and the War Against White
A lecture on truths about
and the costs of denying
by Lawrence Auster
Underlying everything we have heard at this conference [American
Renaissance conference of May 28-30] are two bedrock truths about race
and race relations that go against everything we have been taught. The
first truth is that there are significant differences in average intelligence
populations, and that such gaps in intelligence cannot be closed by any
known human means.
The second truth is that not all groups are equally assimilable to each
other, in the sense of the ability to come to share a common outlook, identity
and way of being. The greater the historical and racial differences between
two peoples, and the greater the numbers involved, the harder assimilation
is going to be, and the more likely it becomes that conflict between such
different peoples will be permanent.
Today’s liberal and conservative orthodoxies hold the opposite beliefs
– first, that all racial groups are equal in inherent abilities, and second,
that all racial groups in the world, no matter how different, are at bottom
basically alike and equally assimilable into American culture.
The first belief, in the equality of abilities, leads to the notion
that any actual differences in achievement between races must be due to
discrimination, which is to be overcome by preferential racial quotas.
The second belief, that everyone in the world is equally assimilable, has
led to an immigration policy based on what are in effect racial quotas
applied to the entire world. The continuing influx of over a million immigrants
per year, 90 percent of them non-Europeans, combined with higher nonwhite
birth rates, is steadily turning America into a multiracial, nonwhite country
– a “mirror” of the entire world.
A good way to understand the impact of massive nonwhite immigration
on American society is to compare it to the impact of
preferential minority admissions in the university. As Dinesh D’Souza has
described it in Illiberal Education, universities admit underqualified
minority students, while assuring them that they are perfectly well qualified.
When these students find themselves having academic difficulties, they
blame “institutional racism,” then they blame the curriculum itself, which
they say is culturally alien to them.
The failure of nonwhites
to fit into our society is blamed on the society itself.
The administration, not wanting to admit the truth, eagerly agrees with
the minority activists that racism is at work. In effect, the administration
makes the entire university community, especially the white students and
the faculty, the scapegoat for a racial inequality that was created
by the administration itself when it admitted unqualified minorities.
The school then sets up coercive “anti-racist” programs and speech
codes aimed at whites, and adopts multicultural curricula and intellectual
standards that conform to minority cultures and “learning styles.” When
white students protest these things, the minorities, in D’Souza’s words,
“conclude that they have discovered the latent bigotry for which they have
In sum, the result of admitting large numbers of unqualified minorities
into a university is that whites start to be demonized as racist and are
systematically silenced, while their civilizational heritage is attacked
as unrepresentative and illegitimate and begins to be systematically dismantled.
Now if all these things happen when you admit large numbers of nonwhite
students into a predominantly white school, what happens when you admit
massive numbers of nonwhite immigrants into a predominantly white society?
The very same things. The failure of the nonwhite population to fit into
the society is blamed on the society itself, rather than on the
fact that they were admitted in the first place. The white majority starts
to be demonized as racist and is systematically silenced, while its civilization
is attacked as unrepresentative and begins to be systematically dismantled.
The great irony is that the admission of nonwhites is supposed to prove
that the society is nonracist and egalitarian, yet the more nonwhites are
admitted, the more racist and unequal the society seems.
Impact on American Life
While the “delegitimizing” impact of unassimilable immigrants can be
seen in many areas of American life, in no other field is it more obvious
than in the arts. Cultural institutions in cities with large third-world
populations are rapidly abandoning the Western high culture tradition in
favor of third-world folk cultures. According to music critic Edward Rothstein
writing in the New Republic, the new immigrants simply aren’t interested
in Western music:
“[S]trikingly in a city like New York, [classical music culture] is
largely a racially stratified culture as well: there are almost no black
or immigrant faces (aside from Asians) to be seen in concert halls. . .
. My neighborhood arts organization, like many others around the country,
has been unsuccessful in marketing Western art music to the new racial
and international communities in the area. So instead they’ve begun presenting
the folk musics of immigrant and black cultures.”
The same applies to the theater. “The reason that Broadway appeals less
to New Yorkers these days,” writes theater critic Thomas Disch, “isn’t
just that Broadway has changed: so have New Yorkers. . . . [A] glance around
the lobby at any Broadway show reveals who isn’t there: any of the city’s
readily identifiable minorities – blacks, Hispanics, Asians . . . .”
Theatrical companies have tried to address the problem by introducing
multiracial casts into Western plays, but have been disturbed to find that
the audiences for such multiracial productions are still almost exclusively
white. Evidently, third-worlders are simply not attracted to Western theater,
even when it has lots of nonwhites in the cast. Since changing the cast
doesn’t work, the only solution will be to give up the plays themselves.
The irony is that these problems, are not seen as the result of nonwhites’
lack of interest in Western culture, and therefore as proof of their non-assimilability;
rather, Western culture itself is blamed for not appealing to nonwhites.
Artistic images of American history are also coming under attack. Rush
Limbaugh recently noted that the state of Oregon, after commissioning a
beautiful bronze statue of a 19th century pioneer family, had rejected
the completed statue because the image of a white pioneer family was considered
“racist” and “noninclusive.” While Rush was unusually upset about this
incident, it didn’t seem to occur to him that it had anything to do with
demographic change – i.e., that it is our society’s increasingly nonwhite
character that is making any “all-white” image seem unrepresentative and
In 1993 there was an angry protest by black and Hispanic students at
the University of Massachusetts who wanted the school to dump its official
symbol, the Minuteman. The image of a “white man carrying a gun,”
they charged, was racist. For the time being the school has resisted this
demand. But for how long? As the university’s white population continues
to decline, can we expect the Chinese and Pakistani students and administrators
of the future to care enough about the image of the Minuteman to defend
it against intimidating black and Hispanic protesters? Who will preserve
the symbols of our Anglo-European national heritage after whites are gone?
Indeed, who will defend that heritage even now, while whites are still
the majority? On Long Island this past Spring, a school production of Peter
Pan was canceled at the last minute, after six weeks of rehearsals,
because the town’s American Indian minority felt that the play’s portrayal
of Indians (which, remember, is simply a childlike fantasy taking place
in Never-Never Land) was insulting to them. So, to accommodate multiracial
America, this classic play that we all remember with fondness from our
childhood is to be proscribed. The most significant thing about the incident
was that no one in the town, including the parents whose children had their
play taken away from them, seriously protested this outrage.
In an even more horrifying example of white surrender, an elite private
school in New England was considering hiring a well-known multicultural
curriculum consultant when it was discovered that the consultant – a Caribbean-born
black woman based in Toronto – had admitted in a published interview that
her approach would make white children feel intimidated and guilty. After
some discussion, the school’s board of trustees went ahead and hired her
These are examples of what is happening to our entire country and culture.
As America becomes more and more nonwhite, everything we think of as the
American culture and identity will be either censored, squeezed out or
transformed into something else.
The response of establishment conservatives to these concerns is to
say that such problems are created not by immigrants but by alienated white
elites, as well as by the general moral decay of our society. “It is true
that radical and liberal elites in education, government, and media appear
to be doing everything they can to destroy whatever is left of traditional
America, and they might well be doing so even if there were no immigrants
at all.” But we must understand that even if there were no “cultural revolution”
going on in this country, the kind of massive demographic change we are
experiencing as a result of immigration would still be enough, by itself,
to destabilize and ultimately destroy our culture.
The list of horrors proving this point goes on and on: the dominance
of Latin American mores and language in southern Florida; the transformation
of southern California into an outpost of the third world; multiracial
juries unable to reach verdicts
because jury members don’t share any common understanding of reality; the
exodus of hundreds of thousands of whites from immigrant-intensive areas
every year; the booming population of Southeast Asian refugees that will
make a town like Wassau, Wisconsin (which was 99 percent white 15 years
ago) a Hmong-majority city in a generation; the Santeria animal sacrifice
cult from the Caribbean; Muslim extremism and terrorism; expanding Chinese
and other foreign-based criminal networks; the takeover by Dominican drug-dealers
of upper Manhattan, where Dominicans marched with huge banners denouncing
“500 Years of Genocide” after a Dominican drug dealer was killed by a police
officer in self-defense.
What is it that prevents
whites from protesting their own demographic and cultural dispossession?
These and many other disorders are occurring not because of cultural
radicalism or affirmative action or middle-class moral decay. They are
happening as the direct result of revolutionary changes in this country’s
ethnic and racial make-up.
The Weapon of “Race-neutrality”
What is it that prevents whites from protesting their own demographic
and cultural dispossession? The most common explanation is that people
fear being called racist. That is true, and it’s not just political correctness.
Deep in the American mind is the ideal of America as a country where advancement
is open to anyone, where “it doesn’t matter who your parents were.” The
fatal problem with that formula is that it can work only within certain
limits – when you’re speaking of individuals sharing a basic commonality.
If you apply it en masse to radically diverse populations, it becomes
absurd and dangerous. The ideal of “race-neutrality,” applied to
incommensurable groups, turns out to be not race-neutral at all, but becomes
a weapon used by one race to dispossess the other.
I came across a remarkable example of this in the coverage of the South
African election. Amidst all the media’s joyous talk about a “nonracial”
or “multiracial” democracy being born, Newsweek came out with a
sensational cover with bold letters crying “Black Power!” So deep is the
doublethink in which we live today, that I wonder if more than a handful
of people noticed the gross contradiction of celebrating black power in
what was supposed to be a “nonracial” election. But of course it’s not
a contradiction at all: What “nonracial” really means is that it is whites
who are supposed to be indifferent to race, in order to help nonwhites
advance their racial interests.
This same double standard and delusion works across the board. For example,
the belief that all the peoples of the world are equal in intellectual
abilities is thought to be a race-neutral or “nonracial” idea, since it
is saying that race doesn’t matter. But since the races are not
equal in average abilities, this “nonracial” belief in equality turns out
to be completely racial. It holds that blacks have far greater abilities
than they in fact have, and invariably blames white racism for actual black
inequalitiy. It is therefore the duty of whites, until the end of time,
to exhaust their wealth and spiritual energy in a hopeless effort to make
blacks collectively equal to themselves. The “nonracial” belief in equality
thus turns out to be a kind of black racialist mythology.
immigration policy, which is thought to be race-neutral, is in fact turning
America into a nonwhite country, dispossessing white America and its culture.
Yet it is considered “racist” to oppose this policy, and “nonracist” to
Ultimately the pursuit of race-blindness (in anything more than a legal
and procedural sense), leads to complete incoherence. Columnist Jon Carroll
of the San Francisco Examiner once complained about the fact that
we are supposed to respect everyone’s differences, while at the same time
we’re supposed to treat everyone equally – which requires us not to notice
differences at all. Carroll continues:
“One is required to deny the evidence of one’s senses. I perceive
that African American men are different from Caucasian men are different
from Asian women are different from (what?) Ethiopian Jews. Can we compare
these differences? No, we cannot. We may say for the record that these
differences are beautiful, equally beautiful, precisely geometrically equally
beautiful, but that’s it.
And if we do begin to compare these differences, Carroll says, that
leads us right back to value judgments about racial differences, which
immediately devolve into “racism.”
Paralyzed by these contradictions, as well he should be, Carroll concludes:
“I think intermarriage may be the only way out . . . . Of course, we’d
lose a lot of interesting specific cultures that way . . ” What he means,
of course, is that we’d lose a lot of interesting races that way, including
Along the same lines, but with far more enthusiasm, Morton Kondracke
in the New Republic wondered how America could overcome its racial
inequalities, and concluded that racial intermarriage is the only solution:
“It would be a lot easier if each of us were related to someone of another
color and if, eventually, we were all one color. In America, this can happen.”
Racial intermarriage is even more aggressively championed by Ben Wattenberg,
who sees it as the path to universal salvation.
I want to make the meaning of all this very clear. Modern liberalism
told us that racial differences don’t matter, and on the basis of that
belief, liberals then set about turning America into a multiracial, integrated,
race-blind society. But now that very effort has created so much race consciousness,
race conflict and race inequality, that the same liberals have concluded
that the only way to overcome those problems is to merge all the races
into one. The same people who have always denounced as an extremist lunatic
anyone who warned about “the racial dilution of white America,” are now
proposing, not just the dilution of white America, but its complete elimination.
Race-blind ideology has led directly to the most race-conscious – and indeed
genocidal – proposal in the history of the world.
This is the insanity that results from uncritically accepting the idea
that race doesn’t matter. And the moral paralysis of whites in the face
of immigration comes from the terror or distaste that they feel at saying
that race does matter. There is also whites’ inability to face the fact
that they are a civilizationally distinct group – comprising only 15 percent
of the world’s population – that is demographically threatened by the rest
of the world’s desire to live in the uniquely attractive societies that
whites have created.
If whites continue to be open to nonwhites, as their race-blind moralism
tells them they must, their societies will cease to exist; but if they
exclude or disengage from nonwhites, that will require them to be “harsh,”
“unkind,” “mean-spirited.” It will require them to say that they care about
the survival of their race vis-a-vis other races. To the contemporary white
person, such an idea is utterly evil and unacceptable. But the funny thing
is, there is really nothing
evil or horrible about it at all. It turns out to be the most reasonable
and commonsensical thing in the world. It’s the current race-blind ideology
that is insane.
Instead of today’s politics,
which is based on lies about race, let us have a politics based on truths
So before we recoil in horror or embarrassment from speaking explicitly
about race, let us remember that America’s current politics is already
a race-conscious politics, only it’s a politics based on lies about
race. It’s a politics directed against whites and their civilization. And
it pretends that it’s not about race at all, but that it’s race-neutral
and universal. So instead of today’s race-conscious politics, which is
based on lies about race, let us have a race-conscious politics based on
truths about race.
These truths include the following propositions:
Long-term harmonious relations between a racial majority and
racial minorities are possible only when the minorities do not exceed a
certain percentage of the population.
These propositions have nothing to do with any notions of race-hatred of
the other, or of race-worship of one’s own. White people are just as sinful
and imperfect as any other people. Unlike
While individuals of different races living in the same society can
get along on a basis of equality and mutual recognition, entire races,
living in the same society, cannot.
In the right circumstances, individuals or small groups of one people
can be assimilated into a host culture of a different people, but there
are limits to such assimilation. Certainly if the entire people associated
with the host culture is displaced or swamped by a different people, the
host culture will also disappear. Even smaller shifts in numbers can be
enough to delegitimize the host culture and produce chronic cultural conflict.
Therefore, the culture, identity and traditions of white America and
Western civilization cannot survive in any community or institution that
becomes multiracial or white-minority.
Because of the greater attractiveness, prosperity and openness of white
Western societies, nonwhites will keep moving into them as long as they
can. Therefore white America can survive demographically and culturally
only if it recognizes itself as a threatened ethnoculture; if it ceases
or drastically reduces, on a national scale, all non-European immigration;
and if it assures, on a local scale, communities where its own institutions
The large and enduring differences in average intelligence between blacks
and whites mean, first, that blacks on their own can never be expected
to maintain a modern, democratic, civilized society; and second, that blacks
can never be expected to achieve collective economic equality and other
kinds of parity with whites. The forced attempt to achieve such collective
equality, through affirmative action and through endless attacks on white
racism as the supposed cause of existing inequalities, can only break down
all the institutions and standards of society and lead to race warfare.
There are therefore only two sane options for black-white relations
in this country. Either blacks accept the above facts; accept a society
where white Western standards of law, behavior and intellectual life are
dominant and where advancement will be open for blacks only on an individual,
not a collective basis; accept their status as an ethnic minority and be
grateful to be living in a white society where they have goods and opportunities
undreamed of in a black society; or else, if blacks are not willing to
accept these things, then to avoid race warfare there must be peaceful
separation between the races.
ideologies such as Afrocentrism and Nazism, which are based on the deification
of one’s own people and the demonization of others, this new politics is
based on a Christian recognition of our human limitations, namely that
we do not possess the godlike power to create a perfect world where everyone
is equal, and where differences don’t matter. If there is any arrogance
to be seen today, it is in our current immigration and affirmative action
policies, which are among the greatest examples of hubris in the history
of the world.
There are only two sane options
for black-white relations in this country.
The irony is that whites are terrified that non-whites will hate them
and even start a race war if whites stand up for themselves, while the
truth is that many nonwhites will begin for the first time to respect whites.
Currently minorities don’t respect whites because whites have defined themselves
ideologically as nothing while, in personal terms, they still try to protect
their self-interest. Whites thus seem both weak and hypocritical and therefore
despicable, and nonwhites just keep moving into the vacuum left by white
surrender. But when whites begin to assert their own civilizational and
racial identity and their desire to preserve it, not in a hateful way but
in a calm, intelligent and firm way, then nonwhites will begin to see whites,
not as the “oppressors” of left-liberal demonology, but as human beings
who have the same basic interests and concerns for their people and culture
that the minorities have for theirs.
At bottom, all we are doing is making an appeal to justice. The injustice
and unacceptability of the current double standard will become obvious
to any person of good will once it is pointed out. And that is why the
principles I’ve described need to be at the center of an anti-multiculturalist,
pro-Western civilization politics in this country. In my view, given current
demographic realities, any conservative politics that lacks these principles
cannot be a serious politics.
In Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, God pronounces the curse that will fall
on the people of Israel if they fail to follow God’s law:
“Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people,
while your eyes look on and fail with longing for them all the day; and
it shall not be in the power of your hand to prevent it. A nation which
you have not known shall eat up the fruit of your ground and of all your
labors; and you shall be only oppressed and crushed continually; so that
you shall be driven mad by the sight which your eyes shall see.”
Unless America wakes up to the threat of demographic and cultural dispossession,
and finds the will to resist it, the curse pronounced in Deuteronomy awaits
This is an abbreviated version of the talk Mr. Auster delivered at
the AR conference in Atlanta. His complete remarks – as well as those of
the other speakers – are available on both audio and video tape. Please
address inquiries to: Renaissance Audio-Visual, 272 Hope Street,
Marietta, GA 30064
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
A remarkable new study
prospects for the American
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
The American Immigration Control Foundation has established itself as the
premier publisher of trenchant monographs on immigration. Brent Nelson’s
Balkanized is one of the best volumes on the subject now available
and is a worthy successor to Lawrence Auster’s The Path to National
Suicide, published by AICF in 1990.
by Brent Nelson
American Immigration Control Foundation,
1994, 148 pp., $10.00
Dr. Nelson calls his book an essay on “the problems of governance in
the multi-ethnic state which will arise in the United States if immigration
is not curtailed.” Drawing on examples from history, current events, and
even sociobiology, he argues that America’s immigration policy cannot help
but create conflicts “of such
dimensions as to be insoluble within the traditional limits of American
Many people have pointed out that massive non-white immigration could
destroy the United States. Dr. Nelson’s contribution is in articulating
the principles that make destruction inevitable – if current policies continue
– and in exploring some of the ways American elites deceive themselves
into thinking that all is well.
North American Mammals
What could be called the leitmotif of the book comes from a surprising
but persuasive source: The Mammals of North America, written by
a professor of biology at the University of Kansas named Raymond Hall.
This volume, which Dr. Nelson tells us is the definitive work in the field,
arrives at one conclusion so emphatically that Prof. Hall italicizes in
the original: Two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the
same geographic area. Similar strains of squirrel or fox do not occupy
the same ecological niche for long. Very occasionally they interbreed and
produce a new subspecies, but usually one will destroy or simply displace
Prof. Hall applies this rule to the human mammals of North America.
“To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long
with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster
and oblivion for one or the other.”
It is very unusual to find such a categorical dismissal of attempts
to create multiethnic societies. To a thoughtful biologist, however,
sustained non-white immigration into the United States is a fatal violation
of Nature’s balance. Much of the conflict we see not only in the United
States but around the world is the reassertion of the mammalian nature
of man in the face of repeated attempts to deny it.
Two subspecies of the same
species do not occur in the same geographic area.
Dr. Nelson points out that it is not just the recent cheer-leaders for
the “end of history” who have been tempted to ignore biology, but every
classical sociological theorist from Marx and Spencer to Weber and Durkheim:
“The underground survival of the ethnic factor in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere)
and its sudden explosive re-emergence in separatism, irredentism, rioting,
and civil war has confounded all the classical theories of sociology.”
Moreover, unlike animals, human beings do not need anything so obvious
as biology in order to assert group distinctions. Populations that are
racially identical can fragment murderously because of religion or language.
Of all the world’s peoples, it is probably only whites who ever believed
that the “ethnic factor” could be made not to matter. Americans, in particular,
seem to believe that heterogeneity is not the slightest obstacle to national
unity, and that a nation’s spirit can expand infinitely to accommodate
all comers. Dr. Nelson quotes Jeane Kirkpatrick as follows: “Only those
who do not understand America believe that families that have been here
for 10 generations are more American than the tens of thousands of new
citizens naturalized last year.” In other words, anyone can instantly
become completely American.
Many of those tens of thousands of naturalized citizens have no such
illusions. They know they bring immutable characteristics that may not
affect the legal American state but that permanently change the American
nation. “What color is to blacks, language is to Hispanics,” explains Maurice
Ferre, former mayor of Miami. “We could come back in 100 years and
the Latinos will not have assimilated in the classic sense,” says the head
of the Chicano [Mexican-American] Studies Research Center at UCLA.
Some immigrants are openly contemptuous of the culture and history to
which Mrs. Kirkpatrick seems to think they will smoothly assimilate. Ricardo
Chavira, who writes for Time magazine, says: “Imagine the ludicrousness
of an elementary school teacher telling a room full of Chicanos that George
Washington and company were our Founding Fathers. Obviously, those guys
in matching white wigs were no fathers of mine.”
Many Chicanos intend to follow the logic of anti-assimilation to its
obvious conclusion; they fully expect steady Hispanic immigration to push
whites out of the Southwest and to bring complete Hispanic domination.
Although it is not clear whether the Southwest would then reattach itself
to Mexico or become an independent nation, Chicanos already have a name
for their nation: Aztlan, which means “the bronze continent.”
Dr. Nelson quotes a 1982 article in Excelsior, Mexico’s leading
daily, that anticipates the same victory:
“The territory lost in the XIX century . . . seems to be restoring
itself through humble people who go on settling various zones that once
were ours on the old maps.
White Americans are not even putting up a token resistance to reconquest;
they have granted to illegal aliens all the social benefits of citizens.
Dr. Nelson reports further that when the Texas legislature passed a Buy
American-Buy Texan law, it treated
Mexico as part of the United States. Likewise, it voted to let Mexican
nationals pay in-state tuition at five Texas state universities near the
border, thus establishing the principal of treating aliens better than
American citizens from other states.
“Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those
who deserve it.”
Dr. Nelson explains that as long ago as the 1960s, Chicanos realized
that conquest would not require desperate measures because whites were
willing partners in their own dispossession. Activists have instead opted
for what they call “the long march through the institutions,” that is,
establishment of Chicano Studies Departments, naturalization, seizure of
majorities on school boards, and massive voter support for co-racialists.
Their confidence is based not just on sheer numbers but on how those
numbers are distributed. In Houston, Texas, for example, Hispanics were
only one fifth of the population in 1985. However, they accounted for one
third of the children in the Houston School District, and more than
half of the first-graders. Hispanics need only wait for the Southwest
to fall into their hands. Before long, vast regions of the country will
reflect what is now only a local phenomenon: Those who are to be “assimilated”
outnumber those who are presumably to do the assimilating.
This demographic transformation has been greatly assisted by proponents
– mostly white – of “multiculturalism.” In Dr. Nelson’s view, former Marxists
have simply rechanneled their hatred of capitalism into hatred of Western
Civilization, and with equally destructive intent:
“After the transformation of America which they advocate has
been effected, American civilization will no longer have its formerly European
character. American civilization will have been effectively abolished.”
Multiculturalism is promoted with a tremendous propaganda effort meant
to convince whites that the displacement of their culture is either inevitable
or is appropriate punishment for their sins.
“America is Unique”
Dr. Nelson devotes a considerable part of his book to the question of
what defines a nation. He quotes John Jay, writing in 1787 in The Federalist
Papers: “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country
to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking
the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles
of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . .”
Jay recognized that these are the ties that bind nations together. Today,
whites have begun to realize that America can no longer lay claim to any
of the old ties. So-called conservatives, who do not share the multiculturalists
zeal for the destruction of Western Civilization, find themselves in the
absurd position of claiming that a third-world population can still, somehow,
Rather than admit that the disappearance of Jay’s common bonds means
the dissolution of America, they claim that the country is uniquely exempt
from the need for common bonds. What then makes America American? Dr. Nelson
cites the economist Robert J. Samuelson: “Prosperity is what binds us together.”
It would be hard to think of a more threadbare basis for national unity.
No nation enjoys eternal prosperity. Its true test is adversity. By Mr.
Samuelson’s definition, the United States could not survive another depression
or protracted war. It may not even survive mild recession. In Mr. Samuelson’s
terms, the United States is strictly a business interest; if it stops being
profitable, it can be liquidated. Whether he knows it or not, Mr. Samuelson
is admitting that America is no longer a nation.
The thesis of American uniqueness, to which scholars and politicians
cling with increasing desperation, does have some basis in history. America
did manage to blend Europeans into a cohesive nation, despite the conflicts
that continued to wrack Europe. However, as Dr. Nelson points out, this
blending took place under ideal circumstances. The new Americans were of
the same race (or subspecies, to use Prof. Hall’s terminology) and the
Western frontier served as a safety valve for ethnic friction. Today’s
newcomers are not only racially – and therefore permanently – different,
they are pouring into a nation that is increasingly crowded and exhausted.
The promise of American uniqueness is false. One of the signs of approaching
dissolution is the extent to which the role of government has become mediation
between hostile groups. The reigning theory of the last several decades
has been that “tolerance,” “sensitivity,” and “openness” can bring
a permanent solution to racial conflict. There is, of course, no sign of permanent
solution. Dr. Nelson points out that races are “political conflict groups”
that are “already pre-organized by Nature.” Racial friction is therefore
an abiding addition to the normal political disagreements found even in
It is not as though the mainstream media are unaware of this. For example,
they duly report that during one 18-month period in the town of Long Beach,
California, there were 55 drive-by shootings as part of a feud between
Cambodian and Hispanic gangs. Long Beach was once so overwhelmingly white
it was called Iowa by the Sea. The astonishing thing is that the degeneration
of a homogeneous, prosperous white city into a racial battleground for
aliens does not provoke calls for the restoration of homogeneity. Instead,
government takes on the increasingly futile task of papering over racial
antagonisms. This is the cost of pretending that humans are not mammals.
“Government in a multi-ethnic state must grow ever more intrusive, ever
larger, and ever more costly, simply in order to preserve the political
integrity of the state,” writes Dr. Nelson. Every act of government becomes
a racial juggling act, a distribution of spoils to each group according
to mathematical formulae.
To the extent that multi-ethnic states work at all, they require the
indulgence of the majority. Dr. Nelson quotes historian Hans Kohn: “Fundamental
for the solution of problems of duo- or polyethnic states is not primarily
the attitude of the minority or minorities but that of the majority. The
weaker groups in the population must receive a greater consideration than
would be proportional to their numerical strength.” Dr. Nelson notes that
this is true in Switzerland, Belgium, and Canada, as well as the United
Here, the game of exploiting the majority has become so attractive that
groups other than races now play it. Homosexuals, feminists, and handicapped
people have all copied blacks and Hispanics and now demand special favors
in the name of “victimhood.”
America Without Americans
Where will it end? Dr. Nelson predicts that as their numbers dwindle,
whites will eventually demand from their leaders the racial aggressiveness
typical of non-whites. It is only the nostalgic attachment of the white
majority for the idea of a united America, the illusion that it is still
possible to have a government that speaks for Americans of all races, that
gives the country even the appearance of unity. These nostalgic illusions
will be torn away by the ruthless consolidation of power by non-whites:
“When . . . European Americans begin to think of themselves
as such and demand ethnically conscious European American leaders, then
America will have become America Balkanized, a nation without Americans,
just as Yugoslavia, in the early 1990s, became a nation without Yugoslavs;
i.e. no longer a viable nation.”
Awakened white consciousness may not come for several decades. Because
America – with its forms, its trappings of government, its national symbols
and slogans – derives almost exclusively from European sources, whites
will be the last to abdjure the realm and abandon the current notion of
what America is supposed to be. They will cling to the image of an
“inclusive,” “tolerant,” all-absorbing America – but only at their peril.
No one else plays by those rules. As Prof. Hall reminds us, any attempt
by two human subspecies to live side by side “leads only to disaster and
oblivion for one or the other.”
America Balkanized is available from AICF, Box 525, Monterey, Va. 24465.
The price is $10.00, which includes postage.
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
O Tempora, O Mores!
legislature has passed a law requiring the state Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) to deny drivers’ licenses to applicants who are illegal aliens. Until
now, the DMV has ignored immigrant status, and a driver’s license is one
of the most common forms of identification for welfare and free medicine.
The law has no provision for checking the immigrant status of people who
already have licenses. [Jerry Gillam, DMV, INS to check new license applicants,
Times, 6/22/94, p. A3.]
California is one of 23 states that allow citizens to pass legislation
by referendum. A group of disgruntled whites is trying to get the following
proposition, known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, on the 1996
“Neither the State of California nor any of its political subdivisions
or agents shall use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as a
criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment
to, any individual or group in the operation of the State’s system of public
employment, public education or public contracting.”
This initiative has been reported in National Review and in the
Street Journal, and may be a harbinger for rising white consciousness.
The people behind the initiative are asking for donations and volunteers.
They can be reached at CCRI, Box 11795, Berkeley, Calif., 94701.
White Man’s Burden
Max Frankel was, until recently, executive editor of the New York
Times. He was a tireless advocate of race-based hiring preferences
and was especially famous for decreeing that Times editors must
hire a black for every white they employed. In a recent television interview,
he admitted to having established this rule but denied that it was a quota.
[Daniel Seligman, Keeping Up, Fortune, May 16, 1994, p. 153.]
Hypocrisy in High Places
A year and a half into his term of office, President Clinton has still
not appointed a chairman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). He has floated the names of three candidates – all Hispanic – but
each was pronounced unfit by “civil rights” groups. It has become
particularly important for President Clinton to find a Hispanic for the
job, because two other high-profile jobs that are off-limits to whites
– chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights – have gone to blacks. Needless to say, by looking
only for Hispanics, President Clinton is violating the very laws that the
EEOC is supposed to enforce. [Ronald Brownstein, EEOC suffers amid minority
debate over next leader, Houston Chron, 5/22/94, p. 12A.]
In the spring of 1991, Hispanics had their first riot in Washington,
DC. A black policewoman shot a drunken Latino, and the Mount Pleasant area
had a jolly evening of arson and looting. This resulted in the usual tribute:
expressions of concern and infusions of cash. This year, something called
“Congresso Latino” commemorated the riot with a week-long fiesta called
“Empowerment Through Participation.” There were voter registration drives,
seminars on how to milk Medicaid and welfare, demonstrations for immigrants’
rights, and a day-long soccer tournament. [Lisa Leff, Week of events to
mark Mt. Pleasant disturbances, Wash Post, 4/30/94, p. B2.]
Gangaram Mahes is an immigrant from Guyana. He has found that life in
prison, with a dry bed and three meals a day, is better than anything he
can manage on the outside. He is a gentle fellow, though, and does not
want to hurt anyone in order to get out of the rain. Instead, he goes to
a Manhattan restaurant, eats a $50 meal,
and then tells the waiter he cannot pay. He usually gets 90 days in jail.
It costs taxpayers $162 a day to board Mr. Mahes at Rikers Island prison,
so a 90-day stay costs $14,580.
Mr. Mahes is usually out on the streets for only a few days before he
gets hungry and patronizes another nice restaurant. He has committed the
same crime at least 31 times. Christina Swarns, a young Legal Aid lawyer
who has defended Mr. Mahes, says, “It’s a very sad thing. How bad is it,
his life, that he would prefer prison?” [Rick Bragg, ‘Serial diner’ breaks
in to prison with a knife and fork, Miami Herald, 6/5/94, p. 6A.]
Miss Swarns got it wrong. How pleasant must prison be, and how impervious
to ordinary punishment must Mr. Mahes be, to prefer living in jail.
Land of the Free
Texas has an Adopt-a-Highway program, in which groups may put up small
advertising signs along a stretch of road that they promise to keep clean.
Nearly 4,000 groups have been allowed to adopt highways, including bands
of homosexuals, nudist colonies, jail inmate groups [aren’t they made
to pick up litter?], and The Homeless Men and Women of Corpus Christi.
In the program’s eight-year history, only one group has been forbidden
to adopt a highway and to put up signs: the Ku Klux Klan.
The Klan wanted a stretch of highway near Vidor, Texas, where the federal
government has been busily integrating heretofore-all-white public housing.
Judge Joe Fisher ruled that Texas’ interest in promoting integration outweighed
the Klan’s right to free speech. [Wendy Benjaminson, Klan hits a dead end
in effort to adopt road, Houston Chron, 5/8/94, p. 1D.] A federal judge
thereby restricted a right that is explicitly defended in the Constitution
in favor of a “right” on which the Constitution is silent.
Brave New Africa
The April 25 issue of U.S. News & World Report recounts a
conversation with a group of beer-drinking, reefer-smoking black township
gangsters in South Africa:
“‘Nzakes,’ 24, explains what it’s like to kill. ‘You get a little bit
of a scream, you get them begging for their life, “Please, please don’t
shoot me, please don’t kill me,” ‘ he says in a falsetto voice that sends
his friends into convulsions of stoned laughter. ‘Panache,’ 22, says that
when burgling homes in Johannesburg’s white suburbs he often kills the
family pet and leaves it baking in the oven for the owners to find on coming
home. ‘If you find your little dog roasted, you’re going to be hurt,’ he
says.” [US N & W Report, 4/25/94, p. 46.]
Columnist Mary McGrory seems to think that with Nelson Mandela in power,
all such viciousness will be washed away. Her May 12th column in the Washington
Post, demonstrates how ridiculous liberals can be:
“Mandela is going to give South Africa a government with a
mandate for forgiveness. It will be the first time a country has an official
policy that is nothing less than applied Christianity.
“Nelson Mandela has won what the [Washington] Post calls ‘one
of history’s sweetest victories over racial subjugation’ and he is going
to keep it clean and beautiful so that newspaper readers will think they
are reading scripture when they read dispatches from South Africa that
cannot be read except through tears.” [Mary McGrory, South Africa is Twice
Blessed, Wash Post, 5/12/94.]
A New Frankness
Whites are speaking more frankly about race – and the media are reporting
their views without comment. A recent Wall Street Journal article
quotes John Devivo who left Southern California to
live in Utah. In California, he explains, “minorities are always in your
face, always hassling you.” Utah is a pleasant change: “People speak English
and say ‘thank you.’ ”
His wife, Frankie, says, “We wanted to be sealed off from the blacks,
the Hispanics, the Vietnamese. That’s a big reason I came.” [Tony Horwitz,
Californians flood in and tension is rising in small towns in utah, WSJ,
4/29/94, p. 1.]
Even the New York Times Magazine is now reporting racial candor
without comment. A May 29, 1994 article about the consequences of school
integration in a Chicago suburb quotes a sociology teacher at some length:
“I have run into problems now that I have a lot of black kids.
They won’t shut up.”
This teacher says white students may drop classes if there are too many
blacks in them. He reports that one former teacher retired to an island
so that he would never have to see another black face.
“There are some days I come in, I don’t want to see anyone black. I’ve
just had it.”
“The conduct of some of these black males is incredibly immature – the
yelling, the screaming, the way they hit girls.”
White students say the following:
“I cannot stand the race. I’ll never date anyone who isn’t
One white junior, who could have gone to a private school, went to the
integrated public school because she and her parents thought it was the
right thing to do. “You don’t start out as racist,” she says. “We’re all
racist now.” [H.G. Bissinger, ‘We’re all racist now,’ NYT Magazine,
5/29/94, p. 27.]
“[The typical black student is] ignorant and scum, a lot of poverty,
self-righteousness, you owe me that, you owe me this, gimme, gimme, gimme.”
Harmony Turns Dissonant
In June, the city of Oakland, California had a three-day festival to
celebrate multicultural harmony. It ended in a riot, in which 69 people
[race unspecified] were arrested and 16 were injured. [Michelle Locke,
Probe of Oakland festival riot promised, Contra Costa Times, (Walnut
Creek, Ca), 6/7/94.]
The Africa Within
The Agency for International Development (AID) is America’s primary
foreign aid bureaucracy. It has begun to dawn on the officials who run
it that many of the problems they have been trying to solve in underdeveloped
countries can be found in the black neighborhoods of American cities. For
example, with AID help, countries like the Philippines and Sri Lanka now
manage to immunize more than 70 percent of all two-year-olds against measles.
In American black ghettos, the rate is around 40 percent.
When AID director, Brian Atwood publicly offered to make his agency’s
services available to American cities, Baltimore was the first to ask.
The Baltimore Sun greeted the news with a headline that read “Baltimore
to Try Third World Remedies,” but cities are so desperate for help that
they do not mind being compared to Bangladesh.
Baltimore has plenty of “social services,” but many people never find
out about them because 20 percent of the population is illiterate. AID
designs many of its programs for countries where illiteracy is taken for
granted, so Baltimore has found its methods instructive.
In foreign countries, AID also makes small loans to people it calls
“microentrepreneurs.” A woman might use the money to buy a sewing machine,
for example, and start working at home. Baltimore officials think this
approach could help lift welfare mothers out of idleness – as if they were
just one sewing machine away from self-employment and prosperity. [Thomas
Friedman, Foreign-aid agency shifts to problems back home, NYT,
6/26/94, p. A1.]
Although “foreign aid” for Harlem or East St. Louis is likely to do no
more good than it has done for Zaire or Upper Volta, it is just as well
for our government to recognize that third-world people create third-world
problems wherever they live.
The U.S. Army posts detailed notices about how uniforms should be worn.
The regimental crest, for example, is to be worn 1/8 inch above the top
of the pocket flap. The notices include large photographs of models wearing
the uniforms. The model for the women’s uniform is black. The model for
the men’s uniform is Hispanic.
White Man’s Burden
Djibouti is an African “nation” about the size of Vermont, located on
the Red Sea coast. It was colonized by France in 1862 as a fueling stop
for ships bound for Saigon and Madagascar. When Djibouti was granted independence
in 1977, only three of its 320,000 citizens were college graduates, and
its only manufactured product was Coca-Cola.
Very little has changed since independence. Were it not for the presence
of about 6,000 French civilians and 4,000 soldiers, Djibouti would cease
to exist as a country. Its only exports are goats and sheep, which are
marched off on the hoof to Saudi Arabia and the gulf states. French aid
and business account for 60 percent of Djibouti’s gross national product.[David
Lamb, In Djibouti, independence has brought little change, LA Times,
6/29/94, p. A8.]
In some other parts of Africa, where the European presence is less pervasive,
societies have completely collapsed and people are kept alive on international
charity. The United Nations estimates that one in every 30 Africans is
a refugee, either in his own or in a neighboring country.
In places like Sudan, Angola, Zaire, Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone,
and Somalia, there is essentially no government, and there is little distinction
between crime and warfare. Young men with guns but with no apparent leaders
or loyalty spread terror entirely as they please. This is why many of the
approximately 22 million Africans who have fled their homes are afraid
to go back even after “peace accords” end the official fighting. [John
Darnton, Crisis-torn Africa becomes Continent of refugees, NYT,
Another obstacle to normal life is the huge number of mines that warring
factions have scattered across each others’ territories. Mine sweeping,
even with modern equipment is difficult and expensive. Often, farmers and
children discover old mines with their bare feet.
Welfare for Workers
The city is the employer of last resort for New Yorkers. Nearly a quarter
of the working white men work for it, and almost a third of the working
black men. Only one fifth of the working white women are city employees
but one half of all the black women who work in New York City work for
city government. [Stats of the City, Our Town, 4/29/94, p. 3.]
Chickens and Ducks
Most people want to live with people like themselves. A study done by
the University of California at Los Angeles found that, on average, white
Angelenos tell a poll-taker they want neighborhoods that are 76 percent
white and 24 percent black, or 79 percent white and 21 percent Hispanic.
Hispanics want a neighborhood that is 88 percent Hispanic and 12 percent
black or 62 percent Hispanic and 38 percent white – a clear preference
for white neighbors over black. Blacks show the same preference for whites.
On average, they want a 50-50 mix if the other race is white, but they
want a 62-38 majority if the other race is Hispanic. [AP, People
prefer neighbors of the same race, Orange County Register, 11/29/92,
At Harvard University, 43 percent of all grades are As, twice as many
as were granted 30 years ago. At Princeton, 40 percent are As, and at Brown,
Ds and Fs are never recorded.
At Stanford, 91 percent of all grades are As and Bs. The school lets
students take the same course as often as they like, and records only the
last grade. Stanford students may also drop a course at any time, up to
the day before the final exam. Failing grades do not appear on transcripts,
so if students think they have done poorly on an exam, they may tearfully
beg the teacher to fail them so they will not get a dreaded C or D.
Many Stanford students and professors defend the system in the belief
that students should be nurtured with a “positive record of success.” High
grades make parents happy, too. Another reason to give high grades is that
some non-whites have filed racial discrimination suits when they did not
get what they wanted. [Carol Jouzaitis, Easy college A’s become rampant,
Tribune, 5/4/94, p.1.]
Jay Duber, a special education teacher in New York City went to prison
in 1990 for selling $7,000 worth of cocaine to an undercover policeman.
The city school board tried to fire him but could not, because he has tenure.
The board has spent five years and nearly $200,000 trying to get rid of
Mr. Duber – who is white – but to no avail. Mr. Duber has continued to
collect his teacher’s salary, even while he was in jail. He now has a non-teaching
job. [Sam Dillon, Teacher Tenure: Rights vs. Discipline, NYT, 6/28/94,
p. A1.] A city that cannot even fire jail birds is unlikely to be able
to discipline the merely incompetent.
AIDS in Prison
From 1992 to 1993, the number of Illinois prison inmates with AIDS increased
seven-fold, from 25 to 177. That year, 23 inmates died of AIDS, putting
the disease ahead of cancer and heart attacks as the leading cause of inmate
In a study done in 1988 and 1989, a group of 2,392 new inmates in Joliet
Prison were tested for AIDS and 95 were found to have the virus. A year
later, the same prisoners were tested and seven more were HIV positive,
suggesting that they caught the disease in prison. [Jerry Thomas, AIDS
is top killer in state prisons, Chi Tribune, 5/2/94.]
Abandoned at Birth
Every year, about 22,000 mothers abandon their infants in hospitals
after they give birth. They show up in labor, give false names and family
contacts, and leave as soon as they can. Seventy-four percent of the abandoned
infants are black, 12 percent are white, and eight percent are Hispanic.
It costs about $600 a day to keep an infant in the hospital, and about
a quarter stay for at least three weeks. [John Ritter, ‘Babies will keep
coming,’ USA Today, 12/2/93, p. 1.]
An experimental program that was supposed to persuade welfare mothers
not to have more children has been a complete failure. Participants in
the New Chance program had to be 16 to 22 years old, and to have given
birth as teenagers. Most were high school dropouts. Two thousand three
hundred women in ten different states were stuffed with education, training,
counselling, and advice on birth-control. Eighteen months later, half were
pregnant again – about the same rate as similar women who did not get the
uplift treatment. [Virginia Ellis, Welfare mother plan fails to halt pregnancy
trend, LA Times, 6/22/94, A3.]
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
E T T E R S F R O M R E A D E
We have received many letters from people who attended the Atlanta conference.
Most writers were strongly in favor of holding more conferences, and we
certainly plan to do so. We thank all of you who wrote (and of course,
all of you who attended). Three of the letters are published below. - Ed.
Sir – I would like to thank you for producing a first-rate conference.
Afterwards, a friend and I drove to Panama City, Florida for a week’s vacation.
For the entire drive we discussed issues pertaining to the conference,
our conversation shifting from optimism to pessimism almost as quickly,
it seemed, as we passed mile markers.
As we settled into
Panama City, we were met by an exhilarating surprise. We couldn’t help
but notice the number of Confederate battle flags flapping in the breeze
from restaurants, souvenir shops, balconies, backs of pickup trucks, and
anywhere else a young, proud, white Southern boy could hang St. Andrew’s
Cross. My friend and I, being from the North, were totally unaccustomed
to such symbols of white Southern pride being so proudly paraded (although
I do have a Confederate license plate on the front of my pickup). It was
incredibly uplifting to be in the midst of young, everyday, white Southerners
displaying their cultural pride as a matter of course. As we drove by I
would wave and say, “Love your flag” and get a thumbs-up in reply. More
than a few responded by saying “White pride.”
The reason I am writing this to you is that much of the conference and
of AR as well, is perhaps a bit too pessimistic. I believe the political
situation is ripe and that success depends only on determination.
Gary Brock, Huber Heights, Ohio
Sir – One apparently common need for all of us seems to be the need
for spiritual satisfaction. Samuel Taylor’s closing comments at the conference
about his ancestors, and his words, “I feel their eyes always upon me,”
went through me like a lightening bolt. I left the conference (I must admit,
with tears in my eyes) believing more strongly than ever that this is why
we feel as we do. We revere our ancestors and their traditions, and we
want to preserve the culture they handed down to us. The closest I get
to a spiritual experience is when contemplating my ancestors’ (in the broadest
sense) deeds, thoughts, and feelings, reading their words, or listening
to some old song – usually religious – and imagining its effect on them.
At the conference, Sam Dickson mentioned that he was a religious “doubter,”
but he was greatly moved at the memory of those who died defending Atlanta.
In closing the conference, Mr. Taylor mentioned his regret at the lack
of a benediction (though I believe the suggestion that “Our ancestors eyes
are always upon us,” was a fitting one).
The after-dinner speaker said we need religion or a substitute for it
as a binding force to hold us together and motivate us. Since some of us
have difficulty embracing established religion (as did Thomas Jefferson),
it seems to me that reverence for our ancestors and their ways, and the
desire to continue their traditions could be our “religion.”
D. Tyrone Crowley, Prattville, Alabama
Sir – I just returned from the American Renaissance conference, and
right off, I have to express dismay that four of the speakers were Jewish.
I say this because the Jewish people have been so instrumental and dynamic
in creating the very racial problems we are trying to resolve. You must
certainly have become aware of this in the course of your research on the
race question. We can ignore it, we can downplay, it, we can even deny
it, but it remains a fact.
Essentially, discussing race without discussing Jews is like discussing
crime without discussing blacks. I heard a great deal about “white” liberals
but no mention of how many such whites are Jewish, or how the phenomenon
of modern liberalism itself is essentially a Jewish creation that comes
from increasingly Jewish universities. As Father Tacelli said in his talk,
“We must tell the truth.” We must not hide it or tell only
half of it.
Joseph Bishop, Bothell, Washington
Sir – You reported recently on Hulond Humphries, the white Alabama school
principal who got in trouble for telling a girl she was “a mistake” that
had resulted from a mixed-race marriage. The federal government is trying
to get Mr. Humphries fired for his remark, but in the mean time, the school
district has agreed to pay the girl $25,000 to settle a suit she brought
against the poor man. It seems to me that Mr. Humphries was expressing
an opinion, which is his Constitution right. What crime has he committed?
Michael Fischer, La Jolla, Cal.
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •