Nationalist Politics in America
A primer for white activists.
by George Halstead
e read with increasing interest of the successes in Europe of “far right” immigration-control parties in Austria, Belgium, France, Denmark, Holland, and even in Britain. How could we achieve similar results in the United States?
The most recent European nationalist gains are largely a reaction to increasing anger over Third-World immigration and Muslim terrorism. Since we have these problems in America, why aren’t we seeing nationalist politics here? Americans are supposed to be politically savvy; we send political consultants all over the world. The events of September 11th clearly create an opening for politicians and parties smart enough to use them. What are the techniques and strategies that would work for us?
There are three different ways to send a racial message to politicians: 1) Build racial/traditionalist blocs within the two main parties. 2) Develop new kinds of political action committees to spread racialist ideas and support candidates who advance them. 3) Build a racialist third party from one of the existing small conservative parties. These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and would have the greatest effect if they were all adopted at the same time.
It is all very well to pretend to be above politics, to insist on ideological purity, to spin out theories about the perfect nationalist state, or to dream about some future “racialist revolution,” but this is laziness and self-indulgence. Political change follows well-established rules, and until racialists learn to apply those rules to achieve their goals, they are nothing more than complainers and hobbyists.
Within the Parties
Some parties are obviously more useful for our movement than others, but let us first examine what appear to be the least promising potential supporters: liberals and Democrats. Certainly the left is anti-white, and filled with activists—many of them white—who appear to look forward to the day when whites cease to exist. Still, there is a remnant of white Democrats and honest liberals who are uneasy about this. They may try to bury their racial consciousness or may be unable to articulate why it is proper to have one. Some, unfortunately, may think they have no home for their pro-white views because they don’t like the political issues on the right. (See AR, April 2000 for an extended elaboration on this argument.) This kind of thinking can change.
Democratic support for a white nationalist could come from white union members, for example. While most of the AFL-CIO union leadership, like John Sweeney, peddle an anti-white program, the dues-paying members are not buying it. They oppose mass immigration, and are often the people who suffer most from school integration and changing neighborhoods.
Other potential supporters traditionally aligned with the left are hiding in the environmentalist movement, which is overwhelmingly white. Like the unions, rank-and-file environmentalists oppose immigration, despite what their leaders say. Groups like Sierrans for US Population Stabilization, the Carrying Capacity Network, Comprehensive US Sustainable Population, and Population-Environment Balance oppose immigration because it drives up the population, produces sprawl and congestion, and strains our parks and natural resources. They make no openly racialist arguments, but our goals are the same, and we should work together.
It is true that the Democratic Party has only limited potential for nationalist candidates. However, as the party dissolves into something like an ethnic spoils system for non-whites, a considerable number of white liberals may find themselves without a home. Already, the Democrats choose their convention delegates by racial quota.
This may help explain the stream of whites leaving the Democrats for the Green Party. The Greens are almost exclusively white, and no amount of “outreach” will change this. Only whites seem to care much about recycling, overpopulation, or “saving the whales,” and the Greens are not likely to offer better goodies to non-whites then the Democrats.
Admittedly, the number of white Democrats and liberals with an incipient racial consciousness is small, but racialists must learn that politics is about building coalitions. Sometimes you need to work with unlikely groups to defeat a common foe. It is, for example, an odd coalition of conservative Democrats and pro-gun Republicans that has stopped gun control. As white racial consciousness spreads, support and even promising candidates could emerge from unlikely quarters, and this may prove to be more the rule than the exception.
White nationalists must therefore be prepared for unlikely alliances. There is a lesson to be learned from the late, charismatic and openly homosexual Dutch nationalist Pim Fortuyn. Highly critical of Islamic immigration into the Netherlands, Fortuyn attracted a large following and was ultimately assassinated by an animal rights activist. Fortuyn appears to have thought Third-World immigration should stop, not because the immigrants are non-white but because they cannot assimilate to his lefty, libertine way of thinking. (Fortuyn once said before a television audience, “Don’t talk to me about racism; I know more about Moroccan boys than anyone at this table.”) Most racialists strongly disapprove of pederasty, but Fortuyn was an ally on the question that matters most: keeping white countries white. Fortuyn’s candidacy, and the events of September 11th may cause some American homosexuals (and potentially influential ones) to reconsider their thinking on race.
Some white feminists have also awakened to the dangers of multiculturalism, which brings such things as female genital mutilation, polygamy, bride-snatching, and wide-spread contempt for women. Even the liberal columnist Bonnie Erbe advocates a more cautious approach to immigration. The very statistics on rape and wife-beating feminists love to trot out can be turned to our advantage, since the racial disproportions in these crimes are enormous. Our movement would gain greatly by teaching white women about the hugely lopsided problem of interracial rape and violence.
All these people—feminists, environmentalists, even homosexuals—are potential allies. Our movement should not tie itself to a single group or political party. Coalitions work when different groups concentrate on what they care about in common. Narrow-mindedness and excessive purity must not stop us from building coalitions.
Clearly, the Republican Party is the home of the largest number of potential supporters, but this is only the most obvious reason why potential racialist candidates should run as Republicans. Another reason is that if they run as Democrats they are likely be ignored. For example, Ralph Hall is a strong conservative Democratic congressman from Texas, but no one has ever heard of him. He is not exactly a racial nationalist, but he has a better voting record than any but the staunchest Republicans. The lefties and Greens can ignore him because liberals and minorities will always control the Democratic Party regardless of how many Ralph Halls or even George Wallaces win office. Mr. Hall will never get into the leadership, and he won’t change the Democrats’ positions on things.
An even better example of the Democrats’ ability to ignore outsiders is David Duke. In 1975 and again in 1979, Mr. Duke ran unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate as a Democrat, and was ignored. He caused a fuss only when he started running as a Republican (of course, winning a seat as a Republican in the state house in 1989 caused a huge fuss, and could not have been ignored even if he had run as Democrat).
On the other hand, it is not impossible that a white racialist Democrat may some day be elected, perhaps from a conservative white district. Special interest groups—and from a political point of view that is what we are—should not put all their eggs in one basket. We need all the allies we can get, and should look for them in all quarters. We should not despise “conservatives” because they have come only so far, bear grudges, or avoid tactical friendships with people with whom we disagree on other matters. We must encourage and applaud people for the useful things they are willing to do or say, rather than criticize them for the things they are not yet ready to do or say.
What would happen if a solid, attractive white nationalist ran for federal office as a Republican? It would be like setting off a neutron bomb. The media would swarm. The Bush people would scream he doesn’t represent the party.
Republicans are terrified of anyone who talks about immigration, affirmative action, welfare, or crime in explicitly racial terms because the base of the Republican Party is overwhelmingly white, and the GOP will do anything to prevent a racial appeal to that white base. When David Duke ran as a Republican, party bosses urged voters to back his Democrat opponent.
Even Lee Atwater, deputy campaign manager for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and campaign manager for George Bush in 1988, caused an uproar when he ran ads criticizing then-Governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis’s prisoner furloughs that allowed black convict Willie Horton to get out and rape and murder a white couple. Atwater went out of his way to act friendly to blacks, and talked up his interest in blues music, but was still demonized—though the resulting landslide victory in 1988 suggests racial appeals are effective.
Of course, a strategy of promoting racial issues that appeal to white voters would help the Republican Party tremendously, despite the fears of its timid leaders. As UPI columnist Steve Sailer has shown, increasing the white vote by only a few percentage points would give the Republican Party landslide results. A racially explicit appeal is like medicine a sick child refuses to take.
A racialist candidate without the baggage of a David Duke has a chance in a rock-solid district. Chicago’s Alan Spitz ran for Congress and even made an appeal for support at an AR conference, but his multi-ethnic Chicago district is not the best kind. The ideal district should be overwhelmingly white, and largely immune from establishment pressures.
How could a racialist campaign succeed? A small white state like Wyoming or North Dakota, each with a population of approximately 500,000, might be capable of electing a racialist or nationalist Republican to the Senate. This would certainly not be easy, but running a Senate campaign in Wyoming or North Dakota is a lot easier than running one in, say, New Jersey. It is almost like running a congressional campaign anywhere else because the numbers are small.
Wyoming is 92.1 percent white. In the 2000 Senate election, Republican Sen. Craig Thomas spent $762,833 versus $4,000 spent by the Democrat. Sen. Thomas received 152,622 votes and his opponent received 47,087. In short, a US Senate election was decided for under $1 million and by only 208,659 voters.
North Dakota is 92.4 percent white. The price of the 2000 Senate race was higher, but the total votes were still low. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) spent $2,312,543 for 176,470 votes. His Republican opponent spent $399,584 for 110,420 votes.
By contrast, in the 2000 race for Senate in New Jersey, Democrat Jon Corzine spent $63,209,506 for 1,511,237 votes. His Republican challenger Bob Franks spent $6,389,936 for 1,420,267 votes. Admittedly the Corzine expenditures—from the candidates own fortune—were abnormally high. The 1996 campaign was more normal. Democrat Bob Torecelli, spent $9,134,854 for 1,519,154 votes, while his opponent Dick Zimmer spent $8,238,181 for 1,227,351.
The value of electing a senator (as opposed to a congressman) from a smaller white state is that one Senator can bring that whole body to a halt, unlike in the House, which does not have the filibuster. Presumably, Republicans and Democrats could easily cobble together the 60 votes needed to shut off filibusters by this hypothetical hated senator from Wyoming or North Dakota. But what if this Republican man (or woman, like Australia’s Pauline Hanson) came with no anti-Semitic or KKK baggage, and were very hard-hitting and eloquent on issues like immigration and affirmative action? There might be a breakthrough both parties would have trouble containing.
There is a real fear in the establishment that racialist contagion could break out within the Republican Party in a way it never could in the Democratic Party.What if this hypothetical senator raised issues that appealed to voters from Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s largely white home state of Nebraska? Or Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s home state of Georgia? Or Republican Senator Trent Lott’s white Mississippi voters? It would be harder for these senators to vote against some of the issues our hypothetical senator raised. These senators would be under pressure back home, which might force them to stand with an open racialist, at least on some issues.
But even in the House of Representatives, a racial-realist congressman could be an effective force. Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo has proven to be a one-man dynamo on immigration reform since coming to Congress from Colorado in 1998. Mr. Tancredo has started the “Immigration Reform Caucus,” which has over 60 members. He has a page dedicated to immigration control on his own official House website: http://www.house.gov/tan credo/Immigration/.
Mr. Tancredo is also the lead sponsor of the “Mass Immigration Reduction Act,” or H.R. 2712, which abolishes dual citizenship and sets a five-year moratorium on immigration. After the moratorium, the President would have to show that immigration would not damage the environment, reduce wages, or strain public facilities like schools and hospitals. Mr. Tancredo has gone toe to toe with the Bush administration over immigration, and has constantly opposed attempts to amnesty illegals. The right man in Congress can make a lot of trouble.
The districts and states that are part of the Immigration Reform Caucus are the ones politically-oriented AR readers should think about. Largely white, these districts are probably immune from the daily effects of America’s crazy racial policies. High crime, mass Third-World immigration, bilingual-multicultural education, and affirmative action—all these things happen to other people in other places. Their top issues are likely to be local: education, roads, agriculture, etc. The War on Terrorism may have changed this only slightly.
If a candidate ran on local issues in such a district (while candidly acknowledging support for ending mass immigration and affirmative action) he might not suffer the same outrage or scrutiny as someone running in Manhattan. People in these white districts wouldn’t be sifting every speech for “code words.”
Once in Congress he could use his office to elevate racial issues just as Mr. Tancredo has done with immigration. Coming from a largely white district, he would not inspire the kind of voter backlash a politician in a “multicultural” district certainly would. If anything, a candidate from a safe district would be able to raise money from whites in districts that cannot field racialist politicians. He would become a fundraising darling, and could help other candidates. Jesse Helms, for example, raises considerable amounts of money from outside his district, and has supporters as far away as Hawaii.
Who is the ideal candidate? He should be middle-aged and mature—not just out of college. He should be married, and have established himself in a career or business. He should have no radical baggage, and he should have spent 20 years or so in the district. He should be a member of local civic groups like the Rotary Club, Lions Club, Knights of Columbus, the American Legion, etc. since they offer excellent community networks. (Tip O’Neill always said politicians should join these groups but not be leaders, because leaders get caught up in faction fights.)
The ideal candidate would be wealthy. Wealthy people know other wealthy people who are potential donors. He should be willing to spend a good chunk of his own money on the race, and be able to spend half his time fundraising. Money, of course, is a problem, but as the examples of campaign war chests in Wyoming and North Dakota show, the problem is not insurmountable. After the election the fun would begin.
Imagine a US senator holding a press conference on “The Crisis of the American IQ.” Or reading AR articles live on C-SPAN into the Congressional Record. Even if only two or three racialists were elected to Congress, they could start a White Congressional Caucus. Just one or two would cause plenty of headaches for the Beltway crowd. Most Americans are simply unaware of the issues that concern AR readers, so even if it started out small, a racialist group would have tremendous impact.
Republican leaders would try to get rid of these people, probably by running liberal primary challengers against them. However, if there were a healthy alternative conservative third party (see Part II, next issue), the targeted Republicans could threaten to bolt the GOP. Such a threat might forestall a primary challenge altogether. It would set up a difficult choice for the Republican leadership, who could either accept these mavericks in their party or risk seeing an emerging nationalist third party take away votes and politicians from their right.
Party-switching is nothing new, and when the balance of the House or Senate hangs by only a few seats, a small group of Republican congressman threatening to switch to a nationalist party would give party leaders a lot to think about. If any sitting congressman or senator actually did switch to a nationalist third party, it would give that party strong national recognition. Success builds on success, and having even just a few national office holders gives a party credibility.
Any racial-realist candidate would need outside groups for support. Money is always the biggest need, and candidates need large blocs of identified voters to whom they can direct appeals. Racialist politicians would also need firm moral support to keep them from being swayed—especially once they had tasted the pleasures of office.
This, of course, brings us to the intersection of politics and the ongoing culture wars. A political action committee (PAC) devoted to racial issues could fight the public relations battle while it helped good candidates in any party. Several current political action committees offer models for racial nationalists to consider. “Bundling” is a technique used by some of the most effective PACs, and racial-national activists could pool their money the same way.
Until recently, the most an individual could give to a political candidate per election was $1,000, a figure established in the early 1970s and long out of date because of inflation. The recent increase to $2,000 still does not approach the increase in the costs of campaigning, and even a PAC can give no more than $5,000 in its own name. These small amounts of money don’t buy influence. A candidate who has to raise several million dollars need not pay that much attention to a source that provides only a few thousand. A “bundler” works as a middleman to raise money nationally for one specific issue, and then drops large chunks of attention-getting money into the campaigns of candidates who support the issue.
Bundling does not increase the amount an individual can give a candidate. The bundler has to be careful not to channel more than $2,000 from a particular donor to any candidate, but any donor who gave, say, $10,000 could have his contribution split into separate “bundles” for five or more different candidates. The ideological leverage of that money is greatly increased when the bundler gathers many contributions into a substantial sum and delivers it with a very specific message. Candidates send nice thank-you letters to people who give $2,000; they do a lot more than that when they get $50,000.
Steven Moore’s Club for Growth (www.clubforgrowth.org) is a good example of a conservative bundler that supports only strong supply-siders. Its success is measured by the extent to which it is feared and loathed by establishment Republican leaders, which is considerable. The club may bundle $100,000 from individual donors and drop it on a candidate it likes. If that supply-side Republican makes it to office he will know who helped him get there, and if he ever goes wobbly on a tax cut or some other issue important to the Club of Growth, he will hear about it right away. The club also gets involved in funding primary campaigns for promising candidates, so anyone who doublecrosses the club knows he could face the unpleasantness of a hard-fought primary.
The club describes itself this way: “We combine your contribution with those of other Club members, greatly magnifying the impact of your contribution. In our first election in 2000, Club members and our political committee spent $2.4 million to help get our kind of candidates elected. Since then, our membership has tripled.”
A lefty bundler is EMILY’s List, which stands for “Early Money is Like Yeast” (it helps the “dough” rise). This group (www.emilyslist.org), which funnels money to pro-abortion-rights Democrats, actually pioneered the concept of bundling. “We are huge,” says Ellen R. Malcolm, president and founder of the group. “We are the biggest fundraiser of ‘hard money’ other than the parties in the country.” In 1999-2000 the group raised $18 million, which it spent exclusively on pro-abortion feminists. EMILY’s List doesn’t just make campaign contributions. It mobilizes 68,000 supporters, does more polling than the Democratic National Committee, runs TV ads for and against candidates, staffs campaigns, and provides strategic advice.
Needless to say, it is possible to run for Congress or even for state house on national rather than regional issues, and to try to raise money from the whole country rather than just your district. It is possible, but it is hard. It is much easier if a candidate has a group doing the work for him. EMILY’s List doesn’t waste time on wealthy donors who are not feminists, and it doesn’t waste time on candidates who are not feminists.
EMILY’s List and the Club for Growth raise money from rich donors, but bundling works with small donations, too. Michael Farris, who was the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor of Virginia in 1993, started the Madison Project (http://www.madison project.org/) in 1994 to support homeschooling. Donations of $5, $10, and $25 go to the Madison Project, which bundles them and drops substantial sums into the coffers of sympathetic candidates.
Bundling can make a real difference. Candidates spend an enormous amount of time meeting with men’s church breakfasts, at League of Women Voters debates, going to Knights of Columbus meetings, seeking the endorsement of police unions, analyzing poll results, going over direct mail content, mulling advertising buys, walking door-to-door in the district, pepping up volunteers at campaign headquarters, and countless other things. A hefty donation from a bundler means that much less time spent franticly raising money.
At the same time, a bundler saves ideologically committed donors the bother of scouring the country for candidates to support. Donors can drop large checks into the bundler’s account, confident the money will go to the cause. There may not be any candidates in the donor’s own district who pay attention to the issues he cares about, but if he is willing to go outside his district, the bundler can help, and by combining small donations can crack the ideological whip far more effectively than the scattered individuals from whom the money came originally.
In effect, bundling is a way to inject national issues into any local race. The National Rifle Association and the Israel lobby have been doing it for years (see below). Other bundlers are following with their own issues, and racial issues are perfect for a national approach of this kind. David Duke raised a lot of money for his Louisiana races from outside the state, but did it in a clumsy, catch-as-catch-can way. A PAC/bundler devoted to straight racial issues would make life much easier for future candidates.
AIPAC and NRA
Non-white lobbying groups are well known but there have been effective white ethnic lobbies too: Irish, Italian, Polish, and especially Jewish. The most effective is the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which rallies Jewish support for Israel. It takes an openly ethnocentric, nationalist approach, and white nationalists should copy it.
AIPAC has an annual budget of $19.5 million, a staff of 130 and 60,000 members. It has very effective people both in Washington and in the field to keep congressmen up to date and in line, and a large part of its budget is spent on lobbying. Part of its effectiveness is due to its dedication to a single issue. Its website (www.aipac.org) is geared towards activism, including a “campus” section devoted to pro-Israel activities for college students. The site includes links to regional offices in all 50 states. AIPAC provides Congress with dependable and up-to-date information on Israel. AIPAC members donate money to campaigns, since AIPAC itself does not make endorsements or give money. American nationalists could learn from studying the Israel-boosters.
After the Israel lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is probably the most successful promoter of a political cause. The amount of money the NRA raises and distributes in an election cycle—about $18 million a year—is small compared to the budgets of any federal agency teeming with liberal bureaucrats. Still, the NRA can rightly take credit for helping Republicans win control of Congress in 1994 (by mobilizing against the Democrats’ “Assault-Weapons Ban”) and keeping Al Gore out of the White House (by denying him the three crucial gun-friendly states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia). Democrats have, for now, wisely dropped any big national push for gun control.
How does the NRA wield such power in the face of unrelenting media hatred and with so many organizations opposed to it? One answer lies in its single-issue focus. If the NRA tried to deal with both guns and tax reform, for example, it could not accomplish as much. Gun owners who want a flat tax would fight those who want a national sales tax.
Second, they have identified the voters who agree with them on this single issue, and can create something called “voter intensity.” NRA voters care much more about guns then the average voter does. By concentrating their firepower on pro-gun candidates, the NRA is an effective minority even if a majority of voters are vaguely against guns (AIPAC and all other effective advocacy groups do the same thing).
The NRA mobilizes its people by communicating directly with them: through phone banks, direct mail, newsletters, magazines, paid TV infomercials, etc. This informs members and, at the same time, bypasses the media filter. Voters who have been identified and informed by the NRA can resist the countervailing winds of the popular culture.
Finally, the NRA runs its own public relations efforts directed at the wider public, with slick spokesman like Wayne LaPierre, Charlton Heston, and Tanya Metaksa. It also runs a program in schools called the “Eddie the Eagle” GunSafe program. This helps soften and counter the media’s relentlessly negative image.
Immigration is probably the great, untapped issue around which an NRA-like organization could mobilize whites. European nationalists have tied immigration to crime and the rise of Islam, and have created a new dynamic in European politics.
There are other issues that might work for whites, but are probably not as good. One is crime, but many whites have already moved out of non-white areas to get away from it. The whites for whom crime is still a real problem may be too poor to move or too few to have an impact on politics. Affirmative action could be another galvanizing issue, but many see it as something that happens to other whites, not them. Also, there is already a national consensus building against it, and it may not survive the next Supreme Court challenge. Education could be an issue, since multiculturalism and bilingualism are part of the overall anti-white agenda, but the white middle-class families who move to the suburbs are by and large content with their public schools. If they aren’t, there are private schools.
What makes these issues tame compared to immigration, is that conservatives have been railing against crime, education, bilingualism, and affirmative action for years (granted, without much success). Conservatives do not acknowledge the specifically anti-white character of these things, but they oppose them. Even Linda Chavez and Ward Connerly battle affirmative action. US English opposes bilingualism and promotes official English. The Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks are happy to oppose affirmative action, bilingualism, crime and so forth. These issues and groups are not controversial among Beltway conservatives.
What these groups avoid is immigration. Notice how the “conservative” website Townhall (www.townhall.com) censors immigration columns by Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Craig Roberts. Immigration is too hot for Townhall to handle. David Horowitz has written a book with the cheeky title Hating Whitey, but he is silent on Third-World immigration. Immigration is probably one of the few truly radioactive political issues left, probably because it constitutes the greatest threat to whites as a group, and is the most promising focus for raising white consciousness.
What would an immigration PAC with a nice budget do? For example, it could use telemarketing to identify all the voters who see immigration as their number-one issue. It would be easy to do this in a state like Alabama, for example, which has seven congressional districts. In the 2000 presidential election, there were 1,666,272 ballots cast in the state. This voter list could be pared down by various factors like age, race, location, primary vote, etc., and at 45 cents a call, a telemarketer could identify all the voters who favor immigration control for a total cost of around $585,000.
While that figure may seem high, some of the costs could be defrayed if the calls also made a fundraising pitch. Everyone says he hates these calls, but they work—especially the political ones. The public doesn’t so much mind political surveys because it likes to have its views heard. And fundraising calls work, too.
This immigration voter list could be matched to mailing addresses, and combined with direct mail, which could identify potential donors. The funds generated from the donor mailings could be used to mail to all the voters who are concerned about immigration. The PAC could find donors, voters and activists. It could raise money to support and oppose candidates. It could commission research and briefing papers. It could spend money to get out the vote, and buy radio and TV ads. It would do for immigration control what the NRA does for guns.
George Halstead is the pen name of a
political consultant who has worked in journalism, as a campaign manager,
and on Capitol Hill. Part II will appear in the next
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •
Studying the Racialists
An academic tries to understand us.
reviewed by Jared Taylor
arol Swain, a black professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt, has written what is undoubtedly the most interesting and useful account of the racial nationalist movement yet to emerge from a mainstream publisher. Needless to say, Prof. Swain is not sympathetic—she is an integrationist—but she has made a serious effort to understand what racially conscious whites are saying, and in so doing has concluded that at least part of what we say is right. This is a giant step forward from the smears and caricatures that she would readily agree constitute the usual accounts of the racialist movement.*
Prof. Swain brings a certain urgency to her account because she fears that by banning dissent on race and dismissing obviously legitimate racial arguments, the liberal establishment is only feeding the frustrations of whites and priming them for recruitment by racialists. Rather than continue to quarantine racial nationalists, she would invite them into mainstream discussion, correct the abuses of which they legitimately complain, and then refute their mistaken worldview. Only thus, she believes, can this growing and dangerous movement be prevented from attracting ever-larger numbers of disaffected whites and subverting the goal of a multi-racial America. She urges her readers to take her warnings as seriously as they would a “diagnosis of cancer;” otherwise, she says, we “are increasingly at risk of large-scale racial conflict unprecedented in our nation’s history.”
Prof. Swain has clearly read deeply in the racialist literature, but she also took the unusual step of commissioning lengthy interviews with figures she thought best represented white nationalist thinking: David Duke (leader of the National Organization for European-American Rights), William Pierce (late leader of the National Alliance), Matthew Hale (head of the World Church of the Creator), Lisa Turner (Women’s Information Coordinator for World Church of the Creator), Don Black (webmaster of Stormfront.org), Michael Levin (philosophy professor at City University of New York and frequent AR contributor), Michael Hart (Princeton-trained astrophysicist and AR conference speaker), Dan Gayman (pastor of a Christian Identity church), Reno Wolfe (leader of the National Association for the Advancement of White People), and your servant, the editor of American Renaissance.
Prof. Swain quotes at some length from these interviews and from publications, in a way that makes it clear she is trying to present fairly what her subjects think rather than caricature or discredit them. She notes that “these individuals are more intelligent, more sophisticated, and potentially more dangerous than most Americans realize,” and even describes AR as “the leading intellectual journal of contemporary white nationalism.” Prof. Swain devotes approximately a third of the book to a straightforward presentation of racial-nationalist thought. If her summaries of every group’s positions are as fair-minded as those of AR—and for the most part they appear to be—she has done careful work.
Having investigated everything from AR to World Church of the Creator, with which of the racialist arguments does Prof. Swain agree? She believes we are generally right about affirmative action, racial double standards, black crime, immigration, and the bankruptcy of black leadership. This is the message she wants to deliver to liberals “because some of the policies that they support are contributing to a worsening racial climate.”
Although racial preferences may have once had a useful role, she recognizes that “white nationalists have already been successful in winning the debate over affirmative action,” and that preferences are today nothing more than discrimination against whites. Should the country insist on keeping them they will remain “the most useful grievance for white nationalists.” She understands that preferences for immigrants, in particular, are an outrage that rightly infuriates whites.
She also opposes the glaring double standard that permits only non-whites to celebrate their racial heritage and organize to advance their interests. She says government-supported multiculturalism “could cause large numbers of white people of European extraction to embrace the idea of a distinct white interest that is not being adequately represented by a government that endorses preferences for non-whites.” She says the country must stop promoting non-white ethnic identity in a way that could “inflame tribal passions” and drive yet more bewildered whites into the hands of racialists.
Prof. Swain notes that blacks can insult whites without penalty while whites must hold their tongues, and has discovered the growing fury among whites over the almost celebratory reporting of white outrages against blacks, and the silence that greets black outrages against whites. She accepts the findings of New Century Foundation’s study, The Color of Crime (available at www.amren.com/colrcrim.html), and agrees it is unconscionable that black violence against whites always be explained away, ignored, or downplayed.
As for immigration, she explains that racialists oppose it because it is reducing whites to a minority, but seems to stop just short of agreeing this is a legitimate reason to oppose it. She says we should sharply reduce immigration because it takes jobs from low-income natives, especially blacks. She does suggest, though, that diversity is a gamble: “Contrary to the ‘contact hypothesis’ that some social psychologists have propounded, mere contact between people of different races and ethnicities does not necessarily reduce racism or increase tolerance and understanding.” Elsewhere she concedes that “demographic change is more likely to bring about racial and ethnic violence than downturns in the economy.”
As for black “leaders” and the white liberals who anoint and support them, they are “performing a great disservice to the public” by ducking most of the racial issue that really matter. She understands that at a time when whites are increasingly angry about racial preferences, it is foolish for blacks to ask for reparations for slavery. She wants blacks to stop worrying about symbolic issues that only make whites mad—like taking down Confederate flags—and says they should wrestle seriously with the reasons whites don’t want to live with them: high rates of crime and illegitimacy. She says the racial con-men and shakedown artists are “racial provocateurs who are unwittingly helping white nationalists.”
Prof. Swain complains that blacks too quickly forgive their leaders’ worst excesses, adding that they should never have let Jesse Jackson walk away unscathed from the news that his organization was paying off the mother of his illegitimate child. She offers this astonishing observation from a black congressman: “[O]ne of the advantages and disadvantages of representing blacks is their shameless loyalty to their incumbents. You can almost get away with raping babies and be forgiven. You don’t have any vigilance about your performance.”
Prof. Swain has little patience for cowardly whites who refuse to acknowledge legitimate racialist grievances for fear of being called “racists.” She laughs at President Clinton’s utterly superficial “dialogue on race.” She has no patience for universities that host “forums on controversial subjects where all the participants agree with one another.” She says academics must rediscover the value of disagreement and free speech rather than huddle together to recite liberal mantras.
She believes that just as liberals, by shutting out racialists, have cultivated ingrown views, the censorship that forces honesty about race underground means that discussions among racialists degenerate into competition among fanatics egging each other on. She points out, however, that it is the liberals and not the racialists who have imposed this censorship, and she wants it to end.
In some respects, therefore, her boldest proposal is simply to insist that racialists be heard: “Individuals in the white rights and white nationalist movements such as Jared Taylor and Samuel Francis occasionally raise important and legitimate public policy issues that deserve a hearing in the marketplace of ideas . . . .” Setting aside the word “occasionally,” this is a complete break with the hysterical tradition of censorship that she believes has only fanned the flames of white resentment. Her thinking is a refreshing return to classical principles: “[T]he best way to neutralize dangerous ideas is to expose them to competing ideas and alternative explanations . . . .” She believes the bogeymen must be brought into the light because “white nationalism thrives by its willingness to address many contemporary issues and developments that mainstream politicians and media sources either ignore entirely or fail to address with any degree of openness or candor.”
So far, an unqualified “bravo” for Prof. Swain—but of course there is more to the book than this, some of which veers from the silly to the misguided. In the former category is her view that Michael Levin of City University of New York is “well balanced” by Leonard Jeffries of the same university. Prof. Levin has written a massively-researched study of race and IQ called Why Race Matters (reviewed in AR, October 1997). Prof. Jeffries is a black supremacist who made news in 1991, claiming whites are “ice people” while blacks are cuddly “sun people.” He has said if it were up to him, he would wipe all white people “off the face of the earth,” and that the 1986 space shuttle explosion was “the best thing to happen to America in a long time,” because it might prevent whites from “spreading their filth through the universe.”
Perhaps Prof. Swain equates Prof. Levin and Prof. Jeffries because the question of IQ is one to which her open-mindedness does not extend. She says Prof. Levin makes “absurdly exaggerated claims” about the heritability of IQ and of its importance to society. She approvingly quotes Richard Nisbett, who writes that “rigorous interventions do affect IQ and cognitive skills at every state of the life course.” If that were true, we would take IQ-boosting courses throughout our lives.
Prof. Swain also writes loosely about “hate” and “white supremacy” groups, despite sometimes quite specific quotations from racialists who are careful to explain why these terms are wrong. Michael Hart, for example, told her: “I, like most other white separatists, resent being called a white supremacist . . . . I have no desire to rule over blacks, or to attempt to rule over blacks, or have someone else rule over blacks in my behalf.”
Perhaps, despite her general willingness to listen to what we say rather than what the Southern Poverty Law Center says we say, Prof. Swain doesn’t believe Prof. Hart. Though she never accuses anyone specifically of deceit, she writes irritatingly of racialists “disguising themselves in the mantle of mainstream conservatism,” “packaging their message to conceal the radicalism of their views,” and “disguising their true aims.” The claim to be able to read minds is never effective or attractive.
Prof. Swain has discovered that many white nationalists are hostile to Jews, and is therefore surprised to find any Jewish support for racialism. She is also disappointed, and for an odd reason: “As long as African Americans were in the same boat as Jews—objects of hatred and scorn—somehow we felt less vulnerable. For this reason it is most troubling when I see groups like Taylor’s American Renaissance successfully seeking and finding Jewish recruits, leaving African Americans more isolated and vulnerable than ever before.” It is almost as if she preferred that Jews be “objects of hatred and scorn.”
Although most of Prof. Swain’s recommendations are well-considered, a few are awful. She says “racism” is still a big problem for blacks and Hispanics, so government enforcement of anti-discrimination laws should be hugely beefed up. Not only does she want armies of government “testers” on the streets snooping for “racism,” she wants cash rewards to encourage anonymous informants to root out “racists,” and stiffer penalties for offenders. Prof. Swain already recognizes whites are too scared to talk honestly about race; an even stiffer dose of Big Brother would make things vastly worse.
At some level she seems to understand that the very idea of fighting “racism” is a tricky one: “Given the increasing diversity of the United States, a major challenge for the twenty-first century is how to combat various forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, and political minorities without exacerbating existing social tensions.”
It would, in any case, be too much to ask Prof. Swain to understand that discrimination is inseparable from freedom, that government “testers” have no more right to vet my choice of a renter or employee than they do my choice of a wife, and that my refusal to hire someone leaves him no worse off than he was before. These ancient truths are now lost on most Americans.
But of course, the genuinely fundamental question Prof. Swain neglects is whether a multi-racial society is possible or even desirable. She simply takes for granted that it is, and even implies that anyone who does not should be shut out of the debate, be he an otherwise occasionally reasonable Samuel Francis or Jared Taylor. If we are to have the genuine dialogue for which Prof. Swain calls so frequently—and I believe sincerely—there should be no opinions that must be checked at the door. The conviction that multi-racialism does not work is virtually the touchstone of white nationalism, and to outlaw this conviction is to muzzle debate before it begins.
These are, nevertheless, the criticisms of a partisan in the debate, and they do not detract from Prof. Swain’s extremely important contribution. Precisely because she is willing at least to meet her opponents half-way, her book is likely to be ignored, and to be savaged when it is not ignored. This is the fate of all pioneers, and few know it better than the very people she has tried so hard to study and understand.
*White Power, White Pride!, written in 1997 by Betty Dobratz and Stephanie Shanks-Meile, was one of the first serious attempts to explain racialist thinking to the public, but does not recognize the legitimacy to any racialist argument.
• • • BACK TO
TOP • •
he cover story of the previous issue was the first comprehensive account of the Wichita Massacre to appear in any publication. We thought the story was so important we released it in electronic form on the day AR went into the mail. Several web sites posted it, including David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag.com, which ran a version that edited out some of the more explicitly racialist commentary. Mr. Horowitz himself wrote a friendly and generous disclaimer justifying his decision to post an article from a publication many would call “racist.” It is reproduced below, followed by Jared Taylor’s reply.
David Horowitz on AR
In the editorial I wrote to accompany today’s lead story on the Wichita Massacre, I said “In the present atmosphere of racial hypocrisy, the mere expression of concern over attacks on white people would in itself make an individual a target for racial witch-hunters.” I could also have said that publishing a story from the American Renaissance newsletter would do the same.
The American Renaissance group is a creation of Jared Taylor, author of a pioneer book of political incorrectness on race called Paved With Good Intentions. Taylor is a very smart and gutsy individualist, but he is also a man who has surrendered to the multicultural miasma that has overtaken this nation and is busily building a movement devoted to white identity and community. We do not share these agendas.
What I mean by “surrendering” is that Taylor has accepted the idea that the multi-culturalists have won. We are all prisoners of identity politics now. If there is going to be Black History Month and Chicano Studies then there should be White History Month and White Studies. If blacks and Mexicans are going to regard each other as brothers and the rest of us as “Anglos,” then whites should regard each other as brothers and others as—well, . . . others. Within the multicultural framework set by the dominant liberalism in our civic culture, Taylor’s claim to a white place at the diversity table certainly makes sense. But there is another option and that is getting rid of the table altogether and going back to the good old American ideal of E Pluribus Unum—”out of many one.” Not just blacks and whites and Chicanos, but Americans. Jared Taylor is a very intelligent and principled man. But I believe he is mistaken on this matter, and even if he is right I would rather fight against the multicultural behemoth and be on the losing side than embrace a false faith and win.
There are many who would call Jared Taylor and his American Renaissance movement “racist.” If the term is modified to “racialist,” there is truth in the charge. But Taylor and his Renaissance movement are no more racist in this sense than Jesse Jackson and the NAACP. In my experience of Taylor’s views, which is mainly literary (we have had occasion to exchange opinions in person only once), they do not represent a mean-spirited position. They are an attempt to be realistic about a fate that seems to have befallen us (which Taylor would maintain was inevitable given the natural order of things). But Jared Taylor is no more “racist” in this sense than any university Afro-centrist or virtually any black pundit of the left. He is not even racist in the sense that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist. He is—as noted—a racialist, which FrontPageMag.com is not.
I make no apologies, therefore, for posting this piece of journalism. It is an accurate and profoundly important report about an event with which every American should be familiar, and whose implications every American should ponder.
Reply to David Horowitz
I have long admired Mr. Horowitz’s efforts to expose the double standards and ethnic shakedowns that go by the name of multiculturalism. He is also among the very few commentators who understand the significance of crimes such as the Wichita Massacre—and the media silence that greets them—and I greatly appreciate his help in making this outrage better known.
Mr. Horowitz is quite correct in his description of how his vision of America differs from mine, and also correct to say that I would argue racial consciousness is a natural part of the human condition that we should accept rather than attempt to change. It is his historical perspective that is wrong. My view of America—as a self-consciously European, majority-white nation—is not a recent reaction to the excesses of multiculturalism; it is the original conception of this country, and one that was almost universally accepted until the 1960s.
Many people appear to believe that the motto E Pluribus Unum means that the United States was always meant to be a melting pot of the world’s people. In fact, “out of many, one,” the motto chosen for the great seal in 1776, refers to the 13 colonies united into one nation. It has nothing to do with multi-racialism.
Since the founding, and up until just a few decades ago, virtually all Americans took it for granted that the United States was, by nature and destiny, a white country. To be sure, there were blacks and Indians, but most Americans saw their presence as a misfortune, and certainly as no threat to the numerical and cultural dominance of whites.
In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . .” This is not a celebration of “diversity” or of the melting pot.
Thomas Jefferson thought it had been a terrible mistake to bring blacks to America, and wrote that they should be freed from slavery and then “removed from beyond the reach of mixture.” He looked forward to the day when whites would populate not just North but South America, adding “nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”
The American Colonization Society was founded to free black slaves and persuade them to return to Africa. As Henry Clay put it at the society’s inaugural meeting in 1816, its purpose was to “rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population.” The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Gen. Winfield Scott, and two Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Marshall and Roger Taney. As for James Monroe, the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in gratitude for his help in sending blacks to Africa.
Abraham Lincoln also favored colonization. He was the first President ever to invite a delegation of blacks officially to visit the White House; he held the meeting to ask them to persuade their people to leave. Even in the midst of a desperate war with the Confederacy, Lincoln found time to study the problem of black colonization, and to appoint Rev. James Mitchell as Commissioner of Emigration.
His successor Andrew Johnson felt the same way: “This is a country for white men,” he wrote, “and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men . . . .” James Garfield certainly agreed. Before he became President he wrote, “[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way . . . .”
What of 20th century Presidents? Theodore Roosevelt thought blacks were “a perfectly stupid race,” and blamed Southerners for bringing them to America. In 1901 he wrote: “I have not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent . . . he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away . . . .” As for Indians, he once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the health of the tenth.”
Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as president of Princeton prevented blacks from enrolling. He enforced segregation in government offices and was supported in this by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard, who argued that “civilized white men” could not be expected to work with “barbarous black men.” During the Presidential campaign of 1912, Wilson campaigned to keep Asians out of the country: “I stand for the national policy of exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”
Henry Cabot Lodge took the view that “there is a limit to the capacity of any race for assimilating and elevating an inferior race, and when you begin to pour in unlimited numbers of people of alien or lower races of less social efficiency and less moral force, you are running the most frightful risk that any people can run.”
Harry Truman is remembered for integrating the armed services by executive order, but in his private correspondence was as much a separatist as Jefferson: “I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.”
As recent a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality “or that a Negro should court my daughter.” It is only with John Kennedy that we finally find a President whose public pronouncements on race begin to be acceptable by today’s standards (although he made virtually no effort to end segregation).
I have quoted politicians because they are cautious people who recirculate the bromides of their times. Mark Twain, who never sought anyone’s vote, wrote of the American Indian that he was “a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one.” Jack London explained that part of the appeal of socialism was that it was “devised so as to give more strength to these certain kindred favored races so that they may survive and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker races.”
Samuel Gompers, probably the most famous labor leader in American history, reflected prevailing views. In 1921 he wrote: “Those who believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I firmly believe that there are too many right-thinking people in our country to permit such an evil.” He went on to add, “It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”
The white, European character of the United States was enshrined in law. The first naturalization bill, passed in 1790, made citizenship available only to “free white persons.” A few localities recognized free blacks as citizens of states, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1857 that no black, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States. Blacks did gain U.S. citizenship under the post-Civil War amendments, but other races did not. State and federal laws excluded Asians, and in 1914 the Supreme Court upheld the principle that citizenship could be denied to foreign-born Asians.
The ban on immigration and naturalization of Chinese, established in 1882, continued until 1943. It was only when the United States found itself allied with China in the Second World War that Congress repealed the Chinese exclusion laws—but not by much. It set an annual quota of 105 Chinese. Needless to say, it permitted no immigration from Japan. Until 1965, the United States had a “national origins” immigration policy designed explicitly to keep the country white.
The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for whites. Before the federal government took control of voting rights in the 1960s, the states determined who could and could not vote. Only in 1924 did Congress confer citizenship on Indians, and every state that entered the union between 1819 and the Civil War kept blacks from voting. In 1855, Negroes could vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the country’s blacks. The federal government did not allow free Negroes to vote in the territories it controlled.
The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibited withholding the franchise on racial grounds, was not an expression of egalitarianism so much as an attempt to punish the South—where most blacks lived—and a political calculation by Republicans that they would win black support. In the West, there was great opposition to the amendment for fear it would mean Asians could vote, and in Rhode Island ratification nearly failed for fear it would mean the Irish “race” would get the vote.
Strong opposition to mixed marriage was enshrined in law. Sixteen states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books in 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned them in Loving v. Virginia.
Mr. Horowitz is simply wrong when he writes of “going back to the good old American ideal” of multi-racialism. I am certain that if all the prominent Americans I have quoted could rise from their graves, they would endorse the American Renaissance view of race and nation, and would be shocked at the idea of a multi-hued America in which we are to pretend race can be made not to matter. It is American Renaissance that is faithful to the original vision of America. Walt Whitman perhaps put it most succinctly when he wrote, “[I]s not America for the Whites? And is it not better so?” Yes, it is.
Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that “we are all prisoners of identity politics,” implying that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so, why does the home page of FrontPageMag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions to “David’s Defense of Israel Campaign”? Why Israel rather than, say, Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially-conscious whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls it “surrendering to the multicultural miasma” when I work to return to a self-consciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for Israel but says American must not be allowed to have one.
Not long before he was assassinated, Yitzhak Rabin told U.S. News and World Report that as Prime Minister of Israel he had worked to achieve many things, but what he cared about most was that Israel remain at least 90 percent Jewish. He recognized that the character of Israel would change in fundamental—and to him unacceptable—ways if the non-Jewish population increased beyond a small minority. Equally obviously, the character of the United States is changing as non-whites arrive in large numbers.
Throughout most of its history, white Americans took the Rabin view: that their country had a distinctly racial and ethnic core that was to be preserved at all costs. When Mr. Horowitz writes about the “good old American ideal,” that is what he should have in mind, not a historically inaccurate view that drapes a radical new course with trappings of false tradition.
By all means, let Israel remain Jewish, but
by the same token let the United States remain majority-white. Mr.
Horowitz has a distinguished record of fighting double standards, so he
should recognize one when he sees it. If he supports a Jewish Israel, he
should support a white America.
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •
O Tempora, O
It Must Have Been Love
Tammy Wilkerson, who is white, had a mulatto baby as a teenager. By 1988, when she met a black man named Raphael Holiday, she was 22 years old, and had two mulatto daughters by two different blacks. She started living with Mr. Holiday, and soon had a third child. The entire family moved into a log cabin in rural Madison County, Texas, that belonged to her parents who lived nearby. A high-school dropout, Miss Wilkerson worked at the International House of Pancakes and supported her children much help from her parents. Mr. Holiday was usually unemployed.
Once, when Miss Wilkerson’s eldest daughter, seven-year-old Tierra, was out sick from school, Miss Wilkerson came home to find the crotch of the girl’s underwear soaked with blood. Tierra would not explain why she was bleeding, but told a nurse who examined her that “something had happened” while she was with Mr. Holiday. Miss Wilkerson threw Mr. Holiday out of the house and cooperated with authorities in bringing rape charges against him, but occasionally let him visit his daughter. Mr. Holiday was furious about the rape charges, and once got violent with Miss Wilkerson and threatened to kill her.
On Sept. 5, 2000, he showed up at the log cabin dressed in black and armed with a pistol. Miss Holiday, who had seen someone approaching the cabin, telephoned her mother, and fled for help. Her mother soon arrived, and Mr. Holiday forced her at gunpoint to pour gasoline all around the cabin. While she was in a back room, he set fire to the cabin as the three girls huddled in terror on a sofa. Flames quickly engulfed the room, and Miss Wilkerson’s mother was unable to rescue the children. She escaped through a back window while Mr. Holiday left the cabin, but the three children died.
Mr. Holiday went to trial for murder in 2002, nearly two years after the killings. By then Miss Wilkerson had married Eric O’Bryant (race unspecified), and had a young son. At one point, during a break in the trial, Mr. O’Bryant threatened to kill Mr. Holiday, and was still in jail in June, when Mr. Holiday was sentenced to death.
There are no reports on reactions from any of the black grandparents of the three girls who died in the fire, but their white grandparents plan to build a memorial at the cabin site. “We want to put an angel out there for the girls,” says Miss Wilkerson’s mother. “They’re angels now, and the Lord is with them.” [Colleen Kavanaugh, Still Trying to Cope With Horror, Bryan-College Station Eagle (Bryan, Texas), June 23, 2002.]
Two years ago, a man from Hong Kong who was living in Crofton, Maryland, decided to make medicinal soup for his ailing sister. The main ingredient was to be a fish called the northern snakehead, which he used to eat back home. He ordered two live fish from an Asian market in New York, but by the time they arrived, his sister had recovered. He kept the snakeheads in a tank for a while, but they got so big they ate as many as 12 goldfish a day. He decided to release them into a neighborhood pond so he would have a handy nearby supply if his sister got sick again.
Snakeheads are ravenous predators with lots of large, saw-toothed teeth, and native American fish are not match for them. They can eat up all the local blue gills, large-mouthed bass, pickerels, and everything else, and actually set out overland on their strong pectoral fins in search of new ponds to conquer. If they stay moist, they can survive several days out of water, breathing with primitive lung-like gills. By the time the Crofton snakeheads were discovered, they had pretty much cleaned out their first pond and seemed likely to head for another nearby or even hike over to the Little Patuxent River, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland wildlife officials worry that snakeheads will take over all East Coast freshwater waterways if they are not stopped quickly. They are considering poisoning or dynamiting all the fish in the Crofton pond to kill them before they move on.
The Hong Kong man who released the fish says he is sorry. He says he didn’t know it was against the law to turn loose immigrant wildlife. [Anita Huslin, Snakeheads’ Luck Put Pond in Soup, Washington Post, July 12, 2002, p. A1.]
Jackson Turns Black
Pop singer Michael Jackson has been turning white for years. Relaxers straightened his afro, surgery slimmed his African nose, and a disease called vitiligo (he claimes) bleached his skin. Eventually all his friends were either white or had fur, and in his song “Black or White” he crooned “I’m not going to spend my life being a color.”
Mr. Jackson has suddenly turned black—at least rhetorically. He now spends time with presidential hopeful Al Sharpton and lawyer Johnnie Cochran. What seems to have prompted this fade to black is a dispute with Sony Records, whose chairman Tommy Mottola he calls “very, very, very devilish” and a “racist” who should “go back to hell.” Mr. Jackson used to be a regular at Mr. Mottola’s birthday parties, and has one of the most generous recording contracts in the industry (he gets half the take, while most stars get no more than 24 percent). It seems that Mr. Jackson wants to goad Sony into breaking its contract with him. This way he could walk away with his library of master recordings and keep the royalties all to himself.
In his zeal to play the oppressed black man he has even upstaged the old pros. Told of Mr. Jackson’s blast against the Sony chairman, Al Sharpton was nonplussed: “I’ve known Tommy for 15 or 20 years and never once have I known him to say or do anything . . . . racist.” [Donna Britt, Jackson Taking the Glove Off for Own Gain, Washington Post, July 12, 2002, p. B1.]
Sex and Money
Evidence continues to emerge about Dwight York, the founder and leader of the Georgia-based Nuwaubian Nation of Moors (see July AR). Although police had their eye on him for years, it appears that it was his own son who finally called the FBI and convinced others to testify against the self-proclaimed god. The son, whose name has been withheld, broke with his father when he learned Mr. York was having sex with the son’s 14-year-old girlfriend. Some of the witnesses who are now building the government’s case against him are a daughter whom he expelled from the Nuwaubian community because she refused to have sex with him, and a woman he threw out while she was pregnant with her third child by Mr. York.
His disillusioned acolytes now agree that Mr. York never believed any of the shifting Islamic/Egyptian/Indian mumbo jumbo he preached to his followers. A daughter says he once told her only a fool would believe those things, and that he posed as a god only to get sex and money.
It worked. Mr. York completely controlled the lives of his 150 or so followers, having sex with any woman or child he liked, and giving orders as to who could have sex with whom and how often. He explained that only 144,000 people were going to heaven, and that he would choose them. One girl says he told her that having sex with him would put her on the list. Mr. York’s children and their various mothers estimate he has at least 100 illegitimate children.
Former Nuwaubs explain they sincerely believed Mr. York was a god, turning over their money to him, and obeying him in all things. In 1993, he paid about $1 million for his Georgia ranch, and lived luxuriously while fellow Nuwaubs made do with run-down trailers.
Although Mr. York’s religious teachings changed frequently, his racial views did not. He hated whites, and called them as devils. The Southern Poverty Law Center officially lists the Nuwaubs as a hate group. Bob Moser of the center helpfully explains that they are “a mirror image of white hate groups.” [Bill Osinski, Cult Leader Ignored His Own Rules, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 7, 2002.]
We have reported several times on the spate of Lebanese gang rapes of white women in Australia (September and October 2001, and August 2002). An Australian newspaper has finally managed to point out the obvious: that no matter how desperately the media and even the justice system have tried to ignore it, the rapists deliberately sought out whites to degrade them. Miranda Devine writes in The Sun-Herald:
“In August , when Judge Megan Latham handed out laughably lenient sentences to three men in one gang rape case, which were later more than doubled on appeal, she made a special point of debunking the race link: ‘There is no evidence before me of any racial element in the commission of these offences,’ she said. ‘There is nothing said or done by the offenders which provides the slightest basis for imputing to them some discrimination in terms of the nationality of their victims.’ “
Miss Devine points out that one of the women complained that her victim’s statement had been “censored” of all references to the racial motivation of her attackers. The woman is convinced her five-hour gang-rape was racially motivated. Why else, she wants to know, would her attackers have told her “you deserve it because you’re an Australian.”? Other Lebanese rapists have called victims “Aussie pig,” and boasted “I’m going to fuck you Leb style.” Miss Divine concludes:
“These were racist crimes. They were hate crimes. The rapists chose their victims on the basis of race. That fact is crucial to this story. If the perpetrators had been Anglo-Celtic Australians, the furor would have been enormous. No newspaper would have left out that fact and you can bet the guilt and shame would have been spread far and wide.” [Miranda Divine, Racist Rapes: Finally the Truth Comes Out, Sun-Herald, July 14, 2002.]
Good First Step
Austria has just passed new legislation that requires immigrants to study German or face deportation. Anyone who arrived in the country after January 1, 1998, will have to take 100 hours of instruction if he is not already fluent. Participants will pay one half the cost of the course. If, after three years, they have not taken the 100 hours, they will be fined, lose their residence permits, and be deported. The requirement is only to study German, not to reach a specified level of proficiency.
Members of the nationalist Freedom Party, which supported the legislation, have also proposed that immigrants of an age to receive social security be paid at the level they would receive in their home country rather than at the Austrian level, and that asylees be made to express their gratitude to Austria by cleaning streets. [Barbara Miller, Learn German or You’re Out, Austria Tells Immigrants, Independent (London), July 10, 2002.]
Sometimes it is best for illegal immigrants to get hurt on their way into the United States. If the Border Patrol picks them up and keeps them in custody while they get treatment, the INS has to pick up the medical bill, so instead, the Border Patrol prefers to drop them off at local hospitals, which are then stuck with the tab. Often the indigent illegal is discharged after treatment and continues on his illegal way. Some hospital administrators say they call the INS when they are about to release an illegal, but nobody comes.
What happened when two van loads of illegals got into a smash near Sahuarita, Arizona, in March is entirely typical. The INS dropped off 40 injured Mexicans at Tucson hospitals. Ten got treatment—and then disappeared. [Tim Steller, Illegal Crossers Simply Walk Out of Hospitals, Arizona Daily Star, April 20, 2002.]
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that medical costs for illegal aliens cost American hospitals $3.4 billion every year. The burden is especially great on hospitals in border areas, many of which are struggling to stay in business. Even a few congressmen realize something is wrong. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida), complains that “hospitals are inundated with thousands of illegal immigrants seeking medical care.” He warns of “the parasitic effects on our health care system,” and says America “should not be burdened because of the failure of a foreign nation to maintain responsibility for its people.” He is now asking the Government Accounting Office to make recommendations on possible solutions to the problem. [Jessica Cantelon, Congressman Says Hospitals Burdened by ‘Parasitic Effects’ of Illegal Immigration, CNS News, July 15, 2002.]
Another Sick Situation
Half the 30,000 newly-registered nurses in Britain last year were foreign. Ten years ago, foreigners accounted for only a tenth of new registrations. According to the Department of Health, the nurses are tested for professional competence, but not for ability to speak English. Recently, a top surgeon at one of London’s leading hospitals had to stop an operation because the attending nurses—all foreign—could not understand him. David Nunn of Guy’s and St. Thomas’s Hospitals needed a particular instrument to complete a procedure but when he asked the nurses for it he was met with what he calls “a selection of bemused reactions.” Needless to say, because he stopped the operation, his superiors have not accused him of “racism,” and are threatening disciplinary action. [Richard Eden, Surgeon Halts Operation Over Foreign Nurses’ Poor English, Telegraph (London), July 22, 2002.]
To the Dogs
Terell Green, race unspecified, is from Carville, Louisiana. On May 3, Mr. Green decided to hold up a Baton Rouge pizza delivery driver with a crowbar. As Mr. Green drove off with the loot, the driver noted his license plate number. About 15 minutes later, the 20-year-old Mr. Green reappeared on the streets of Baton Rouge accompanied by his son, a 11/2-year-old toddler. He took a woman’s purse and threatened her with the crowbar when she struggled. She, too, got a good description of the getaway car.
That evening, a police officer located Mr. Green and the car, but Mr. Green drove away rather than submit to arrest. He lost control and crashed, and continued on foot up an embankment, carrying his son. Pursuing officers loosed a police dog named Rebel. When Mr. Green looked back and saw Rebel gaining on him, he threw the toddler at the dog. The dog ignored the boy—who suffered a cut lip when he hit the ground—and went on to capture the fugitive. Mr. Green has been booked for two counts of armed robbery and for endangering a juvenile. [Police: Suspect Threw Son at Dog, Advocate (Baton Rouge), May 7, 2002.]
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •
Sir — Reading “The Wichita Massacre” brought back many sickening memories of my experiences as a homicide prosecutor in Philadelphia during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. I also served briefly as a public defender. I’ve been told by more than one evildoer that crime was nothing more than his daily business. That business might well involve rape, robbery and murder of the most horrific and despicable kind.
The Carr bothers were simply doing business as usual. I suspect they had no particular hatred for their victims. They would have done the same to anyone who was available. When criminals here in Philadelphia go out to commit crimes they call it “getting paid.” The Carrs were well paid that cold December night.
I doubt the Carrs will be executed. They will be embraced by the usual coterie of fawning, whining ultra-leftists, who will claim the brothers are a little retarded, are victims of racism, and that we should all feel sorry for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if clergy and the parents of the dead were in the forefront.
Edmund Levine, Philadelphia, Pa.
Sir — In my opinion, the key to the lack of resistance offered by the Wichita victims may lie with the parents. The parent-child bond should be strongest of all; yet the reactions of the Wichita victims’ parents were mostly passive.
Heather Muller was raped, tortured, and brutally murdered, but her own mother tells us to “forgive” the Carr brothers. Are we surprised that Aaron Sander says only “Please. No, sir. Please,” as he is about to be executed, when his own father’s reaction to the murder essentially is “we need to get on with our lives”?
Can anyone imagine black or any other non-white parents behaving like this? What did these young people learn at home—to endure abuse with “Christ-like patience”? If the parents themselves show little anger, what can we expect from the general white population? Some day the family of a white race-crime victim will be racially conscious—and will speak up.
Ted Sallis, Tampa, Fla.
Sir — I should like to make a few observations on your painfully detailed account of the Wichita Massacre. First, if the Carr brothers had tried their high jinks in Republican West Belfast, in Chechnya or even with Italian Americans, I doubt they would have had such an easy run. It is whites of north European extraction who seem to have abandoned the instinct to survive. What happened in Wichita is happening in Zimbabwe—white farmers there have not tried to defend themselves. The problem is not really the behavior of the offenders. The Carr brothers appear to be just dangerous animals who should be either emasculated or humanely put down. The problem is with the cooperative attitude of their victims, and the incredible reactions of the victims’ relations. Not only are these people acting against the logic of nature, their attitude arguably encourages the likes of the Carrs to strike again, so self interest apart, forgiveness is irresponsible towards the wider community.
I even wonder if it is white heterosexuals who are especially vulnerable. It is a homosexual, Peter Tatchell, who attempted a citizen’s arrest of Robert Mugabe in Belgium. He was beaten up by Mr. Mugabe’s bodyguard and thrown onto the pavement for his pains while the Belgian police looked on (where was the Vlaams Blok?). I have also been told that it was a notorious homosexual who led the attack on the hijackers of the one suicide squad that did not succeed on September 11.
Second, if in the US a successful policy of “intellectual infiltration” had been practiced decades ago by white groups as recommended by the French New Right, there would at least not be the press blackout that now exists.
Third, I do not regard Wichita especially or uniquely as a racial issue. A few weeks ago a friend and I witnessed a group of three boys (all white) spitting deliberately and repeatedly at two middle-aged women. I frightened the boys so much they ran away as fast they could—and with reason, as I was capable at that moment of killing the ringleader and he instinctively felt it. It was my friend’s reaction (a friend no more) that was appalling. He did not support me in any way, tried to defend the boys by telling me that “maybe they were spitting at each other and spit landed on one of the women by accident,” and warned me they might follow me home and threaten my family. In other words, I had “overreacted.”
But—and this is my last point—overreaction (which is just the survival instinct) pays off. If American racialists are not just talk, they will make sure the Carr brothers and their family and supporters have a very uncomfortable time during the trial. The Carrs should never be allowed to feel safe again—ever. We do not owe this to the victims or their relatives, who sound as though they were/are tired of life, but to those of us who are not tired of life. White Americans talk about the right to bear arms. What for—to shoot squirrels?
And finally a request: Please stop repeating, “If the victims had been black . . . .” Your readers know all that—it sounds like a whine, and the time for whining, friends, is past.
Michael Walker, Köln, Westphalia, Germany
Sir — The deaths of five brutally murdered young whites will have been in vain if we do nothing in response. At the very least, every white American should seriously reconsider his assumptions about race. We must set aside the propaganda that has clouded our thinking. Like most of us, the Wichita victims probably never thought they would directly suffer the consequences of America’s misguided racial policies. They probably thought the upscale neighborhoods in which they lived protected them from the violent black crime that plagues our cities. They were not mentally or physically prepared to deal with a vicious, alien mentality.
It is therefore time for whites publicly to challenge anti-white legislation such as the “un-Fair” Housing Act of 1968, which has forced the integration and subsequent destruction of countless white neighborhoods. It is time to restore restrictive covenants to maintain the ethnic integrity of remaining white neighborhoods. It is time to investigate why the national media have suppressed the news of the Wichita Massacre and other heinous black crimes against whites. If the Wichita victims had known how many whites are victims of black violence (or if The Wichita Eagle had covered AR’s report, The Color of Crime) they might have been better equipped to defend themselves. It seems that the national media as well as the federal government are committed to preventing the development of the level of white awareness and solidarity needed to resolve America’s racial dilemma in a manner that will ensure white survival and advancement.
May the memory of the Wichita victims inspire us to dedicate ourselves to this vital project. Our united efforts can and will restore America as a nation in which white communities can once again live in peace and harmony.
Jim Russell, White Plains, N. Y.
Sir — Mary Westman asks in the July issue how I reconcile two statements I made in my speech to the 2002 conference: that we need more women in the “movement” but that many politically-oriented women are wackos. I would say from experience, which I would expect most ‘old hands’ to have shared, that both statements are true.
The answer to the riddle, I think, is that it depends on the way in which women are involved. If it is in a neo-feminist way—”I’m the same as you, so I’ll rant from the platform as well as you, drink as hard as you, and confront our opponents as vigorously as you”—then the second statement is likely to apply. But where women are involved as organizers of people, in defense of the needy, or as convincers of the unconvinced, they are working in keeping with natural sexual differences and are often better at such things than men. Immature organizations tend to have a predominance of the first type of woman (if they have any at all), while mature ones can be recognized by the involvement of women in roles to which they are suited.
Finally, may I say how much I agree with Fred Hooper’s letter in which he points out that the key problem in America is the political system, not a lack of commonsense sentiment. My only word of caution would be that, like so many Americans, as soon as he thinks in terms of elections he seems to think of a nationwide—i.e. Presidential—race. Much as I would like to see Jared Taylor or Sam Dickson in the White House, it would be far more realistic for Americans to start with a party contesting winnable local elections and work upwards, rather than reaching for the moon from the bottom of the ladder.
Nick Griffin, British National Party, Wales, Great Britain
Sir — Mary Westman’s July letter surely shows signs of the cancer of the West. She writes huffily, “I fail to see how comments on politically-oriented women being wackos” will “get more women involved.” We are better off without them. In the old days, men and women understood the risks to women in the pits of politics. It is wrong to assume the vote is a universal “right” or that women needed it to get “involved.” They have been fully involved in countless ways ever since wacky Eve got Adam to eat that damn apple.
As for Nick Griffin’s odd wish for more female involvement, he displays the typical wrong-headed modern male ambivalence—politically active women may be wackos but he wants more anyway. If we were still a virile, healthy nation, men wouldn’t even think about bringing women into nationalist organizations. We’ve gotten ourselves into a quagmire with falling birthrates, creeping statism, sex equality, disorderly women, and weak men, all too befuddled to do anything about it. A real American renaissance requires a return to the natural order of the sexes.
W. Edward Chynoweth, Sanger, Calif.
Sir — In the August 2002 issue a Mr. Todorov writes from Romania to ask why white activists cannot set up racial communities similar in scope to that created by the black criminal and con-man, Dwight York. I agree that the establishment of such Euro-American social structures is of paramount importance; there is no other group that needs separation as much as whites.
However, in today’s political climate, the establishment of such a large-scale white community would be extremely problematic. No matter how law-abiding such an establishment would be, the system would do everything in its power, fair or foul, to make it fail. We can even imagine extreme measures like those brought to bear on Randy Weaver or at Waco. Pro-white activism must be significantly more powerful and entrenched before such communities can get the political protection they need.
Unfortunately, the American movement has heretofore eschewed such strategies in favor of hyper-extremism and apocalyptic rhetoric; thus, little has been done to promote its ideas. A realistic first step is for white activists quietly to build small activist clusters within their local cities and towns. These activist “nests” can serve as nuclei for building the sort of cohesive structures that will be necessary for larger endeavors. One of the long-term goals of the new Legion Europa project (http://www.legioneuropa.org) is to promote the establishment of such community structures, which may end up being more productive than the kind of activism we have seen in America over the last 30 to 40 years.
Michael Rienzi, Boston, Mass.
Sir — In the July issue there is a story about Dwight York, a black who was industrious enough to build a 473-acre ancient Egyptian church/temple, theme park, and residential compound. Aside from the entertainment value, which was considerable, what purpose was served by the article? Do you side with the federal government in its prosecution of Mr. York for fraud, and sex with under-age females? Is this really any of our business?
What about Tom Green, the white man from Utah who fathered 31 healthy white children with six or seven women? Mr. Green went to prison for polygamy, and now faces a child-rape charge for marrying a 13-year-old girl. She is now 30, the mother of five of his children, and his staunchest supporter. If our race is to survive, we may need more men like Tom Green.
Harry Dell, Houston, Tex.
Sir — In our local paper, something calling itself the “African American Association” urges people to attend a “Millions for Reparations Rally.” The rally will protest the “theft of labor of people of African descent, rape, murder, destruction of our culture, assassination of black leaders, the racist KKK, FBI and police, prisons and jails, miseducation and poor health, denial of our 40 acres and mule,” etc. Preposterous! While they’re at it, they should blame whitey for bad breath and constipation.
David Hammer, Bronx, N.Y.
The “Millions for Reparations March,” organized by a coalition of black groups calling itself the Durban 400, is planned for Saturday, August 17, 2002, in Washington, D.C. No doubt, it will be televised by C-SPAN—Ed.
Sir — As John Harrison Sims notes in the August issue, the Democrats have pushed for anti-discrimination laws and the Republicans have passed them. But I’ll bet your readers don’t know that the third largest political party in the country, the Libertarian Party, supports the repeal of all anti-discrimination laws, and the right of people to discriminate for any reason they choose. On the other hand, the LP supports open immigration, but there is a debate within the party about this issue and its position could change.
Richard D. Fuerle, Grand Island, N.Y.
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •