The Right of Self Defense
Why white racial consciousness
is necessary and moral.
This is the conclusion of a reply to a letter in the previous issue
of AR, in which an old friend of the editor explained why he thinks white
consciousness is wrong and dangerous.
by Samuel Taylor
The fundamental question you raise is this: Is
it moral for whites to defend their race and culture? In a country in which
every other group makes constant racial demands at the expense of whites
the answer to this question should be obvious. And yet, many whites think
that even though racial consciousness is fine for every other group, for
whites it would be uniquely evil. Since they do not even think in terms
of their common interests, they do not see how much they have already lost.
Conquest by Mexico
There are several ways to illustrate this. Let us imagine, for example,
that Mexico were to invade and conquer the south-eastern part of the United
States. What would the Mexicans do with their new territory? They would
establish Spanish as the official language of school and government. They would
expel much of the white population and replace it with Mexicans. They would
abolish American holidays and replace them with Mexican ones. Music, food,
education, work habits, and religion – all would become Mexican rather
Of course, this is exactly what has already happened in many parts of
California and Texas. Ballot papers are printed in Spanish, people speak
Spanish in school and watch Mexican television, towns celebrate Cinco de
Mayo instead of the Fourth of July, and whites have been displaced by Mexicans.
A similar invasion from Central America and the Caribbean has, in 30 years,
reduced Miami’s former 90 percent white majority to a 10 percent minority.
Those parts of the country are lost to our people and to our culture.
What was once America is now ruled by aliens. Astonishing as this may be,
we have given up the very thing that nations send their young men into
battle to die for. The integrity of a people, race, or culture are among
the few things that nations so cherish that they willingly sacrifice even
millions of lives to preserve them. Why? Because the preservation of the
nation of one’s forefathers is more important than life itself.
There is no prospect more horrible
than the extinction of one’s people
There is no prospect more horrible than the extinction of one’s people
and culture. One’s own death is an irrelevance by comparison. Every healthy
people knows this without a moment’s reflection, and that this knowledge
should have slipped from the minds of white people is a sign of the sickness
that must be cured.
If it is moral to resist an armed invasion of our nation, surely it
is still more moral to resist one that is unarmed but produces the same
result. If it is legitimate to kill people in order to prevent conquest,
it should be even more legitimate to prevent conquest without shedding
Ideas similar to mine have been expressed by former Senator Eugene MacCarthy,
of all people. He points out that the essence of colonization is the imposition
of alien practices upon a native people. In this sense, Sen. MacCarthy
calls America a colony of the world. He notes that we have the power to
resist alien impositions but that we fail to exercise it. We admire Mahatma
Gandhi for resisting alien imposition from Britain, but any white American
who resists alien imposition from every nation on earth is called a racist
This inversion of morality is cultural and racial capitulation that
may be without precedent in the history of the world. Never before has
a dominant people simply abandoned territory to newcomers who decide to
remake it in their own image. It is as perverse
as would be an athletic team that cooperated with its opponents to defeat
itself, or a political party that turned over all its elected seats to
If the poorest, least educated Americans were pouring across the border
into Mexico, going on welfare, demanding instruction in English, and insisting
on the ballot for non-citizens, would it be immoral for Mexicans to send
them home? Of course not.
Somehow, for us, it is not merely immoral to send Mexicans home; we
are to think of their arrival as a “celebration of diversity.” To “celebrate
diversity” is nothing more than to cheer the dwindling number of whites,
be it in a school, an office, a neighborhood, city or nation – and only
whites could have been browbeaten into applauding their own losses. Just
how much “diversity” are we supposed to celebrate? Will whites be
allowed to remain a majority, or does “diversity” require that we become
a minority? May we continue at 49 percent of the population, or are we
to keep “celebrating diversity” until immigration and differential birth
rates reduce us to nothing?
Ultimately, our society is headed towards the marginalization of whites
and their culture. Clearly, this would take several generations, but is
that not the direction we have chosen? At “the end of all our exploring,”
to use your phrase, I do not want to find Haiti, Nicaragua, the Philippines,
or any combination of them. I want to find America. Why is that illegitimate
Please note that the doctrine of diversity assumes that it is only whites
who suffer from the strangely undefined horrors of homogeneity and who
must be blessed with “diversity.” No one is asking Mexico to embark on
“cultural enrichment” policies that would reduce the Hispanic population
to a minority. People would immediately shout “genocide” at the very idea.
Why do the same people view the equivalent “genocide” of white Americans
with dispassion or even glee?
Within the United States itself, the same rule applies: Anything that
was once all-white must be integrated, but non-whites may stake out an
unlimited number of racially exclusive territories. This is most obvious
in the case of blacks, who consistently establish black student unions,
black newspapers, black political caucuses, black private schools, black
neighborhoods where whites are unwelcome. The rule is consistent: “diversity,”
dispossession, and dwindling numbers for whites; racial solidarity, ethnic
pride, and increasing numbers for everyone else.
By now you may have noticed that the morality of my position is based
on nothing more than equal treatment. I want for my people only what I
am happy to offer to others. Is not The Golden Rule the standard for morality?
It likewise applies to races: Do not do to us what you would not want done
Assuredly, whites have not always lived by that rule, but we have been
punished enough for our past sins. What I oppose is the stark asymmetry
of a regnant ideology that requires whites alone to sacrifice their racial
interests while all others promote theirs at our expense. In opposing this,
my heart is “clean and faithful.” Why could yours not be?
The Fatal Asymmetry
There is, however, one aspect of the racial problem that will always
be asymmetric. Mexicans do not come to America and blacks do not demand
entree into white society because they kindly seek to share with us the
benefits of “diversity.” They do not come to give but to take. They come
because we have built better societies than they can and they want to profit
from the work of our ancestors.
“Integration” is always a one-way
street – non-whites pushing their way in among whites.
I do not reproach them for this; they want a better life for their children.
But it means that “integration” is always a one-way street – non-whites
pushing their way in among whites. Whites do not move to El Salvador or
Burundi for a better life.
It is this eternal, fateful asymmetry that explains why the false struggles
over “multiculturalism,” “xenophobia,” and “racism” are always fought out
in white nations and are always used to put whites on the defensive. White
nations attract aliens. In their misguided generosity, Europe, America,
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have now accepted enough non-whites
to create parallel societies and racial friction.
There is no “xenophobia” problem in Bolivia or Chad because no foreigners
wants to live there. No outside forces threaten the cultural or racial
integrity of Harlem or Mexico or Haiti or the South Bronx or Cambodia or
It is because of their ability to build agreeable societies that whites
face a problem no other races (except the Japanese and, soon, other North
Asians) face: They must exclude others or be swamped. Our crisis is unique,
for it is only whites who will be swept away if they do nothing.
Only white nations must guard against the relentless, transforming influx
of aliens who are not only different from us but who, increasingly, despise
us and everything we stand for.
The Question of Blacks
You will argue, as many have, that even if these arguments apply to
non-citizens who want to come to America, they do not apply to the descendants
of Africans we brought here by force. Their circumstances are certainly
different but the threat they pose is essentially the same.
First, it is worth noting that today’s blacks live among us because
they want to. Despite the current fashion for Afro-centrism, practically
no American black wants to live in Africa. A single visit to the dark continent
is usually enough to cure even the fiercest black supremacists of that
desire. They may take African names and wear African clothes, but they
would rather live in a country with good public health and reliable telephones.
Also, despite cliches about white American racism, there are hundreds of
thousands of visa applications on file with our consulates in Africa. Africans
want to come here as badly as anyone else.
It is African Americans who, in fact, demonstrate best the irreducible
nature of race. Blacks have lived among us for centuries. They have been
culturally formed on this continent. Yet, as a group, they are a greater
threat to Anglo-European civility than even the non-whites who arrive as
Blacks, more than anyone, profit from the wealth and orderliness of
a society they cannot build or even maintain, while they cry “racism”
because they do not have as much as whites. They insist on full participation
in our communities and institutions, yet many take it for granted that
they may exclude us from theirs.
Nothing remains the same after blacks have put their mark on it. Once
the number of blacks reaches a certain level, schools, cities, neighborhoods,
and even nations quickly lose the qualities that whites find necessary
for civilized life. For all the reasons that AR has discussed, this
cannot be blamed on slavery or Jim Crow. Blacks simply do not build communities
in which whites can decently live. And once we have let them into our own
communities, many of them openly vent their contempt for us by despising
our heroes, breaking our laws, robbing, raping and killing us.
Everyone knows this, of course, even if few admit it. The question for
me is what to do about it and the question for you is whether it is moral
to do anything about it. In fact, you already have done something
about it – the very thing most whites do. You have disengaged yourself
and your family from blacks (and other non-whites) as much as possible.
I think we can be sure that if Cape Cod had a majority black or Hispanic
population you would not live there.
It is still possible to disengage oneself from non-whites because whites
are still a majority. The tide of color rises slowly – block by block and
neighborhood by neighborhood – but eventually, the demographers tell us,
it will swamp us all. In this sense non-white Americans are no different
from immigrants. They push their way into the midst of whites, who quite
naturally withdraw. The territory they occupy then changes fundamentally
and is no longer subject to the cultural and civic traditions dear to us.
If parts of Texas and California are, for all practical purposes, occupied
by Mexico, many of our cities have been occupied by Liberia. Camden, New
Jersey, is just as lost to Western civilization as central Miami. Unless
whites, as a race, can disengage from non-whites, they are doomed as a
people and as a culture.
Something that complicates this issue is the fact that there will always
be some non-whites who embrace our civilization and make
important contributions to it. Yo-yo Mah plays the white man’s music as
if his ancestors wrote it. Thomas Sowell writes beautifully in the tradition
of European scholarship. Moreover, if the number of non-whites is small,
even unremarkable people adopt the majority culture; they have no choice.
But once the concentration of non-whites reaches a critical mass, racial-cultural
loyalty becomes fatally divisive. We see the evidence for this everywhere.
Our country is well into the stage of fatal divisiveness, and the racial
fault lines grow deeper every day.
The problem, then, is this. If we do nothing, all of America will in
time become Detroit and South-Central Los Angeles. There will be nothing
left of the Anglo-European culture you and I both love. Nothing. The hopes
and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been wasted, the civilization
they built wrecked. Our survival is at stake, and I see nothing that will
save us unless we are free to disengage.
Once again, this is our unique dilemma. Non-whites pursue us wherever
we go because they covet what we build. But once they arrive in sufficient
numbers, they destroy what they came to find.
All I ask is that whites be left alone to let their culture and civilization
unfold unmolested. Is this too much? Is it immoral?
The Threat of Blood Bath
You seem to assume that the faintest white racial consciousness and
the mildest posture of self defense will lead to blood bath. By wanting
to be left alone in the preference of my own people do I proclaim myself
a potential mass murderer? By noting that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham
Lincoln thought that a multi-racial society could not succeed, do I become
a successor not to them but to Adolph Hitler? Were the debate about anything
else, I think you would see how fantastic a mental leap you are making.
Consider President Clinton. He wants America to have socialized medicine.
He wants a system in which medical treatment is paid for and consumed “from
each according to his ability to each according to his need.” But was that
not the theory that led to Stalin’s massacres, the Gulag, the enslavement
of Eastern Europe, and slaughter in Cambodia? Perhaps you had better warn
I might note that ever since the French Revolution, far more people
have been killed in the name of equality and the brotherhood of man than
in the name of separation. Why is your fear so selective?
There is no doubt that by defending ourselves we will deny others something
they want. This cannot be avoided. If someone wants your wallet, by defending
yourself you deny him its contents. Some non-whites who want to live among
us and profit from our achievements will not be able to do so. That will
be unpleasant for them, but they will be denied only the benefits of a
civilization they did not build.
It is good and generous for you to worry that non-whites might suffer
if whites regain a sense of their own racial interests. But do our
sufferings count for nothing? Do the deaths and losses of whites at the
hands of black and Hispanic criminals count for nothing? Do the collapse
of our public schools and the vilification of our traditions count for
nothing? Do the hardships of whites driven from their neighborhoods count
for nothing? Does the transformation of our great cities into hives of
degeneracy count for nothing? Does the long-term threat of cultural extinction
count for nothing?
Sometimes it seems as though a majority of whites would prefer to disappear
quietly rather than do anything that any other group would find unpleasant.
Some people are extreme pacifists who would rather let themselves be killed
than commit violence to save themselves, but they are invariably thought
odd. Why is it that so many people who are not personal pacifists are nevertheless
racial pacificsts? They would not hesitate to defend their families but
they refuse to defend their race and culture when threatened in a similar
Of course, self defense is not a license for violence, and it is not
possible to guarantee that self defense will never go too far. However,
our choice is between dispossession and some act to forestall dispossession.
The normal, healthy, moral course
is to act.
He believed in a
He did not.
You claim to detect animus in the pages of AR and consider this
reason enough to discredit racialism. Part of what you detect is, I believe,
your own prejudices. Today, any expression by whites of racial consciousness
is called “hate” just as the Soviets used to treat any interest in free
markets as mental illness.
I have a first loyalty to my people, to my race and culture. It is not
because they are the best – however much I may like them – but because
they are mine. As the French proverb puts it: “All nations think themselves
better than their neighbors; and all nations are right.” Somehow, in the
last several decades, the rules changed, but only for white people. If
a black man says “I love black people,” or if a Hispanic says “I love Latinos,”
they are taken at their word and no one disapproves. If a white man says
“I love white people,” he is treated as if he had said “I hate spics and
“All nations think themselves better
than their neighbors; and all nations are right.”
I think that much of the animus you claim to detect is nothing more
than the application of this double standard, but let us assume that there
is more to it than that. If animus is to be found in AR it is certainly
not the driving force of racialism; it is, instead, a natural response
to a real threat to white, Western society. AR is not an intellectual
pose designed to conceal the subjective sin of racial animus. Instead,
both animus and white racial
consciousness are natural responses to the objective threat of dispossession.
Those who most naturally provoke animus are the people of our own group
without whose help and encouragement non-whites could not threaten us.
You write as if we still lived in an overwhelmingly Anglo-European society
with a smattering of helpless non-whites who deserve justice and tolerance.
To feel animus toward a powerless out-group that poses no threat would
be blameworthy; not to feel animus or at least dread for groups
that threaten the very character of our nation – and for the whites who
cheer them on – is wholly unnatural. As liberals always do, you see any
healthy attempt to preserve the European character of our country as evidence
of a moral flaw.
I will draw a parallel that may explain how it feels always to have
one’s motives impugned and one’s arguments ignored. You love your sons
more than you care for the children of strangers – not necessarily because
they are better than all other children but because they are yours. That
is natural and healthy. I think you would agree that loving your sons does
not in any way imply that you hate other people’s children or wish
them harm. Let us now imagine a society built on the assumption that all
adults should care equally for all children. People have actually tried
out this idea and, of course, it has failed.
In such a society, your natural emotions would be called bigotry. Any
expression of love for your children would be called “hatred” for
the children of others. Any attempt to explain that loving your own children
implied no hatred for others would be called “cogent, calm arguments that
chill the soul,” which is how you characterize racialist reasoning. How
would you feel as the target of such accusations?
In fact, the real situation is far worse. All other parents take it
for granted that they should love their children but they
don’t give a fig for yours. It is only you, who must sacrifice for
the children of others. To put it in racial terms, is this not what affirmative
action and “diversity” require of whites? To love the children of non-whites
more than they love their own? To accept race-based penalties so that other
races can reap race-based rewards? To cheer their own dispossession and
to rejoice as their numbers dwindle? And to be dismissed as degenerates
if they refuse to embrace this travesty?
The defense of one’s people is not, as you call it, “the easy way out.”
Your way – to do nothing – is the easy way. There will still be classical
music and productions of Shakespeare and Independence Day parades for as
long as you and I are around to enjoy them. Our country will slowly get
grimmer and darker, more blighted and more violent, but even if we do nothing,
there will always be enclaves of Anglo-European civility to which we can
It is your grandchildren who will inherit a nation in which they are
a despised minority, one in which they will be unable to avoid the barbarism,
incompetence, and corruption of the third world peoples who may have displaced
us. Your grandchildren may live on a spit of land called Cape Cod, but
it will not be the Cape Cod you live on. Through your inaction it will
have become what Detroit and South-Central Los Angeles are today.
My contemporaries may curse me for what I do; your grandchildren will
curse you for what you did not do.
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
Mexico Moves North
Mexican immigrants meet
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
Like so many contemporary books on racial or ethnic
questions, Mexican Americans can be profitably read for information,
but its analysis is blinkered. Peter Skerry, who teaches political science
at UCLA, occasionally stumbles across a useful insight about immigration
or racial politics but, as we shall see, the larger issues have completely
The Ambivalent Minority
The Free Press, 1993, 463 pp., $27.95
Despite the book’s title, it is more an account of Mexican-American
politics than a general study about Mexican immigrants. Most American Hispanics
are Mexicans, so apart from
Puerto Ricans in New York and Cubans in Miami, it is probably a good general
portrait of Hispanic politics.
Prof. Skerry reports that, like all Latin Americans, Mexicans are mainly
interested in private concerns and have a deep cynicism about public life.
He suggests that Mexican-American politicians tend to be open to corruption
and that they have little sense of service. They also have distinctive
relations with voters, though these vary greatly from region to region.
San Antonio, Texas, for example, has an old and stable population of
Mexicans, and politicians represent real constituencies. In Los Angeles,
however, politicians are an unrepresentative elite who keep voters at a
distance. This is mainly because it takes a lot of money to run for office
in California, and Mexicans do not like to contribute to campaigns. As
Prof. Skerry explains, financial backers have, from the beginning, been
a heavily Jewish group of white liberals.
This means that politicians do not rise from the community but are,
to use Prof. Skerry’s words, “parachuted” into Hispanic areas and “have
a carpetbagging mentality.” The beneficiaries of these “sponsored candidacies”
do not live in the Mexican ghettos of East L.A. but in nearby areas that
are whiter and pleasanter.
Some politicians actually discourage voter participation and volunteer
work because it is easier to deal with rich donors than to be beholden
to constituents. Pleasing backers may mean betraying voters. Mexicans are
more likely to oppose abortion than nearly any other group in America but
since white liberals support it, Mexican politicians do too. As a consequence,
they avoid Catholic churches, which might otherwise be natural campaigning
sites. Politicians also get support from liberal feminists, whom ordinary
Mexicans find incomprehensible. Prof. Skerry quotes one bewildered Mexican
who has worked with them: “We don’t hate our men.”
Since the money comes from liberals, Mexican politicians are overwhelmingly
Democrats. A few drift into the Republican party, but not out of commitment.
Republicans are wooing non-whites as frantically as Democrats and as one
fair-weather Republican explains to Prof. Skerry, “The line is shorter
Until the 1960s, it was common for Mexican-American spokesmen to oppose
large-scale immigration from Mexico, but affirmative action and current
interpretations of the Voting Rights Act have completely changed that.
The law now requires Hispanic-majority districts, and safe seats are catnip
Now, according to a poll of Mexican “leaders,” half are in favor of
completely opening the border and the rest want minimal restrictions
on immigration. Since redistricting is based on population rather than
on a count of citizens, Prof. Skerry points out that a heavily Hispanic
district can be a “rotten burrough,” with relatively few voters to bother
about. Millions of illegals, even though they cannot vote, mean more political
sinecures for “carpetbaggers.”
Affirmative action and the ease with which whites can be manipulated
also make immigration appealing. A rising Mexican population means ever-larger
job quotas, and because the newcomers live in miserable conditions, politicians
can rail self-righteously about substandard housing, crime, overcrowded
schools, and the “racist oppression” that they claim causes it all.
Although Prof. Skerry doesn’t seem to understand why, other Mexicans
are much less sanguine about increased immigration. Unlike “sponsored candidates,”
who live among whites, ordinary Mexicans feel the pinch when pre-literates
swarm into their neighborhoods. In East L.A., people build illegal shanties
in their back yards, turn their garages into rooming houses, and park cars
on their front lawns. They set their laundry out to dry on bushes, and
play bingo with animal pictures because they cannot read numbers. They
turn California into Mexico, and Mexico is precisely what ordinary immigrants
thought they were leaving behind.
Although Mexican “leaders” like to suppress this information, a great
many immigrants would be glad to seal the border. The closer an immigrant
lives to Mexico and the larger the number of recent immigrants in his nieghborhood,
the more he favors immigration control, and is against amnesty and social
services for illegals. It is educated Mexicans, who live far from the effects
of what they advocate, who yell about open borders.
Race and dispossession
Prof. Skerry seems genuinely puzzled by race. Nearly half of all Mexican-Americans
tell census takers they are white, so that is what he thinks they are –
though a glance at the dust jacket photos of his own book would show him
that most Mexicans are no more like Europeans than Chinese are. Prof. Skerry
is so convinced that Hispanics are white that he constantly writes about
“Anglos,” and when he reports the results of polls that refer to whites,
he puts the word in quotation marks!
He has noticed that the media switch back and forth between calling
Mexicans Hispanic and white, but he has not figured out why. He seems to
understand that if the victim of a police beating is a Mexican he will
be called Hispanic, but he is bewildered that Theodore Briseo, one
of the four officers who beat Rodney King, was constantly referred to as
Prof. Skerry reports regretfully that Mexican-Americans do not like
blacks. They are outspokenly opposed to busing because they do not want
their children to mix with blacks. When the populations do mix, racial
gang fights are routine. The most hard-boiled, anti-white Chicano activists
have long preached a “black-brown coalition” against the white man,
but ordinary Mexicans want nothing to do with blacks.
Prof. Skerry takes it for granted that blacks deserve racial preferences
and notes that both the media and American institutions encourage Mexicans
to make the same demands. It has occurred to him, though, that two-thirds
of all Mexican-Americans have come here within the last 20 years – all
voluntarily and many illegally. After considerable throat clearing, he
unbosoms the daring view that it may be disingenuous for Mexicans to set
themselves up as a persecuted minority.
Prof. Skerry reports that virtually all Mexicans assume they have a
right to live in the Southwest because it was once part of Mexico and they
are a “conquered people.” He usefully points out that at the end of the
Mexican-American War, only four percent of the population of the Southwest
was Mexican, and that these 80,000 or so people were only one percent of
the population of Mexico. Still, even though he writes of California schools
“innundated with hundreds of thousands of immigrants,” he never suggests
that Mexicans should stay home.
Prof. Skerry notes that all Mexican-American politicians expect the
demographic tide to keep rising and to sweep them on to ever-greater power,
but he fails to understand their confidence. He quotes a participant of
the struggle for control of a Texas school board as saying that it was
about “the definition of the community,” but does not seem to care who
wins. He writes of the “understandable anxieties of millions of Americans
that our nation is undergoing a momentous transformation without much honest
or realistic debate about the possible consequences,” but he dismisses
these anxieties as “beside the point,” because many Hispanics are learning
English. He then notes that 78 percent of Hispanic officials agree with
the statement, “Since Hispanics are becoming a very large part of the American
population, bilingual programs are equally important for Anglo children,”
and concedes that this is “provocative.”
Prof. Skerry reports regretfully
that Mexican-Americans do not like blacks.
In one of the stupidest passages in the whole book, he clucks over the
fact that more Hispanics than blacks were arrested during the Los Angeles
riots, but adds “it is still not clear what conclusions can be drawn.”
One of the most obvious is that if they had not been here they would not
All of this can be explained as the usual liberal blindness to the obvious,
but not everything Prof. Skerry says can be so easily excused. Several
times, he passes along the view that Mexicans have strong “family values”
and are disdainful of government assistance. Nowhere does he tell the reader
that Hispanic children are twice as likely as whites to be illegitimate
and considerably less likely (67 percent v. 79 percent) to be living with
two parents. Nor does he mention that Hispanics are up to 100 times more
likely than whites to have venereal diseases and three times more likely
be on welfare.
A child’s family life is said to have a strong influence on whether
he enters a gang. Los Angeles has an estimated 415 gangs with approximately
60,000 members, of which fully 57 percent are Hispanic (and 36 percent
are black). Family values, indeed. Prof. Skerry can hardly not know some
of these facts, and his silence borders on deception.
As for sins of commission, the most preposterous statement in the whole
book may be what follows Prof. Skerry’s assurance that the question is
not whether Hispanics will assimilate into American society, but how. “We
must recognize that defining themselves as a [racial] minority group may
be the way this new wave of immigrants assimilates into the new American
political system,” he writes. Of course, it is as a racial minority group
that Hispanics demonstrate that they have not assimilated. Prof.
Skerry’s definition of assimilation is testimony both to his powers of
fantasy and to the extent to which American political discourse has lost
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
O Tempora, O Mores!
Whites Fight Back
The city of Beaumont, Texas has been ordered to pay a white man $376,000
in damages because of racial discrimination. David Shows was rejected for
a job as a policeman despite getting a higher
employment test score than a woman and a Hispanic who were hired. A judge
ordered the city to pay Mr. Shows $76,000 in back pay and a jury awarded
him $300,000 for “mental anguish.” The same judge has determined that the
city’s discriminatory affirmative action program was unconstitutional and
has forced its cancellation. “They forced me to fight,” said Mr.
Shows, “and I fought.”
[ Richard Stewart, Vidor officer wins discrimination suit,
In another suit, a judge has found that a Louisiana farmer was illegally
kept out of a Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA) program because he was
white. Larry Moore applied to buy 190 acres of land repossessed by FmHA,
but received a letter explaining that the sale was not open to whites.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has called this “overt racial discrimination.”
Mr. Moore has since filed a claim for $21 million in damages. [ Ron Ridenhour,
Reverse-discrimination suit: new boundaries?, SF Examiner, 11/21/93,
Likewise, a federal district court has found that the minority construction
set-aside program run by the city of San Diego, California was an unconstitutional
quota system. The suit was filed by a predominantly white group, the Associated
General Contractors. The plaintiffs showed that the system prevented white
contractors from getting contracts, even when they offered the lowest bid.
[ Michael Granberry, San Diego ordered to end minority builders’ program,
For Allah and Country
Until last fall the Girl Scout pledge started with the following words:
“On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country . . . .” At the latest
Girl Scout national convention, held in Minneapolis in October, delegates
voted 1,560 to 375 to let the girls substitute whatever they like for “God.”
They can now pledge to serve Allah or Buddha or Gaia or the great plumed
serpent. Boy Scouts continue to serve God, for the time being. [ Girl scouts
allow for religious diversity in pledge, NYT, 10/25/93, p. A11.]
Brits Show Spunk
Golliwogs are black-face dolls that have been popular with British children
since they 19th century. Lately, they have come under attack
because they are “racist.” The lefty-dominated city council in Greenwitch
recently sent a black woman to inspect the business of Deena Newton, who
runs a small day care business in her home. The inspector found that Mrs.
Newton owns a golliwog, and the council promptly lifted her childminding
license. The resulting outrage forced the council to reinstate Mrs. Newton,
and toy manufacturers reported that golliwogs rose to the top of British
children’s Christmas wish lists. [ Gollies top the toy lists, no paper,
no date, British, Dec. 1993.]
Name Change Backfires
As the student populations go from white to non-white, so do the names
of schools. Many a Robert E. Lee high school or George Washington grammar
school has been changed to Thurgood Marshall or Malcolm X. In San Antonio,
Jefferson Davis Middle School once had an all-white student body but is
now virtually all black. Last year, school officials decided that it was
wrong to commemorate the president of the Confederacy, so they changed
the name to S.J. Davis, after the first black to serve on the board of
People later began to wonder what the S.J. stands for, and since Mr.
Davis is dead, they asked his widow. She told them that Mr. Davis’ father
had been an ardent Southern patriot, and had named his son Stonewall Jackson
Folly Knows No Bounds
Four California elementary school children have actually gone on
trial for a hate crime that turned out to be a hoax. Jake Thompson,
a black student of Encinal Elementary School, claimed that ten white and
Hispanic schoolmates had beaten him up, torn his shirt, and held his head
in the toilet. He also claimed that
they had said “Stupid black boy” while they did it, so this became a sensational
act of bigotry.
The defendants, in what was classified as a felony hate crime,
were all 10 to 12 years old. The prosecutors were so eager to try the case
that when they learned that one of the accused had not been in school on
the day of the attack they simply decided it had happened on another day.
During the week-long trial, it became clear that young Jake had torn his
own shirt, wet his head, and lied about the attack, probably in order to
get out of afternoon classes. [ Sandra Gonzalez, Four boys to go on trial
in school hate-crime case, SJ Merc News, 10/25/93, p. 1B David Sylvester,
4 Schoolboys in San Jose acquitted of hate crime charges, SF Chronicle,
10/30/93, p. A17.]
This case says a lot about America. By the time they are 12 years old,
blacks know that the accusation of racism is so powerful that it can send
otherwise sane people into a frenzy; and whites have been so terrorized
that they will drag ten-year olds into court to show their zeal for combating
Eye on the Times
The New York Post, the one New York newspaper that occasionally
writes sensibly about race, has started a column called “Times Watch.”
Written by Hilton Kramer, a former art critic for the New York Times,
it is a weekly roasting of the liberal myopia of the country’s “newspaper
of record.” Mr. Kramer has been particularly good about the Times’
reporting on race, which he scoffs at as “affirmative action journalism.”
[ Hilton Kramer, The mayor’s invisible record, NY Post, 11/9/93,
Ear on the Airwaves
Clayton Riley is the boss of New York’s WLIB, one of the most virulently
anti-white radio stations in America. Recently he had this to say about
John Taylor, a writer for New York magazine who had said unkind things
about black radio programming:
“We talk about what Colin Powell said: ‘You find the enemy,
you isolate it, you kill it.’ . . . We want to put John Taylor on that
list. Remember telling you the story about Miles Davis? Broadcaster asked
him, ‘Miles, what would you do if you found out you had an hour left to
live?’ Miles said ‘I’d like to spend it strangling a white boy.’ We’re
going to add John Taylor to the list of white boys Miles Davis would like
to have strangled.”
[ Minoo Southgate, Why do we tolerate violence?, NY Post,
9/22/93, p. 15.]
Rev. Jackson Changes Tune
Recently, Jesse Jackson has started suggesting that perhaps not all
the troubles of the black race can be blamed on whites: “We lose more lives
annually to the crime of blacks killing blacks than the sum total of lynchings
in the entire history of the country. We are far more threatened by the
dope than the rope.” [ Words of the week, Jet, 11/15/93.]
Mr. Jackson recently took this message to Roosevelt High School in New
York, where black students regularly murder each other, but the students
were unimpressed. To Mr. Jackson’s plea that students not bring weapons
to school, one senior replied, “I’m sorry, sir. This is 1993, not 1963.
I don’t know where you’ve been.”
“You need some kind of protection,” he added, “because nobody else is
going to stop a bullet for you.”
Another senior was also skeptical. “He’s a great leader so I’ll listen
to him. But it’s easy for him to talk about giving up guns and drugs. He
don’t have to live with the same problems we do. Some people bring guns
to school because their lives are in danger. He has body guards, we don’t.
He has money, we don’t.” [ Don Terry, A Graver Jackson’s Cry: Overcome
the violence!, NYT, 11/13/93, p. A1.]
Security Where It’s
The usual cry of racism went up when it was discovered that some Drugs
for Less stores in Atlanta had put anti-theft devices on products popular
with blacks but not on those favored by whites. A spokesman for the stores
was unruffled. The only criterion for putting on the devices, he explained,
is whether they are likely to be shoplifted. [ AP, Security tags on items
aimed at blacks, ...m News, 11/30/93.]
More Security Where It’s
St. Augustine’s College in Raleigh, North Carolina has instituted a
new admissions requirement: Freshmen must produce their police records.
Students have started killing and robbing each other, and the college wanted
to keep out trouble-makers. The usual crew claims that this is humiliating
and discriminatory, especially for blacks, but this complaint has an odd
ring to it. The administration and nearly all students are black. [ AP,
Students Divided over college check of police records, no paper or date.]
More and more pregnant women go to the hospital, have their babies,
and then clear out, leaving the newborns behind. A federal study
has found that 22,000 babies were abandoned in 1991, most of them black.
Taking care of these waifs costs as much as $125 million a year.[ Babies
with nowhere to go, US News and World Report, 11/22/93.]
A recent study at the University of California at Irvine has found that
listening to classical music can raise your IQ–at least for a few minutes.
College students were given a standard IQ test after listening either to
Mozart or a relaxation tape, or meditating for 10 minutes. Every student’s
score was higher after listening to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D.
However, the effect wore off after about 15 minutes.
The researchers suspect that the complexity of classical music stimulates
the brain while the simple, repetitive rhythms of rock music hamper brain
activity. They believe that playing classical music rather than just listening
to it may permanently increase IQ. [ Robert Lee Hotz, UCI study ties rise
in IQ to classical music, LA Times, 10/14/93, p. A1.]
On the Rocky Road to Assimilation
Two doctors have recently been fined $10,000 each for an incident that
took place in October, 1991. Kwok Wei Chan, surgeon, and Mohan Korgaonkar,
anesthesiologist, were about to operate on an elderly woman at the Medical
Center of Central Massachusetts when they began to argue. Dr. Chan swore
at Dr. Korgaonkar. Dr. Korgaonkar threw a cotton-tipped prep stick at Dr.
Chan. The two came to blows. They duked it out on the floor of the operating
room, while a wide-eyed nurse monitored the unconscious patient. After
a while, the doctors picked themselves up and completed the operation.
In addition to the fines the Massachusetts Board of Registration in
Medicine ordered the two to undergo joint psychotherapy. [ AP, Doctors
fined for scuffling in operating room, SJ Merc News, 11/28/93, p.
The University of Alabama at Birmingham has dropped Blaze, the mascot
for its athletic teams, which are called the Blazers. Blaze, who was a
big, rough-and-tumble Norseman, drew fire for being too mean, too masculine,
and too white. Grant Shingleton, sports information director for the university,
explained that poor Blaze was, “I hate to use the word–too Aryan.” [ AP,
UAB to dump controversial mascot, no paper name or date.]
No Justice, No Peace
Amy Biehl was the American woman, working for “liberation” in South
Africa, who was murdered by blacks because of her race (see AR,
Nov. 1993). Seven blacks were charged in the killing, but the prosecution
has not gone smoothly. One defendant, who was not immediately jailed because
he was only 15, has disappeared. Three others have been set free because
witness against them fears he will be killed if he testifies. When the
three were freed, they were carried away from the court house on the shoulders
of exultant supporters. At a recent hearing involving the three remaining
defendants, black visitors to the court taunted whites and giggled when
Miss Biehl’s wounds were described.
A National AR Conference? You Can
Make It Happen.
A generous supporter has offered initial funding for a public conference
to discuss the issues raised in AR: race, immigration, and the defense
of European-American civilization. We think this is a marvelous idea and
we have already contacted a number of first-rate speakers who would be
pleased to address a conference.
However, before we start making plans, we need some indication of how
many readers might attend. We would expect to meet on a weekend some time
this summer, probably in Atlanta, Georgia. Costs to you would be travel,
accommodations (we would get a group rate at the conference site), and
a registration fee.
There is nothing like a conference for making new friends, broadening
horizons, and planning strategy. Please write and tell us if you might
want to attend. Also, please indicate whether you would prefer an ordinary
weekend or the Sunday and Monday of a three-day weekend like Independence
Day or Labor Day. We can’t do this without you!
[ AP, South Africa Freed 3 in American’s Death, SF Chron, 11/23/93,
Heart of Darkness
In the African country of Burundi, the minority Tutsi (Watusi) tribe
has traditionally lorded over the majority Hutu. In pre-colonial times
the Tutsi kept the Hutu as slaves, but whites put an end to that. Since
independence, the Tutsi and the Hutu have periodically had a serious go
at each other. In 1972, an estimated 150,000 Hutu were massacred by Tutsi
with the help of the Tutsi-dominated armed forces. In 1988, the army went
on another anti-Hutu rampage, killing at least 5,000 and perhaps as many
Now the tribes are at it again. A Hutu, Melchior Ndadaye, was chosen
as president in the country’s first-ever election, but Tutsi, who are used
to running things, killed him in October. This has set off another massacre
that has continued at least into December. This time, Hutu are attacking
Tutsi villages with machetes and dismembering everyone they can find. The
Foreign Minister thinks the death toll might surpass 1972’s 150,000. [
Killings on Rise in Burundi, Official Says, SF Chron, 11/27/93,
Say It Often Enough and Someone May
In a recent editorial, the Houston Chronicle explained why the city
should celebrate the 16th of September, Mexican independence day: “Texans
share countless bonds of blood and heritage with Mexicans. The threads
of Mexico’s culture run deeply through our state’s fabric. It is not overstating
the case to observe that our destinies are intertwined. . . .”
“As a people, we Americans need not feel threatened when one group among
us celebrates its heritage. On the contrary, our diversity is our strength
as a nation. It is cause for celebration.”
[ Mexico’s Freedom Day, Houston Chronicle, 9/16/93.]
Representatives of most of the world’s remaining colonies met in London
recently to discuss how to maintain their status. “No country that moved
to independence in the last 30 years has any success stories,” said Thomas
Jefferson, an official from the Cayman Islands. “We see no benefit in moving
Millions upon millions of people would be better off if they had not
shucked European rule. South Africa has enjoyed more years of growth and
prosperity under European rule than any other part of Africa. There will
be no benefit in majority rule.
Sauce for the Goose
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes it
its business to see that protected minorities are hired in proportion to
their share of the population. Recently it brought suit against the owner
of a dry cleaning business that does only $400,000 of business a year.
The company was started by a Korean immigrant, and 81 percent of all the
people it had ever hired were Korean. Since less than one percent of the
Chicago work force is Korean this sounded like shameless discrimination.
As it happened, new workers learned about jobs solely through word of
mouth, and this meant that a virtually all Korean work force perpetuated
itself. A seventh circuit court judge ruled that passive recruitment of
this kind was not discrimination. We can be sure that this would not have
been an acceptable defense for a white-owned company. The judge’s ruling
contained the following implied preferences for foreigners and blacks:
“Recent immigrants are frequent targets for discrimination,
some of it violent. It would be a bitter irony if the federal agency dedicated
to enforcing the anti-discrimination laws succeeded in using these laws
to kick these people off the ladder by compelling them to institute costly
systems of hiring. There is equal danger to small black run businesses
in our central cities. Must such businesses undertake in the name of non-discrimination
costly measures to recruit non-black employees?” [ EEOC v. Consolidated
Service Systems, 989 F.2d 233 (7th Cir. 1993) – quoted in Texas Employment
Law Letter, p. 4 no date.]
White-owned companies are routinely forced to undertake costly recruitment
measures to find non-white employees.
“One Bad Dude”
P.K. McCary of Houston, Texas, thinks she has found a way to get ghetto
blacks to turn to Jesus. She has translated the first five books of the
Bible into street slang. Some samples from Black Bible Chronicles:
“Now when the Almighty was first down with His program,
He made the heavens and the earth. The earth was a fashion misfit, being
so uncool and dark, but the Spirit of the Almighty came down real tough,
so that He simply said, ‘Lighten up!’ And that light was right on time.”
[ Cecile Holmes White, Making Holy Writ Hip, Houston Chronicle,
9/4/93, p. 1E.]
“Now the serpent was one bad dude, one of the baddest of the animals
the Almighty had made. And the serpent spoke to the sister and asked ‘You
mean the Almighty told you not to eat of all the trees in the garden?’
And the sister told him, ‘Yeah, snake, I can eat of these trees, just not
the tree of knowledge or the Almighty said I’d be knocked off.’ And the
bad ol’ serpent told the sister, ‘Nah, sister, he’s feeding you a line
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
E T T E R S F R O M R E A D E
Sir – Your December issue was excellent. I enjoyed Mr. Taylor’s reply
to Mr. Meldahl and look forward to its conclusion. However, I particularly
wish to congratulate Mr. Meldahl. First, to have held fast to liberalism
in the face of three years of AR shows a remarkable tenacity of
spirit. Second, it is most unusual for liberals to argue seriously against
the racialist view. Mostly, they just scream, because they are incapable
of imagining a point of view so different from their own. To his great
credit, Mr. Meldahl’s arguments are well considered and well expressed.
I doubt that any of your subscribers has written in, saying, “Mr. Meldahl
is right! Cancel my subscription.” However, his are the objections that
thoughtful, well-meaning white people will raise against the AR
position. Even if we cannot answer his objections to his satisfaction,
we must answer them to our own satisfaction.
Paul Sokel, Warren, Mich.
Sir – I hesitate to write in response to Mr. Meldahl’s letter before
I have seen the conclusion of Mr. Taylor’s reply. However, I must make
one point about Mr. Meldahl’s fear that racialism could lead to blood bath.
It may well be a legitimate fear. It is often a legitimate fear,
but one that should not lead to paralysis.
Surely, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew that
their actions might lead to blood bath. So must have Abraham Lincoln when
he refused to recognize the Confederacy. John Kennedy’s forceful handling
of the Cuban Missile Crisis might have led to blood bath. Our reaction
to the bombing of Pearl Harbor resulted in millions of deaths that capitulation
would have avoided.
My point is this: Good and wise men must sometimes accept the risk of
blood bath, much as they might wish to avoid it. Any man or nation that
refuses ever to resort to violence will be destroyed.
Allen Short, New Albany, Ind.
Sir – It speaks well for you, me, and my well–educated and successful
son that I have the pleasure of selecting American Renaissance as
his birthday gift for 1993.
Your response to your friend Malcolm Meldahl is in keeping with the
finest traditions of AR . . . irrefutable! My congratulations to
you for your fidelity to the truth.
John W. Edwards, Mendenhall, Miss.
Sir – I very much enjoyed “Dis-senting Voices II” in the December issue.
To some extent the interview with “Miss Charming” confirms my own view
that many American blacks understand that the races differ in average intelligence
and that the United States is much better off with a white majority. However,
at the end, the author writes, “Among most blacks, of course, her views
are anathema” – this despite her having quoted “Miss Channing” as saying
that she knows many blacks who feel as she does and that their number is
growing. Why does everyone assume that the blacks they know are
the rare exceptions? Why not ask more and see how they feel?
My suspicion is that a great many blacks secretly feel as Miss
Channing does. They never give voice to these feelings because of the almost
universal assumption – especially among whites – that such feelings are
almost inconceivable. You can hardly expect ordinary blacks to stand on
rooftops shouting such views.
There is something else that stands out in Miss Channings remarks. She
says, “Negroes have been a huge problem in this country. Maybe by speaking
out we can be part of the solution.” I think this is an extremely
important observation. If I am correct in my estimation of blacks, both
in South Africa and the United States, there is a huge reservoir of black
sentiment against blacks and in favor of whites. What is
required is that this sentiment somehow be tapped.
Please recall two things: This black woman says she knows many blacks
who agree with her and that their numbers are growing. Also, there is al-ready
a considerable number of conservative black thinkers. The only thing that
is holding them back is their unwillingness to face the ultimate issue
of black group inferiority. On practical issues like affirmative action,
welfare, etc., they already agree with you.
Gedahlia Braun, Johannesburg, South Africa
Sir – I read with interest your December “O Tempora” item about the
Florida 13-year-old with 15 arrests and the 16-year-old with 30 arrests,
who were free to kill a British tourist because they were not behind bars.
The larger cities of Brazil have packs of criminal youngsters just like
them roaming the street. Merchants hire off-duty police to come by at night
and kill them. Since Brazil does not have the means to arrest, try, and
incarcerate young criminals, murder is the only “solution” to the problem.
Brazil is what we are becoming, and this is the “solution” we, too, may
Susan C. Hollingsworth, Sacramen-to, Cal.
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •