Competitive Altruism and
Why Whites do not Promote their own Interests
by Ian Jobling
merican Renaissance has always expressed anguished bewilderment at whites’ lack of a sense of their own interests. All other races promote their own interests unapologetically, and have prominent, well-funded lobbying organizations. There are no such organizations for whites, mainly because whites themselves oppose their establishment. The few small pro-white organizations that do exist are usually labeled “hate groups.”
At the same time, whites hand out billions of dollars every year in social services to non-whites, and pass affirmative action legislation to help them compete against whites for jobs and education. Whites promote mass Third-World immigration, and white politicians try to make immigration easier and more attractive. Whites willingly—even eagerly, it seems—surrender whole neighborhoods to immigrants. In short, whites consider it praiseworthy to work in the interests of other races, but disreputable to work in their own.
There are several theories proposed to explain this. One, argued by Kevin MacDonald, is that Jews have had a corrosive effect on white group identity. Jews, he argues, have promoted intellectual systems, such as Freudianism, Marxism, and deconstruction that pathologize expressions of white group identity, such as Christianity, patriotism, and traditional family life. He writes that Jews have made movies and television programs that ridicule Christianity and patriotism, and have been among the most powerful advocates of immigration and liberalization in America. They support pro-minority activism of all kinds. Jews, according to this theory, have helped equate any expression of white self-interest with “fascism.”
Another explanation of the white race’s lack of a sense of its interests is Jared Taylor’s theory about white altruism, which he outlined in his AmericanRenaissance article, “The Ways of Our People” (Sept. and Oct. 1996). Mr. Taylor believes whites have a unique sense of reciprocity and an inclination to acknowledge the points of view and the interests of other people. He cites the humane treatment of enemy soldiers and rules of sportsmanship that value generosity towards competitors more highly than beating them.
Mr. Taylor argues that the distinguishing and desirable features of Western civilization are based on this deep sense of reciprocity. The elimination of hereditary class status gives everyone an equal chance. Democracy is the belief that the other person’s political preferences ought to count as much as one’s own. Freedom of expression requires the protection of opposing viewpoints. Thus, the generosity whites show towards other races is an extension of this inherent generosity.
While Prof. MacDonald’s and Mr. Taylor’s theories may go part of the way in explaining white behavior, they do not fully account for it. Even if Prof. MacDonald’s theories about Jewish motives are correct, as he himself acknowledges, Jews are only a small percentage of the population of white nations, and could not have corroded white identity without the consent of whites. It was gentile presidents and mostly gentile politicians who passed the immigration reform laws Jews (and others) advocated. Gentiles happily buy tickets to anti-white movies. Prof. MacDonald does not explain why whites consent to their destruction. Mr. Taylor is certainly right to link this consent to altruism, but his account is incomplete because he overlooks one of the primary motives for this behavior.
In order to understand whites, one must recognize that much of their apparently altruistic behavior is actually a form of egoistic competition. What I will call “competitive altruism” is one of the key forces that shape white societies. This form of competition emerges because altruism is linked to social status. People who act altruistically gain the trust and respect of others, which tends to increase their prestige and wealth. It follows that those who convince others they are altruistic reap greater status rewards than those who do not.
One of the primary forms of competitive altruism in contemporary white society is racial altruism. Expressing benevolence for non-whites has become a key to success in white societies. It is virtually impossible to achieve high status without overt expressions of concern and benevolence for non-whites, and such expressions are particularly common because they can be made at no personal cost. The racial altruism high-status Americans promote does have a very high cost, but one that is, in the near-term, borne almost exclusively by low-status whites.
From an evolutionary point of view, altruism can be explained on the assumption that genes build organisms to make more copies of these genes. Altruism toward family members aids the survival and reproduction of people who share one’s own genes; hence, genes succeed in their goal of propagating themselves when people are generous to their close kin. Altruism that is reciprocated also benefits the altruist. It leads to the exchange of favors and goods, and those who practice it generally have a better chance of survival than those who do not.
However, some altruistic behavior is harder to explain. Many acts of kindness or generosity have little chance of being reciprocated. Why do people give to charity and work in soup kitchens? Why do they return lost wallets and rescue strangers from burning buildings?
Several explanations have been proposed, but the one most relevant here is the theory of altruism as reputation-building. Whom would you choose as a business partner: someone who returned a lost wallet, or someone who kept it? Most people prefer the former because returning a wallet shows honesty and concern for others. Altruism makes a person more sought after in economic and personal relationships, so a reputation for altruism can bring social prestige. Indeed, empirical work by J. Philippe Rushton shows that those who show high levels of altruism tend to do better economically than those who are selfish.
The psychologist Gilbert Roberts takes this theory one step further. If altruism improves one’s reputation, there is every reason to believe it will become competitive. People will want to show themselves to be more altruistic than others in order to gain friends and prestige. Furthermore, inasmuch as high social status is a key aspect of male sexual attractiveness, Prof. Roberts believes displays of altruism are some of the things men do to make themselves more sexually attractive.
These theories treat altruism as an instinct. There is no reason, therefore, to expect people to be conscious of why they behave generously. They simply enjoy acting altruistically, and they like altruists. Theories about altruism do not require that people understand their own motives any better than a hen understand why she sits on her eggs.
If the competitive altruism hypothesis is correct, we would expect people to engage in public displays of altruism. We would expect competitive altruists to be highly censorious: they should be eager to point out the selfishness of others in order to shine by comparison. We would also expect to see evidence of the relationship between altruistic behavior, social status, and economic gain.
Competitive altruism often takes beneficial forms. If a politician is compelled by competitive altruism to act in the best interests of a group he represents, and to use government money in the group’s interest, he will win more favor among voters than a less altruistic competitor. However, it is also possible for competitive altruism to hurt the group. Since competitive altruists are striving for their own personal ends rather than those of the group, their apparently altruistic actions can easily damage the group’s interests.
Any attempt to prove that one person is more altruistic or generous than another is likely to get lost in intangibles, because altruism is hard to define and pin down. Philanthropy, however, is a relatively definite and easily measured type of altruism, and has been thoroughly studied. The authors of these studies do not write explicitly about competitive altruism, but it is obvious that competition is one of the basic motivations of philanthropic giving.
Francie Ostrower, who has interviewed many philanthropists and is the author of Why the Wealthy Give, reports that one of the principal motives of philanthropy is to gain social status. By giving money to museums, universities, and other charities, American elites carve out an exclusive social world for themselves. Philanthropy is at once a sign of elite status and a way of making connections to enhance that status. One philanthropist described the rewards: “That’s pretty straightforward . . . . Social profile. A new forum for making social connections.” Another said, “One gets into philanthropic efforts or involvements . . . because you like and enjoy the caliber of the people you’re doing this with.”
The competitive nature of altruism is clear: “If you move to [Xville] and you want to be accepted by the OK people, you break your back to get on the board of the museum . . . . The entrées leading off that board are not to be believed. . . . You cannot imagine the vying that goes on to get onto that board.” Board memberships are a site of competition between different elite groups. Prof. Ostrower notes that there is often a conflict between the “old guard,” which sees itself as the “true guardians” of the organization, and the “new rich,” who try to eclipse the prestige of the older money by making larger donations. The old guard defends itself as the board’s true guardians by stressing the purity of its altruism as opposed to the mercenary striving of the new rich. “One social elite donor, for instance, distanced herself from the ‘new rich,’ whom she portrayed as giving for status, implying that she herself did not.”
Just as altruism raises status, its absence lowers it. Most of the philanthropists whom Prof. Ostrower interviewed agreed that “for wealthier members of our society, philanthropy is not a matter of personal choice, but is an obligation.” One donor said that when he sees wealthy people who contribute little, “it gives me a real clue about them as people . . . .” Another said that wealthy people who did not give were “looked upon with disdain, disfavor and [were] highly criticized.”
This type of competitive altruism is clearly one of the basic features of Western culture and is part of the Christian ethic, which exhorts Christians to altruism.
While the Protestants who founded America sanctified the accumulation of wealth, this was to be balanced by charitable giving. The Puritan leader John Winthrop believed God did not make one man richer than others for his own sake, “but for the glory of his creator and the common good of the creature man.” Jonathan Edwards believed charity was at the center of a Christian life. “Where,” he asked, “have we any command in the Bible laid down in stronger terms, and in a more peremptory urgent manner than the command of giving to the poor?” William Penn ordained to his fellow Quakers “Obedience to Superiors, Love to Equals, . . . Help and Countenance to Inferiors.” For Penn, money beyond what was needed to assure one’s own comfort should be given to orphans, widows, and the hungry.
The 19th century saw an exuberant proliferation of charitable organizations. The 1830s, for example, were the age of the “Benevolent Empire” of Protestant religious societies that distributed Bibles and religious tracts, promoted missionary work, and succored the indigent. This tradition continued in the 20th century, and was typified by Andrew Carnegie. He wrote about “surplus revenues which come to [the rich man] simply as trust funds . . . which he is called upon to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community.” Today’s wealthiest foundations were established in the names of 20th century magnate-philanthropists: Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Pew Memorial Trust, etc.
There is no doubt that competitive altruism played a role in this. Protestantism’s most famous theorist, the sociologist Max Weber, emphasized the connection between religious involvement and economic success. After giving many examples of the association between religious observance and business success in America, Weber concluded that throughout American history “sect membership meant a certificate of moral qualification and especially of business morals for the individual.” Climbing within the church through conformity to its principles went hand in hand with success in the business world. Philanthropic giving was important in both worlds, and one’s status increased with one’s generosity.
The current prevalence of racial altruism in elite white culture is due to a shift in the beneficiaries of competitive altruism. In the 19th century, people climbed the social ladder by giving to charities that distributed Bibles to orphans and sent missionaries to Africa. Today, elite commitment to specifically Christian philanthropy has been replaced by competition among whites who make donations to the United Negro College Fund or programs to promote diversity in higher education.
The direction of competitive altruism changed as a result of the power struggle that emerged in the 1960s and ‘70s between two segments of the American elite and gave rise to what became known as the liberal “New Class,” primarily employed in the public sector, and the business community. The New Class gained power by convincing the public its liberalism was a necessary antidote to the “racism” and selfishness of the “organization men” in the business world. Businessmen responded by trying to prove that the plight of minorities was important to them too, and started donating to liberal charities. Eventually they discovered that racial altruism was good business: the elite patronized businesses that helped minorities. Businesses therefore compete with each other to prove themselves the most racially altruistic. A concern for the interests of whites or even for their survival as a group is now the worst sort of bad taste.
The ideology of the current ruling class had its origins in the New Left movement of the 1960s, of which student radicalism was a part. While the old left had worked mainly for the well-being of white workers, the New Left was more concerned with minorities, the Third World, women, and the environment. In yoking these together, the New Left brought into being what we call “liberalism.”
Although predominantly white and Jewish, New Leftists romanticized blacks and Third-World peasants who, they believed, possessed an authentic “humanism” that was, in the words of student leader Tom Hayden, “immune to the ravages of competitive society.” They argued that the United States was dominated by an exploitative, incipiently aristocratic class of white Protestants that was racist, imperialist, and McCarthyite. As the New Left ideologue Susan Sontag put it in 1967:
“The white race is the cancer of human history. It is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.” According to Mr. Hayden’s 1962 “Port Huron Statement,” the manifesto of this movement, the radicals espoused “generosity of a kind that imprints one’s unique individual qualities in the relation to other men, and to all human activity.”
What better objects of generosity than those groups who were furthest from the mainstream: non-whites, homosexuals, criminals, and deviates of all kinds? Just as Jesus demonstrated his purity by consorting with prostitutes and publicans, the New Left would outcompete all others in altruism by claiming, at any rate, to care the most about people for whom the moneyed classes appeared to care the least.
Capitalism was, of course, the very antithesis of generosity, and the New Left initiated the anti-corporate campaign that has become a permanent feature of the political landscape. They founded groups like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Institute for Policy Studies, the Economic Research and Action Project, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility. They organized strikes and boycotts against companies, often on the grounds that they discriminated against non-whites. They worked together with minority groups to pressure banks and corporations to hire minorities and stop doing business with South Africa.
These campaigns had a mixed record in changing corporate practices, but were overwhelmingly successful in changing public opinion, particularly among the young. During the ‘60s and ‘70s, the New Left completely won the altruism game, and convinced the public of its moral superiority to business. A poll of college students in 1969 found that 94 percent believed business was “too profit-blinded and not concerned with public welfare.” Interest in a business career plummeted; in 1966, only seven percent of Princeton seniors said they planned immediate employment in business. As an article in Fortune found, “The prejudice against business is undeniable, and permeates the country’s highest-ranking colleges.”
The theory of competitive altruism predicts that anyone who manages to prove himself more altruistic than others will rise in status, and that is precisely what happened to the New Left. Many of the student radicals, as well as moderates who sided with them, began to form a new type of elite—it was conservative critics who called it the “New Class”—which prospered in professions unrelated to, and often hostile to, business. According to Irving Kristol, one of this class’s major theorists, the New Class consisted of “scientists, teachers and educational administrators, journalists, and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper level of the government bureaucracy, and so on.” They became the “experts” whose opinions are constantly being quoted to us.
As they grew older they consolidated their gains: In the 1970s Mr. Kristol wrote, “In any naked contest with the ‘new class,’ business is the certain loser.” The emergence and influence of this class can be quantified in American voting patterns: in the 1972 presidential election, for the first time, a greater percentage of the college-educated voted for the Democrats than did the non-college-educated. As recently as the 2000 presidential election, highly educated professionals were still more likely to vote for the left than was the rest of the population.
Although the New Class defined itself in opposition to establishment Protestantism, the conservative critic Michael Novak recognized what they had in common::
“The New Class covers its political campaigns . . . with an aura of morality so thick it would make the righteous Anglo-Saxons of a century ago envious. Because two of its chief causes—civil rights (including poverty) and resistance to the Indochinese war—are morally sound, it has been able to conceal its own lust for power and its own class interests, at least from itself.”
While their form of expression had changed, the basic traits of the race persisted. The New Class had merely found a new way to play the competitive altruism game that has always dominated American life: the only difference was that now blacks and Vietnamese peasants, rather than widows and orphans, were the pawns in the competition for elite status. As Communism crumbled, the people who would once have claimed to champion the proletariat switched to non-whites, homosexuals, and immigrants. The competitive impulse was the same, and the more forceful and public their demonstrations of benevolence, the greater their claim to superiority.
Ian Jobling holds a Ph.D. in Comparative
Literature and is the webmaster of the AmericanRenaissance website
and a writer for AmericanRenaissance
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •
Mexifornia Today, Meximerica Tomorrow?
Immigration ravages the Southwest.
reviewed by Peter Bradley
ictor Davis Hanson, a classicist at California State University, Fresno, brings a fifth-generation Californian’s perspective on the state’s slide into Third-World “Mexifornia.” He grew up in Selma in the San Joaquin Valley where he still runs a family farm, and has witnessed the steady dispossession of “Anglos” (though Prof. Hanson is of Swedish extraction).
Mexifornia’s first-hand descriptions of the depredations of Mexican immigration are compelling, and the book sounds the alarm about the need to control immigration, but like so many others who are beginning to see the light, Prof. Hanson cannot bring himself to acknowledge or understand race. Assimilation, and an end to racial nose-counting, he claims, would turn everyone into equally good citizens.
As a child in the 1950s and ‘60s, Prof. Hanson was one of few whites in Selma. Most of his classmates were legal Mexican immigrants, along with a remnant of the white “Okies” who still did farm work. He says there was some mild racial tension, but that a strong assimilationist ethic meant everyone was American, regardless of race. He even claims to feel most comfortable “with the people I grew up with, a population of mostly Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and whites who were raised with non-whites.”
It was the disappearance of Prof. Hanson’s California of the 1950s that prompted him to write Mexifornia. At 150 pages and without footnotes, the book is a personal reflection of the changes one man has seen over the last 40 years.
Today, Selma is almost entirely Mexican. La Raza-type racialism has replaced assimilation, and Prof. Hanson deals almost daily with the problems—unseen by most whites—of mass immigration. Illegals use his farm as a garbage dump. He regularly finds used diapers, plastic toys, old magazines, television sets, vermin-infested sofas and beds, and even junk cars on his property. His most bizarre discovery was a 1950s camping trailer (no plates or registration, of course) abandoned in front of his house. It was filled with broken furniture, tree limbs, garbage, clothes, and old newspapers. The tires were flat and the trailer was impossible to move. After three weeks, the county finally removed the monstrosity with a skip loader and a dump truck.
Prof. Hanson writes:
“I couldn’t help but speculate about the mentality behind the trailer. Apparently, after it reached critical mass, some people finally realized that such a stinking, noxious mess was unpleasant in their own environs—so they decided simply to tow it out to the premises of a gringo farmer who would probably take care of it.”
Prof. Hanson cannot use his mailbox for outgoing mail because it will be stolen. Mexicans have robbed him and assaulted his family. Farm tools disappear immediately if they are not locked up. Gang graffiti mars his property. It is pointless to go to the bank or the DMV because no one there speaks English. Drunken farm workers with no insurance cause traffic accidents. Hospital emergency rooms overflow with immigrants, none with insurance, waiting to be treated at taxpayer expense for everything from minor injuries to gun shot wounds.
Prof. Hanson writes that massive immigration and abandonment of the “melting pot” ideal have created a society within a society in California. Rich whites and Asians live behind fences in wealthy communities, while Hispanics pick fruit, do washing, cook, paint, and mow lawns. Prof. Hanson criticizes both liberals and conservatives for letting this happen. Conservatives want cheap labor and don’t care whether it is legal or illegal. Liberals want more non-whites for racial preferences and big-government programs. And, of course, Hispanic race activists want more Hispanics to increase their own racial power.
Unfortunately, Prof. Hanson feels compelled to deny repeatedly that race has anything to do with the creation of Mexifornia. “Multiracialism works,” he once said in an interview; “multiculturalism does not.” Still, he has managed to see through a few of the most preposterous racial orthodoxies. On the notion that “white racism” is responsible for the plight of poor Mexicans, he writes:
“Koreans . . . are as ‘unwhite’ as Mexicans; yet their culture puts a premium on business, education and family, not government largess. . . . So far, Mexican-American citizens have not been interned; nor have they been blown to bits while building railroads; nor have they suffered a holocaust by an invading Islamic power—disasters that did not stop the Japanese, Chinese and Armenians from reaching per capita economic parity with the majority in California.”
At the same time, he writes sentences as stupid as this: “[T]he effects of total assimilation, intermarriage and ending government-sponsored separatism would have obliterated perceptible differences in income and education among Mexicans, whites, blacks and Asians.” Like many neo-conservatives, Prof. Hanson refuses to see the obvious, even as he documents problems that are deeply racial. He actually appears to believe that the forces of assimilation that, even at their most vigorous, could not bring blacks or Indians into the white mainstream, will somehow succeed with Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Haitians. This foolish sentimentalism is now the obligatory backdrop to any critique of race or immigration policy.
Prof. Hanson ends his book by offering options for California. One is to leave immigration levels unchanged but push assimilation. A second is to defend the border, limit immigration and push assimilation—the option Prof. Hanson favors. The third choice is to do nothing and resign ourselves to Mexifornia, which means:
“Spanish, de facto, becomes coequal with English; poverty becomes endemic; the federal and state governments replace the impoverished municipality as the salvation of last resort; schools erode; crime soars; and there seems to be little cultural opportunity for integration and Americanization.”
Of course, this has already happened in much of southern and central California. And if whites are capable of learning anything, perhaps it is best for this process to continue. Maybe a Mexifornia so hideous and undeniable not even liberals could pretend it was a model would serve as a warning to the rest of America about the realities of race, civilization and uncontrolled immigration. Losing California to Mexifornia is a tragedy. Losing America to Meximerica would mean the death of our nation. As a Mexican friend told the author, “If you let us make California into Mexico, we will just go to Oregon. If we turn Oregon into Mexico, we’ll stampede our way into Washington . . . .”
Peter Bradley is the pen name of a writer living in the Washington, D.C. area.
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •
Sounding the Alarm
A racial perspective on the immigration crisis.
reviewed by Stephen Webster
ew critics of mass immigration write as knowledgeably or forcefully as syndicated columnist and frequent AR contributor Samuel Francis. America Extinguished is a collection of columns written between 1998 and 2000, and a quick review of the titles—“GOP Can Win Without Pandering to Minorities” and “Language Anarchy May Fracture National Bonds,” etc.—shows many are as timely as if they had been written yesterday.
What sets Dr. Francis apart from so many other critics of mass immigration—aside from his acerbic wit—is that he writes with a realistic understanding of race. Mass immigration is a crisis not so much because of the numbers (33.1 million from 1970 to 2002), but because the overwhelming majority of immigrants are non-white. Many do not speak English and most are ignorant of, if not hostile to, American history and culture. Left unchecked, mass non-white immigration will forever alter the character of the United States.
Race matters, Dr. Francis notes, because “race carries and parallels culture. The different colors that are going to shade the flesh of future Americans come from different countries and different cultures, where different tastes, patterns of behavior, ways of thinking, and varying norms prevailed.” The mainstream immigration debates of the 1980s and 1990s ignored the consequences of the impending racial transformation. Race came up only when a supporter of mass immigration was losing an argument, and accused his opponent of “racism,” or “xenophobia.” Assimilation was to be thought of in strictly economic terms—unemployment rates, household income—and never in “the less tangible and quantifiable truths about the acceptance of distinctively American values, norms, and institutions.”
Dr. Francis points out that these “less tangible and quantifiable truths” mean nothing to supporters of mass immigration, either on the left or the right. Leftists are openly hostile to traditional America, and welcome the displacement of whites as a cure for racism. Those on the right who support mass immigration are almost exclusively neo-conservatives or libertarians, and are generally indifferent to traditional America as a “distinct, historically articulated” society and culture. To them, America is an idea, an abstraction—a “credal nation,” a “proposition nation,” the “first universal nation”—open to anyone. Dr. Francis quotes from a 1994 statement written for William Bennett and Jack Kemp: “[T]he American national identity is not based on ethnicity, or race, or national origin, or religion. The American nation identity is based on a creed, on a set of principles and ideas.”
Dr. Francis points out that this view ignores the central facts of the founding of our country. “Throughout American history,” he writes, “the vast majority of immigrants have been of European stock and culture. They brought European languages that were not too different from each other. They brought religious beliefs that were historically connected. They brought social institutions, manners, and customs rooted in the same traditions, ethics and world views. And they were all of essentially the same racial stock. Since they were largely homogeneous to begin with, it’s not all that surprising they formed one nation that has retained homogeneity until recently.”
Dr. Francis notes that today’s immigrants do not want to assimilate and no one seems to expect them to. Our rulers have even begun to act as if Spanish had the same status as English. “[B]usinesses and politicians will do nothing to stop the transformation of our language,” he writes. “They refuse to do so precisely because Hispanics are a bloc and because the bloc doesn’t want to learn or use English, and the politicians and businessmen are more scared of the Hispanic bloc than they are of the American, English-speaking bloc. That’s because there is no such bloc.”
The Stupid Party
A solid majority of Americans wants to halt mass immigration, but special interests thwart its wishes. Big business wants cheap labor. Unions want bodies to prop up declining membership. Churches want to fill empty pews. Democrats see non-whites as future supporters. And much to Dr. Francis’ disgust, the Republican Party is also part of the immigration lobby. Mass immigration will doom the party at the national level well before the white majority is displaced, and Republicans’ persistent inability to comprehend this self-evident truth is one reason Dr. Francis refers to the GOP as the Stupid Party (the Democrats are the Evil Party).
The Stupid Party drew precisely the wrong conclusion from the 1994 fight over California’s Proposition 187 to withhold state benefits from illegal immigrants. Although Democrats, liberals, and the national media denounced 187 as racist and bigoted, it passed with 60 percent of the vote. Embattled Republican California Gov. Pete Wilson seemed headed for defeat until he embraced 187, and several Republican congressmen who endorsed it were also reelected. That same year, the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. But rather than rally to immigration control as the winning issue it obviously was, the Republicans were too afraid of being called bad names in the Washington Post and New York Times. It was after the victory of Proposition 187 that Republicans began to woo the Hispanic vote.
“The brute fact,” Dr. Francis notes in a 2000 essay, “is that Mr. Bush would not be in the lead at all [or subsequently elected] if it were not for the same white male voters who have kept the Republicans in power for decades. The Republicans—the smart ones anyway—know this, and they know treading on the toe of the white male voter . . . is political suicide.”
What most Republican strategists ignore, Dr. Francis writes, “is that Hispanic voters in the United States tend to be liberal regardless of what they think about immigration, and that is the real reason they don’t vote Republican very much. . . . It’s not so much the conservative opposition to immigration that alienates Hispanics from the Republican Party; it’s conservatism in general.”
Republicans believe white men have no place else to go. This may be true for the time being, but as Dr. Francis’s discussion of Patrick Buchanan’s presidential campaigns suggests, the GOP’s steady sacrifice of traditional Republican policies, and its misguided appeal to Hispanics and other non-whites could bring new political movements to life.
Dr. Francis’s final diagnosis: “The Republicans can follow one of two strategies. They can keep pandering to the Hispanic bloc and wind up turning their party into a carbon copy of the Democrats . . . or they can remain what they are, purge themselves of panderers, and rally real Americans to a real conservative banner that swears friendship to no nation, and speaks no language but our own.”
Dr. Francis points out that Mexico plays a deliberate and corrosive part in America’s ongoing crisis. “Mexico’s immigration policy is and for the last 30 years or so has been to dump as many of its people on the United States as it can,” he writes. “By doing so, Mexico exports excess people, ne’er-do-wells and criminals, helps relieve internal political and economic pressures and, in recent years, has actually developed a fifth column of its own nationals inside the United States that it manipulates for its own political purposes.”
“What is going on here,” Dr. Francis concludes, “is a vocal and transparent effort by the Mexican government simply to reoccupy a large part of the United States that it claims was stolen from it and to use its own illegal immigrant fifth column here to manipulate the internal politics of what it doesn’t or can’t yet take back.”
Dr. Francis details how changes in Mexican laws encourage Mexicans in the US to vote in Mexican elections, and make it easier for their political parties to organize Mexicans living here to pressure the US government to adopt policies favorable to Mexico. Should a real attempt be made to halt Mexican immigration, it will no doubt be greeted with mass demonstrations orchestrated by Mexico City. Dr. Francis rightfully characterizes these policies as “very close to being an act of war.”
For years, Dr. Francis has been trying to alert Middle America to the threats to our race, culture and civilization. America is not yet extinguished, but Dr. Francis tells us the writing is on the wall: “As the population figures . . . suggest, the time when Americans can mount any resistance to immigration is short. The day is soon coming—Mexican revanchists remind us of it all the time—when the immigrants will simply be too many for any sitting politician to call for immigration controls without inviting political suicide. Americans who read these columns and agree with their drift cannot afford to wait for sitting politicians to stop sitting and take action. If we ourselves are not willing to do what is necessary, we have no right to expect anyone else to do it for us.”
America Extinguished is available at reduced prices for multiple copies: 2-19 are $5.00 each, and 20 or more are $3.00 each. Send orders to: AIC, PO Box 738, Monterey, VA 2446.
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •
Rivarol Fights Back
France for the French!
ivarol is a lively French weekly that has for more than 50 years spoken with a clear, nationalist voice. It is adamantly opposed to mass immigration, suspicious of both a federal Europe and a lumberingly powerful United States, and willing to gore every sacred cow in the herd. As Rivarol itself noted on its 50th birthday in 2001, it was celebrating 2,500 weeks of “constant combat against deceit, disinformation, and the established powers.”
This is not without risk in today’s France, where journalists must constantly keep an eye on the censor if they are not to be hauled into court on charges of “inciting hatred.” Rivarol has had its share of brushes with the law: “We continue to be a fearsome presence in the eyes of the anti-France, as can be seen in the dozen suits brought in the last few years against us by MRAP [Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples], LICRA [International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism], the Human Rights League, and other pressure groups. Their stated purpose is to bankrupt a journal they find too attached to the survival of the Western World, and to drive us from the scene.” The paper is today as vigorous as ever, and has just published issue number 2634.
The best-known figure at Rivarol is undoubtedly the pseudonymous cartoonist Chard, who has been with the publication since 1969. She lights up every issue with her wickedly clever insights into the follies of our times. Jean Raspail, author of Camp of the Saints (reviewed in AR June, 1995), has written:
“Chard is tough. She takes no prisoners. She has the perfect touch for the times in which we French live: dark, biting, pitiless, often tragic. And often with a flash of genius.”
Rivarol (subscription information at www.rivarol.com) is a sophisticated read, and requires rather more than high school French, but many of Chard’s cartoons have no borders. Some of her recent work is available in a new collection called La France métisse de A à Z. (Métis is difficult to translate; a respectable word meaning “mixed-race,” but also with a whiff of mongrel.) The book consists of two cartoons for every letter of the alphabet, and a short preface by Rivarol’s editor Camille Galic:
“. . . In the last 15 years, France has undergone the most significant ethnic revolution in its history. The diverse society has given way to a métisse population, and like it or not, the natives now dance to the tune of the occupiers . . . .”
“. . . Ever watchful, Chard told us ‘Look out; danger ahead,’ when the dominant ideology promised us a Garden of Eden, where the milk of human kindness would mix harmoniously with the honey each of us would find in the culture of the ‘other.’ Weren’t we told, ‘Profit from your differences’ through integration that could only be ideal? We now know where such irenics have lead us.
“ . . . The new Chard collection is an X-ray of France. If we ignore the diagnosis, it won’t be long before we have to consider an autopsy.”
This book is normally for sale only in Euros, but for a limited time, Rivarol will, in return for a $10.00 bill, ship a copy to anyone who writes and asks for La France métisse de A à Z. (Address: Editions de Tuileries, 1 rue d’Hauteville, 75010 Paris, FRANCE.)
Below are a few selections from the incomparable Chard’s new alphabet.
Bustamante’s True Color(s)
Cruz Bustamante, who has a very good chance of becoming governor of California as a result of the recall election on October 7, appears to be an out-and-out Hispanic nationalist. Although he has tried to downplay his involvement in the group, he has never repudiated the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), or the Mexican Student Aztlan Movement. The group, whose well known goal is the expulsion of whites from the southwestern United States and the creation of an all-Mesitizo nation, has chapters on 300 American campuses. Mr. Bustamente was an active member when he was a student at Fresno State University.
Mr. Bustamante was born in the United States, and spoke only Spanish before kindergarten. He later lost native-speaker fluency in Spanish, and now that he is in politics says he plans to regain it through frequent trips to Mexico (why that should be necessary for anyone living in California is not clear). But even as an English-speaker, he had no doubts about his identity. In high school, as he explained to a reporter in 1999, “you had to take sides. You were either a good Mexican kid or a coconut [brown on the outside, white on the inside].” No prize for guessing which side he took.
After high school, Mr. Bustamante went to Fresno City College to learn how to be a butcher, but dropped out. His father wangled a Washington internship with local Congressman B.F. Sisk, and young Cruz immediately developed a lust for politics and power. “I found that I could call an agency and make things happen,” he says. “That was very exciting for me.”
Back in California he took courses at Fresno State University, and flung himself into local and student politics. This was his period of MEChA activism, but he now says, “I wasn’t the most radical Mechista.” He describes the organization as an almost apolitical training ground for leadership. Once again, he failed to graduate.
He got himself elected to the California state assembly, and managed to sail through several squalls. He once told reporters at a press conference, “We could not conduct business without the immigrant.” When asked if he supported illegal immigration, he replied, “My district requires it.” When this caused a bit of a ruckus in the English-language press, he took revenge by keeping all but Spanish media out of his press conferences for a while. This caused him no difficulties with his Hispanic constituents, and was apparently no obstacle to being put on the ticket with Gray Davis as lieutenant governor in 1998. It was therefore on the coattails of a white man that the first Hispanic in more than a century was elected to state-wide office in California.
On February 9, 2001, the lieutenant governor gave a Black History Month speech to 400 members of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. A quarter of his audience got up and left the room when he referred to the group as a “nigger” labor organization. This gaffe—mortal for a white man—did not keep him off the ballot in 2002, and he was reelected along with Mr. Davis.
When it became clear this year that Republicans had succeeded in arranging a recall, Mr. Bustamante saw this as the perfect route to power. He decided he would let the recall proceed, but ignore the state constitution and disallow the simultaneous vote for a successor. This way, if the recall succeeded, the post of governor would be empty, and the lieutenant would glide into the job. Apparently a few fellow Democrats gave Mr. Bustamante a talking to, explained that California was not (yet) Mexico, and told him a tropical maneuver of that kind would not work.
Mr. Bustamante sulked but got into line. He promised to be a good Democrat and refrain from running as a replacement candidate in the recall. The party line was that the recall was a scurvy Republican trick, and that if no major Democrat came forward to replace Mr. Davis, Democrats would vote against the recall—because all the replacement candidates were Republicans—and keep the governor in power.
“There is no circumstance in which I would be a candidate,” said the loyal Mr. Bustamante. “I will not participate in any way other than to urge voters to reject this expensive perversion of the recall process,” he added. “I will not attempt to advance my career at the expense of the people I was elected to serve. I do not intend to put my name on that ballot.” It didn’t take long before he stabbed the gringo in the back and got on the ballot. Officially and illogically, he urges Californians to vote against the recall but also to vote for him as replacement governor. By running in the recall he has given millions of Hispanics a good reason to boot Mr. Davis after all.
Unlike Antonio Villaraigosa who, during his failed 2001 campaign for mayor of Los Angeles, never had to answer sharp questions about his Mechista days, Mr. Bustamante has had a bit of needling. When reporters refused to let him run away, and pressed him four times on his views of MEChA, he finally said “racial separation is wrong,” before immediately changing the subject. Wrong it may be, but when last year, at age 49, Mr. Bustamante finally completed his Fresno State degree by correspondence course (the job of lieutenant governor is not very demanding), he collected his degree in a Hispanics-only ceremony. [The foregoing is from excellent reporting on Mr. Bustamante by Lowell Ponte on FrontPageMagazine. com: Bustamante: The Racist in the Race? (Aug. 11, 2003) and The MEChA Whitewash (Sept. 2, 2003).]
Despite the media’s flicker of interest in MEChA, as with all non-whites, Mr. Bustamante’s racial nationalism is quickly forgiven, and will be no impediment to power. The great and good Senator Joseph Lieberman tells us his friend Cruz will make a fine governor. Perhaps the senator has never examined the official MEChA seal. In the center is an eagle with an Aztec battle ax in one talon and a stick of dynamite in the other. Although the senator jabbered a bit of Spanish during the Democratic debates in New Mexico in September, perhaps he doesn’t quite understand the MEChA slogan: “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” (For The Race everything. For those outside The Race, nothing). Needless to say, a busy candidate for the Democratic nomination for president doesn’t have time to read “The Spiritual Plan of Aztlan,” which is admittedly heavy going, but part of which reads as follows:
“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal ‘gringo’ invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.”
Someone who has taken the time to look into Mr. Bustamante’s doings is Thomas Metzger, leader of White Aryan Resistance (WAR) and former Klan wizard. Mr. Metzger urges all Californians to vote for Mr. Bustamante so as to flush the issue of Hispanic nationalism into the open. “The immigration thing has to be brought to a head, and I feel that the best way to do that is endorse the worst,” he says. [Nathan C. Masters, White Racist (La Raza Blanco) Endorses Bustamante in California Recall, CNSNews.com, Sept. 8, 2003.]
Sauce for the Goose
On July 31, the Israeli parliament approved a law that denies the right to Israeli citizenship or even residency to Palestinians who are married to Israelis. The law affects 20,000 couples, who will have to either move out of Israel—most often to Gaza or the West Bank—or break up. Children of such families are not considered Israelis, and will not receive Israeli passports.
The law has been described as a security measure necessary to keep potential terrorists out of the country, but its backers admit it serves another purpose. The liberal Ha’aretz newspaper writes that the new law is “an infringement of principles of democracy and equal rights,” but goes on to defend it in these terms:
“[Democracy and equal rights] must be balanced against the basic right enjoyed by members of the Jewish majority of the country to preserve the state’s character, which is defined as a Jewish state in the country’s founding declaration. . . . This reasoning is extremely pertinent to those who do not want to live in a binational state in which a Palestinian majority can be anticipated in the not-too-distant future.” [Joshua Mitnick, Israeli Law Targets ‘Mixed’ Families, Washington Times, Aug. 18, 2003.] Arabs now make up just under 20 percent of the population of Israel, but their birthrates are considerably higher than those of Jews. It is from fear of displacement that Israelis so oppose the return of Palestinians who left the country when Israel was established.
Even President George Bush understands this. At the urging of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he has several times referred to Israel publicly as “the Jewish state,” in recognition of the importance of homogeneity. He is reported to have agreed with Mr. Sharon that a “right of return” for Palestinians would be suicide. “If you allow more than three million Palestinians into your country, it will destroy Israel,” he told the Prime Minister. [Uri Dan, Auschwitz Visit Haunts and Inspires Bush, New York Post, July 31, 2003.]
Let There Be Whites!
Fred Caldwell is bishop of Greenwood Acres Full Gospel Baptist Church in Shreveport, Louisiana. He is black, and is tired of seeing only black faces in his congregation of 5,000. “The most segregated hour in America is Sunday morning at 11 o’clock,” he says. “The Lord is tired of it, and I’m certainly tired of it. This is not right.”
As he was preaching a sermon last July, he had an idea: pay whites $5.00 an hour out of his own pocket to attend Sunday services, and $10.00 an hour for Thursday night services. “This idea is born of God,” he says. “God wants a rainbow in his church.” The bishop’s congregation is reported to agree: members are chipping in to help with the costs. [Doug Simpson, La. Church Offers to Pay Whites to Attend, Las Vegas Sun, Aug. 1, 2003.]
Let There Be None!
Not all black ministers want white people around. In August, Baltimore’s Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, together with the Baptists Ministers’ Conference sponsored two public discussions for Democrats running for mayor. There are five Democrats—three blacks and two whites, including incumbent Mayor Martin O’Malley—but the ministers invited only the blacks.
Rev. Gregory Perkins of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance said initially that e-mail invitations went out to all the candidates and that the whites must have lost theirs or decided not to come. The group’s executive secretary, Rev. Doug Wilson, later admitted they didn’t invite whites. Rev. Russell Johnson of the Baptist Ministers’ Conference says the forums were “only for black candidates.” State Democratic party officials tried to pressure the black ministers to hold another forum and invite whites, but Rev. Perkins said there wasn’t time to organize another event.
Baltimore is 63 percent black. Before Mr. O’Malley’s election in 1999, when he received 91 percent of the vote, the city had not had a white mayor since 1986. [Robert Redding, Jr., Mayoral Forums Exclude Whites, Washington Times, Aug.19, 2003, p. A1. Robert Redding, Jr., Leggett Assails Candidate Forums, Washington Times, Aug. 21, 2003, p. B1.]
Down for the Count
Mike Tyson is broke and has filed for bankruptcy. He earned nearly $300 million in the ring, but it’s all gone. Last year he was supposed to pay $10 million to his former wife, Monica Turner Tyson, but didn’t have the cash. During divorce proceedings, it emerged that in the two years ending in1997 Mr. Tyson spent $230,000 on pagers and cell phones, $410,000 on birthday parties, $8,100 to take care of pet tigers and $65,000 for limousine service. He also says his promoter, Don King, stole a lot of his money, and is suing the silver-haired impressario for $100 million. [Bridget Harrison, Iron Mike’s Broke, New York Post, Aug. 3, 2003.]
En Route to the US?
We reprint the following item verbatim and in toto:
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands—Around 2,000 baboon noses were found in an abandoned suitcase at Amsterdam airport after they started to stink, officials said Wednesday.
The noses were en route from Lagos [Nigeria] to the United States, apparently intended for an immigrant market.
Baboons are protected under international law. Their noses are used in traditional medicine in parts of Asia and Africa.
Dutch customs police discovered the suitcase at a baggage claim last week. They turned the case over to Agriculture Ministry’s Inspection Service, which said it had several leads that may help it track down the culprits.” [Dutch Customs Finds 2,000 Baboon Noses, Morning News (Fayetteville, Ark.), Sept. 4, 2003.]
Hurricane in a Teapot
Before 1953, Atlantic hurricanes did not have names. That year, to highlight the unpredictable nature of storms, scientists at the World Meteorological Organization began naming hurricanes after women. In 1979, after protests from women’s groups, the WMO started using men’s names, too. Hurricane names come from the languages—English, Spanish and French—spoken in the areas where the storms strike. Among this year’s list of names are Claudette, Larry and Ernesto—but not Antwon, Jamal, Keisha, or Latonya. This upsets black congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), who thinks the names should represent “all racial groups.” She’ll have to be angry for a while; the name list isn’t scheduled to be updated until 2007. [Bill Thomas, Hurricane Latonya? The Hill (Washington, DC), August 5, 2003.]
How’s His Spanish?
Wilfredo Laboy is superintendent of schools for Lawrence, Massachusetts. During the summer, as he is required to do by regulations, he put two dozen teachers on unpaid leave for flunking the basic English proficiency test all teachers and administrators must pass. Now it appears that he, himself, has failed the test three times. State Education Commissioner David Driscoll says the test is tough for someone whose first language is Spanish, and says he will let Mr. Laboy take the test again, but at some point he will have to pass or give up his $156,560-a-year job. Mr. Laboy doesn’t see the point of the test: “It bothers me because I’m trying to understand the congruence of what I do here every day and this stupid test,” he says. “That’s what, emotionally, I’m so upset about.” [Schools Chief Fails Must-Pass Test, AP, Aug. 3, 2003.]
Former Catholic Blesses Voodoo
Jean-Bertrand Aristide is a one-time Catholic priest, now in his second term as president of Haiti. The constitution says no one may serve for more than two terms, so Mr. Aristide would like to change (or ignore) the constitution. In what appears to be a bid for popular support towards this goal, he has issued a decree making voodoo equal to Catholicism as an official religion. Voodoo artists will now be able to do everything priests do: marry, bury, and baptize. This will require a bit of adjustment since such things as marriage and burial require paperwork and about half of voodoo priests cannot read. The Ministry of Religion is working out the details.
The vast majority of Haitians believe in voodoo, which blacks brought with them from Africa. Voodoo is said to have strengthened the resolve of the blacks who massacred the French and won independence in 1803. Still, even after independence, voodoo took a back seat to Catholicism, and had a semi-secret status until 1987, when a new constitution officially recognized it. Most Haitians are delighted to see native beliefs on par with the religion the French gave them.
Houngans (priests) and mambos (priestesses) are particularly pleased. Houngan Adnor Adely calls Mr. Aristide “the president of voodoo,” and vows to support him no matter what: “We will stay with him forever and perform every ceremony necessary to keep him in power. We will not negotiate with any country on this, no matter how much pressure they put on us. We will eat rocks if we have to, as long as we can keep him in power.”
There is some debate, however, over just what voodoo is, and who practices the real thing. There is much communing with spirits, and plenty of sacrificing, but voodoo has neither hierarchy nor doctrine: “There are no laws or rules,” says Houngan Elie Duverger; “only a kind of lore that is passed from one generation to another through the calling of the spirits.” This is a great asset, says Mr. Duverger: “Voodoo is more flexible than other religions because it is whatever its believers want to make it.” [Carol J. Williams, Haitians Hail the ‘President of Voodoo,’ Los Angeles Times, Aug. 3, 2003.]
On Aug. 2, US Border Patrol agents in San Diego arrested five members of a family of illegal aliens outside the Mexican Consulate, where they were going to apply for the matricula consular ID card the Mexican government issues to citizens in the US. The five were promptly deported to Mexico, much to the annoyance of the Mexicans. Consul General Rodulfo Figueroa issued a statement expressing outrage that the arrests took place so near his office, and Deputy Consul General Javier Diaz protested to chief San Diego Border Patrol agent William Veal.
The chief gave in to the Mexicans, and on Aug. 8 told the 1,600 agents under his command that they could no longer arrest illegal aliens in cities, residential areas, near workplaces and locations where day laborers gather—in other words, at the very places they are likely to be found. He also ordered agents not to make arrests while driving to work. The only places the Border Patrol could make arrests were at the border or at established highway checkpoints.
Chief Veal’s order horrified his staff. Many supervisors instructed agents to ignore the order, and others openly questioned whether it was a legal command which they were obligated to obey. Agent Joseph Dassaro, president of the agents’ union, urged compliance but added:
“We are all disgusted by the recent turn of events concerning the Mexican Consulate, subsequent related events, and the issuance of this recent [order]. The situation in totality represents the systematic abrogation of our responsibilities to foreign governments and interests. As federal officers, we should all be disgusted; however, we should not be surprised.”
What is surprising is that senior officials in Washington overturned Chief Veal’s order. San Diego Border Patrol agents can once again arrest illegals wherever they find them.
The Mexican government has been lobbying American banks to accept the matricula consular cards as valid identification. Ironically, no major Mexican bank accepts them. [Jerry Seper, Order Not to Arrest Illegals Overturned, Washington Times, Aug. 21, p. A1.]
Last December in Klein, Texas, the home of a black couple, Nicholas and Tracey Gatlin, went up in flames. Since racial slurs were spray-painted on the wall, police thought it was a hate crime. Nicholas Gatlin filed a claim with Allstate Insurance for more than $100,000.
Arson investigators soon discovered that the Gatlins had burned the house themselves. They found a gasoline can in the living room and 18 places in the house that had been doused with gasoline or diesel fuel. Witnesses saw the Gatlins—who claimed to be in Louisiana at the time—removing belongings from the house shortly before the fire broke out at 4:00 a.m., and investigators found more than 100 personal items from the house, undamaged and intact, in the couple’s new apartment.
The Gatlins were arrested and charged with arson and insurance fraud. Last July, a jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of convicting Mr. Gatlin of insurance fraud. Prosecutors decided to retry Mr. Gatlin, but on Aug. 18 he opted for a plea bargain, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for arson and insurance fraud. Mrs. Gatlin got four years deferred adjudication. The couple must also pay $13,000 restitution to Allstate. [Dale Lezon, Couple Burned Home to Collect on Insurance, Houston Chronicle, Aug. 21, 2003.]
According to a British government report issued in August, foreign-born inmates now outnumber native Britons in British prisons. At 2,800, Jamaicans make up the largest group of foreign jailbirds, and most are women caught smuggling cocaine. The British want the Jamaican government to help share the cost of its citizens to British taxpayers, and have suggested the island build a prison for Jamaicans convicted of crimes in Britain. The Jamaicans are looking into the idea. [Island Studies a Prison to Take Inmates in UK, Herald (Miami), Aug. 28, 2003.]
Allah and the Badge
Kimberlie Webb is a black Philadelphia police officer who converted to Sunni Islam two years after joining the force back in 1995. When off duty, she wears a hijab, a traditional Muslim scarf. In 1998 she asked for departmental permission to wear the scarf with her uniform, but commanders denied the request, saying the hijab was dangerous: someone could grab here by it or choke her with it. She accepted the decision at the time, but in February 2003 she filed a petition with the US Equal Opportunity Commission, saying her religious freedom was being denied.
In August, the Philadelphia Police Department was forced by a federal court ruling to allow policemen to grow beards for religious or health reasons. On August 12 Miss Webb showed up for her shift wearing the hijab. When her commanding officer told her to remove it, she refused, citing her religion, and was sent home. Police commissioner Sylvester Johnson says if she wears the scarf again, he’ll fire her. The Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, DC, will press her case. [Thomas J. Gibbons, Jr., Officer’s Headgear Debated, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 15, 2003, p. B1.]
Disuniting the Kingdom
More foreigners are moving into London than at any time in the city’s history. Last year alone, 125,000 immigrants arrived, and the city now has more foreign-born residents than either New York or Los Angeles. White Britons account for just 60 percent of London’s population, and are already minorities in six of 33 boroughs. Whites are fleeing the city—100,000 left just last year.
For decades, Britain had a stable population, but thanks to immigration, it will grow from 59 million to at least 66 million by 2031. The government estimates the newcomers will need 3.8 million new houses; others say the figure could be 4.9 million. Rural communities in southeastern England, where the houses are likely to be built, say they do not want them, but have little choice. [Sebastian O’Kelly, White Flight as our Capital Grows Ever More Foreign, Mail on Sunday (London), Aug. 17, 2003.]
The British are not just fleeing London; they’re leaving the country altogether. Nearly 300,000 emigrated in 2000 (perhaps the highest number ever), and a recent poll found that 54 percent would like to leave. Their reasons? The high cost of living, high taxes, traffic congestion and skyrocketing crime rates—all of which are linked to mass immigration. [Britain’s Revolving Door, Parade Magazine, June 22, 2003, p. 11.]
In May 2001, Bette Thomas was elected mayor of the city of North Chicago, thereby becoming the first black woman mayor in the history of Lake County. Recently she annoyed the city council and many of her constituents by putting a picture of herself on the stickers North Chicago residents must buy for their cars. “North Chicago’s first lady,” say the stickers, which cost $12.00. The aldermen promptly voted to prohibit putting the image of any living person on stickers, and to require their approval for any new design. Mayor Thomas can’t understand the fuss. “I made history,” she says. “What’s the problem?” [Susan Kuczka, North Chicago Hit by Sticker Shock, Chicago Tribune, Aug. 20, 2003.]
The southern African nation of Botswana has the highest HIV infection rate in the world—38 percent of adults. One of the 38 percent is Kesego Basha, who organized a beauty pageant just for HIV-positive women. Miss Basha hopes her Miss HIV-Stigma Free pageant will fight prejudice against infected women, and prove that they can still be “vibrant and beautiful.” One thousand people attended this year’s contest on Sept. 6, watching 14 contestants parade in evening gowns and traditional animal skins. They also sang native songs and talked about AIDS. [Sello Motseta, Botswana Holds Pageant for HIV-Positive, AP, Sept. 7, 2003.]
But doesn’t a little stigma discourage the behavior that spreads AIDS?
The Sharpton Follies
In August we reported that Ford Motor Credit Corporation had sued black political activist Al Sharpton to collect money he owes on a 2001 Ford Explorer. We also listed several other debts he’s welshed on, including back taxes, rents, hotel bills—and the $65,000 libel judgment stemming from the Tawana Brawley incident.
The latest company to sue the aspiring presidential candidate is Alpha International Travel, a Manhattan travel agency that claims he and his National Action Network owe them $193,131.97 for travel and hotel expenses. They also say the Sharpton people gave them fraudulent credit card information. Rev. Sharpton’s lawyer says it is the travel agency that is trying to steal from his client, and says he will file a criminal complaint. [Dareh Gregorian, Rev. Al Furor, New York Post, Aug. 21, 2003, p. 25.]
Fruits of Affirmative Action
The Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center was established in Los Angeles in 1972 in response to claims the black residents were not getting good medical treatment. The population has since changed, and the black-run hospital has been the scene of nasty turf wars as blacks try to hold on to power in the face of rising demands from Hispanics.
Quality of treatment has never been the hospital’s strong point, and King/Drew was recently stripped of accreditation to teach surgeons. This is a major blow that jeopardizes its entire physician training program. This administrative sanction by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education is called “summary withdrawal,” and is given under only the most extreme circumstances and cannot be appealed. The hospital would not release the reasons for the sanction, citing “privacy needs,” but last year the surgery program was put on probation because residents did not get enough surgical experience, faculty research was inadequate, and the curriculum did not follow guidelines. Less than a year ago, King/Drew lost the right to train diagnostic radiology residents, and four more of the hospitals 18 training programs—anesthesiology, family medicine, internal medicine and neonatal-perinatal programs—are on probation or have received warnings in the last two years.
Loss of accreditation is a blow for several reasons. First, it triggers a clause that permits Los Angeles County to stop funding the hospital—though the county for now says it will try to work with King/Drew rather than cut it off. Second, it means the hospital must send its 24 surgery residents elsewhere to finish their training. Residents are paid very little and do a great deal of the doctoring in teaching hospitals, and replacement surgeons will be very expensive. Finally, a black mark of this kind is a direct reflection on the quality of a hospital’s standards and management, and is very hard to live down.
Marvin Jubas, who is on the board of Drew Medical Center, says it is easy to blame the hospital, but the problem is underfunding. However, outside audits confirm internal statistics according to which King/Drew spends more per patient than the three other full-service hospitals in Los Angeles County. [King/Drew Loses Its Right to Train Surgeons, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 23, 2003.]
The Beleaguered Blond
There are many blonde women in film and advertising but few blond men. Perhaps our taste-makers do not want to glorify the Aryan. In any case, a reader found this example of an attractive blond—serving as an armrest for a black—in a Sears advertisement.
‘Korean’ is Illegal
Donald Sterling owns the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team. He also owns 99 apartment buildings in Southern California, and has more than 10,000 tenants. In February, something called the Housing Rights Center filed a federal suit, claiming Mr. Sterling discriminates against black and Hispanic renters in favor of Asians, specifically Koreans. According to evidence given in the case so far, Mr. Sterling allegedly told a staff meeting that Latinos “smoke, drink, and just hang around the building,” and that blacks “smell” and “attract vermin.” Korean Americans, on the other hand, reportedly “will live in whatever conditions he gives them and still pay the rent without complaint.”
The case is scheduled for trial this fall, but Judge A. Howard Matz has already issued some injunctions. He has ordered Mr. Sterling to take the word “Korean” out of the names of his buildings. He had, for example, changed the name of the Mark Wilshire Towers to Korean World Towers, and had named another building Wilshire Korean Towers. Judge Matz said this was an illegal implication that the building welcomed only Koreans. As part of the injunction, the judge forbade rental application forms that asked about national origin.
Mr. Sterling claims he has never discriminated in the rental business, and that he started asking about national origin only after the Sept. 11 attacks, when an FBI agent told him he should keep track of Middle Easterners. [Jocelyn Y. Stewart, Use of Word ‘Korean’ Ruled Discriminatory, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 30, 2003.]
Rule by Judges
The job of the US Supreme Court has traditionally been to interpret the US Constitution (although there is no provision in the Constitution that provides for this). However, justices are increasingly turning to treaties and foreign precedents for ideas on how to rule. The decision last summer, in which the court found that Texas could not forbid homosexual relations, referred to the findings of foreign courts. Likewise, in 2002, when the court banned executions of mentally retarded criminals, it noted that this practice was opposed overseas.
Justice Ruth Ginsburg says the justices “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives;” she cited a treaty in her June opinion upholding racial preferences in college admissions. She has also said that since the Internet makes it easier for American judges to read opinions of foreign courts, they should consider them when they make their own decisions. She also had advice for the American Constitution Society: “[Y]our perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world.” [Ginsburg: Int’l Law Shaped Court Rulings, AP, Aug. 3, 2003.]
Needless to say, when Justice Ginsburg talks about “encompassing the world,” she doesn’t mean it. She means only that she will pick the foreign opinions that suit her. If she really followed world legal opinion, she would have voted to punish homosexuals and to ban racial preferences. She would never consider studying a Mexican decision on the rights of immigrants or a Japanese decision on the status of women. Chattering about “the world” is just another excuse for ignoring the plain language of the Constitution she has sworn to defend and uphold.
Good, Clean Fun
Many Africans believe that a woman whose husband dies is haunted by evil spirits, and must be purified by having sex with a village “cleanser.” Widows are not allowed to attend their husbands’ funerals unless the ritual is complete, and if they refuse to submit to it, they may become the property of their husbands’ brothers or other male relatives. Unmarried adult women are thought to be unholy and disturbed if they refrain from sex, and are also supposed to entertain the cleanser.
Although it has regular pay and recognized benefits, cleansing is considered a low-class job for the town drunk or village idiot. Franchise Akacha, cleanser for the Kenyan village of Gangre, is certainly no Don Juan. His breath reeks of alcohol, and greasy food droppings cling to his moustache. The women of the village, who call him “the terrorist,” say he is skinny and has dreadful taste in clothes. Still, village elders appreciate his work. They believe that if the women are not purified the crops will be cursed, so they pay Mr. Akacha in cash, food and cows.
As AIDS ravages the continent, some women resist cleansing. Cleansers do not use condoms—Mr. Akacha says a condom interferes with proper cleansing—and they are spreading disease at an alarming rate in rural villages like Gangre, where one in three villagers is infected. Mr. Akacha does not worry about AIDS. He doesn’t know—or want to know—his HIV status. He likes his work the way it is. “It’s not bad for me,” he explains, “since I get to be with the beautiful ladies.” [Emily Wax, Kenyan Women Reject Sex ‘Cleanser,’ Washington Post, Aug. 18, 2003, p. A12.]
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •
Sir—In your August analysis of the recent Supreme Court decisions you note that the justices favor a “critical mass” of non-whites, though they fail to define it. Those of us who have lived through integration understand critical mass very well. It is the point at which the number of blacks and other minorities makes life unbearable, and whites leave.
You express surprise at business support for racial preferences, but it is easily explained. After years of wrangling and legal action, most large corporations understand just how much political correctness and affirmative action it takes to fend off lawsuits. If the rules change, they could once again be vulnerable to court challenges—perhaps from whites. Big business would rather maintain its delicate balance with minorities and regulators rather than start all over again with new rules and demands.
David Gancarz, Buffalo, New York
Sir—Northerners may have found your September cover story about the antics of blacks amusing. Southerners already know about this sort of thing from years of experience, and most of us—racially conscious or not—do not think it in good taste to swap stories about the goofy things blacks do. Mr. Taylor is a Southerner and should know better. IQ research and crime statistics are a vital part of our campaign; making fun of other races is not.
Elizabeth Tate, Richmond, Va.
Sir—Thank you for James Kalb’s September review of The Scorpion, to which I subscribe. Mr. Kalb explains that events forced Europeans to “think through modern political pathologies,” and that conservatives in the English-speaking world have suffered from not being exposed to European ideas. It is true that American conservatives react issue by issue to leftist outrages. Like the Europeans, we need a more comprehensive philosophy.
Robert Briggs, Punta Gorda, Fla.
Sir—In his review of The Scorpion, James Kalb rightly chides American conservatives for being “concerned with machinery, money, moralism, and not much else,” and therefore ceding important areas of culture to the left. This was not always the case. The transmission of culture is profoundly conservative, and up until the mid-20th century, most of the patrons of cultural institutions were wealthy conservatives who believed in Western traditions. Many prominent intellectuals, such as Harvard president Charles Eliot, were also conservative, if not politically, then certainly culturally. These elites also had a realistic understanding of race.
It seems to me that the same forces that undermined white racial consciousness also drove conservatives from more intellectual pursuits. Bright conservatives opt for money careers because they are less likely to suffer for their political views in business, than they are in academia or the arts.
But as Mr. Kalb points out, culture matters, so conservatives cannot do this forever. If Western civilization is to be preserved, bright conservatives who have made a lot of money need to start giving some of it to museums and other cultural institutions. Once they invest enough, they can manage “hostile takeovers” and rid the institutions of leftists. Wealthy conservatives need to fund and participate in a right-wing “long march through the institutions,” just as the Marxists did. It sounds as though they should subscribe to—and support—The Scorpion as well.
Clayton Farrow, Franklin, N.H.
Sir—In his September letter, Daniel Popolov, who tells us he is Jewish, asks: “Is there some ingredient in the Jewish success story that can enable those of European descent to survive the very specific headwinds that readers of AR are informed of on a monthly basis?” Indeed there is. It is called racial and ethnic solidarity. The preface to the paperback edition of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique is a good introduction to the subject.
John W. Altman, Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Sir—Kathy Boudin, a triple cop-killer who was with the 1960s terrorist group Weather Underground, is being paroled after just 22 years in prison. Perhaps her explanation for why she helped execute three officers back in 1981 won special sympathy from the parole board: “I had an ideology . . . that said, essentially, that white people, because of having privileges, are essentially bad.”
David Hammer, Bronx, N.Y.
• • • BACK TO TOP • • •