worst parts of the Third World. He said, in effect, yes, that until the 1920s there were no limits on immigration, and free markets saw to it that immigrants went where they would be most productive.
Peter Brimelow, who edits VDARE.com, disputed Mr. Griswold’s view, saying it was naïve to pretend that more than a million newcomers a year were not “mass immigration.” He also noted that even immigration proponents agree that the net economic benefit for the country is small and that this means “our country is being transformed for nothing.” He agreed with Prof. Borjas that many natives are willing to do manual labor but are priced out of the market by immigrants who work for Third-World wages.
Mr. Brimelow pointed out that there are many non-economic effects of immigration, and that by importing poverty, disease, illiteracy, and crime we have ensured that “there is an immigration dimension to every social problem.” He also argued that American handout programs ensure that low-skill immigrants will keep coming even if there is no need for them, since life in America on welfare is better than being a peasant in Mexico or Nicaragua. He said that if there were as many skilled as unskilled immigrants coming to the United States, the elites who champion immigration would oppose it because it would threaten their jobs. He also noted that contrary to Mr. Griswold’s contention that the environment is unaffected by immigration, a growing population means overcrowding and sprawl. He concluded that the most important consideration is whether the United States has the right to exist as a nation, in which its people see themselves as an extended family that puts its interests ahead of those of strangers and foreigners. Net economic effects are of minor importance compared to this central question.
Alexander Tabarrok, who teaches economics at George Mason University in Virginia, claimed that most economists agree that immigration is good for the economy, and that more would be better. He said that even if immigrants push down the wages of a few native laborers, we should be happy because the benefits to the immigrants are so great. He said welcoming them expresses “the Christian ethic of kindness to strangers,” and that since immigrants are good for the economy, immigration gives us a chance “to do right and do good at the same time.” Immigration is “a humanitarian, ethical, and moral issue,” so caring people should want more of it. Mr. Tabarrok said technology destroys far more jobs than immigration does, so if preserving jobs is our concern we should oppose science. He also said immigration to America is good for the world environment because once they are here, Third-Worlders are less likely to engage in such things as slash-and-burn agriculture.
The first panel on Saturday debated the question: “Does Balkanization Loom?” Former Boston Herald columnist Don Feder opened with a firm “yes.” “I am filled with fear for the future of my country,” he said, adding that current immigration threatens national identity and is like “playing Russian roulette with your country.” He would support a five-year halt to immigration, with troops on the border if necessary. As for those who are already in the country, “if they came here illegally, we owe them absolutely nothing.” He would encourage sweeps of illegals and finds it “appalling” that self-styled “conservatives” would have any hesitation about enforcing immigration law. If there is to be any immigration at all, immigrants should be “like us” rather than the Third-World grab-bag we are currently getting, and he is completely opposed to Muslim immigration. He said schools must once again teach assimilation rather than ethnic separation, which he described as “social dynamite,” and that before long there would be so many immigrants they could dictate immigration policy. Mr. Feder was the stoutest speaker of the day, and was warmly received by what was clearly a restrictionist audience.
Ron Unz, a wealthy businessman who has organized ballot initiatives in California and elsewhere to do away with bilingual education, favors current levels of immigration so long as there is assimilation. He said that as a result of the “landslide” victory in California of Proposition 227, bilingual education — which is usually Spanish-only education — has declined by 80 percent. As a result, he said, the test scores of Hispanics are climbing rapidly. Mr. Unz claims that Hispanics themselves want immersion in English because they understand that without English they cannot succeed in America. This claim was somewhat undercut by the fact that in California more than 60 percent of Hispanics voted against Proposition 227, and it is safe to assume that naturalized Hispanics who can vote probably favor English instruction more than do recent arrivals who are less likely to speak English. Mr. Unz said that even liberals now understand the importance of teaching English to Hispanics, and claimed that the last bastions of support for bilingual instruction aside from Hispanic activists are Republicans in the Senate who think they are wooing Hispanic voters by continuing bilingual programs. Mr. Unz did concede that mass immigration could pose a theoretical threat to national unity, and said that if he became convinced the threat were real he would agree to reductions. He said he would oppose systematic deportation of illegals.
Ramesh Ponuru, a dark-skinned Indian who is a senior editor at National Review, conceded that “Balkanization is a threat,” but thinks current immigrants will assimilate. He opposes multiculturalism because it diverts loyalty from the nation to the ethnic group and is therefore anti-democratic. He said immigration at the current level can be maintained, but that it will take considerable effort to assimilate the newcomers. Assimilation would be easier if there were fewer to assimilate, and he would reduce the intake to about 300 or 400 thousand a year. Theoretically, it might be possible to be more discriminating about which immigrants we accept, but he says as a practical matter we cannot do this, and must reduce numbers across the board. He said he had no principled reason to oppose rounding up and deporting illegals, but said there were too many practical problems for it to work.
Linda Chavez, who is president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, said English is at the heart of American culture, and that it must be taught to newcomers without exception. She is relatively optimistic about assimilation, claiming that Hispanics who have been here for three generations are fully assimilated, with one third to one half marrying whites. She would abolish affirmative action and birth-right citizenship, and put an end to “family reunification,” since immigration should be in our interests rather than in those of the immigrants. She even conceded that we now have too many immigrants from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries. She blamed the white majority for permitting multiculturalism. She would not commit to a suitable number for immigration levels, saying only that they should rise and fall according to economic demand for workers. Miss Chavez proposed a guest-worker program that would provide labor only when it was needed, but conceded this would require much better INS supervision. She would be prepared to exclude Muslims almost completely, and to cut back on all Spanish-speakers. Although she claimed not to support amnesty, she opposed the idea of a concerted effort to deport illegals, saying it would be impractical and lead to abuses. She called for strong control of the border — though not with troops — but would deport only those illegals who commit crimes.
This panel was followed by one on the question of whether open borders are an invitation to terrorism. Panelists were Filipina-American columnist Michelle Malkin, former Deputy Commissioner of the INS Ricardo Inzunza, editor of Human Events Terry Jeffrey, and Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies. They took different approaches to the question, but all agreed on the obvious: that porous borders make it easier for terrorists to enter the country, and that large numbers of Third-Worlders give them a context in which to operate without calling attention to themselves.
The final panel discussed the question: Will mass immigration kill the GOP? Since this was a “conservative” gathering, all panelists were assumed to think this would be a bad thing, but columnist and frequent AR contributor Samuel Francis reaffirmed his contempt for what he calls “the stupid party” by answering, “I rather hope so.” He then produced a blizzard of statistics showing the consistently dismal returns Republicans have earned on all their “outreach” to Hispanics. The high-water mark for Republicans was George W. Bush’s reelection as governor of Texas in 1998, when thanks to “sedulous cultivation and pandering, and opposition to the end of bilingual education,” he managed to get 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. Mr. Francis pointed out that Mr. Bush lost the Hispanic vote 69 percent to 31 percent in 2000, and that only 28 percent of Hispanics supported him in California, the bellwether state with the most Hispanic voters. Bob Dole and Jack Kemp also truckled to Hispanics only to be abandoned at the polls. Mr. Francis pointed out that Hispanics consistently tell pollsters they want more government services, and argued that the Republicans cannot woo them away from the Democrats without ceasing to be Republicans and thereby alienating their white base. Whatever absurd offers Republicans make to immigrants will be matched and raised by Democrats. “Republicans,” he concluded, “face extinction at the hands of immigrants they have permitted to enter the country.”
Michael Barone, a senior writer for U.S. News and World Report, argued the pro-immigration side by maintaining that new immigrants will assimilate just as European ethnics did, that George W. Bush will win over the Hispanics, and that Hispanics don’t really vote overwhelmingly for Democrats anyway. He said they will not vote for big government and handouts because they are suspicious of their own governments, and because where they come from there is no welfare. “They have a real work and family ethic,” he said, and are not interested in uplift. He said only a handful of fanatic Mexican academics support the Aztlan movement, and that Asians will vote GOP with as much enthusiasm as whites. Anyway, America’s racial problems will be washed away in a warm bath of miscegenation. “My great wish,” he said, “is that 50 years from now we will be so mixed there will be no more racial categories.”
Steven Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He began by saying it was “divine providence” that established the United States as a “sanctuary to oppressed people around the globe.” He says immigrants create jobs, that they have been “expertly assimilated,” and that the United States dominates high-tech industries because so many wonderful foreigners have come to live here in what is “a reverse form of foreign aid.” He said all “conservative free-market Republicans” believe that immigration has been a great blessing and will continue to be one. He said if Republicans campaign against immigration they will never win another election, and that if the choice is between doing away with immigrants or the Republicans, he would keep the immigrants. “We are constantly reinvigorating ourselves with this new blood,” he added, and, like Mr. Barone, said he believes miscegenation will eventually solve all racial problems.
Patrick Buchanan argued that because of immigration and low white birth-rates, “the natural base of the Republican party is shrinking and dying out.” The Cold War no longer needs to be fought, and not even social conservatism can rally much support. He said Republican strategists like Karl Rove think dwindling whites can be replaced with Hispanics, but this is folly. Poor Hispanic immigrants do not pay taxes, so do not care about eliminating the inheritance tax or lowering tax rates. They will vote for the party that offers the most benefits.
Mr. Buchanan pointed out that in the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore won six of the seven states with the most immigrants, and George Bush won 14 of the 15 states with the fewest immigrants. He noted that California used to vote Republican but predicts the GOP can no longer win state-wide races. He added that the party might be able to appeal to Catholic Hispanics by opposing abortion and special rights for homosexuals, but is too craven to try. Echoing Mr. Francis, he said Republicans “are happily importing an electorate that will vote it out of existence.” Mr. Buchanan predicts that in 20 or 30 years the United States will have openly racial parties for blacks, Hispanics, and perhaps even whites, with a sprinkling of fringe parties with ideologies that cross racial lines.
So ended “The Great Debate.” As one would expect at an event hosted by Mr. Buchanan’s organization, the audience was considerably more exclusionist than most of the panelists. Many in the audience were AR readers, and those who were not were pleased to see sample issues. The meeting only confirmed the impression that as increasing numbers of whites come to their senses, media and intellectuals continue to stumble along in the dark. A presumably democratic country cannot go on forever with such a stark difference between public opinion and published opinion.
Wichita Massacre Trial Begins
Survivor recalls her grisly ordeal.
On October 7, Reginald and Jonathan Carr moved one step closer to facing justice when testimony finally began in their multiple-murder trial — twenty-two months to the day after they attacked their first victim in the week-long crime spree that culminated in the Wichita Massacre.
As last month’s issue went to press, we reported that jury selection had just begun. It took 18 days (a Sedgwick County record) to winnow the field to 12 jurors and four alternates, as lawyers for both sides carefully questioned potential jurors about their knowledge of the crime, their racial attitudes, whether they thought the Carrs were guilty, and whether they could apply the death penalty. The jury seated on Oct. 2 consists of five white men, two black men and five white women. Four jurors say they think the Carrs are probably guilty, but were selected because they said they could set aside their feelings and decide the case on the basis of court-room evidence.
Prosecutors tried to exclude one of the blacks by means of a peremptory challenge, and defense lawyers tried to exclude the other, but Judge Paul Clark cited a 1986 US Supreme Court decision that severely restricts race-based strikes. Prosecutors wanted to remove a 49-year-old black aircraft worker because he said, “I hate to see young black men go through this.” Lawyers for the Carr brothers wanted to exclude a 59-year-old black business executive who strongly favored the death penalty.
According to studies cited by the Carrs’ lawyers in pretrial motions, the presence of a black man on the jury makes a big difference in death penalty cases. They claim that 72 percent of juries with no black men return death verdicts, compared to only 43 percent of juries that have at least one black man. They also cited studies claiming that when five or more white men are on a jury in a capital case, the jury issues a death sentence 70 percent of the time, whereas the figure falls to 43 percent when there are four or fewer white men.
In the final pre-trial hearing, held Oct. 4, the defense argued that jurors should not see “gruesome” photos of corpses. The defense also wanted to exclude photos of the Carrs being taken to jail, of the victims when they were alive, and of a schnauzer puppy named Nikki, which the Carrs also killed. The judge ruled that the jury may see them all.
In her opening statement on Oct. 7, DA Nola Foulston told the jury: “This is a case about nine days in December 2000; it’s about seven victims, five murders, two survivors and two brothers.” She did not mention race, since the Wichita authorities claim race played no part in the savage attacks.
Reginald Carr’s lawyers hope to capitalize on the fact that survivor H.G. could not identify him positively at an April 2001 preliminary hearing. In his opening statement, one of his lawyers blamed the crimes on Jonathan Carr, claiming his client Reginald was out selling drugs: “Jonathan Carr committed all of the crimes alleged, with a third black male who still walks the street.” He also claimed investigators at the house where the rapes took place found a single strand of hair from a black man, which cannot be matched to either Carr brother.
Jonathan Carr’s lawyers are taking a mirror-image approach, claiming that Reginald is the guilty one. “There’s not one piece of evidence or information to show Jonathan Carr had anything to do with these things, other than the fact that he’s Reginald Carr’s brother,” one lawyer told the jury. “It’s only guilt by association.”
Among the first witnesses in the prosecution’s case was Steve Johnson, the man who opened his door early on the morning of Dec. 15, 2000, and discovered a naked and bleeding woman standing before him. He described how he and his wife took the woman in, wrapped her in blankets and called 911. Mrs. Foulston then played the 911 tape on which H.G. tells the operator what happened. The jurors then saw photographs of the bloody scene in the soccer field, where Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Lynch discovered the bodies. Dep. Lynch’s voice cracked with emotion as he described what he found.
H.G. was on the witness stand during the second and third days of trial, just as AR was going to press. Her six hours of testimony brought several jurors close to tears. With a steady voice, she told the jury how two armed black men burst into the bedroom she shared with her boyfriend Jason Befort. She told how they demanded money from the five friends in the triplex that night, how they first forced her and Heather Muller to perform sex acts on each other, and then forced the men to have sex with the women. As she described how the Carr brothers beat divinity student Aaron Sander when he could not get an erection, one spectator in the courtroom whispered audibly, “Oh God, no.” She also described how the Carrs raped and sodomized both her and Miss Muller.
She said the Carrs kept them in a closet while, one by one, they took them to ATM machines to withdraw money. “I had actually urinated in the closet,” she said. “From fright.” When it was her turn to go the ATM, she said her assailant told her he wasn’t going to shoot anyone. “I said, ‘Do you promise?’ He said ‘Yeah, I’m not going to shoot you.’”
“As I got back to the closet,” she went on, “I said ‘I think we’re going to be OK.’ I said, ‘He said he’s not going to shoot us.’” She said her fear of being killed returned when the same assailant told her just before raping her, “Don’t worry, I’m not going to shoot you — yet.”
After the final ride through the freezing night to the soccer field — the men naked, the women naked from the waist down — H.G. described how the Carrs forced her and her friends to kneel next to each other in the snow. “Oh my God,” she remembered saying aloud, “They’re going to shoot us.” She was last in line, next to Mr. Befort. “As I was kneeling, there was a shot. And I don’t remember, we were all screaming, but I can remember hearing Aaron say, ‘please no’ — he used the word ‘sir.’ There was another one, and another one, and then another one, and then everything went kind of gray as I was shot.” She felt the impact of the bullet — which investigators say was deflected by a plastic hair clip she was wearing — but did not fall forward until one of the men kicked her. She heard the men return to the truck, and felt the impact as they ran over her.
She waited until the sound of the truck died away before she got up to check on her boyfriend. “I went to Jason,” she said with difficulty. Near tears, she paused to reach for a box of tissues, but controlled herself. “I rolled him over. He had blood coming out of his eyes. I still had my sweater on and I took it off and tied it around his head to act as a tourniquet to try to stop it.”
As she tried to help her other friends, H.G. saw Christmas lights from a distant subdivision, and, naked and barefoot, began running toward them. H.G. ran for nearly a mile through the snow to the Johnson house.
Under cross-examination, defense lawyers focused on inconsistencies in her testimony, specifically on her inability to identify Reginald Carr at the April 2001 preliminary hearing. While she had identified him from a photo lineup shown to her in the hospital, she said she did not recognize him at the hearing because he had shaved his head and wore glasses. On redirect examination, DA Foulston asked H.G. directly, “Are you making your identification of Jonathan and Reginald Carr based on your knowledge of their presence in your home, or rather, your friend’s home, on the night of Dec. 14 and 15, 2000?”
“Yes,” she replied clearly.
The trial may continue into November. If the jury finds the brothers guilty there will be a sentencing phase. The prosecution will call for execution, while defense lawyers will argue for life in prison. The jurors must unanimously agree to a death sentence, and if they fail to do so, the judge will sentence the Carrs to life in prison. Kansas judges cannot sentence criminals to life without the possibility of parole. However, if the Carrs are sentenced to consecutive life terms for each of the five people they killed, they will have to spend 250 years in prison before they are eligible for parole.
Court TV Skips the Trial
Readers expecting to watch the Wichita trial on Court TV on Oct. 7 were no doubt surprised to see a Georgia murder trial instead. On Sept. 25, a Court TV spokesman said that because jury selection was taking so long, it would scale back coverage of the Wichita trial. He said the network was committed to covering a New Jersey trial live, but would broadcast H.G.’s testimony and the opening statements in the Carr trial. Court TV aired neither, without explanation. As for the New Jersey case, it wasn‘t scheduled to begin until Oct. 14, a week after testimony began in the Wichita trial. The Georgia trial just plugged the hole.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Franz Boas Discredited
Franz Boas (1858–1942) is regarded as the father of modern (liberal) anthropology that denies the significance of race. As chairman of the anthropology department at Columbia University, he trained an influential cadre of scholars who went on to reorient American anthropology in the direction of egalitarianism and environmental determinism. Ruth Benedict, Ashley Montague, Margaret Mead, Melville Herskovits, and many of his other students spread the message that human nature and mental abilities are largely the product of environmental influences and little affected by genes.
In 1911, Boas published an influential paper called Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants, in which he claimed that the children of European immigrants to the United States no longer had the distinctive head shapes of their parents, and were rapidly converging towards a common type. After measuring the heads of 13,000 European immigrants and their children, he concluded that the environmental effect was dramatic:
“The shape of the head undergoes far-reaching changes coincident with the transfer of the people from European to American soil. For instance, the east European Hebrew, who has a very round head, becomes long-headed; the south Italian, who in Italy has an exceedingly long head, becomes more short-headed; so that in this country both approach a uniform style, as far as the roundness of the head is concerned.”
“We are compelled to conclude,” he went on, “that when these features of the body change, the bodily and mental make-up of the immigrant may change.” He assumed that mental function changed as readily under environmental influence as head shape, and went on to posit “a great plasticity of the mental make-up of human types.” In other words, with the right environment, all races and ethnic groups converge towards a common humanity.
These data and conclusions — outlandish on their face — were taken seriously at the time, and are used by some anthropologists even today to support the egalitarian view. “I have used Boas’s study to fight what I guess could be considered racist approaches to anthropology,” says Dr. David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Now, in a study just published in Proceedings of the National Science Academy, two anthropologists have concluded that Boas’s data by no means support his conclusions. Dr. Richard Jantz of the University of Tennessee says that the differences in skull measurements between the immigrants and their American-born children were “negligible,” and stops just short of saying the famous report was a deliberate fraud. Boas, he says, “was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it work that way.”
It is enormously significant that this early and influential study has been found to be, at the very least, mistaken. After decades of destructive nonsense about infinite malleability, science is coming around to a much more realistic understanding of the significance and persistence of genetic and even racial differences. [Nicholas Wade, A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race, New York Times, Oct. 8, 2002.]
New York Welcomes Pres. Mugabe
On September 12, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, giving a spirited defense of his government’s policy of driving white farmers off their land. He conceded the policy had opponents: “Europe said no, but Africa said yes. Who do we listen to? The whites in Europe or the blacks in Africa? We listen to our own blacks and their judgment.”
Mr. Mugabe is not joking about the blacks in Africa. He is immensely popular in the two neighboring countries that still have white commercial farmers: South Africa and Namibia. At the recent UN conference on sustainable development in Johannesburg, he was met with such joy and so large a forest of Zimbabwean flags that many South Africans reportedly wondered if the Zimbabwean Central Intelligence Organization had orchestrated the welcome. South African President Thabo Mbeki recognized Mr. Mugabe’s popularity and implicitly endorsed his policies by giving the Zimbabwean president twice as much time at the podium as any other speaker. US Secretary of State Colin Powell was practically booed off the stage when he criticized the seizure of white farms.
Mr. Mugabe is an unqualified hero to black South Africans. There have been thousands of squatters in the town of Hout Bay, just outside Cape Town, whom even the black government wants out of the way. Whites insist that what is happening in Zimbabwe could never happen to them — despite the 1,500 or so murders of South African farmers since black rule — and got a bit of a shock when radicals representing the Hout Bay squatters stormed the Cape High Court, brandishing Zimbabwean flags. Natasha deBoer, a Cape Town-based executive who holds both British and South African citizenship, has no illusions about what Mr. Mugabe’s popularity means: “The whites in Cape Town live in a dream world. They have but a few years left of their fantasy of a normal life under communist black rule.”
Sam Nujoma, who has run Namibia since independence in 1990, has also noticed Mr. Mugabe’s popularity. He has started attacking “arrogant” commercial farmers who he says are obstacles to land reform. He has his eye on 192 farms, mostly owned by Germans and South Africans, and says that unless the owners agree to forced sales the government will seize them. At the Johannesburg meeting he joined in the ovation for Mr. Mugabe, and blamed Britain for Zimbabwe’s troubles. [Anthony LoBaido, Zimbabwe-style Land Grab in South Africa? WorldNet Daily. com, Sept. 15, 2002.]
Mr. Mugabe has fans in the United States, too. On the afternoon of the day he addressed the UN, he accepted an invitation to speak at New York’s City Council chamber, where he gave a long talk about his land policies to a dozen or so members of the City Council’s Black and Hispanic Caucus. Charles Barron, a City Council member from Brooklyn and a former Black Panther who had invited Mr. Mugabe to City Hall, hugged him and held his hand aloft.
Mr. Barron no doubt sees in Mr. Mugabe a kindred spirit. Since joining the City Council in February, the councilman has called for city hall portraits of white historical figures to be replaced with pictures of blacks, and has said Thomas Jefferson was a “pedophile.” At a rally for reparations for slavery, Mr. Barron once said that sometimes he wants to go up to a white person, say, “You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing,” and then “slap him just for my mental health.” Even the New York Times expressed mild surprise that although most City Council members did not attend the Mugabe speech, few criticized Mr. Barron for arranging it. [Joyce Purnick, Mugabe’s Visit Has Council Speechless, New York Times, Sept. 16, 2002. Council Extends Welcome Mat — And Also Steps on a Few Toes, Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002.]
Last month we reported on the sudden arrival of more than 1,000 Somali refugees in Lewiston, Maine. The new residents consume 46 percent of the city’s welfare budget, and the cost of educating 230 non- or limited-English speaking students is eating away at the public school budget. The assault on the city’s finances finally prompted Mayor Laurier “Larry” Raymond to write a letter to the Somalis, asking them to stop coming.
“The Somali community must exercise some discipline and reduce the stress on our limited finances and our generosity,” he wrote, asking them to “please pass the word: We have been overwhelmed and have responded valiantly. Now we need breathing room. Our city is maxed-out financially, physically and emotionally.”
The Somalis wrote back, with feelings “ranging from dismay, astonishment and anger,” and called the letter “inflammatory” and “disturbing.” They also explained the fine things they have done for Lewiston: “For your information, therefore, our coming to Lewiston and living here have revitalized this city in certain ways. Our presence has turned Lewiston into a multi-ethnic, multi-racial city, which has embraced diversity and change. A city of thirty-six thousand people, in the middle of the ‘whitest’ state in the country, has suddenly become an international city . . . Our presence here have [sic] also attracted hundreds of thousands of dollars in state and federal funds to boost existing social services for all residents of Lewiston.”
The mayor shouldn’t be concerned with Somali indigence, because “[O]ut of the 416 able-bodied men and women 215 persons are currently employed. This is over 50% of adults who could work.”
They also pointed out that they are in the country legally and have the right to live anywhere they like. The Somalis conclude by calling the mayor a bigot who is trying to “agitate” and “incite” the people of Lewiston into violence. They said they would hold the mayor responsible “if any harm in form [sic] of an attack happens to any Somali-American man, woman or child.”
Somalis are already mixing it up with the natives. On Oct. 3, a drunken brawl broke out between Lewistonians and Somalis, during which, one or more Somalis slashed 21-year-old Troy Berry. Police aren’t sure what prompted the fight, but arrested three young Somalis for aggravated assault, and two Lewistonians for disorderly conduct. The fight was just the latest in a series of violent confrontations in downtown Lewiston in recent weeks. [Lisa Chmelecki, Immigrants Say Letter a Bigoted Act, Lewiston Sun Journal, Oct. 8, 2002. Text of Letter from Somali Community, Lewiston Sun Journal, Oct. 8, 2002. Mark LaFlamme, Supporters and Critics Alike Say the Issue Won’t Go Away, Lewiston Sun Journal, Oct. 8, 2002. Scott Taylor, Mayor Appeals to Somalis to Stem Migration, Lewiston Sun Journal, Oct. 4, 2002. Lewiston Mayor’s Letter to Somali Community, Lewiston Sun Journal, Oct. 4, 2002. Mark LaFlamme, Lewiston Man Knifed in Brawl; 5 Charged, Lewiston Sun Journal, Oct. 4, 2002.]
Other white communities are not keen on a big dose of Somalis either. The city council of Holyoke, Massachusetts, voted 12-2 on Oct. 1 to oppose a plan to resettle 300 of them. Noting that Holyoke, the Bay State’s poorest city, cannot house or educate them, the city council asked the federal government to rescind a $320,000 resettlement grant made to local church groups. [Holyoke Council Rejects Somali Immigrants, AP, Oct. 2, 2002.]
Other cities are going to have to face this problem. The US government plans to resettle the entire 12,000-member Somali Bantu tribe, since they are said to suffer persecution at the hands of non-Bantus. Among the quaint customs practiced by these Somalis is ritual female circumcision. When they learned that mutilating the genitals of girls was illegal in the United States, many families rushed to have their daughters cut before they left for America. Some of the girls were as young as two years old. A spokesman for the US embassy in Kenya, where the Somalis are being held in refugee camps, says any family found to have mutilated daughters in the last few months would be investigated and probably kept out of the country. The rest of the 12,000 are scheduled to start arriving in a few months. [Andrew Harding, US May Ban Genital Mutilation Parents, BBC Online, Oct. 1, 2002.]
Leprosy in America
William R. Levis at Bellevue Hospital in New York is the foremost American expert on leprosy. He helped pioneer multiple-drug therapy, which has been successful in reducing the world’s total number of cases of leprosy from 18 million 20 years ago to two million today. Dr. Levis explains that in the United States, however, leprosy is on the rise. He has 382 patients, almost all of them immigrants from such leprosy hot spots as India, the Caribbean, and Brazil. Most probably came to the United States not knowing they were infected; it can take 10 years for the disease to produce symptoms. Although no one knows exactly how leprosy spreads — whether through skin contact, insect bite, inhalation, ingestion, or sexual contact — a few Americans appear to be getting it from the immigrants. One of Dr. Levis’s patients has never left the United States, but appears to have got the disease from a heavily-Asian church he attends.
Most doctors have never seen a case of leprosy and most labs do not know how to detect it. Patients have symptoms that appear at first to be arthritis or lupus, and many of Dr. Levis’s patients come to him only after futile treatment for other diseases. Dr. Levis estimates there are at least several thousand people in this country with leprosy, with as many as nine out of ten undiagnosed. [Tom Hollon, The Leprosy Watcher, The Scientist, June, 2002, p.15.]
In October, the government of Barbados hosted the “African and African Descendants’ World Conference Against Racism.” High on the agenda were denunciations of slavery, and a proposal by Caribbean and North American blacks to sue France for making Haiti, a former French colony, pay millions of dollars to gain its independence in the early 19th Century.
On the opening day, 200 delegates voted to expel all non-blacks. Conference chairman Jewel Crawford of the US says, “There are a number of black people who have been traumatized by white people and they suffered psychologically and emotionally and, as a result of that trauma, some of them did not care to discuss their issues in front of them.” Garadina Gamba of the British delegation added, “This is an African family occasion and therefore they [whites] should not be allowed to sit down and talk with us.” The dozen or so whites and Asians, mostly interpreters and members of non-governmental organizations, left without protest. [Bert Wilkinson, Conference Against Racism Expels Non-Blacks, Says Too Traumatic to Discuss Slavery Before Whites, AP, Oct. 2, 2002.]
Break With the Past
The Oregon constitution, adopted in 1857, still has a clause that reads as follows: “No free Negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate.” This provision, like the discriminatory language contained in many state constitutions, was rendered unenforceable by federal laws, but on Nov. 5 the people of Oregon will vote on whether to remove the language completely. The state will not spend any money to promote removal because it assumes the measure will pass overwhelmingly. Only 56,000 blacks live in Oregon, and are just two percent of the population.
Likewise in November, voters in New Mexico will decide whether to remove an “alien land statute” from the constitution that barred Asian immigrants from owning property. Last year, the Wyoming legislature repealed a similar law from 1943 that prohibited Japanese from buying property, and Kansas repealed a similar law in May. In 1998 and 2000 voters removed prohibitions on interracial marriage from the constitutions of South Carolina and Alabama, respectively. In South Carolina, 40 percent of the voters voted to keep the language banning miscegenation. A similar number of Alabamans voted to keep the language — although shortly before the vote only 19 percent told pollsters they would vote against the change. [Peter Prengaman, Oregon’s Racist Language Faces Vote, AP, Sept. 27, 2002.]
Pot and Kettle
Dwight Burch, a dark-skinned black, started working as a waiter at an Atlanta Applebee’s restaurant in December 2000. A month later a new general manager took over the restaurant. He was a light-skinned black and reportedly made insulting comments about Mr. Burch’s dark skin. Mr. Burch says he asked the manager to stop but he would not. Mr. Burch then called Applebee’s corporate headquarters in Kansas to complain, and allegedly got no response. The manager found out about the call and told Mr. Burch he would “write him up” if he made another call. A week later, Mr. Burch started getting reprimands for what he says were minor infractions, and was fired soon after.
The EEOC is now suing Applebee’s because of color discrimination. Companies can be held liable for discrimination if they are aware of the problem but do not correct it. Atlanta’s last known case of color bias went to court in 1990, when a light-skinned IRS employee sued her dark-skinned boss. The court awarded damages. Applebee’s, a white-owned company, could therefore be made to pay because of a skin-color argument between two blacks. [Tammy Joiner, Workplace Suit Alleges Black-on-black Bigotry, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 14, 2002.]
For more than 25 years, Cambodian refugees who committed crimes could not be repatriated because the US did not have a deportation agreement with Cambodia. That changed this spring, and now thousands of criminal Cambodians face the prospect of being sent back. Cambodian ethnic lobbyists aren’t happy. “Outraged would be a good word,” says T. C. Duong of the Southeast Asian Resource Action Center, who regards deportation of immigrant criminals as double punishment. “Not only did they have to stay in jail, but they have to be sent back on top of that.” INS policy is clear, says spokesman Karen Kraushaar. “These individuals who have violated the criminal code have sacrificed their right to be here.”
So far, six Cambodians have been deported, and another 92 are in the process of being kicked out. The INS says there are 1,400 more who could face deportation because of convictions for felony assault, burglary, rape, homicide, attempted murder, robbery, theft and narcotics trafficking. Cambodians here illegally are not being deported, since the INS considers visa violations an administrative — not criminal — matter. The US now has deportation agreements with every country in the world except Vietnam, Laos and Cuba. [Thomas Ginsberg, Cambodians Now Face Deportation, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 14, 2002.]
Back to Africa
David Robinson is the son of Jackie Robinson who, in 1947, became the first black to play major-league baseball. The younger Robinson gave up on America years ago. He went to Africa to return to his racial and cultural roots, and in 1986 bought a farm in Tanzania. He married a Tanzanian, has nine children, and grows coffee on 120 acres in the mountainous, northern part of the country. Mr. Robinson thinks America consciously oppresses black men. “One needs only to look at the American prisons, American substance abuse programs and the number of premature deaths, and you can see that society is successfully eliminating the African American male,” he says. [Ann Simmons, Coming Home to Africa, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 10, 2002.]
A Poem Too Far
Amiri Baraka, originally known as LeRoi Jones, is one of America’s most famous and well-regarded black poets. His work is brimming with anti-white animus as in these lines from “Black Dada Nihilismus:” “Come up, black dada nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mothers’ throats.”
In “Leroy” he wrote: “When I die, the consciousness I carry I will to black people. May they pick me apart and take the useful parts, the sweet meat of my feelings. And leave the bitter bullshit rotten white parts alone.”
This sort of thing has earned him the gratitude and admiration of the people of New Jersey, who named him poet laureate in July. However, in a poem written last October about the events of Sept. 11, he wrote: “Who told 4,000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers to stay home that day? Why did Sharon stay away?” The Anti-Defamation League calls these lines “offensive,” and has called for Mr. Baraka to resign as poet laureate. He refuses. James McGreevey, governor of New Jersey is now seeking legislation that would give him the power to fire Mr. Baraka. [John McAlpin, N.J. Gov. Seeks Authority to Fire Poet, AP, Oct. 6, 2002.]
The Baby Market
Most international adoptions send a child from a poor country to a rich country. Surprisingly, the United States is sixth on the list of sending countries, just behind Vietnam and ahead of Guatemala. The receiving couples are almost all Canadians, and the children are almost all black. For Canadians, adopting from the United States is quick and cheap. An American baby can be had for about $10,000 and the process takes about nine months. It can cost twice that and take years to get a Russian baby.
The bargain, however, is only in black children. At The Open Door of Thomasville, Georgia, a Christian anti-abortion group that became an adoption agency, white babies cost about three times as much to adopt as blacks. Parents must also attend a training session in Georgia, whereas The Open Door will fly black babies to an airport near you. The agency has sent more than 150 children to Canada and has an excellent reputation.
The Open Door’s director Walter Gilbert explains there are many more black babies available for adoption than white, and that the demand for white babies is higher. He says the actual cost of processing an adoption is the same for any child — about $14,000 — but by charging $22,000 for a white child and $8,000 for a black, he uses the income on whites to subsidize blacks. “We’re averaging out to cover our total cost,” he explains, pointing out that if his group did not charge more for high-demand white children it could not find homes for as many blacks. Adoption agencies all across the United States have similarly tiered pricing. White children are the most expensive, followed by Asians, Hispanics, and blacks, in that order. The usual people are fuming about this, saying it “devalues” black children. They want legislation to set equal prices for all races.
There is also a strong movement to ban international adoptions. The United States has signed the Hague Convention on the rights of children. Its terms will be implemented next year and require that adoption agencies certify there are no homes available within the domestic system before they can send children overseas. American agencies are worried because it is easier to find a good home for a black baby in Canada than in rural Georgia, for example. White Georgians won’t adopt black babies but white Canadians will. Adoption officials particularly like to send black children to British Columbia. There are few blacks in Western Canada, and correspondingly little “racism.” Blacks, of course, complain that whites are stifling black cultural identification. Roger Jones is president of the Black Cultural Association of British Columbia and acts as a consultant on “black heritage and culture” to white parents. He says whites end up with black children because of “a dollar thing” and many do not know how to rear a black child. [Peter Clough, Black Babies From U.S. Highly Sought in Canada, Chicago Sun-Times, June 30, 2002.]
Your Pizza or Your Life
When John Paulette bought the Domino’s Pizza shop in Tarpon Springs, Florida, in 1995, he learned the previous owner had a policy of not delivering pizzas after dark in a black part of town called Mango Circle. He reopened delivery, and two weeks later blacks attacked a 62-year-old driver and broke his nose and jaw. Mr. Paulette is still paying on a $250,000 workers compensation settlement. He stopped delivering to Mango Circle after dark.
Last November, three blacks held up a Pizza Hut driver making a delivery in another black part of town called Union Academy. They stole $100 and fired a pistol into the air. Pizza Hut stopped delivering to Union Academy after dark.
Blacks are now making the usual complaints. Former city commissioner Glenn Davis says “It’s racism plain and simple.” He wants the city to stop doing business with the two companies and, if possible, lift their licenses to operate. “We’re black people who like pizza too,” says a black Union Academy resident who wants delivery at all hours. “Our money is just like everyone else’s.”
The mayor, Frank DiDonato, appears to have as much backbone as most whites. In the face of complaints from blacks he says he will have the pizza companies meet with city officials to justify their policies. “I don’t think it’s right people are being denied service because of where they live,” he says. [Robert Farley, Pizza Delivery Policy Sparks Racism Talk, St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 18, 2002.]
A jury has ordered Delta College near Midland, Michigan to pay a white man $1.5 million because of hiring discrimination. After four hours of deliberation the all-white jury decided that Steven Buszek had been passed over for a full-time teaching job in criminal justice. He produced memos from the administration about “promoting diversity,” and the jury decided he had been unfairly held back in favor of women. Delta College will appeal. [Crystal Harmon, ‘White Male’ Wins Lawsuit Against Delta College, Bay City Times (Michigan), June 15, 2002.]
Scots Must Change
Scotland has begun a £1 million campaign to rid the country of “racism.” Prompting the campaign was a poll of 2,000 Scots, which revealed 52 percent don’t want the number of non-whites living in Scotland to increase. Sixty percent also said they thought non-whites should do more to adapt to life in Scotland. The campaign to correct these views will promote the theme, “One Scotland: Many Cultures” through radio, television, and billboard advertising. [Tom Peterkin, Quarter of Scots Say They Are Racists, Telegraph (London), Sept. 25, 2002.]
Too Many Whites
ABC is under attack for picking former Clinton advisor George Stephanopolous to anchor its This Week Sunday news program. Critics don’t complain about Mr. Stephanopolous’s lack of news credentials, but that he is white. They say the Sunday morning programs are an “all-white boys club.”
“Those shows are an opportunity to discuss a whole range of political issues, and it just makes sense that it should be a diverse conversation,” says Janine Jackson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Andrew Tyndall, of The Tyndall Report says hiring another white man “could be a problem for ABC.” “It would have been wise to name [black Nightline correspondent] Michel Martin,” he adds. Carl Gottlieb of the Project for Excellence in Journalism explains why TV needs more non-whites: “You’re giving viewers someone like themselves to watch. You’re presenting another view that perhaps somebody in the white middle class might not be familiar with.” [Gail Shister, Choice of Stephanopolous as Solo Anchor is Questioned, Philadelphia Inquirer, June 4, 2002, p. C5.]
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — We appreciate the honorable mention of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) by George Halstead in “Nationalist Politics,” when he suggests that “A group like the Council of Conservative Citizens, which deals bluntly with race, could alert members to upcoming meetings of local parties. CCC members and allies could run for party positions and begin the ‘long march through the institutions,’ the way the anti-whites took over the Democratic Party.”
The CofCC has, in fact, been successfully doing that — and more — for quite some time. We urge our members to become actively involved in the political process. As a result, we have many members and “fellow travelers” serving in party posts (GOP, third parties, and even Democrats) and elected offices at many levels, especially in the South. That is precisely why the Southern Poverty Law Center has made us their main target. It considers the CofCC the “most dangerous” right-wing group in the nation.
Professional politicians are pragmatists (some would say prostitutes). If they see that we can help or hurt them more than the other side, they will pander to us. That’s how the American political system works.
Gordon Lee Baum, CEO, Council of Conservative Citizens, St. Louis, Mo.
Sir — I greatly enjoyed George Halstead’s provocative series on racial politics. He is clearly a professional, who has thought things through. He may be a little optimistic about some things, but unless we start thinking in the terms he recommends, we will make little progress. We need to stop complaining and get ready for hard work!
Paul Harper, Roanoke, Va.
Sir — I have received the last two issues of AR and am extremely grateful that there are still voices of sanity in our country. After reading “Nationalist Politics,” I changed my political party affiliation from Reform to Constitution.
Richard Testerman, Beaumont, Calif.
Sir — I must respectfully disagree with George Halstead’s assertion in “Nationalist Politics in America” that racialists should look to virtually any and all allies, regardless of how ideologically or even morally repellent, simply because they happen to agree on the one issue of race. Granted race is the defining issue of our day — regardless of popular political opinion — and its importance cannot be overstated. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that making deals with the “devil” is necessarily the best way to realize our goals.
Although Mr. Halstead makes a compelling argument for why reaching out to radical environmentalists or homosexuals might prove to reveal previously unknown support for an honest dialogue on race, there is little evidence that this support would actually materialize. Believing environmentalists would ally themselves with open racialists because the “rank and file” allegedly “oppose immigration” from a green standpoint seems unrealistic. Additionally, the fact that environmental activists are almost exclusively white is evidently lost on them, as they certainly never seem to worry that non-whites do not share their fervor for saving Mother Earth. Nor do environmentalists appear to exhibit even a hint of racial self-awareness or solidarity, despite their obviously homogeneous ranks. And of course, there is also a pervasive anti-Western/pro-Third World (read anti-white) mindset that permeates the entire movement.
As a socio-political demographic, homosexuals are notoriously leftist in their beliefs, often at the extreme end of the spectrum. Despite the glaringly disproportionate rate of rape by black men of white women, or the fact that “homophobia” is rampant among blacks, white lesbian and homosexual activists continue to agitate for minority civil rights. I for one have no desire to countenance sexual perversion for the sake of potential political gain.
Mr. Halstead’s suggestion that an openly pro-white lobbying group could find success like that of ethnocentric Jewish organizations tells me he may not have a complete understanding of the politics of race in America. American Jews are considered a protected minority, no different from blacks or Hispanics, and are thus entitled to displays of self-interest in the name of some real or imagined oppression. Besides, there already are organized, openly pro-white groups such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, who are dismissed as “racist,” despite their attempts to present a more socially acceptable, traditional-conservative image, and no matter how much grass-roots support they receive.
At present it seems improbable — if not impossible — that racialists can achieve any real success within the confines of our political system in any party. Although I certainly agree with Mr. Halstead that fantasies of a spontaneous racial revolution are completely unrealistic and futile, they are perhaps only slightly more so than believing that white, die-hard Democrat union members, feminists, homosexuals, and tree huggers are going to jump onboard with a “racial-realist” political candidate.
Richard McGahan, Goshen, N.Y.