The Morality of Survival
If the West falls there
will be no revival.
Only a new morality can
by Michael Masters
In Part I, Mr. Masters demonstrated that it is logically impossible
for all people to subscribe to a one-world, "universal morality," and that
those groups that practice it will surely be displaced by those that do
not. Mr. Masters now outlines the basis of a morality that would ensure
The great majority
of people, of any age and origin, do not concern themselves with the rise
and fall of civilizations. Like fish in water, they are conscious of their
environment only when it changes rapidly and threateningly, a rarity in
most people's lifetimes. Yet civilizations do fall, and the warning signs
for ours have been present for more than a century. Rudyard Kipling's line,
"East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet," presaged
the message of early twentieth century Americans, Madison Grant and Lothrop
Stoddard, whose books, The Passing of the Great Race and The
Rising Tide of Color, helped bring about the immigration restrictions
The 1924 national origins quota system was dismantled in 1965 during
the wave of self-recrimination that accompanied the Civil Rights era. Should
Chinese historians of the twenty-second century be writing the final history
of Western civilization, no doubt they will cite the 1965 Immigration Act
as the blow that broke the back of Western man.
Elmer Pendell, in his book, Why Civilizations Self-Destruct, surveyed
historians' theories as to why civilizations fall. They include Oswald
Spengler's analogy to individual aging and death, theories of moral decay,
and theories based on ecological deterioration. Concerning the latter,
Garrett Hardin notes in The Limits of Altruism: "No civilization has
ever recovered after ruining its environment." [emphasis in original]
All of these theories have their appeal, yet none is a complete explanation
for what is happening to the West.
Pendell's own hypothesis seems closer to the mark. A civilization arises
when natural selection produces a people of above-average intelligence.
As the founders conquer natural culling forces, those who would have been
removed from the population due to their lesser abilities survive and produce
more children than the more intelligent founders. Francis Galton, Charles
Darwin's cousin and author of Hereditary Genius, first noted that
'men of eminence' have fewer children than the average. Eventually the
intelligence level of the population falls below that needed to sustain
Eventually the intelligence
level of the population falls below that needed to sustain civilization.
Pendell suggests another factor in the collapse of civilizations, the
gradual adulteration of ethnically homogeneous founding populations through
losses in wars and, in ancient times, the taking of slaves. The modern
analogue of slavery is immigration. Tenny Frank, in his book History
of Rome, wrote, "The original peoples were wasted in wars and scattered
in migrations and colonization and their places were filled chiefly with
Eastern Slaves." We cannot speak of the spirit of Rome or the culture of
Rome, Frank said, "without defining whether the reference is to the Rome
of 200 BC or 200 AD."
Theodor Mommsen wrote in The History of Rome, "The patrician
body. . . had dwindled away more and more in the course of centuries and
in the time of Caesar there were not more than fifteen or sixteen patrician
gentes (clans) still in existence." In 9 A. D. laws were passed requiring
each patrician family to have three children. Lead poisoning has been implicated
in the failure to reverse the decline of Roman blood, but the reasons do
not change the outcome. Even in ancient Rome, slaves did not stay slaves
forever, and their gradual suffusion through the population by intermixture
would have contributed to Rome's demise. The same situation, massive infusion
of non-Western peoples and a birthrate below replacement level, threatens
the West, and for reasons quite unrelated to lead poisoning.
After The Fall
Eric Fischer, writing in The Passing of the European Age, said
that a new civilization never arises where an earlier civilization has
died. If Pendell's theory is correct and if the hypothesis of Tenny Frank
and others explains the loss of a hereditary capacity for civilization,
then Fischer's observation has a genetic explanation. Civilization cannot
arise on the site of an earlier civilization once the hereditary character
of the people is permanently altered. This process is happening in the
Western world today through immigration, welfare, and liberal policies
that promote the submergence of ethnic groups into a global "melting pot."
Should the West suffer the fate of Rome, there will be no recovery.
Whether or not other civilizations arise among other peoples remains to
be seen. Present economic success indicates that East Asia may be a future
center of civilization. However, modern innovations flow predominantly
from the creative wellsprings of the West. Whether innovation could be
sustained in the absence of Western peoples remains to be seen. There is
evidence that this might not happen; intelligence testing of Asians shows
a relatively small standard deviation, suggesting a smaller right tail
of the IQ distribution and a smaller percentage of innovative individuals.
Although dire predictions about the future are often ridiculed, it is
wise to remember Rome – catastrophes can and do occur, and in a globally
linked world, the consequences could be shattering. In The Limits of
Altruism, Garrett Hardin cites Harrison Brown, author of The Challenge
of Man's Future, as the first person to recognize the vulnerability
of the West's advanced civilization. Brown focused on the role of metals
in modern civilization and on the technology required to obtain metals.
Prof. Hardin summarizes the situation:
"Looking only at the copper component of the problem, we should
note that preliterate man managed to create the Bronze Age only because
of the ready availability of copper ores assaying greater than 20 percent.
. . . Only the most primitive of means are required to process high grade
ores. But now we are reduced to extracting our copper from ores that assay
less than 1 percent, and soon we will have nothing better than 0.1 percent.
It takes a very sophisticated technology to deal with low-grade ores, a
technology that only a large population of technologically advanced people
Prof. Hardin continues, "Our many technologies form an incredible network
of mutual support, mutual dependence. If this network were disrupted .
. . it is doubtful if our kind of technology could ever be rebuilt. . .
. On all counts, it looks as though our civilization, once fallen, will
never be replaced by another of comparable quality."
Prof. Hardin suggests two possible causes for the destruction of modern
civilization: nuclear warfare and a population crash brought on by exceeding
the Earth's carrying capacity. However, genetic submergence of the peoples
with the innate ability to sustain civilization will do just as well.
The Roots of Western Order
The Map of Freedom, published annually by Freedom House, graphically
demonstrates that free forms of government generally track population concentrations
of people of European descent, a strong suggestion that freedom has a genetic
origin. Although there are exceptions, notably Japan, which lost a nuclear
war to the West and had a Western constitution imposed on it, the world
of the free is largely the world of the Western European. The partially
free include newly emerged Eastern Europeans and a scattering of other
nations around the world. Much of Africa and Asia remains in the not free
Thomas Jefferson foresaw this. Fearing "importation of foreigners,"
he wrote in Notes on Virginia, "They will bring with them the principles
of the governments they leave, or if able to throw them off, it will be
in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as usual, from one
extreme to the other. . . . In proportion to their number, they will infuse
into it [the nation] their spirit, warp or bias its direction, and render
it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass."
Because economic inequality between groups inevitably produces envy,
stable societies are almost always homogeneous. Multi-ethnic and multicultural
societies live on the edge of dissolution. In such cases, the role of government
turns to conflict management, as Brent Nelson points out in America
Balkanized. "Government as conflict management is an emerging theme
of public life in the U.S., a theme which recurrently manifests itself
in the concepts of dialogue, mediation, sensitivity, tolerance, and balance.
The latter terms are increasingly the shibboleths of American public life.
The fiction is maintained that these concepts . . . will produce a final
resolution of intergroup conflicts. . . . [T]he reality is something quite
other." Laws against "hate crime" and "hate speech" reflect that other
If today's ethnic minorities become a majority it will be beyond the
power of Western peoples to control, peacefully by means of the ballot,
the destiny of the nations that were once their own. There is no guarantee
that protections prevalent in Western societies will be preserved in societies
that become non-Western. There is no historical reason to believe that
governments based on principles of individual liberty will survive the
disappearance of Western peoples.
Post-colonial Africa is enlightening. For the most part, the Dark Continent
is reverting to its ancestral ways, suitably updated by the infusion of
Western weapons, as evidenced by carnage in Somalia and Rwanda. That this
disturbs our heightened Western sense of compassion is understandable.
But sentimentality should not blind us to the long term implications for
our own survival. Nature's books are being balanced in Africa, and they
will be balanced in the West, either by us or by Nature itself. Just as
giving food to people who cannot feed themselves simply hastens an inevitable
population crash, bringing third world people into the West simply hastens
the transformation of the West into an extension of the third world.
The European tradition of ordered, self-governing liberty is probably
part of our genetic heritage. Throughout the third world, governments range
from anarchy to dictatorship. That too, is surely genetic. Those few non-European
countries that appear to be free have generally maintained democracy through
intimate contact with the West. If Europeans are marginalized and ultimately
absorbed by the third world, the idealism of Western liberalism that permitted
the third world invasion will have proved to be a lethal genetic flaw.
Few concepts are more ingrained in Western thought than respect for
the "rule of law." The West has a history of order that predates the eight-hundred-year-old
Magna Carta. Roman Law was supreme in the Mediterranean world for nearly
a thousand years. Unique among the peoples of the earth, the people of
the West recognize, at least in theory, the subordination of government
to individual rights. But laws have been instrumental in bringing on the
current crisis. Although there is virtually no popular support for immigration
in the Western world, it is everywhere proceeding under laws passed by
governments elected by the people.
In the end, laws are no better at ensuring liberty than the people who
make and enforce them. Sir Roger L'Estrange said, "The greatest of all
injustice is that which goes under the name of law." America's Founders
recognized the existence of a natural order to freedom that supersedes
laws made by men. Although the American concept of liberty owed much to
British and French political thought, the American act of creation, the
Declaration of Independence, provided perhaps the best-known expression
of "natural law" ever penned. Writing about securing "unalienable Rights"
endowed by "Nature and Nature's God," Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, having the foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."
The rights Jefferson
identified, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," were set forth
by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ratified on May
6th, 1776. Mason's work was the basis for Jefferson's statement, but the
Mason version is superior because it eschews Jefferson's poetic nonsense
about all men being created equal. Mason's language still stands as a monument
of Western political thought:
"[A]ll men are by nature equally free and independent, and
have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of
society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;
namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring
and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Mason's words are preferable to Jefferson's for two reasons. First,
he said that men are "equally free," not "equal." The difference is vast.
There is ample evidence that Jefferson understood the difference as well
as Mason, but much of the dispossession of Europeans in their own homelands
can be traced to exploitation of this egalitarian philosophy by later Western
Second, Mason states directly the central thesis of natural law: People
cannot, by any agreement, deprive their posterity of rights. Natural law
is therefore the fulcrum on which rests the case that immigration is genocide.
The governments of the West have no right to impose present levels of immigration
and race mixing on their people. Nor are we morally bound to accept them.
The Ultimate Moral Principle
Mason recognized the role of "safety" as a motive for the creation of
law and government. Others have said the same thing. William Blackstone
wrote, "self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature. . . [It]
cannot be taken away by the laws of society." Jefferson wrote, "A strict
observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest duties
of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity,
of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher
Their message is simple. Laws alone, independent of their survival utility,
are not, and cannot be, the underlying basis of civilization. In the end,
whoever makes and enforces the laws has the power to determine who lives
and who dies. Survival is the ultimate principle upon which all enduring
moral systems must be based. This is the third, and final, cornerstone
of any permanent moral order, for any people who "divest" their posterity
of the right to existence will vanish, and their flawed moral system will
vanish with them.
All systems of law and government must serve the imperative of survival.
Speaking on the eve of the War for Southern Independence, and in the aftermath
of John Brown's attempt to incite a slave uprising at Harper's Ferry, President
James Buchanan expressed the fear felt by white Southerners who saw their
very existence imperiled: "Self-preservation is the first law of nature,
and therefore any state of society in which the sword is all the time suspended
over the heads of the people must at last become intolerable." Where law
and survival were in conflict the Founders took their cue from Cicero:
"Laws are silent in the midst of arms."
The West is surrendering the power of life and death into the hands
of third world aliens. In a world ruled by the dual "code of amity, code
of enmity," this decision, which was never subjected to systematic scrutiny
by an informed electorate, is tantamount to suicide. Sometime in the next
century, the sword Western society has suspended over its own head will
become intolerable. What our response will be remains to be seen. If there
is no response, the long descent into night is sure to follow.
Which Way Western Man?
What would be lost with the passing of Western civilization and its
peoples? Two thousand years ago, the Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote in
Germania that the peoples of the Germanic tribes possessed a fondness
for personal freedom, an independence of spirit, an unusually high status
accorded women and a deep affection for the land. These traits have survived
twenty centuries. Without the West, will the spirit of individual liberty
persevere? The Map of Freedom suggests not. Despite the tendency of liberals
to denigrate the only culture on earth that would tolerate their presence,
these virtues uniquely characterize only Europeans and their civilization.
Now, the descendants of those same Germanic tribes, the ancestors of
much of the white world, and the creators of the only advanced technological
civilization the world has ever known, are on the road to extinction. Do
Western moral principles require that its creators commit suicide in order
to fulfill those principles? Such a belief is insane. It therefore
follows that if the West is to survive it must come to grips, as Jean Raspail
foresaw, with the profoundly destructive nature of its moral beliefs.
Any enduring moral order must be based on the following principles:
1) a dual code of morality, which is of evolutionary origin, binds the
members of ethnic and racial groups together; 2) universal, self-sacrificing
altruism in a world in which racial cohesion is elsewhere the norm is lethal;
and 3) the imperative of survival and the primacy of self-preservation
supersede all laws made by man.
What then, must we do? Raymond Cattell, in his book A New Morality
From Science: Beyondism, called for a reversal of the universalist
creed and creation of many social laboratories where evolution can proceed
without harm or subjugation of anyone by anyone else. Wilmot Robertson
urged this path as the basis of nationhood in The Ethnostate. Richard
McCulloch has elevated this principle to a "racial Golden Rule" in The
The only course that gives cohesive groups a chance to survive is ethnic
separation. Without separation, the dual code of morality will ensure a
long, chaotic period of strife and bloodshed. Eventually, what racial conflict
does not finish, miscegenation, diminished birthrates, and physical and
psychological displacement will. Personal liberty and individuality, without
which Europeans simply cannot exist, will disappear long before the European
genetic heritage is completely submerged. Lest this outcome seem remote
and therefore of no concern, let the time scale of Rome's decline be always
kept in mind. Though those reading this may or may not live to see the
collapse of the West, the white children being born today may well suffer
Jean Raspail also
believed that the end was not far off. In the introduction to the 1985
edition of The Camp of the Saints, he wrote, "The Roman empire did
not die any differently, though, it's true, more slowly, whereas this time
we can expect a more sudden conflagration . . . . Christian charity will
prove itself powerless. The times will be cruel."
Louis Veuillot, the 19th century French writer, captured the dilemma
facing the West in confronting peoples who do not conform to Western moral
principles. "When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that
is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom,
because that is my principle." The West must recognize this appeal for
compassion by "the wretched refuse of [the non-Western world's] teeming
shore," for what it is: a form of beguiling parasitism that can, by definition,
only seduce those with Western moral principles.
In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler wrote, "One grows
or dies. There is no third possibility." The peoples of the West must come
to believe in and act in accordance with the only moral principle Nature
recognizes: for those who live in harmony with Nature, survival is moral.
For those who do not, the penalty is extinction. Without this understanding,
Western Man, progenitor of law, compassion, technology and a spirit of
quest that is unparalleled in the history of the human race, will perish
at the hands of those who do not possess the same innate spark. For the
sake of our children who are yet to be, let us choose life – by whatever
means we must – while the choice is still ours.
Mr. Masters' essay, "We Are A People," appeared in the May-June issue
of Southern Patriot. His review of Garrett Hardin's The Immigration
Dilemma will appear in the Summer issue of The Social Contract.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
No More Voting by Race?
The Supreme Court takes
the vexed subject of
The Supreme Court's recent decision on racially
gerrymandered legislative districts is an excellent example of the incoherence
of official American thinking on race. It demonstrates both how "anti-discrimination"
turns into racial preferences and how readily blacks sacrifice principle
for the only thing they really care about: power. Most amusingly, though,
the entire controversy highlights the dishonesty of the prevailing liberal
view that race should be an insignificant factor in the lives of Americans.
Since about 1990, the Justice Department has been forcing states to
draw bizarrely-shaped legislative districts designed to include as many
non-white voters as possible so as to guarantee victory for non-white candidates.
Like all racial preference policies, district gerrymandering was justified
on the basis of a law that would ordinarily have been understood to forbid
it. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 forbad states to discriminate against
voters on the basis of race, and invalidated such things as literacy tests
that had been used, mostly in the South, to keep blacks from voting.
Over the years, what was originally an "equal treatment" law has been
amended and reinterpreted into an "equal results" law. Large voting districts
are often "integrated" even if the actual neighborhoods in which people
live are segregated. Districts in which non-whites are a minority of voters
usually elect white representatives, so if the 12 percent of the U.S. population
that is black were evenly distributed to make up 12 percent of every voting
district, there might not be a single black elected official. Racially
gerrymandered districts are deliberately drawn – in wild shapes if necessary
– to segregate voters by race and ensure that blacks and Hispanics can
elect representatives of the same race. This policy is as much at odds
with the original Voting Rights Act as racial preferences are contrary
to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The liberal interpretation of the Voting Rights Act is, of course, racialist
through and through. In the name of increasing the numbers of non-white
elected officials, liberal theory quietly accepts arguments of a kind that
it ordinarily rejects with the greatest vehemence: that people of different
races have different interests, that they therefore wish to be represented
by people of their own race, and that these differences should be recognized
by law. From this it is only a small step to voluntary segregation
in all areas of life.
Third Congressional District, Florida
This has made for a hugely entertaining irony in American laws that
tell us we may take no legal notice of the races of our neighbors, policemen,
employees, or childrens' classmates, but that encourage voting on the basis
of race. Most whites care a great deal more about the races of their neighbors
than about the race of their congressman but, as usual, the law takes away
our freedom where we value it most.
In its June 29th decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against racial
gerrymanders. This is a return towards the egalitarian view of race and
of the Constitution – that racial categorization is wrong and that the
Constitution is color-blind. As an indicator of how far we have traveled
from the days of voluntary association, in the current controversy over
gerrymandering it has been "conservatives" who talk the usual foolishness
about how wrong it is to categorize people by race.
As usual, blacks look no further than their own loss or gain. Full of
righteous indignation when segregation keeps them out of schools, jobs
or neighborhoods, they delight in segregation of voting districts so long
as it gets them into office. The typical black reaction has been that of
Wade Henderson, legal director fo the NAACP, who called the decision "the
first step in the resegregation of American electoral democracy."
The Supreme Court decision was based specifically on the 11th congressional
district of Georgia, which has now been invalidated. The black incumbent,
Cynthia McKinney, responded in straightforwardly racialist terms. She promised
that in her waning days in Congress she will introduce a bill to permit
proportional representation by race. This is the logical next step. If
blacks want to vote for blacks, why not set aside 12 percent of the seats
in Congress for them?
Despite this decision, the saga of the racial gerrymander is not over.
In its usual mumbling way, the Supreme Court did not completely rule out
race as a reason for redistricting; it merely cannot be the "predominant"
factor. This means that the dozen or so districts drawn under orders from
the Justice Department specifically to make safe seats for blacks and Hispanics
are very probably illegal. However, there will be no end of employment
for lawyers and judges who will argue over districts in which race was
one factor in redistricting but not necessarily the primary one.
Moreover, this decision applies to all electoral districts in
the country – those for aldermen and state representatives as well as Congressmen.
Senators and Governors are about the only officials whose districts are
exempt from challenge. The costs of racial incoherence and judicial indecisiveness
will therefore be borne at all levels of government.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
Halting the Flow
Two more excellent new books on immigration.
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
To its great credit, Chronicles has been perhaps the one "mainstream"
magazine consistently to oppose large-scale third-world immigration to
the United States. Although it has never made a sustained racial-biological
argument of the kind that Michael Masters presents in this and the previous
issue of AR, Chronicles has convincingly made just about every other
case against a policy that it does not hesitate to call a disaster.
Immigration and the American Identity
1995, 232 pp.
Importing Revolution: Open Borders and
the Radical Agenda
William R. Hawkins
American Immigration Control Foundation
1994, 209 pp.
Immigration and the American Identity is a collection of articles
that have appeared in the magazine over the past ten years. Among the 26
essays by 22 different authors there are so few duds it would be uncharitable
to name them. For the most part, this is a refreshingly brisk attack on
Although much of the public debate is a fog of numbers "proving" that
illiterate Guatemalans either do or do not pay more in taxes than they
get in social services, Thomas Flemming, editor of Chronicles, explains
that his magazine took the position early on that welfare and taxes are
not what matter. It is the quality and cohesiveness of the United States
Chilton Williamson puts it this way: "You could 'prove' to me that,
without the immediate transference of the entire population of Hong Kong
to the state of California, the United States would be in a major economic
depression by the middle of next year, and I would still be against transferring
As he explains, there is infinitely more to a nation than GNP, but for
those who can see no further than that, a Haitian rafter who gets over
his sea-sickness and finds a job is just as fine an American as the descendants
of Pilgrims. The Let-'em-All-In school claims that America is unique in
that it is an idea, which is open to everyone. Despite some chatter about
"democracy" and "freedom" the idea that counts is a booming economy. Although
no citizen of any nation should ever have to refute something so stupid,
Clyde Wilson was patiently doing so ten years ago:
"[F]or many of us America constitutes not an idea but a quite
tangible land and tradition which we like to consider not everybody's and
anybody's but ours; a land and tradition to which we relate not as an abstraction
but as a link with our forebears and our posterity."
Often the noisiest proponents of the view that anyone can become
an American are people who, themselves, only recently did so. Dr. Flemming
points out that "the American culture created by earlier immigrants [has]
been submerged" by newcomers, some of whom think they can explain the national
character and traditions to old stock Americans.
Thus it is that, as Peter Brimelow explains, the Ellis Island
Museum of Immigration now promotes the breath-taking lie that from the
very moment of its founding, America was multi-ethnic and multi-racial.
Of course, neither blacks nor Indians were citizens and everyone else was
white – and 80 percent were British. Christian Kopf points out that to
participate fully in our society is to take part in traditions that may
go back to the Ancient World, traditions that are not instantly adopted.
Although explicitly racial arguments can still make Chronicles
nervous, several of the contributors point out that any policy that reduces
European-Americans to a minority will irrevocably change the nation for
the worse. Also, it is pretty clear what Garrett Hardin is talking about
when he calls it "passive genocide" for a nation to admit into its territory
a different, more rapidly breeding population: "It may be that no one is
ever killed; but the genes of one group replace the genes of the other.
This is genocide."
Likewise, Mr. Williamson clearly means "people of non-European stocks
and cultures" when he writes: "The stranger is within the gates, and he
smells blood. I do not mean that he is bloodthirsty; he simply senses our
weakness and is ready to
exploit it as far as he can." Mr. Williamson notes
that we are cooperating in that exploitation as part of a quasi-religious
mission to redeem the world through the purity of our intentions: "But
if we do succeed in crucifying ourselves, after our crucifixion we shall
not rise again, and there will be no inheritors and apostles of our peculiar
faith. The Third World – its cultures, its peoples – will remain emphatically
in place, but we ourselves will have perished forever . . . .
To participate fully
in our society is to take part in traditions that may go back to the Ancient
Samuel Francis can, of course, be counted on to write clearly about
race. In his devastating dismissal of "multicultural" schooling he observes,
"It is all very well to point to black cotton-pickers and Chinese railroad
workers, but the cotton fields and the railroads were there because white
people wanted them there and knew how to put them there."
Of course, even aside from the threat of racial and cultural dispossession,
some aspects of immigration are so awful that even a denatured country
like ours might be expected to put them right. Wayne Lutton lists a few:
Nigerian con men love fleecing Americans "because they are so trusting;"
third worlders bring us leprosy, typhoid, malaria, and tuberculosis; Chicano
students openly call for Mexican occupation of the American Southwest.
Chronicles contributors have advanced another argument against
immigration that in our current era of chic environmentalism should be
decisive but, somehow, is not. How can it possibly be to our advantage,
asks Donald Huddle, for immigrants to make the state of California grow
more rapidly than India or Pakistan? And once again, Mr. Williamson:
"It is considered 'humanitarian' to fret about population growth
and its effects on the natural environment at the global (which is to say,
at the abstract) level; but 'racist,' 'xenophobic,' 'uncompassionate,'
and 'un-American' to worry about the population crisis as it immediately
affects the United States, the only place in the world where we are in
a position to be able to do anything about it."
Prof. Hardin adds that by accepting the overflow from Cuba, Jamaica,
Mexico or Haiti we only foster the illusion that these countries do not
have population problems.
Although speculation about the motives of others is always chancy, several
authors do wonder why people favor immigration. In what may be the most
original and provocative article of all, Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that
the ruler of a mass democracy has no incentive to improve the quality of
a nation's population: "Bums and inferior people will likely support his
egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not." Claes
Ryn notes that Americans have abandoned the traditional path of virtue
that makes difficult personal demands. The new, undemanding virtue merely
expresses "altruistic sympathy, tearful 'compassion' for favored suffering
groups," of which non-white immigrants are handy examples.
Samuel Francis suspects that wretched alien refuse is fodder for big-government
social engineers: "Third World immigration allows for the importation of
a new underclass and provides unglimpsed vistas of social manipulation
in the form of new opportunities for managing civil rights, ethnic conflicts,
education, health, housing, welfare, social therapy, and assimilation itself."
Foundation Run Amok
The question of motive is central to another recent book about immigration
policy, Importing Revolution. William R. Hawkins has studied how
the Ford Foundation promotes groups that hate the United States and wish
to transform it. Professor Hawkins finds that whether or not the Ford bureaucrats
are, themselves, Marxists, they have given millions of dollars to people
Communists have always seen foreigners as a revolutionary element that
may yet radicalize the sleepy American proletariat; every shirtless Mexican
is a potential Leninist. In this context, Prof. Hawkins has unearthed a
number of quaint statements by Ford recipients. James Cockcroft, for example,
has written that "U.S. workers must rally to the expression of solidarity
with workers of all types in their common struggle against world capital,
which is determined to break labor's spirit and to engulf young workers
in renewed regional or world war."
Mr. Cockcroft who, in 1986, had predicted that "American democracy may
well be the ultimate domino," was a speaker at a "Breakdown the Border"
conference in El Paso in 1987. According to the conference organizers,
one of its main issues was, "Will the oppressed close ranks and oppose
the attacks on the immigrants who have a deep hatred and experience in
fighting U.S. imperialism and are an important force for revolution?"
Prof. Hawkins reports that according to one popular Marxist theory,
the proletariats in the imperialist countries are, themselves, so gorged
on the fruits of third-world exploitation that they must be liquidated
along with the ruling class. To this end, as many non-whites as possible
should be brought to the United States to reduce wages for Americans and
stir up revolution.
In fact, American communism has always had a foreign smell. During the
1920s perhaps only one in ten party members were native born Americans.
Even years later, natives who asked to join were invariably suspected of
Of the many far-left organizations to fatten on Ford money, the National
Lawyers Guild is perhaps the most effective. The guild pays lawyers to
thwart every effort by the INS to do its job, and may win top honors for
the most damage done for the least money.
The guild celebrated its radicalism at its national convention in 1987.
According to a report in the Marxist weekly, Frontline, guild founder
Marty Popper praised "the political diversity that is characteristic of
the Guild – from liberals to social democrats to communists . . . ."
Even the Washington Post has marveled at the radical lawyers'
success in hobbling the INS:
"[B]ecause of [activist] lawyers, the Haitians who are coming
illegally [in 1980 and 1981] are perhaps being accorded more legal rights
than those who obey the law. To force the government to provide due process
for the Haitians, the lawyers have raised not only the merits of individual
cases, but also virtually every possible legal issue to trap the government
in its own bureaucratic tangle . . . . 'Fighting [the INS] is like shooting
fish in a barrel . . . ,' said Ira Kurzban, who is leading the lawyers."
Likewise, Central American illegals in California are represented
by Ford-funded lawyers who are specialists in finding every loophole and
throwing up every possible obstacle during INS deportation hearings. No
doubt there is Ford money behind the lawyers who hijacked California's
"Bums and inferior
people will likely support his egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and
superior people will not."
Prof. Hawkins notes that the only time the National Lawyers Guild has
ever opposed bringing aliens into the country was in 1975, when President
Gerald Ford wanted to admit several thousand Vietnamese orphans. The guild
quite naturally sided with the Communist regime, which wanted to keep the
Of course, not all immigration advocates who receive Ford money are
openly or even privately Marxist. Many simply hate the white, European
character of the United States.
Prof. Hawkins describes the effect that massive Ford Foundation support
has had on Hispanic organizations. LULAC, or the League of United Latin-American
Citizens was founded in 1929 as a grass-roots Mexican-American advocacy
organization. It was open only to U.S. citizens, stressed the use of English,
and opposed Mexican nationalists and Hispanic separatists. Its members
were middle-class immigrants who sought assimilation on American terms.
It supported the Border Patrol and cheered the arrest of illegals.
LULAC began to change shortly after 1968, when Ford started helping
rival Hispanic organizations. One of these was the Mexican-American Legal
Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), which Ford started with a grant of
$2.2 million – twice the amount its organizers asked for. With the active
support of Jack Greenfield of the NAACP, MALDEF quickly established itself
as militantly pro-Hispanic. It has used the courts to promote bilingual
education and has been a tireless advocate of giving all the benefits of
citizenship – including the vote – to aliens, legal or not. MALDEF claims,
truthfully, not to advocate open borders. It wants open borders only for
Mexicans. By 1992, MALDEF had swallowed more than $18 million in Ford money.
The National Council of La Raza ("the race") takes similar positions,
and between 1967 and 1992 received over $10 million in Ford money. Major
corporate donors like IBM, AT&T, General Mills, and General Motors
also give these groups money.
Despite the fact that they scarcely have real Hispanic constituents
– MALDEF is said to get no more than two percent of its budget from Hispanics
– these organizations have dragged the old, assimilationist LULAC markedly
to the left. LULAC no longer stresses the responsibilities of citizenship
but takes positions little different from those of MALDEF. Far from supporting
the INS, in 1992 a past president of LULAC, Jose Velez said the Border
Patrol was "the enemy of the people and always will be."
In 1989, the new, racialist LULAC also began to receive Ford money and
had gotten more than $600,000 by 1992, but MALDEF is still the foundation's
raven-haired boy. Ties were further cemented when a Ford trustee, Harriet
Rabb joined the MALDEF board in 1986.
Ford is clearly pushing some Hispanics in directions they would not
naturally go. Polls repeatedly show that Hispanic-Americans – citizens,
non-citizens, legals and illegals – oppose more immigration from Mexico.
Immigrants come here because things are better in el Norte. Most
Mexicans have a dim understanding that the only thing millions more of
their brethren would do is turn Texas into Chihuahua.
Prof. Hawkins reports that before Ford money began to flow, Hispanic
politicians were natural products of their communities: successful businessmen
who reflected the assimilationist aspirations of the majority. Now, hot-house
Hispanic organizations can parachute lefty, well-funded candidates into
neighborhoods and push aside community leaders.
Chicano nationalists are not hard to understand, but why do whites want
to destroy America? Prof. Hawkins argues convincingly that many of the
most mischievous are Marxists, but for how much longer can American Communism
survive the death of the real thing? Many pro-immigration lawyers are Jews,
who no doubt want to keep the golden door open for their coreligionists.
But countless whites have been stripped of any sense of the legitimacy
of their own interests. They practice the suicidal altruism of which Mr.
Masters and Garrett Hardin write.
Robert Frost reportedly defined a liberal as someone who could not take
his own side in an argument. Pro-immigration whites do not even seem to
realize they have a side. As Samuel Francis writes in the forward to Importing
Revolution, "[I]n order to curb immigration, it is necessary first
to assert the existence, integrity, and legitimacy of the Western and American
way of life – to assert, in other words, the legitimacy of a 'we' against
the demands of a 'they.' "
Immigration and National Identity is available from the Rockford
Institute, 934 North Main St., Rockford, IL 61103. Importing Revolution
available from American Immigration Control Foundation, Box 525, Monterey,
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
O Tempora, O Mores!
Affirmative Action on the Ropes?
Affirmative action took several solid blows in June. The Supreme Court
ruled that the federal government cannot establish racial preferences for
non-whites just because it feels like it. There must be a compelling national
reason that requires discrimination against white people. A clear finding
of past discrimination against non-whites is virtually the only "compelling
reason" that is likely to stand this level of scrutiny. However, the Supreme
Court did not categorically forbid discrimination against whites and men
as it forbids discrimination against non-whites and women. Nor are clear
cases of past discrimination against white men likely to be grounds for
future relief of any kind. All the same, this will make it much harder
for the government to set racial hiring quotas. The state of Oregon has
already lifted its requirement that federally-funded highway projects use
a certain percentage of non-white and female contractors. [Viveca Novak,
Oregon Lifts Rules on race for road work, WSJ, 6/23/95., p. A16.]
Pete Wilson, the Governor of California, was a step ahead of the Supreme
Court and officially abolished every racial preference it was within his
power to abolish. This means the end of hiring "goals" for 150,000 full-time
state employees, and the elimination of 150 state boards that advise various
parts of the state government on affirmative action.
Gov. Wilson did not have the power to forbid racial preferences in state
universities, but he formally requested them to set aside race as an admissions
criterion. Just as an exercise, the University of California at Berkeley
calculated how a pure meritocracy would affect its student body. The number
of Hispanics would drop from 15.3 percent to 3.0 – 6.3 percent, blacks
from 6.4 percent to 0.5 – 1.9 percent, and Indians from 1.2 percent to
0.1 – 1.0 percent. The number of Asians would rise from 41.7 percent to
51.6 – 54.7 percent, and the number of whites from 29.8 percent to 34.8
– 37.3 percent. [Sarah Lubman, Campuses mull admissions without affirmative
action, WSJ, 5/16/95.]
Meanwhile, amazing things continue to happen in the name of race. Arnold
O'Donnell, of whom we wrote in the July "O Tempora" section, has managed
to have himself classified as "disadvantaged" and is therefore eligible
for contracting set-asides. He had argued that as the white owner of a
small construction business operating in the black-run District of Columbia,
he faced more discrimination than anyone else in town. In June, a judge
agreed. [Paul Barrett, A white man is ruled eligible for set-asides, WSJ,
The Democratic National Committee is handing out "goals" for the states
to meet in selecting their delegations to next year's national convention.
It told the New York State Democrats that their 288-man delegation had
better be 26 percent black, 12 percent Hispanic, four percent Asian, and
have "at least one Native American." [No quotas here, Wash times, 6/6/95.]
The Wall Street Journal reports that big, self-righteous American
companies have started pressuring their outside law firms to hire more
non-whites. American Airlines requires law firms to file quarterly statements
on how many women and non-whites worked on airline business, and threatens
to stop using firms that employ too many white men. Chrysler, Aetna Life
& Casualty, General Motors, and AT&T also pressure law firms to
hire women and non-whites. [Amy Stevens, Lawyers and Clients, WSJ,
6/19/95.] Presumably, this is legal. The Supreme Court will see more affirmative
Last year, the City Council of Lansing, Michigan changed the name of
one of the city's main streets from Grand Avenue to Cesar Chavez Avenue.
Now that they have had a chance to express themselves on the question,
the people of Lansing have voted by a crushing majority to change the name
back. A local Hispanic "leader's" reaction: "This nation is becoming unglued
and we're heading for destruction in the near future." [Eric Freedman,
Lansing vote to rename chevez [sic] avenue angers Hispanic residents, Detroit
In Baltimore, a public outcry by whites has thwarted a federal program
to sprinkle public housing throughout neighborhoods where everyone else
works for a living. When word got out that the Department of Housing and
Urban Development was going to send forth Baltimore's poor blacks into
working-class neighborhoods, residents made a huge stink and forced local
politicians to object. HUD then canceled similar plans for New York, Boston,
Los Angeles, and Chicago, claiming that it had failed sufficiently to educate
the neighboring white communities. [Karen De Witt, Housing voucher test
in Maryland is scuttled by a political firestorm, NYT, 3/28/95, p. B10.]
The INS is making a sweep through the South to round up illegal aliens.
During a raid on a Guntersville, Alabama poultry plant, American workers
barred the doors to keep illegals from running away, and cheered as agents
did their work. Citizens also congratulated INS agents who stopped off
at a local restaurant for lunch. "We're experiencing fantastic support
from the public . . . ," said an INS spokesman, [Carol Robinson, Workers
block doors, cheer sweep of aliens, Birmingham News, 6/15/95, p. 1A.] a
sentiment rarely expressed by federal employees these days.
Back Home in El Salvador
The Justice Department has finally started deporting alien criminals.
In the last two years, it turfed out 144 Salvadoran gang members, and another
700 will be loaded onto airplanes as soon as their prison terms are over.
Back home in Central America, these louts continue their lives of crime,
but have encountered an unexpected obstacle. A mysterious group called
the Black Shadow has emerged to deal with them. In the first five months
of this year, Black Shadow dispatched an estimated 23 gang members, and
put the fear of God into many more, who are determined to get back to easier
pickings in the United States. [Tim Johnson, For gang members, it's a violent
homecoming, Miami Herald, 5/29/95, p. 1A.]
Hollywood's latest pack of anti-white lies is a movie called "Panther."
Written and directed by the black father-and-son team of Melvin and Mario
Van Peebles, it is supposed to be about the heroic adventures of the Black
Panther Party. The main plot line is the FBI's plan to "neutralize" the
panthers by means of what J. Edgar Hoover calls "the final solution." FBI
agents meet with mafia dons to cooperate in a grand scheme to flood black
neighborhoods with heroin and destroy black people. Along the way, white
policemen routinely kill and brutalize blacks, while the main activity
of the black panthers is to give hot breakfasts to hungry children.
Even Bobby Seale,
who was a black panther and should know, says "90 percent of everything
in the film never happened." When asked where he got the story on the heroin
plot, Van Peebles p re said "I have no corroborating evidence . .
. [but] I think it's very close to fact." The movie, interspersed with
contemporary news footage and featuring characters who are supposed to
be Bobby Seale, Huey Newton, and Eldridge Cleaver, gives no hint that it
is mostly fantasy. [David Horowitz, Hollywood's latest outrage, NY Post,
PC Gone Wild
The June, 1995 Reader's Digest included the following short item:
From the Fresno, Calif. Bee: "An item about the Massachusetts
budget crisis made reference to new taxes that will help put Massachusetts
'back in the African-American.' The item should have said 'back in the
Go Pick on Whitey
The Westcliff Mall in Dallas, the only black-owned shopping mall in
Texas, employs Nation of Islam (NOI) guards. In June, the guards caught
four blacks, aged 12 through 16, who were stealing a cash register. The
boys were then held at a NOI meeting room for four hours, during which
time they were stripped naked and whipped repeatedly with belts and bamboo
canes. When the boys parents learned what happened they complained to the
police, who arrested four guards on kidnapping charges.
This provoked immediate outrage among Dallas blacks, who called the four-hour
beating "a return to lost community values." It is not hard to imagine
what they would have called it if whites had whipped the boys. Gaoloku
Lagbara, who owns the mall explained why he uses NOI security forces rather
than the police:
"We try to sit these kids down and tell them 'This is a black mall.
Do you realize what you are going? Why would you steal from a black man?'
The Dallas grand jury has declined to indict the guards but the boys'
parents have filed a civil suit against them. [Nation of Islam members
accused of beating boys, Birmingham News, 6/15/95. Todd Bensman, Releases
sought in beatings of 4, Dallas Morning News, no date. Allen Myerson, Black
Muslim guards are accused of flogging 4 boys at a Dallas Mall, NYT, 6/16/95,
Courage in Low Places
On June 2nd, the Behavior Genetics Association held its annual meeting,
in Richmond, Virginia. The outgoing president, Prof. Glayde Whitney of
Florida State University, gave the traditional presidential address. Prof.
Whitney, who has made his reputation in animal genetics, surprised many
in the audience by speaking about racial differences in crime rates. He
gently suggested that there might be a genetic explanation for these differences.
Two people sitting at the head table walked out during the speech. One,
the president elect of the organization, later returned and apologized
to the waiters – "our black brothers" – who had been in the room. Prof.
Whitney was shunned for the remainder of the conference. During a meeting
of the association's executive committee no one would even look at him,
though one person replied when Prof. Whitney spoke to him directly. The
editor of the association's magazine, Behavior Genetics, has been
asking that presidential addresses be submitted for publication but specifically
refused to publish this one. As usual in cases of this kind, there has
been public condemnation but private approval of Prof. Whitney's remarks.
Fortunately, he has tenure.
Hurrah for Prof. Whitney. Let us hope his courage will be an example
Down Mexico Way
One of the best paid lines of work in Mexico is law enforcement – such
as it is. This is because policemen get la mordida, "the bite,"
for not enforcing the law. High level police officers put the bite on the
subordinates. As one patrolman explains, "When you start your job, the
first thing is to go to the chief to be told where to go, what to do, and
how often to pay." Officers then put the bite on the public.
Big-time cops make out like, well, bandits. Drug dealers routinely pay
them off, on the principle of plata o plomo, "silver or lead." If
they don't take the silver, police can expect a stiff dose of lead. Two
senior lawmen were recently assassinated because they uncharacteristically
refused to accept the $100,000 a month that drug dealers offered them to
look the other way.
The higher the office the better the reward. Mario Ruiz Massieu was
able to deposit $9 million in just one American bank account on a salary
of $70,000 a year. He was deputy attorney general in charge of narcotics.
Jobs like this are, of course, for sale. When
an American narcotics officer who frequently works south of the border
told a Mexican officer that he had recently been made deputy chief of his
office, the Mexican replied, "My God, that must have cost you a bundle."
One of the irksome features of this system for American law enforcement
officers is that it is impossible to get any cooperation from the Mexicans
if they want to arrest a criminal who has been generous to the local police.
"He [the local policeman] has his relationships and they become untouchable
while he's there," explains one American officer, "but you can move against
other people." "I used to get upset about it," he adds, "but you can't
sulk." [Peter Blevin, The greedy get silver and the honest get lead, Miami
Herald, 6/5/95, p. 1A.]
Back to Africa
Santeria is a primitive Afro-Cuban cult that involves frequent animal
sacrifice. It became popular in the Miami area, as more and more lower-class
Cubans followed their betters across the sea. Two years ago, the Supreme
Court ruled in the case of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah that because
Santeria is a "religion," its Santero priests can ignore animal cruelty
laws, and perform their blood-thirsty rites entirely as they please. The
American Civil Liberties Union argued the case for Lukumi Babalu Aye and
even won $400,000 in court costs in the process.
Shortly after the ruling, a Santero invited television crews to witness
the triumphant killing of 15 animals in his apartment. He started with
a goat, cutting the throat and twisting the head right off the body. Most
sacrificed animals are cooked and eaten, but those that are used to cure
diseases are thought to have absorbed the illness and should not be eaten.
Instead, the cult requires that the corpses be left in certain places,
often on street corners.
Now that it is officially a religion, Santeria is coming out of the
closet. Botanicas, or spirit shops, deliver animals of all kinds,
suitable for sacrifice, to home or office. Goats
are $45 a head and botanicas accept credit cards. The press coverage
of the long legal fight over Santeria has even introduced a whole new clientele
to Santeria. More and more black Americans are now buying aerosol cans
with convenient English labels like "Love Spray," "Jackpot Money Spray,"
"Gamblers Spray," or "The Seven African Powers." Bathwater additives with
names like "Do My Will" and "Come to Me" are also popular. [Aminda Gonzalez,
Santeria still shrouded in secrecy, Miami Herald, 6/11/95, p. 1B.]
The Athens of the Caribbees
An election, which is what President Clinton was prepared to spill American
blood in order to bring about, has taken place in Haiti. The results were,
in the words of official American observers, a complete "national breakdown
of the electoral process." Hundreds of polling places opened late or did
not open at all. Tally sheets were scattered about, mixed together, altered,
and sometimes even thrown away. The American observers found "a total absence
of safeguards against fraud, tampering, disappearance and destruction of
The New York Times cannot quite figure out this exercise in democracy,
which has just been "restored" to a nation whose population is 80 percent
illiterate: "It is not easy to determine whether last week's irregularities
were the product of deliberate wrongdoing or simply an extraordinary display
Of incompetence, there was plenty. Many people thought they were voting
for President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and were surprised not to see his
picture on the ballot. Others voted for all candidates. "The level of ignorance
was the worst I have ever seen," said a Brazilian observer.
Perhaps the best summary of the election was provided by Carmen Christophe,
former mayor of Port-au-Prince, who was a candidate for the Chamber of
Deputies. When asked to explain her platform, she replied, "Deputies don't
have programs, they just vote on proposals in Parliament." When asked why
she was running if she had no ideas of her own, she replied, "I am a politician."
[Larry Rohter, So far at least, inept is the kindest word for Haitian democracy,
Miami, the Hispanic capital of America, also appears to be the country's
medical fraud capital. [N]Federal officials have yet again unearthed a
criminal medical organization that bilked Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance
companies out of millions of dollars. The ringleader was Dr. Jesus Castillo,
who hired other Hispanics to fake illnesses and stage automobile accidents.
Everyone got kickbacks when insurance paid for expensive treatments that
were usually never given.
The accident scam started with Hispanics dragging battered automobiles
onto the street and claiming they had just had a crash. When that wasn't
convincing, they developed a technique called the "swoop and squat," whereby
three cars driven by miscreants would gang up on an unsuspecting driver
and box him in. The lead car would swerve in front of a confederate, who
jammed on the brakes. The innocent driver, boxed in between the third car
and the curb, would smash into the car in front. The riders would then
claim awful injuries that required expensive treatments from Dr. Castillo.
The unsuspecting motorist who was lured into the collision often got a
ticket from police.
Lisa Chutjian Pinto, Lilia DeJesus Gonzalez, Joaquin Garcia, Rogelio
Cabrera, Digna Lopez, and Francisco Alcantara were all arrested along with
Dr. Castillo. [Tom Dubocq and Manny Garcia, FBI: Doctor's scam cost U.S.
millions, Miami Herald, 5/25/95, p. 1A.]
Bridges Between Communities
Pelham and Mount Vernon are neighboring towns in New York State. Pelham
is 8.8 percent black but Mount Vernon is 55.3 percent black, and the household
income in Pelham is close to twice that of Mount Vernon. The two are separated
by the Hutchinson River Parkway, and 30 years ago a footbridge was built
over the parkway to connect the towns.
For years, young blacks from Mount Vernon have used the footbridge as
an escape route after committing crimes in Pelham. During the 1970s, Pelham
authorities tried locking the gates to the bridge at night, but the locks
were smashed. Now, the bridge is so frequently used for crime that Pelham
has officially petitioned the state to tear it down. The reaction of Mount
Vernon's black mayor: "It's naked racism, no question about it." [Jacques
Steinberg, Bridge over a chasm of tension, NYT, 6/17/95, p. 21.]
Lessons in Hypocrisy
American blacks take it for granted that slavery in America was the
greatest sin in the history of the United States, if not of the entire
world. Slavery is still practiced in Africa, but this is of little interest
to them. An organization called American Anti-Slavery Group, Inc. has reported
on attempts to get blacks to do something about it.
For two years, they sent literature to Jesse Jackson but his office
sent packages back unopened. Finally a spokesman told them Rev.
Jackson would not touch the issue because it seemed anti-Arab. The group
sent material to every member of the Congressional Black Caucus; they have
taken no public action. Randall Robinson, the head of Transafrica, who
has been a tireless campaigner against South African apartheid, cannot
be persuaded to do anything about African slavery either. [Mohamed Athie
& charles Jacobs, Action due on slavery in Africa, letters to the editor,
NY Post, 6/26/95, p. 18.]
Back of the Balcony
Most American movies open on Friday night, when the largest audiences
can be expected. However, film distributors have discovered that this is
not good timing for black violence movies. Huge, nasty crowds showed up
for Friday night openings of "New Jack City," "Boyz N the Hood," and "Juice,"
and then went on rampages. Black movies now open on Wednesdays to smaller,
less dangerous crowds. [Robert Butler, Midweek openings of 'ethnic' films
aim to avoid Friday-night violence, Miami Herald, 5/31/95, p. 1E.]
Lessons in Hypocrisy
Public school teachers constantly tell us that their schools are vital
social institutions that must always be improved with more money. However,
in many towns public school teachers are far more likely than other people
to send their own children to private schools. In Baltimore, 43.6 percent
of the teachers send their children to private schools, as opposed to 18.1
percent of the city as a whole. In Boston, the percentages are 48.9 and
29.9; in Cleveland, 52.8 and 25.2; in Grand Rapids, 55 and 27.3; in Toledo,
49.4 and 26.7. In the nation as a whole, black and Hispanic public school
teachers are slightly more likely than white teachers to send their children
to private schools. [Dennis Doyle, Lessons in Hypocrisy, WSJ, 1/13/94.]
In other news, it has been reported that the most rigidly segregated
cities in the United States – Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis,
St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia – are all in the North, the region
that so loves to instruct the South on how to treat blacks. [EI] [N]gration
– Slow but Steady, U.S. News and World Report, 2/28/94, p. 8.
In 1990, New York City was 43 percent white, down from 63 percent in
1970. At this rate, it will be only 35 percent white by the year 2000.
During the 1990s, Hispanics will have gone from 24 to 29 percent, Asians
from seven percent to ten percent, and blacks from 25 percent to 26 percent.
The largest 30-year decline for whites will have been greatest in the Bronx,
where they were 50 percent of the population in 1970 but will be only 14
percent in 2000. Hispanics will have gone from 28 percent to 52 percent
and will be the majority. [David Firestone, Major ethnic changes under
way, NYT, 3/29/95, p. B1.]
Cambodians now own about 80 percent of the doughnut shops in California,
and have nearly driven Winchell's Donut Houses – which used to dominate
the market – out of the state. "Where we had one Winchell's shop, they
now have three or four Cambodian shops," explains a Winchell's spokesman;
"They were very happy with a much lesser volume." In Los Angeles, there
is one doughnut shop for every 7,500 residents, as opposed to one for every
30,000, which is the standard in the rest of the country. [Seth Mydans,
Cambodians now rule California's doughnut empire, Seattle Post Intelligencer,
5/29/95, p. A2.]
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a Washington organization
that tries to maintain historic neighborhoods. One of the areas it is trying
to preserve is the Farish Street District in Jackson, Mississippi, about
which it says this:
"After the Civil War, Farish Street became the heart of a thriving,
self-sufficient African American community. The end of segregation signaled
the decline of independent neighborhoods like Farish Street and today the
area suffers the neglect common to many inner-city communities." [Trust
pamphlet, "America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places 1995."]
Unemployer of Last Resort
Blacks are more than three times as likely as whites to be dismissed
from federal employment. Hispanics and Asians are dismissed at essentially
the same rate as whites. This news has been widely reported and has prompted
the expected calls for investigation into government "racism." It has been
rarely pointed out that the divergence in firing rates is strictly in the
"misconduct" category, which includes embezzlement, insubordination, and
violence. When federal workers are fired merely for poor job performance
– apparently this sometimes happens – blacks are no more likely to be dismissed
than whites. [Karen de Witt, Blacks Prone to dismissal by the U.S., NYT,
Tyson Beckford is 24 years old and shaves his head. He is also the first
black model to sign an exclusive contract with Ralph Lauren to model the
company's clothing and accessories. "Tyson has an all-American look with
a dramatic edge," explains Mr. Lauren. [NYT, 3/18/95.]
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
E T T E R S F R O M R E A D E
Sir – Michael Masters' cover story, "The Morality of Survival," is a
perfect article to show to friends who believe that racialists are motivated
by hate. The truth, of course, is that writers for AR are responsible thinkers,
who believe that all peoples and cultures deserve homelands, free from
Mr. Taylor's report of his experiences with black students does not
surprise me. Blacks of normal intelligence – at least all those I have
met – enjoy setting aside the taboos and having free-wheeling discussions
about race. Some are in favor of ethnostates; none regards black criminals
The most closed-minded reactions come from the academic and intellectual
elite. A black construction worker or community college student is not
normally close to tears of rage over "racism," unlike a professor at a
prestigious college or a poetess like Nikki Giovanni. We will have an easier
time with everyday folks than we will with the elites – of all races.
Paul Neff, Cambridge, Mass.
Sir – I have read Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation, and agree with
your reviewer who finds it to be the first even tentatively racialist treatment
of immigration to be published by a mainstream press. However, Mr. Brimelow
does not seem willing to stick to his guns in public debate. I watched
his performance in a debate on "Firing Line" and was disappointed that
he would never say clearly that, indeed, race is a vital part of any immigration
policy. This, of course, is exactly what his opponents were hoping he would
say so that they could accuse him of "racism." However, until Mr. Brimelow
is willing to state the importance of race, he is implicitly conceding
that race is not important, thereby accepting the premises of his
opponents. In so doing, he concedes defeat from the outset.
All of us have positions to protect, and I admire Mr. Brimelow for his
composure under a very disagreeable assault, especially from Ira Glasser
of the ACLU. Nevertheless, I suspect that Samuel Francis, Larry Auster,
Richard McCullough, Rabbi Mayer Schiller or Samuel Jared Taylor would have
held their ground and thereby completely changed the terms of the debate.
Arthur McCracken, Nashville, Tenn.
Sir – Articles like the one by Michael Masters are the reason I subscribe
to AR. And I loved the illustration on page three, showing the progressive
degeneration from man to frog. It was, of course, an all too appropriate
depiction of the course we have set for ourselves.
Brian Kidd, Rochester, N. Y.
Sir – May I attempt to resolve the conflict between Prof. Levin and
Mr. Auster maintains correctly that on average blacks are less
intelligent than whites; he cautions us that none of this discounts any
given individual black from fair consideration.
Prof. Levin cites the above data, and concludes that whites are therefore
justified in their "wish to avoid blacks." This rankles Mr. Auster, who
feels that avoiding blacks in general is unfair to those individual blacks
who are to the right in the bell curve.
Actually, these two views are compatible, the distinction being delineated
by Rabbi Mayer Schiller in an earlier AR article, in which he asserted
that even though a majority of blacks are not lawbreakers, there will be
enough lawbreakers in any sizable black population to justify avoiding
the entire population. Thus, in choosing one's school, neighborhood, or
club it unfortunately makes sense to avoid blacks.
It is an ugly truth, but here it is: The more blacks we have in this
country, the poorer we will all be. Is that unfair? Ask God. Is it unfair
to intelligent, law-abiding blacks that whites should avoid all blacks,
including them? Certainly it's unfair, and therein lies the dilemma of
different races attempting to co-exist in the same territory – a situation
found nowhere in nature except among humans.
D. Katz, Pembroke Pines, Fla.
Sir – The weakness of Americans never fails to amaze me. Your July "O
Tempora" item about Mexican plans for dual citizenship – so that Mexicans
can stay Mexican but still vote Mexican interests in the United States
– describes what could hardly be a clearer sign of the Hispanic desire
for conquest. Yet, official America muddles along without even noticing.
What would it take to get the press and the liberals to react? What if
the President of Mexico told the President of the United States, face to
face on national television, that Mexico expects to extend its influence
and its population until the Western states are part of Mexico? And that
50 years after that he expects the Mexican flag to fly over Washington?
I suppose the New York Times would ask us to "feel the pain" of
our poor southern neighbor and "show sensitivity" to its expressions of
national pride. I sometimes think that nothing short of explicitly genocidal
violence will ever rouse whites.
Steven Greenwood, Huntsville, Ala.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •