the 21st Century
conference draws a record turnout.
by Ian Jobling
than 260 people gathered at the Hyatt Dulles hotel in northern
Virginia over the weekend of Feb. 20-22 for the 2004 American
Renaissance conference. Guests came from all parts of the United
States, as well as Canada, Britain, France, and even South Africa
and Australia to make it the best-attended AR conference ever.
From beginning to end, there was an invigorating sense of solidarity
and conviviality, as AR celebrated the tenth anniversary of its
first meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. As one participant put it,
its great to be among the living again.
Front row: Perry Lorenz,
Gordon Baum, Donald Templer. Second row: Raymond
Wolters, Roger McGrath, Samuel Francis, Sam Dickson. Back
Taylor, Jack Loggenberg, Philip du Toit. Missing: Joe Sobran,
The conference began on Friday
evening with a cocktail reception and welcoming remarks by the
AR staff. Jared Taylor provoked much hilarity by
challenging the spy from the Southern Poverty Law Center or the
Anti-Defamation League who always attends AR conferences to reveal
himself. Why do you sneak around like a thief? he
asked. We know youre here, so Im giving you
an opportunity to do something honorable and manly, and identify
yourself. The spy remained silent.
Afterwards, conference guests
socialized late into the evening, enjoying the camaraderie that
marked the entire weekend.
On Saturday morning, syndicated
columnist Samuel Francis began with an analysis of white
resistance to racial consciousness. He reported that many of his
correspondents say there can be no significant racial differences
in behavior because the genomes of different races differ by only
a fraction of a percent. Others argue that racial differences
are meaningless because all people have a common African origin.
One of his readers claimed we are all black because we came from
Africa; Dr. Francis commented that this was like claiming we are
all fish because we once came from the ocean.
Some of Dr. Franciss readers
quote Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for
ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Dr. Francis remarked that
people who like this passage do not seem to realize it could be
used to undermine the case for the state of Israel and even defend
Some readers do not believe a
white race even exists, that we are instead a diverse collection
of Frenchmen, Poles, Lithuanians, and so on. It is a mystery to
Dr. Francis why national identities are acceptable, but a racial
identity is not. Another common argument is that whites should
deny themselves racial consciousness because it leads to the unique
wickedness of the Holocaust and slavery. Dr. Francis noted that
in the long sweep of history that includes Mongol and Muslim attacks
on Europe, it is only very recently that whites started killing
more non-whites than the other way around.
Conservatives often say they are
afraid where racial consciousness would lead, imagining slaughter
and slavery rather than immigration reform. All you have
to do is ring the bell, and conservatives salivate the way the
leftists trained them, he said, noting that the history
of egalitarianism is much bloodier than that of inegalitarianism.
These arguments are so flimsy they must surely be a cover for
irrational and emotional fixations, he said. They
show that whites are willing to grasp at any straw to deny
the reality of our problems. (The full text of Dr. Franciss
remarks can be read at www. amren.com.)
As one participant
put it, its great to be among the living
Paul Fromm, president of
the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee and the Canadian
Association for Free Expression, announced that his two overriding
concerns were immigration and free speech because in Canada there
is too much of one and too little of the other. Almost 12 percent
of Canadas population is from the Third World, and if immigration
and fertility rates stay constant, Canada will lose its white
majority about the same time as the United States, in the middle
of this century. Canada accepts about 235,000 immigrants every
year, or almost twice as many per capita as the United States.
Eighty-five percent are from the Third World, and this has brought
profound demographic change: Toronto, for example, was one percent
non-white in 1961, but is more than 60 percent non-white today.
It can be dangerous to criticize
this process. Mr. Fromm pointed to the case of Brad Love, who
was sentenced under hate speech laws to 18 months in prison for
writing rude letters to politicians about immigration.
Politicians and the media insist
that Canada has always been multicultural, but until recently,
there was no question that Canada was a country for Europeans.
Robert Borden, prime minister from 1911-1920 said bluntly that
it was a white mans country. Canadas traditional flag,
the Red Ensign, bears the coats of arms of the British, French,
and other European pioneers. The maple leaf flag, which Mr. Fromm
likened to a modern corporate logo, was adopted in 1965.
The current immigration minister
has said she does not see herself as a gate-keeper, but as a facilitator
and social worker. Asylum seekers automatically get welfare until
their cases are heard, and Canada grants asylum to women with
abusive husbands, and homosexuals from macho cultures. Forty-five
percent of these immigrants cannot speak English or French, which
means they probably cannot be employed.
Mr. Fromm also suggested Oriental
immigrants are forming a fifth column in Canada and reducing Canadians
control over their country. They already own a great deal of real
estate, and they are in the process of buying Air Canada.
University of Delaware history
professor Raymond Wolters marked the 50th anniversary year
of Brown v Board of Education by noting that American schools
have gone from desegregation to forced integration and then back
to desegregation. Although the Constitutions 14th Amendment
was written by men who plainly supported school segregation, NAACP
attorneys managed to convince the Supreme Court through historical
and legal deception that the equal protection clause required
desegregation. Still, the Brown decision did not require forcible
integration; it merely prohibited schools from refusing admission
to students because of race. Little changed after Brown.
Most schools remained overwhelmingly white or black because Americans
preferred it that way.
This did not satisfy civil rights
activists, who thought segregation harmed black students. So,
in 1968, the Court held that Brown required school districts
that had discriminated in the past to correct this by promoting
integration. Busing did not have the intended effect: Black academic
performance failed to improve, and whites never accepted school
assignment by race. Districts that required integration lost an
average of 50 percent of their students to white flight. In the
1990s, the Rehnquist court returned to the original understanding
of Brown, and schools once again reflect neighborhood segregation.
Prof. Wolters also described the
role of academics in school integration. Intellectuals are overwhelmingly
on the left, and their writing combines righteous indignation
with emotional commitment. They reward mediocre scholars
who praise integration, and punish excellent scholars who criticize
The NAACP hired several historians
to argue that the 14th Amendment required desgregation. They duly
prepared papers to support this claim, even though the evidence
was against it. Three have since admitted their fraud, conceding
that they let politics distort their perspective, but this has
in no way hurt their careers.
Not fit to name a school
Psychologist Kenneth Clark provided
the social rationale for the Brown case with his notorious doll
studies that claimed to show blacks suffered psychological damage
from segregation. These studies were later discreditedif
anything, they showed integration damaged blacksbut they
played a large role in winning the Brown case, and Clark enjoyed
an extremely successful academic career. Kenneth Coleman, a sociologist
who produced thorough and sound work demonstrating that integration
lowered the quality of white education without raising that of
blacks, suffered a long period of academic isolation, and some
colleagues even likened him to a Nazi.
The next address was by Philip
du Toit, president of the Zimbabwe Victims Coalition.
He has just published a book about South Africas land
restitution, and argues that agriculture is headed for collapse
because blacks are incapable of modern farming. He described the
great suffering that has followed the transfer of power to blacks
in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Blacks have killed 1,600 white farmers
in South Africa since black rule began in 1994, making farming
in South Africa the most dangerous peace-time occupation in the
world. The killings have scared many whites off their farms; in
ten years their numbers have dropped from 56,000 to 35,000. Squatters
steal from them and kill their cattle, but the incompetent South
African police catch only an estimated 10 percent of career criminals.
Commercial farmers also must pay high taxes. Dr. du Toit showed
a film about the farm killings, in which one expert claimed this
could be the beginning of full-scale genocide. At the same time,
the black government now practices such ruthless preferences it
is practically impossible for whites to get scholarships, and
job prospects are increasingly dim. Now that the schools are black-run,
many black 8th-graders cannot read.
In Zimbabwe, the eviction of 4,000
farmers has brought disaster. More than 150,000 black farm workers
have lost their jobs, and the economy is on the rocks. Mr. du
Toit ended his speech with a call for more international cooperation
Jack Loggenberg of the
Transvaal Agricultural Union continued the discussion of South
Africa. The goals of his organization are to protect the willing
seller-willing buyer principle of property exchange, to ensure
the maintenance of South Africas food and fiber production,
and to ensure that commercial farmers are able to live without
fear of theft and violence.
Mr. Loggenberg spoke not only
about the physical, but the psychological aspects of the current
campaign against South African whites, which is meant to destroy
their sense of peoplehood. Blacks in authority call whites colonialists,
invaders, and land-grabbers, discredit
their heroes, and tear down their monuments. Cities, towns, streets,
and buildings once named for whites are now renamed for black
freedom fighters. White children must attend integrated
schools that actively try to stamp out any aspect of European
culture or achievement, and that have pushed out Christianity
in favor of some vague universal religion. Mr. Loggenberg also
stressed the importance of world-wide white solidarity.
Author and history professor Roger
McGrath described the decline of the white hero in American
culture. Before the 1960s, Americans revered statesmen and warriors
like Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Teddy Roosevelt, and
exaggerated their virtues; now these men are criminals. Washington
owned slaves; Jefferson slept with them; Jackson uprooted Indians;
Roosevelt proclaimed white superiority. Just as in South Africa,
the names of white icons are coming down. Prof. McGrath gave the
example of a majority-black elementary school in New Orleans,
that changed its name from Washington because Washington owned
slaves. Noting the schools terrible student performance,
he said it may be just as well that it no longer bears Washingtons
Lincoln has survived as a hero
because he liberated the slaves, and cultural Marxists downplay
his conviction of Negro inferiority and opposition to integration.
The left loves Lincoln because he destroyed Southern culture,
increased the power of the federal government, and created the
secular religion of egalitarianism.
Prof. McGrath spoke admiringly
of the masculine virtues of the great American statesmen who are
now so despised. He praised Washingtons military acumen
and Andrew Jacksons bravery in duels. He spoke reverently
of World War II heroes, like Audie Murphy and Colin Kelly, and
deplored the fact that they are not even mentioned in todays
history books. Strength and courage in white men are today called
militarism and fascism. It is difficult
not to conclude, he said, that authors and publishers
fear portraying white men in a heroic light, because such portrayals
just might inspire boys today to behave in a manner admired by
There followed three brief presentations
by activists. Perry Lorenz described his campaign for the
Fort Collins, Colorado school board, in which he pointed out it
was unrealistic to expect schools to close the achievement gap
between white and black students because of innate differences.
There was the predictable outcry, but he still won over 20 percent
of the vote. Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative
Citizens, noted that todays young people are much more racially
conscious than their parents. He says the Confederate flag is
increasingly popular among young men. Lou Calabro, president
of the European/American Issues Forum, described a photo exhibit
called European Americans Among Us that he had put
on at the San Francisco Public Library to encourage pride in white
AR editor Jared Taylor
saxophone before the banquet.
The cocktail reception before
the Saturday evening banquet was serenaded by the dance band,
The Nitehawks. Conference guests were pleasantly surprised
by Jared Taylors solid clarinet and saxophone performances
in swing classics like Song of India and American
After the banquet on Saturday
night, columnist and author Joseph Sobran spoke on The
Alien State. He said America is going through a statist
revolution on the pretext that it must pass regulations
to protect us. If you think the state wants to protect us,
he said, look at Waco! Regulations serve only to control
our lives, and one of the primary vehicles of such control is
minority rights. The state uses its mandate to protect
minorities to limit our freedom of association and to control
the way we speak and think. The term minority
is not a matter of numbers, he said. Its a moral
claim. The government has become so obnoxiously intrusive
that a conspiratorial view of the world is justified: It
isnt crazy to be paranoid about the government, he
said. Whats crazy is to trust it. The states
attitude towards minorities is driven by a philosophy of alienism,
or the prejudice that the abnormal is always to be preferred to
the normal. He elaborated on homosexual and Jewish activism as
examples of this trend.
Jared Taylor began the
Sunday morning session on a note of optimism. He said the common
view was that whites have no right to pursue racial interests
but saw many signs of white revolt. He saw nascent racial consciousness
in the widespread indignation over the Bush amnesty proposal.
Americans say they oppose it because it rewards law-breakers,
but deep-down there is a racial fear that America will become
Mexico if we let in too many Hispanics.
There are much clearer signs of
racial awakening in Europe, where there are strong nationalist
political parties. The Swiss Peoples Party, whose campaign
posters showed dark hands tearing up a Swiss flag, is now the
most popular in the country. Russian politics is solidly nationalist:
not only is Vladimir Putins party nationalist by American
standards, but the number two and number three parties are even
Events in Holland are particularly
heartening. Holland has had one of the most liberal immigration
policies in Europe, but in January, parliament issued an all-party
report saying that the attempt to create an integrated multi-ethnic
society had failed. The Dutch were delighted when the government
recently announced it would deport 26,000 bogus asylum seekers.
The city of Rotterdam will no longer issue residence permits to
anyone who doesnt speak Dutch, and will build no more cheap
housing. These measures are openly described as designed to keep
out immigrants. Denmark, recently discussed at length in the Dec.
2003 American Renaissance, is another encouraging
Political progress is more rapid
in Europe because of proportional representation, which makes
it easier for small parties to gain influence. Mr. Taylor also
saw a virtuous cycle developing in Europe. When one
country closes its doors to immigrants or expels them, they try
to get in elsewhere, which prompts other countries to restrict
immigration. (Mr. Taylors address can be read online at
Psychologist Donald Templer
followed with a scathing and hilarious attack on the blindness
of his profession. He has been fascinated by group differences
ever since he was a child, and this interest has shaped his academic
career. He says denying group differences in ability is costly
because it puts unqualified blacks in positions of authority.
Whites are twenty times more likely than blacks to have IQs of
130 or above, and these are the people who should be decision-makers.
There are too many psychologists
who poison the minds of their students, said Prof. Templer.
By refusing to acknowledge innate intelligence differences, psychologists
encourage white guilt that weakens a psychologists capacity
to deal with the social problems that blacks pose. Also, it is
absurd to blame test bias for low IQ scores. If blacks score
low on an intelligence test, said Prof. Templer, I
would say that constitutes powerful evidence for its validity.
Many psychologists enjoy giving racial sensitivity training, but
it would be much more useful if they treated white guilt. Many
psychologists recommend psychological therapy for black prisoners,
but Prof. Templer disagrees: They need 60 hours a week of
work therapy. That would give them less time for manufacturing
alcohol and weapons, trafficking drugs, and giving each other
Prof. Templer was just as scathing
about the grievances of blacks against whites. Many claim high
incarceration rates are genocide because they prevent blacks from
having children. In Prof. Templers view, the reduced
procreation of criminals of all colors is a beneficial side effect
of incarceration. . . . If imprisoning criminals is genocide,
then I am for genocide. If Americans are serious about deterring
crime, they should farm criminals out to Third World and Communist
countries that have real prisons and real punishment.
Sam Dickson concluded the
conference with A Secular Benediction, in which he
lambasted the silly right. The conservatives currently
in power major in the minors and minor in the majors,
devoting their energy to insignificant problems and ignoring things
of vital importance. The Bush administration did not breathe a
word of protest at the Supreme Courts decisions on racial
preferences last year, and its amnesty plan would only make the
immigration crisis worse. There has also been little protest against
the Supreme Courts limitations on political advertisements,
which diminish the power of minority political movements. The
only issue on which the silly right has taken a strong conservative
stand is homosexual marriage, a trivial problem compared to the
Participants from the
Southern contingent enjoy the banquet.
Americans have been duped by the
silly right into thinking America must police the Middle East.
The costs of war, together with the forces of decay within America
could precipitate a disaster, but such a disaster might doom multiracialism
and globalism and set America on a sounder course. Mr. Dickson
also disagreed with libertarians who think limiting government
will solve our problems. Solutions will require the extensive
and vigorous use of government powers.
Mr. Dickson concluded by urging
whites to greater solidarity. Although he admired individualism
when he was younger, he has since come to see it as a weakness.
A healthy person is grounded in the broader life of his people
and aware of its history. When an entire people faces problems,
they cannot be dealt with individually but must be faced collectively.
As an example, he proposed that if more whites contributed
a little bit of money to organizations like AR, they wouldnt
have to spend a lot of money on private schools.
The conference adjourned with
many participants expressing the wish that the event be held every
year. The next day, there was an article about the meeting in
the Washington Times, and the Indonesian newspaper Suara
Pembaruan covered the conference for the second time in a
row. An independent film crew from Boston that is making a documentary
on immigration reform filmed the talks and interviewed many people
in the audience.
We are deeply grateful to all
our readers who attended the conference, and who made it such
a success. We look forward to seeing you again when we hold the
next conference in 2006.
• BACK TO TOP • •
the Non-Racial Right Thinks
Buchanans American Cause conference.
by Jared Taylor
interesting coincidence, Patrick Buchanan held his most recent
meeting on immigration just a few days after the AR conference.
Since the mid-1990s, his tax-exempt American Cause has put
on events that are billed as bring[ing] the brightest
minds together to explore the ideas that make America a great
nation (see AR, Nov. 2002 for a report on an earlier
meeting). This year, under the theme of Exporting Jobs,
Importing Workers, the brightest minds were trying to
think of ways to save the country from destruction.
This was an interesting contrast
to the AR conference: an energetic gathering of mainstream
immigration control groups that never talk about race. It
is instructive to take the temperature of the non-racial right
on immigration, and if this group is any indication, the temperature
from China, send it back.
Protectionism was a very strong
sub-theme at this conference. Jock Nash, who is a trade negotiation
lawyer for the Milliken textile company, made no bones about
the need to manage trade to Americas advantage. He pointed
out that in February, the United States lost manufacturing
jobs for the 43rd month in a row, and others argued that if
this continues, we will eventually be buying even our weapons
from China. When it comes to trade, we dont want
a level playing field, he said. We want a home
court advantage. He said America should always come
first: I dont care what happens in Mexico or Sri
Lanka or Cambodia. America first, our friends next, and everyone
else, get in line.
Speaker after speaker echoed
this theme. Pat Choate, who was Ross Perots running
mate in 1996, said the only way to balance our trade with
China was to refuse to let in any more imports. Richard McCormack,
editor of Manufacturing & Technology News said the
Europeans have straightforward quotas on Chinese imports and
we should, too.
There was less agreement on
how to keep American companies from paying people in India
and China next to nothing to do computer programming, web
page design, mechanical drawings, and even X-ray diagnosis
and architectural design over the Internet. Some panelists
could not see how this could be stopped, but William Hawkins,
an economist at the US Business and Industry Council and the
author of Importing Revolution (reviewed in AR, Aug.
1995), said wages paid to workers outside the country should
not qualify as business expenses for tax purposes. Mr. Choate
proposed an equalization tax on such wages that
would bring them up to the level paid to Americans.
It is all very well to fiddle
with tariffs and taxes, but no one pointed out that, aside
from natural resources, the wealth of a country depends on
the productivity of its people. America will continue to be
wealthy only if its people continue to be good at inventing
things, making things, and offering first-rate services. It
takes smart people to do that. As Richard Lynn has shown in
IQ and the Wealth of Nations, rich countries get that
way because their people are intelligent. Trade policy will
make no difference if the United States keeps importing prolific
Third-Worlders who cannot be trained for high-productivity
If, at the same time, it keeps
taxing the competent to subsidize reckless procreation by
incompetents, its population will eventually be no good at
anything. If we ever deteriorate to the point where the average
American is no more intelligent or hard-working than the average
Filipino, we will have the same average incomeand deserve
it. Whether we import them or breed them ourselves, untrainable
dullards will be poor, untrainable dullards, and drag the
rest of us down with them.
Whether we import
them or breed them ourselves, untrainable dullards
will be poor, untrainable dullards, and drag the
rest of us down with them.
There was much hand-wringing
about China at this conference, but no one pointed out that
it has already passed stiff laws that prohibit criminals and
defectives from having children (they will no doubt be the
next groups to be granted asylum in the US and Canada). As
soon as the cost of embryo selection goes down, the Chinese
will have no scruples about using it, and if they build up
to an average IQ of 115 while we drop into the 80s, they will
dominate us in every way.
As Mark Twain used to say,
nothing astonishes people more than to tell them the truth.
It would have been great fun to astonish the American Cause,
but no one who has ever spoken at an AR conference was invited
When it comes to the question
of importing workers, the panelists agreed: it has to stop.
Because this conference was about the economic effects of
immigration, little was said about the cultural consequences
of immigration, much less the racial impact, but there were
still interesting differences in emphasis.
The one area of agreement
was that Third-World immigration most hurts blue-collar workers.
Some speakers, such as Roy Beck of Numbers USA, turned this
into an appeal even Hillary Clinton might respond to: He called
our immigration policies a war against workers, a war
against blacks, a war against Hispanics. He argued that
blacks have been repeatedly knocked off the ladder of success
by repeated waves of immigrants desperate for work. At a more
general level, he said a society like ours that is replacing
well-paid factory jobs with low-paid service jobs has an
immoral system, and that clean-hand workers
like the participants at the conference had a responsibility
to fellow citizens who have no more than a high-school education.
John Templeton, a science
journalist and the only black at the conference, pushed this
argument specifically for blacks: Blue-collar brothers have
to compete with low-rent Mexicans. However, he was much more
interested in what whites are up to, larding his talk with
plenty of references to segregation and racism.
He seems to think the H1B visa program, which lets employers
bring in foreigners to do specialized work, has been a great
way for Silicon Valley companies to avoid hiring blacks! Every
year, he publishes something called the Silicon Ceiling
Report, in which he complains about how few blacks have
good jobs in the computer industry. He did concede that as
companies send jobs overseas white men have become commodities,
too. In answer to a question as to why Jesse Jackson
and Al Sharpton do not talk about low-wage Mexicans taking
away jobs from blacks, he said that their funding sources
wont let them. Judging from Mr. Templetons
own emphasis, there may simply be more fun and profit in complaining
about rich white people rather than poor Hispanics.
want them here either?
K.B. Forbes, Executive Director
of the Council of United Latinos, had another ethnic perspective.
He described himself as the token Hispanic at
the conference, but is half-Irish and half-Chilean, and looks
European. He takes seriously Mr. Becks view that massive
immigration really is a war on blacks, a war on Hispanics,
and is trying to persuade Hispanics that immigration will
only drive down their wages. He insisted that many Hispanics
are against the Bush amnesty45 percent, which is not
far behind the 55 percent for the country as a whole. He tries
to publicize cases like that of the Salvadoran car mechanic
who was happy making $10.00 an hour, but was fired when two
illegal Koreans showed up, willing to work for $4.50 an hour
each. He conceded that, so far, there is not much sign of
Hispanic resistance to immigration, but claimed that many
Hispanics are completely red, white and blue and
that Hispanic opposition to immigration is a sleeping
giant beginning to stir. He seemed entirely sincerehe
got a good round of applause when he said all illegals must
be rounded up and deported immediatelyand if he can
get Hispanics more interested in higher pay than ethnic solidarity,
good for him.
On the question of what to
do about illegals, some of the speakers were firm and some
were squishy, but all were on the right side. Steven Camarota,
who spoke for the reasonably high-profile Center for Immigration
Studies, had something of a technical approach. He pointed
out that the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) already has a backlog of six million cases, and would
be paralyzed by the 10 million or so applications a Bush amnesty
would bring. He is not in favor of outright deportation of
illegals, arguing that if employer sanctions really do dry
up the job supply, illegals will go home on their own. He
also opposes putting soldiers on the border because they are
bound to shoot somebody. Since we make public policy
by pathetic anecdote, he said, a few dead Mexicans could
discredit the whole idea of firm border control. No one pointed
out that the threat of being shot would be enough to close
the border. It might take a few shootings for the threat to
be taken seriously, but that would pretty much solve the problem.
(Mr. Camarota did make the
excellent point that immigrants are not going to save Social
Security. Most of them earn low wages, pay few taxes, and
consume social services. Also, what Social Security really
needs is an increase in the ratio of workers to retired people,
but many immigrants bring in their aged parents, who never
paid a dime in taxes, and they will, themselves, grow old
and go on Social Security.)
T.J. Bonner, the head of the
border patrol agents union, had a similar perspective on illegals.
He thinks it is hopeless to try to stop them all at the border
and then pay no attention once they get in. He said if the
country really wanted to solve the problem only by patrolling
the border, it would need one million agents, rather than
the current 11,000. He said all police departments must treat
illegal entry as the crime that it is, and that we must prosecute
employers who hire illegals. He said the best way for companies
to avoid hiring them is to look hard at Hispanics who dont
speak English, but they cant do that because that would
Jobs heading south:
The Bush amnesty proposal
has made his job harder. Apprehensions in some sectors rose
30 percent after the announcement, and Mr. Bonner said some
who are caught immediately ask, How do I sign up for
the new amnesty? He doesnt want soldiers on the
border because he says they dont have the right training.
Pat Choate was the squishiest
on Mexico. He said that because it is our neighbor it is special,
and we should do everything possible to raise its standard
of living. We should build factories there rather than in
India or China (or Pennsylvania?) even if the profits are
lower, so as to give Mexicans good jobs. Dan Stein of the
Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) got a good
round of applause when he retorted that the only way to handle
Mexico is to seal the border.
Three-term congressman from
Colorado Tom Tancredo was the keynote speaker. He is a very
important figure who has almost single-handedly made a national
political issue out of immigration, so it is worth examining
his remarks in detail. He laughed at the Bush amnesty proposal,
calling it dead on arrival. He said that in his
five years in Congress he has never seen so vigorous a popular
reaction against a proposal. All his Republican and even some
Democratic colleagues say they are swamped with mail from
outraged constituents. At Republican leadership retreats,
he used to be the only congressman who would talk about immigration,
but at the most recent retreat he said he didnt have
to say anything; 15 or 20 others were yelling about the amnesty.
He told about one Southern
congressman who is a gynecologist and still has a practice.
He got a big laugh when he imitated a thick Southern accent,
and quoted his colleague: I have done an informal poll
of my patients and have found that amnesty is about as popular
as genital herpes.
Mr. Tancredo said he cannot
understand how Mr. Bush thought his plan would win Hispanic
votes. The very next day, the Democrats did what they
always do, they outbid us, and said we should give them instant
green cards. Mr. Tancredo believes immigration is
a dagger pointed at our hearts, that the influx, both
legal and illegal, combined with multiculturalism, threatens
the identity of the country. He said instruction in school
is anti-American, and that our children should know
a little more about Western Civilization than that Columbus
came to America and destroyed paradise. He called the
Mexican government a co-conspirator in the threat
to America, and talked about a Mexican official who explained
to him that its not two countries; its just
He said almost no one in Congress
stands for anything except being reelected. When people accuse
him of having an agenda, he says of course he
has an agenda, and that no one should be in Congress who doesnt
have one. He said it has been a wonderful experience
to be a politician with a real purpose, who works for what
he truly believes is best for the country. He said he used
to be sympathetic when colleagues told him they admired what
he says but cant do the same, but now he has no patience.
Either you care about your country or you dont,
he says. Mr. Tancredo is all for putting soldiers on the border.
He is thinking about running for the Senate, and says he will
campaign for two things: a moratorium on all immigration,
and no amnesty, ever.
The tenor of the immigration
debate would change completely if there were just a few more
members of Congress who took Mr. Tancredos positions
and pushed them as hard as he does. He was an ebullient, effective
speaker, and began and ended with a standing ovation. He is
also quite approachable. He spent 20 minutes after his talk,
chatting and laughing with admirers, and gives an impression
of sincere bonhomie. He had used Samuel Huntingtons
expression clash of civilizations in his talk,
so I asked if he meant there was a civilizational clash between
Mexico and the United States. He gave me a quizzical look
and said no. The clash of civilizations was between Islam
and the West, but if America is disunited because of ethnic
identification it will not be able to respond to the challenge.
Patrick Buchanan spoke last,
and struck an optimistic note. This is the darkest hour
before the dawn, he said, adding that the people
are with us, and the politicians are beginning to listen.
He regretted that 12 or 14 years ago, when he was running
for president, the mood of the country was not what it is
today. He was glad to see that the Bush amnesty appears to
be dead. He said the by-elections two years from now may be
a good chance to put up third-party candidates against sitting
congressmen who refuse to understand immigration. He concluded
with a confident prediction that the people who love
this country for what it is will prevail over those who think
its just a place to make money.
He was not the only speaker
to say the mood in the country is changing. Dan Stein predicted
that we are about to see a tsunami of opposition
to immigration, and said it will be about the hottest
topic in politics once we get gay marriage taken care of.
Several others spoke of Congress finally taking notice.
They head north.
The audienceat about
150, it was perhaps a record for an American Cause meetinglikewise
seemed upbeat and energetic. As is always the case at meetings
of this kind, it was to the right of the speakers. Every firm
sentiment got applause, and one man kept shouting lock
and load, lock and load. A half-dozen participants introduced
themselves to me as AR readers, and many others gladly accepted
introductory copies of the magazine. There is no doubt that
more and more Americans are seeing the light; perhaps as Mr.
Buchanan said, the dawn is not far off.
What are we to make of the
non-racial immigration-control movement? Its leaders are certainly
well meaning, and they are able to carry their message to
audiences that cover their ears when we talk about race. There
is no doubt that some people find an economic or cultural
argument more palatable. Nor should we sneer at Roy Becks
pitch to liberals about how immigration hurts blacks and Hispanics.
If he can interest Hillary Clinton in helping blacks by keeping
out immigrants, God bless him. His is a very useful lobbying
organization that makes it easy for people to stay in touch
with their congressmen and that reports on every members
vote on every bill that touches on immigration.
Is there really as much anti-immigrant
sentiment among Hispanics as K.B. Forbes claims? If there
is, it is probably based on the contempt many Cubans and South
Americans feel for Mexican prune pickers, but why not harness
it if it is there?
We should never lose sight
of the fact that anyone who opposes immigrationfor good
reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at allis our ally.
To oppose immigration is, in effect, to oppose the displacement
of whites by non-whites. Displacement is the greatest threat
today to our race, and we must support and encourage anyone
who works against it, whatever his motives. It may be that
when real immigration reform passes, it will be sold to Congress
as a loving gesture to our black and Hispanic brothers and
sisters. That would still be a great achievement.
We, of course, have no reason
to shift our emphasis. The immigration-control movement is
full of people who, themselves, never talk about race but
are happy for others to, and whose commitment is fueled by
the knowledge that there is far more at stake than blue-collar
jobs. Our ranks are growing steadily, and ultimately, only
a fully-formed consciousness of race will save our civilization.
In the meantime, let us applaud the efforts of the mainstream
• • • BACK TO TOP • •
antidote to fashionable nonsense about race.
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
and Frank Miele
287 pp., $27.50
anthropologists, and television commentators tell us that
race is biologically meaningless, that the physical differences
between Danes and Pygmies are insignificant evolutionary
accidents. Race, we are told, is an artificial concept white
people invented only a few hundred years ago to justify
colonization and slavery. If we free ourselves from this
delusion, we can all march hand in hand into a future free
Everything about this view
of race is obviously wrong, but since so few of the people
who know better are willing to say so, this nonsense is
beginning to tighten its grip on the popular mind. Now a
book has finally appeared that blows to bits every one of
these tendentious arguments. Race is a long overdue
corrective that deserves wide circulation.
An Instinct to Distinguish
Authors Vincent Sarich,
emeritus professor of anthropology at Berkeley and Frank
Miele, senior editor of Skeptic magazine, take aim
first at the notion that it was 16th and 17th century Europeans
who first noticed race and race differences. As the authors
point out, humans appear to share with dogs, baboons, wolves,
and killer whales an instinctive ability to distinguish
their own group from outsiders. Three-year old children
sort people by race without being taught to. Therefore,
every human population that ever had contact with foreigners
seems to have noticed racial differences, and most did not
like funny-looking strangers.
wanted blacks out.
Egyptian tomb paintings
clearly differentiate four racial groups: Egyptians, Asiatic
Semites, Caucasians, and sub-Saharan Africans. Nor are these
simple depictions of physical characteristics to which the
Egyptians were indifferent. The Twelfth Dynasty Pharaoh
Sesostris III (c. 18871849 BC) wrote that blacks were
dishonorable cowards, poor and faint-hearted.
He even erected a stele at the southern boundary of Lower
Egypt which still reads: No negro shall cross this
boundary by water or by land, by ship or with his flocks,
save for the purpose of trade or to make purchases in some
The Indo-European conquerors
of India were light-skinned people who despised their dark-skinned
subjects. The authors note that Ancient Vedic texts describing
the wars of 1500 to 900 BC record how the Aryans stormed
the ancient cities of the hated broad-nosed Dasas, the dark-skinned
worshippers of the phallus. The word Dasa originally
meant enemy, then came to mean dark-faced,
and finally slave. The invaders established
the caste system, the most elaborate anti-miscegenation
program ever put into practice. The Sanscrit word for caste,
varna, also means color.
Arabs launched the earliest
slaving missions across the Sahara, and quickly noted racial
differences. The Baghdad historian Abu-al-Hasan Masudi
(d. 956) offered a detailed and accurate physical description
of blacks, to which he added that they had long penises
and were given to merriment. He attributed their cheerfulness
to defective brains.
The jurist Said al-Andalusi
(1029-1070) wrote that blacks lack self-control and
steadiness of mind and are overcome by fickleness, foolishness
and ignorance. He called them rabble savages,
scum, and barely human. He didnt care
much for the people to the north either, of whom he wrote:
are therefore frigid, their humors raw, their bellies gross,
their color pale, their hair long and lank. Thus they lack
keenness of understanding and clarity of intelligence, and
are overcome by ignorance and dullness, lack of discernment,
and stupidity. Such are the Slavs, the Bulgars, and their
like them either.
The 13th century Persian
writer Nasir al-Din Tusi thought blacks were animals that
walk on two legs: Many have observed that the ape
is more teachable and more intelligent than the Zanj [blacks].
He, too, found them carefree and highly sexed. The greatest
of all Arab historians, Ibn Khaldun (13321406), wrote:
The only people who accept slavery are the negroes,
owing to their low degree of humanity and their proximity
to the animal stage.
Among the Arabs, people
of any race could be enslaved, but blacks were associated
with the most degrading servitude. White slaves were called
mamluk, which means owned. Black slaves
were abd, which eventually came to mean any
black, slave or free. In The Arabian Nights, blacks
are almost always shown as slaves or doing menial jobs,
and they have prodigious sexual appetites. No ancient group
that encountered blacks seems to have liked them. Romans
made fun of them, calling them sima or monkey-like.
Greek and Roman art works
that depict blacks and whites together sometimes show blacks
with larger penises, often erect. Herodotus noted the physical
characteristics of blacks, especially their wooly
hair, and Hippocrates speculated that generations of exposure
to the sun had burned them black. The ancients realized
that racial characteristics were permanent. Jeremiah, for
example, asks rhetorically, Can the Ethiopian change
his skin, or the leopard his spots?
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele
note that the Chinese made fun of Caucasians, whom they
thought odd-looking, but do not mention that Japanese did
the same, inventing a series of barbarian words
to describe them, such as red-haired barbarian
and blue-eyed barbarian.
One of the books most
interesting examples of the universal human instinct to
characterize people comes from the Kalahari Bushmen. Their
DNA is now known to class them with other sub-Saharan Africans,
but for many years, anthropologists thought they were related
to Asians because of their yellowish color, hooded eyes,
and other traits. The Bushmen distinguish themselves not
only from whites but also from neighboring blacks. They
have one word for edible animals and another for inedible
animalswhich includes all other human groups. They
use zhu or human exclusively for themselves.
That is, they did until they met Asian anthropologists,
whom they immediately called zhu because they thought
they looked like Bushmen.
The Age of Exploration did
not lead whites to any new racial categorizations to justify
oppression. Instead, Europeans resisted emerging
racial theories that emphasized qualitative differences
between the races. Some scholars, for example, wondered
if the newly-discovered people of the New World were pre-Adamite,
that is, primitives who predated the creation of man. A
serious debate within the Catholic church about the nature
of American Indians concluded with a 1537 decree by Pope
Paul III, officially declaring them fully human and endowed
with souls. A finding that they were pre-Adamites would
have made it easy to justify slavery or extermination. Civil
authorities also declined to accept the view that indigenous
peoples were qualitatively different from Europeans and
therefore worthy of oppression.
Among the zhu.
Likewise, the monogenesis/polygenesis
debates of the 18th and 19th centuries could have offered
support for slavery but were rejected. Polygenists argued
that the races were so different they could not have evolved
from Adam during the 4,000 or so years recorded in the Bible.
A theory of separate origins or creations for the different
races might have justified slavery, but Americans preferred
the Biblical account of common creation and descent.
So much for the silly notion
that no one noticed race until white men tried to cook up
excuses for colonization and slavery. Europeans and Americans
reacted to race as all people do.
Furthermore, as the authors
point out, it was almost universally accepted well into
the 20th century not only that race was real but that races
were unequal. For example, the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica explains that the mental constitution of
the negro is very similar to that of a child, normally good-natured
and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion and
passion during which he is capable of performing acts of
singular atrocity . . . . and adds that, after
puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negros
life and thoughts.
It was largely the rise
of the Franz Boaz school of anthropology that successfully
substituted culture for biology as the primary
force that differentiates human groups. The authors point
out that the early Boaz school was composed of people who
felt estranged from established American traditions and
wanted to undermine them. Boaz himself and many of his early
followers were Jews who felt their Jewishness keenly. Israel
Ehrenberg, for example, who rebaptized himself as Ashley
Montagu, wrote, If youre brought up as a Jew,
you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic . . . .
argument is not only wrong but hugely damaging.
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele
note that some of Boazs most famous gentile followers
were also at odds with American society: Margaret Mead was
bisexual and Ruth Benedict was lesbian. Thus, the
Boazians shared an out-group sensibility, a commitment to
a common viewpoint and a program to dominate the institutional
structure of anthropology. They succeeded brilliantly,
with considerable help from the revulsion for Hitler and
Nazism that swept America after the war.
Race also goes into
subsequent debates about the nature of man, in particular
the high-profile skirmishes between Montagu and Carleton
Coon, best known for painstaking anthropological work that
led him to believe that the races evolved independently
and represented different levels of evolution. A biological
understanding of human nature fell completely out of favor
until it was revived in the 1960s and later, by such people
as Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Richard
Herrnstein and Charles Murray.
Race Science Today
It is a curious irony that
although many people claim to disbelieve in race, society
goes on taking it for granted. As Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele
point out, no one has trouble telling one race from another,
and even in court cases, in which anything can be bitterly
contested, no one has ever argued that race is an illusion
or is meaningless. In fact, despite decades of litigation
over race, courts do not even have a definition for race
or a standard for determining it. They accept the common
sense view that race is evident to everyone.
Furthermore, this particular
illusion is proving to have very concrete uses.
Police can now easily test DNA samples to determine the
race and even the racial mix of a criminal. In Britain,
the Forensic Science Service uses DNA for what it calls
photofitting, that is to say, to come up with the best estimate
of the appearance of a criminal who has left behind a drop
of blood or a bit of skin. The British even look for such
things as the genetic markers associated with red hair.
Dog breeds vary
tremendously . . .
Race is likewise important
in medicine. Blacks, because of increasingly well-understood
physiological reasons, do not get nearly as much benefit
from standard hypertension drugs as whites, and studies
are now underway to develop drugs specifically for them.
Eskimos did not respond to early drugs for tuberculosis
because, unlike other racial groups, they metabolized the
medicine before it could act. Biological reality is beating
back ideologues who argue that race has no medical importance.
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele also describe clear racial
differences in athletic ability, relying heavily on Jon
Entines book on race and sports (reviewed in AR, Feb.
Three of the nine chapters
in Race recount the twists and turns along the scientific
trail that led to an understanding of when the various lineages
of man branched off from each other. This is interesting
history, but not germane. Much more significant is what
follows: an explanation of the scientific foundations of
Practically every discussion
of race and biology begins with Richard Lewontins
famous observation that if all human genetic variation is
given a value of 100, 85 percent of this variation is found
within races, and only 15 percent more variation is found
when different races are added to the mix. This was, indeed,
a surprising finding, but does not mean, as Prof. Lewontin
slyly implied, that whites are more similar to Asians, say,
than to other whites. Nor does it justify Prof. Lewontins
conclusion, that race is an empty category. What it means
is that the 15 percent that differentiates races is a very
important 15 percent.
The late Glayde Whitney
used to point out that humans and macaque monkeys have similar
genomes. If the total genetic diversity of humans plus
macaques were given an index of 100 percent, more than
half of that diversity would be found in the population
of Belfast alone. This does not mean that Irishmen are more
similar to macaques than to each other, only that there
is significant genetic variation within distinct populations
(AR, March 1997).
But are genetically
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele
draw a useful parallel between humans and dogs. Breeds of
dogs differ not only in appearance but in temperament and
intelligence. Yet, it is almost impossible to tell Great
Dane DNA from Pekinese DNA. The huge differences between
the breeds are accounted for by tiny genetic differences
barely detectable with modern analysis. As with human races,
small genetic differences account for very important physical
The authors note that observations
about differences in dog breeds are not controversial but
observations about humans are. Only after much difficulty
did one research team that had published about dogs manage
to publish about people. This was a study of behavior of
newborns that found interesting racial differences even
though the births were in the same hospital from women who
received the same pre-natal care. Chinese newborns went
to sleep in more or less any position in which they were
put down, while whites turned their heads to a more comfortable
position. White newborns cried more easily than Chinese
and were are harder to console. The most striking difference,
however, was in what is called defensive reaction.
This involves putting a cloth over a babys nose and
forcing it to breathe through its mouth. White and black
babies immediately turned their heads or tried to push the
cloth away, whereas Chinese babies lay quietly breathing
through their mouths. Navajo newborns have since been found
to behave like Chinese newborns, which is not surprising
given their lineage.
In nature, any animals that
were as different as human races would be different species.
Although the evidence now suggests races diverged only 50,000
years ago, their external physical differences are very
great. Animals that look as different as Arabs and Bantus
do not mate. There are species of gazelle that are so similar
they can be distinguished only by experts; they share the
same grazing grounds, but do not mix.
Comparisons with monkeys
underscore the significance of human races. A series of
measurements on skulls yields an index of difference from
one population to another. By this measure, human races
are as different from each other as are different species
of chimpanzee. In fact, a comparison of the most widely
divergent human groups, such as Norwegians and Australian
Aborigines finds physical differences as great as those
between chimpanzees and gorillas.
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele
do not fail to note the importance of these findings:
The amount of variation
that took approximately one million years to evolve in chimpanzees
took only 50,000 years to evolve in humans. This much
shorter time for the evolution of comparatively larger racial
differences must mean that these differences are more (not
less) significant, and that adaptation, not chance, is the
only mechanism capable of explaining this. (italics
in the original)
They continue: The
shorter the period of time required to produce a given amount
of morphological difference, the more selectively/adaptively/functionally
important those differences become.
Human races are very
strongly marked morphologically; human races are very young;
so much variation developing in so short a period of time
implies, indeed almost certainly requires, functionality;
there is no good reason to think that behavior should somehow
be exempt from this pattern of functional variability.
What this means is that
the rapidity with which human groups diverged strongly suggests
the divergence was not random genetic drift due to isolation
but was adaptation to real evolutionary pressure. Populations
do not become as different as Eskimos and Watusis by accident;
they are different because the differences are significant
and help them survive. And, as Race points out, physical
differences as striking as these are not likely to arise
without equally striking behavioral differences.
Intelligence is, of course,
one of the most crucial race differences, and Prof. Sarich
and Mr. Miele are not afraid to take it up. They review
the findings of racial differences in brain size, noting
that it has a 0.4 correlation with tested intelligence.
They point out that individuals can vary in brain size by
as much as 400 ccthe size of a chimpanzee brain. There
are races that differ in average brain size by 300 cc, and
show corresponding differences in average intelligence.
Some human groups
are physically . . .
Some have argued that there
cannot be racial differences in intelligence because it
is a crucial aspect of humanity to which all groups would
have devoted equal evolutionary effort. This is silly. The
authors point out that in terms of metabolic cost, brain
tissue is very expensive, so brains would have grown only
as a result of tradeoffs with maturation time, size of the
birth canal, diversion of blood supply away from other organs,
and a host of other factors. It would have been astonishing
if all these tradeoffs had turned out identically in populations
that show so many other differences. Evolution in brain
sizeand intelligencehas been very rapid, and
was possible only because there is so much variation in
these traits. There is variation not just between individuals
but between races.
Any thorough racial comparison
of IQ runs up against the finding that sub-Saharan Africans
have an average of 75. Is the continent really populated
by the retarded? Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele point out that
in white populations, an IQ this low is usually only one
of several serious defects that leave a person incapable
of leading a normal life. However, among Africans, IQs of
70 or even lower are simply the result of normal distribution,
and can be found among people who are otherwise normal.
An IQ of 75 is, as Race
points out, the mental equivalent of a 12-year-old. Twelve-year-olds
can drive cars and some can even fix them. Twelve-year-olds
can do arithmetic and follow reasonably complex instructions.
What they cannot do is run a modern society. As the authors
point out, an intelligent population can tolerate a certain
number of low-IQ people, but once they reach a certain proportion,
the quality and texture of life change completely. This
is what we find in many Third-World countries and in those
parts of the United States where blacks or Hispanics are
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele
point out that race is not only a valid category for grouping
differing populations; it is a focus of loyalty. They note
that people of all races prefer the company of people like
themselves, vote for co-racialists, and are more generous
with people of their own group. What, then, are we to make
of race once it is accepted as a significant biological
and social reality?
. . . as dissimilar
as chimps and gorillas.
Race offers three
choices: meritocracy, continued leveling through race preferences,
and separation into ethnostates. The authors support meritocracy:
They want an end to all legal and administrative consideration
of race, with employers and colleges free to make decisions
strictly on merit. Presumably they support repeal of all
anti-discrimination laws, which would leave businesses free
to choose their customers and home-owners their neighbors.
This book says nothing about immigration, but a meritocratic
approach presumably means restrictions based (only) on ability.
What about ethnostates?
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele recognize that they provide the
best sense of community and offer a social fabric in which
people are willing to be taxed to support fellow citizens.
They even realize that they are the only way to maintain
real, world-wide diversity. They list several objectionsthat
separating out the less able races leaves them poor, that
a homogenous society is less adaptable to changing conditions,
that maintaining homogeneity requires social controls, and
that ethno-states are more likely to make war on each othernone
of which is very significant.
It is unfortunate for the
less able races if separation leaves them less well off,
but is it any less unfortunate for the more able races to
be saddled with low-IQ, high crime populations to support?
No race has a right to charity from another. Likewise, it
would be hard to think of challenges the Japanese or the
Icelanders are unable to face because of homogeneity. How
would large numbers of Mexicans or Filipinos better prepare
them for changing conditions? At the same time, homogeneous
societies need fewer internal controls than diverse
societies because the government need not police the inevitable
inter-ethnic conflicts. The controls are at the border,
and do not effect citizens. As for the likelihood of war,
diversity within borders causes much more bloodshed than
homogeneity. A UN study of the years 1989 to 1992 found
82 conflicts that resulted in 1,000 or more deaths. Of this
number, no fewer than 79 involved ethnic or religious antagonists,
and took place within the borders of single nations.
Only three were cross-border conflicts.
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele
are remarkable to have considered separation as an option
at all, much less to have listed its advantages and disadvantages.
Most commentators do not even consider it an option, or
reject it out of hand. Of course, separation is not merely
a logically possible reaction to the reality of race; it
is the necessary reaction if whites are to survive as a
distinct people with a culture of their own.
their average IQ?
The race-is-a-myth argument
is not only wrong but hugely damaging. It promotes the fantasy
that no population should resist replacement by another,
since it is really being replaced by itself. It suggests
that miscegenation is a myth, so no one need be concerned
about whom their children marry. In practical terms, these
misconceptions hurt whites far more than anyone else. It
is almost exclusively whites who are being replaced by aliens,
and it is whites who are failing to reproduce themselves
and whose numbers are most dangerously thinned by miscegenation.
The most significant and insidious effect of the current
foolishness about race is to encourage whites to resign
themselves to dispossession and oblivion.
This book is a very important
contribution to the study of race. It covers the science
in accessible language, and presents unfashionable data
without flinching. It is an invaluable resource for the
defense of our race against ignorance and indifference.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
O Tempora, O Mores!
With the White Children
Last fall, for the first time,
non-whites outnumbered whites in Floridas public schools.
Whites were just 49.75 percent of the states 2.6 million
public school students, followed by blacks at 23.88 percent, Hispanics
at 21.7 percent, and Asians at 2.04 percent. Students who say
they are multiracial outnumbered Asians, at 2.34 percent. Florida
is the seventh state to see its public school student body go
majority non-white, after Hawaii (80 percent non-white), New Mexico
(66 percent), California (65 percent), Texas (59 percent), Mississippi
(53 percent), and Louisiana (51 percent). Public schools in the
District of Columbia are 95 percent non-white. Hispanics, whose
enrollment increased by more than 500,000 since 1977, are driving
whites out; now one in six white students in Florida attends private
school. [Letitia Stein, Minorities Reach Majority in State Schools,
St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 27, 2004, p. 1A.]
With the White Men
When he ran for Brooklyn Borough
President in 2002, Marty Markowitz promised that if he were elected,
he would remove the portraits of the old white guyslike
George Washingtonthat hung in the Brooklyn Borough Hall.
Theres not one picture of a person of color, not one
kid, not one Latino in Borough Hall, he said. Mr. Markowitz
has kept his promise. Although he let Washington stay, he replaced
every other portrait with works by contemporary black artists.
We are always celebrating the diversity of Brooklyn,
One celebration of diversity is
an unflattering image of the Pope, mocking him for his apology
for the churchs role in the slave trade. Another, called
Sweet Thing, features a voluptuous woman with inviting
hips [and] enticing thighs. Danny Simmons, the black man
in charge of the new paintings, says art like Sweet Thing
goes a long way toward making Borough Hall more inclusive.
[Gersh Kuntzman, Brooklyn Finally Shows Its True Colors in Borough
Hall, New York Post, Feb. 12, 2004, p. 31.]
Sauce for the Gander
In February, the College Republicans
at Roger Williams College in Bristol, Rhode Island, caused a furor
when their president, Jason Mattera, announced a $250 whites-only
scholarship. Mr. Mattera, who is Puerto Rican, got a $5,000 scholarship
from the Hispanic College Fund that gave him, he says, an
inherent advantage over my white peers. He thinks scholarships
should reward merit, not race, and offered the whites-only scholarship
as a protest. The school administration denounced Mr. Mattera,
as did state and national GOP leaders. [Jennifer Syles, Whites-Only
Scholarship Generates Controversy, CNN, Feb. 20, 2004.]
There was, of course, no outrage
when the Goizueta Foundation, (established by Robert Goizueta,
the late former president of Coca-Cola) awarded a $500,000 grant
to Reinhardt College, a small liberal-arts college in north Georgia,
for Hispanics-only scholarships. [$500 Mil Dolares en Becas Para
Latinos ($500,000 in Grants for Latinos), Atlanta Latino, Jan.
29Feb. 4, 2004, p. 12.]
Nashville, Tennessee, will soon
get 400 Somali Bantu, its share of the 13,000 sponsored by the
US Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). ORR and World Relief,
an agency the feds hired to help settle the newcomers, held a
conference in Nashville in January to teach people what to expect
from primitives who have never seen electricity or indoor plumbing.
ORR plans similar sessions in other US cities. [Anita Wadwhani,
Conference to Guide Social Workers as Bantu Refugees Arrive in
Midstate, The Tennessean (Nashville), Jan. 11, 2004.]
Nashville is already dealing with
a wave of Hispanics, who are socially isolated because
they are poor and cant speak English. As usual, the local
papers say this is the fault of native Nashvillians who must learn
about and appreciate the traditions of the foreign born.
They should also pay for a new bureaucracy to pull together
all the existing services for immigrants and then identify unmet
needs. [Making Nashville a More Diversity-Friendly City,
City Paper (Nashville), Jan. 12, 2004, p. 3.]
Nashvillians are also supposed
to learn Spanish. Ken Darby is personnel manager for Commercial
Painting, which has a 20-percent Hispanic workforce. He offers
English courses for the Mexicans, but also tried to get Americans
to study Spanish. He ran into a barrier of healthy sentiment.
It didnt seem to work, says the poor, baffled
Mr. Darby. Americans have a more narrow-minded attitude
of, This is America and we speak English so they should
speak English. [Jared Porter, ProLingua Works to Break
Down Language Barriers on the Job, Green Hills News (Tennessee),
Feb. 5, 2004, p. 22.]
Despite recent efforts to shake
up its prime-time lineup, cable news channel MSNBC continues to
lag well behind rivals CNN and Fox News. Needless to say, some
people claim the problem is too many news shows with white hosts
and white guests that ignore the nations 90 million non-whites.
A significant portion of the American population simply
is not tuning in because theres nothing of interest for
them there, says Sam Riddle, of Al Sharptons National
Action Network. Curtis Symonds, a black programming consultant,
says programmers need to take the blinders off and realize
theres a huge crossover in multicultural audiences.
[With New Chief on Board, MSNBC Needs an Identity, Reuters/Hollywood
Reporter, Feb. 23, 2004.]
The cable network Showtime is
working on a new reality program. In Make Me Cool, modeled
on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a gang of blacks will
give a desperately dweebie white guy a hipness
makeover. The joke version of the title among those developing
the program is Black Eye for the White Guy. Theres
something in the culture right now that there are parts of black
culture that everyone wants to aspire to, says Showtime
executive producer Jay Blumenfield. We want to explore that.
We want to face racial stereotypes head on and say, What
is this? Why is this? Explaining why the network had
chosen whites, Mr. Blumenfield said, The first people will
be uncool, and the easiest way to express that is theyll
be white. The program will not just change the way whites
look; this is about immersing them in a whole new culture.
[Phil Kloer, Black Eye for the White Guy? Atlanta Journal-Consititution,
Feb. 20, 2004.]
In December 2003, federal immigration
agents arrested a dozen or so illegal aliens in Portland, Maine.
In January, at a meeting at Portlands city hall, assistant
US Attorney for Maine Halsey Frank had to justify the arrests
to an angry crowd of immigrants, social activists, and politiciansincluding
the mayor. The locals accused the feds of racial profiling because
they caught some of the illegals outside social service agencies
and other places that attract non-whites. Mr. Franks explanation
that the federal government has an obligation to enforce immigration
laws was poorly received.
To us, this is clear violation
of civil rights, complained Winston McGill of the Portland
NAACP. We do feel this was based on color. Ben Guiliani,
president of El Centro Latino, denied the government had probable
cause to question people and make arrests. I can tell you
the border patrol is not raiding Irish pubs in Boston, he
said. Probable cause is what? Being brown? Others
said immigrants were afraid to leave their homes for fear of border
patrol agents. The Rev. Mutima Peter of the International Christian
Fellowship Church said the arrests were like the police-state
brutality that led many immigrants to leave home in the first
place. Mayor Nathan Smith said the city will continue to enforce
a local ordinance that forbids city officials and police officers
from questioning a persons immigrant status. [Justin Ellis,
City Reaches Out to Immigrants, Portland Press Herald, Jan. 7,
The Institute of Medicine, a division
of the National Academy of Sciences, says not enough non-whites
are entering medicine. Only two percent of registered nurses,
3.4 percent of psychologists, and 3.5 percent of doctors are Hispanic,
and only five percent of doctors and dentists are black. There
are hardly any American Indian doctors, though nearly 20 percent
of medical school graduates are Asian. The Institute of Medicine
says medical schools should slant their admissions towards non-whites,
and put more non-whites on admissions committees. They also want
Congress to pay for diversity programs, and for state
and local governments to reimburse tuition, and forgive student
loans for non-white medical students. [Minorities Few in Health
Fields, AP, Feb. 6, 2004.]
the Little Children
Congolese child witches.
Congolese are superstitious. Fighters
on all sides in the five-year-old civil war believe that eating
their enemies gives them special powers. Now, fear of child witches
is sweeping the country. Parents accuse children of witchcraft
when crops fail, if they lose jobs, or anything else goes wrong.
A child may also be accused of being a witch if he playfully speaks
to an animal or a tree, or just has a nightmare. Medicine men
make suspected witches vomit out the evil spirits by forcing them
to swallow gasoline, bitter herbs, and even small fish. One family
tried to purify an 11-year-old girl by pouring acid over her and
trying to make her drink it. They thought she had bewitched her
half brother and made him sick.
If the exorcism fails and the
problem isnt solved, families turn the children out. UNICEF
says more than 40,000 children wander the streets of Kinshasa,
and at least 60 percent of them are accused witches. Many fall
in with street gangs that steal and scrounge for food. Girls as
young as five work as prostitutes. Some of the older children
are violent. Recently a gang of children ambushed and killed four
policemen armed with automatic rifles. [C.J. Maloney, Suffer the
Children, The Independent (Southern California), Feb. 19, 2004,
p. 20. Sudarsan Raghavan, Congo Children Suffering Accusations
of Witchcraft, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 3, 2003.]
Border patrols in both the US
and Canada have noticed an increase in human smuggling across
the border, and are trying to stop it. On February 22, authorities
nabbed 11 South Koreans who hoped to walk across the Alberta-Montana
border. Six were women. Korean women are known to pay from $6,000
to $10,000 to smugglers, and often end up working as prostitutes
to pay off the debt. Many Korean illegals enter from Canada because
they can get there without a visa. Better enforcement along the
Western border means smugglers have to look for less well-guarded
crossings in the Canadian interior. [Linda Slobodian, Human Smuggling
Ring Smashed at US-Alberta Border, Calgary Herald, Feb. 24, 2004.]
When the British government conducted
the national census in 2001, the English, Scots and Welsh could
not indicate their national identities in the same
way as Indians, Bangladeshis, Africans, and the Irish, and were
identified only as white. The Office of National Statistics
received much criticism for this; Theres a growing
interest in how people perceive themselves nationally says
a spokesman. Now, when Britons fill out government forms, surveys
and job applications, they can describe themselves as white
English or Afro-Caribbean Scottish.
Whites may find the new classifications
a double-edged sword. They may promote national consciousness,
but government race-minders will also use them to stamp out racism
among whites. Employers in Britain must promote racial equality,
so a Scottish company employing only Scots could be violating
race relations laws. In 2002, rugby commentator Mark Souster,
who is English, sued the BBC for discrimination after he was replaced
as BBC Scotland rugby correspondent by a Scot. [John Elliot and
David Robertson, English, Scots and Welsh are now Officially Ethnic,
Sunday Times (London), Jan. 11, 2004, p. 7.]
According to British language
expert David Graddol, English is unlikely to become the global
language after all. He predicts a multilingual future, with English
first among equals but no longer dominant. After Chinese,
English is the second-most-spoken language, but he thinks Hindi-Urdu
and Arabic will surpass it by 2050, as the percentage of native
English speakers drops from its 1950 high of nine percent to five
percent. As the prominence of English declines, he says, Monolingual
speakers of any variety of EnglishAmerican or Britishwill
experience increasing difficulty in employment and political life,
and are likely to become bewildered by many aspects of society
and culture around them. Already 20 percent of people in
the United States speak a language other than English at home.
[English Language Unlikely to be Dominant, Expert Says, AP, Feb.
Although three fourths of Britains
60 million people claim to be Christian, only 916,000 attend weekly
Church of England services. By contrast, 930,000 of 1.8 million
British Muslims go to mosque at least once a week. This marks
the first time Muslim attendance has outstripped Anglican. Muslim
leaders say the numbers mean Muslims should now share some of
the Church of Englands privileges as an established religion.
These include tax breaks and the right of senior bishops to sit
in Parliament. [Nicholas Hallen and Christopher Morgan, Muslim
Piety Outstrips Anglican, Sunday Times (London), Jan. 25, 2004,
soon to be a mosque?
Islam already gets preferential
treatment from British radio and television, according to Lord
Dubs, the retiring head of Britains Broadcasting Standards
Commission (BSC). In portraying Muslims, he says,
they have held back, they have censored themselves, they
are timid. I have seen them pour scorn on Christianity more than
on other religions. Christianity is an easier and more acceptable
targetfollowed, to a lesser extent, by Jews and Hindus.
Lord Dubs also says the BSC itself has been biased in favor of
The Right Rev. Richard Holloway,
also a BSC member, notes that someone once said Jesus f******
Christ on a program aired on Britains Channel 4. He
says the program would not have been broadcast with a slur against
the prophet Muhammed. There is much more sensitivity to
disturbing Islam, he explains. It is partly because
the Muslim community does not have a tradition of humour about
religion. [Nicholas Hallen, TV Chiefs Favor Muslims, Says
Watchdog, Sunday Times (London), Dec. 28, 2003.]
Good to Us
Vernon Robinson is a black man
running for the Republican nomination in the 5th Congressional
District of North Carolina. He is an Air Force Academy graduate,
has an MBA, has been a business professor, and was elected twice
to the Winston-Salem city council. According to his campaign literature:
Mr. Robinson is pro-life,
pro-gun, and pro-Ten Commandments. Hes led the fight against
wasteful spending, racial quotas, and special rights for homosexuals.
And hes led the charge to create jobs by eliminating excessive
taxation, regulation, litigation, and illegal immigration.
Among his enemies are what he
calls the race hustling poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson
and Al Sharpton. He boasts that the local paper calls him
the black Jesse Helms, and indeed Sen. Helms has endorsed
him, as have Rep. Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan. He sounds better
than a lot of whites. [Campaign Flyer, Robinson for Congress.]
On any given morning, as many
as 300 mostly Mexican and Guatemalan men line up along Center
Street in Jupiter, Florida, waiting for someone to stop and offer
them jobs. Most are illegals, who will work for $5 to $10 an hour.
The men live in squalid apartments on the south side of Center
Street, sometimes as many as 10 to a one-bedroom apartment. Whites
live on the north side of Center Street in upscale houses, and
many arent happy with their new neighbors.
My kids dont ride
their bikes on Center Street anymore, and they dont take
the school bus, says Sherrie Stevenson. There are
so many of those men, and its dark when the bus comes in
the morning. Its too scary.
According to Jupiter police, the
men are often guilty of minor nuisance crimes. The main
problems, says Officer Freddy Almodovar, are that
the day laborers block the sidewalks, leave trash around, sometimes
they catcall girls. Because they live in small apartments,
they produce a lot of trash, make noise, and urinate in public
because somebody else is in the bathroom. He admits
this is unpleasant for nearby homeowners, but adds, some
of those same people with the nice houses come here to get guys
to cut their lawns. You cant have it both ways.
Assistant town manager Andy Lucasik
says Jupiter needs a lot of low-wage labor, but has almost no
low-income housing. We have a large number of gated communities
that have a great need for landscaping. We have golf courses and
construction projects, he explains. They all use workers
like those who live in those apartment complexes. The city
is thinking about an ordinance to limit the number of people who
may live in an apartment, but fears this could force the men out
on the street. As for loitering, the city may build a labor
bazaar on city property where men could look for work.
The laborers say that would be
fine with them, but they worry about the proposed housing ordinance.
They havent come to check our apartments, but some
people are saying we might get deported, says Jose, 48,
an illegal from Guatemala. Ill tell you this, the
people around here need us. If they hire an American to do these
jobs it will cost them $200 per day, and well do it for
$80 or even $60. [John Lantigua, Suburbanites, Day Laborers
at Odds in Jupiter, Palm Beach Post, Feb. 16, 2004, p. 1A.]
Dec. 29, AR started a sponsored links ad campaign
to promote AR when people did Google searches on terms like
race and IQ, race and intelligence,
black crime, etc. The results of a search on
these expressions would include a small ad for the American
Renaissance conference, with a link to our site. The
campaign was useful: in three weeks, our ad came up 35,142
times, and 192 people clicked on it and came to our site.
We paid five cents for every click.
On Jan. 21, Google stopped
our campaign, saying our website contained language
that advocates against an individual, group, or organization.
Google also told us it did not allow anyone to buy sponsored
links for the terms race and IQ, innate
race differences, anti-white, racialism,
and others, also on the grounds that this language advocated
against an individual, group, or organization. They let
our ads run for three weeks only because they hadnt
gotten around to looking at them.
I asked Google to explain
its decision, pointing out that many websites that advocate
against an individual, group, or organization buy sponsored
links. Conservative websites that advocate against liberals
and liberal websites that advocate against conservatives
buy sponsored links. Besides, I noted, Google searches on
American Renaissance and Jared Taylor
bring up an ad for a book called Homeland: Into a World
of Hate. Clearly, this ad was advocacy against Jared
Taylor and AR readers.
Google replied with a cheery
Hello Ian, explaining that it has been
determined by the AdWords editorial staff that the American
Renaissance website contains content that portrays images
of particular groups of individuals, some of which are negative.
As a business, my correspondent continued, Google
must make decisions about where we draw the line in regards
to the advertising we accept, both from a legal and company
values perspective. He assured me that Google
believes strongly in freedom of speech. Furthermore,
only our ads were affected: normal search results for American
Renaissance were not filtered. Google promised to
review the ad for Homeland, but it is still running.
What Google said about the
normal search results was not entirely true. There is no
filtering in the American version of Google. However, AR
is one of many websites the French and German versions of
Google will not list. Google is not to blame for these exclusions:
Under the anti-racism laws of both these countries
(see AR, Mar. 2001), it could be illegal for Google to list
• BACK TO TOP • •
| L E T T E R S
F R O M R E A D E R S
SirI refer to conditions
in post-colonial Africa as described in the review of Paul Therouxs
Dark Star Safari: Overland from Cairo to Cape Town (Dec.
2003). Unfortunately, parts of Australia seem to be going the
Roughly 50 percent of Australias
Northern Territory, an area roughly the size of Texas, has been
handed over to the 50,000 Aborigines who live there. This should
have put them on easy street but many, if not most, are going
backwards. What had been hard-working cattle stations are now
often devoid of stock. The people are poor, and unemployment rates
of 90 percent are not uncommon. Literacy levels are well behind
the rest of the country, and crime rates are climbing.
During the 1990s, the homicide
rate in the Territory went over 16 per 100,000 people. For a short
time this was sharply reduced because of mandatory sentencing
legislation under which anyone convicted three times automatically
went to prison, regardless of the seriousness of the crime. Virtually
all those incarcerated under this policy were Aborigines, so there
were the usual complaints about racism. The government took a
lot of criticism about this, and things came to a head when an
Aboriginal imprisoned under the policy committed suicide.
There was a change in government
and the legislation was repealed. Within two years the homicide
rate in the Territory more than tripled. At the same time, the
homicide rate for Australian girls under 10 years of age rose
by 110 percenta sickening example of how anti-racist
R. Hughes, Strathfield, NSW, Australia
SirI was surprised your
articles on competitive altruism (Oct. and Nov. 2003) did not
cite the potlatch feasts celebrated by the Indians of northwestern
coastal America. The American Heritage Dictionary defines
a potlach feast as a ceremonial feast . . . at the end of
which the host gives valuable material goods to the guests who
belong to other kin groups . . . to show he can afford to do so.
The US government finally stepped in because the over-competitive
potlach Indians were giving themselves into penury.
Kenneth Schmidt, Muskegon, Mich.
SirYour sexism is outrageous!
How dare you claim careers are unnecessary for educated,
smart white women ( Fruits of an Unfettered Mind,
previous issue). Furthermore, no one should have children he doesnt
want. Anyone who has to be pressured or encouraged to be a parent
will not be a good one. We dont owe society children.
And lastly, men are just as responsible for child rearing and
housekeeping as women. I dont buy your nonsense that women
are inherently better at child rearingthats just an
excuse to hold them back. If they are, why do so many women turn
to Benjamin Spock and John Rosemond for help?
Anonymous, Atlanta, Ga.
SirWhile living in Mexico
City from 1994 to early 1997, I was sometimes taken for a native
speaker of Spanish. I learned it living in Madrid. I traveled
all over the country, and met people from the bottom to the top
of Mexican society.
I would like to see all illegal
aliens deported and our borders closed by whatever means necessary.
Mexico, however, is a special case. It is unstable, and if it
did not have the escape valve of emigration to and remittances
from the US, it would explode into chaos and anarchy from which
we could not insulate ourselvessomething far worse than
the problems we have now. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Mexico.
A strongly-regulated guest worker
program, just for Mexicans, coupled with deportation of all other
illegals and strict border controls is the only combination that
Thomas Oleson, Gig Harbor, Wash.
SirI greatly enjoyed last
months article about Hispanic family values. The only criticism
I have is that the writer should have made it clear which Hispanics
he was writing about from a racial point of view. Some Hispanics
are, of course, white.
Some of the problems Hispanics
have are clearly rooted in biology. High rates of alcoholism are
found among those groups that are essentially Native American.
Some non-European groups are unable to metabolize alcohol as Europeans
do, and alcohol is essentially a poison to them. Spaniards and
Argentines, on the other hand, do not suffer from particularly
high rates of alcoholism.
Frank Pucillo, Davie, Fla.
• BACK TO TOP • •