Archive index | Homepage
|Vol. 8, Nos. 7 & 8||July-August, 1997|
The Myth of Diversity
The Myth of Diversity
Seldom have so many pretended to believe something so absurd.
by Jared Taylor
The idea that “diversity” is one of the country's great strengths is now so firmly rooted that virtually anyone can evoke it, praise it, and wallow in it without fear of contradiction. It has become one of the great unassailably American ideas, like democracy, patriotism, the family, or Martin Luther King.
The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May, 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, “The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great.” A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, “With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us.” In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.
In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, “The expedition that Columbus . . . began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492.”
Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, “And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever.”
Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February, 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. “We didn't have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today,” said Mrs. Clinton. “I’m sad we didn't have it, because it would have been a great value, as I’m sure you will discover.”
Nevertheless there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc. – a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and even whether someone is homosexual. One might call this status diversity.
What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.
The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.
In fact, diversity became a strength after the fact. It became necessary to believe in it because skepticism would be “racist.” Otherwise intelligent people began to mouth nonsense about diversity only because of the blinding power of the race taboo. After diversity began to include sex, mental disabilities, perversions, and everything else that was alien or outlandish, to disbelieve in the power of diversity was to show oneself to be “intolerant” as well as “racist.”
Of course it is only white societies – and white groups within multi-racial societies – that are ever fooled by guff about diversity. Everyone else recognizes the Clinton-Harvard-New York Times brand of diversity for exactly what it is: weakness, dissension, and self-destruction.
Despite President Clinton's view that “diversity” started with Columbus, for most of its history the United States was self- consciously homogeneous. In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . .”
This is not exactly a celebration of diversity, nor was Jay an eccentric. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson were all explicit about wanting the United States to be a white country, and in 1790 the first federal naturalization law required that applicants for citizenship be “free white persons.” Until 1965, it was very difficult for non-whites to immigrate to the United States and become citizens (an exception being made for the descendants of slaves). Immigration law was explicitly designed to keep the United States a white nation with a white majority. It was only in the 1950s and 60s that the country turned its back on nearly 200 years of traditional thinking about race and began its long march down the road to nowhere.
Once the country made the fatal assumption that race was a trivial human distinction, all else had to follow. Congress abolished not only Jim Crow and legal segregation but, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, put an end to free association as well. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, which abolished national origins quotas and opened immigration to all nations, was a grand gesture of anti-racism, a kind of civil rights law for the entire world.
As has been pointed out in such books as Lawrence Auster's The Path to National Suicide and Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation, the backers of the immigration bill were at pains to explain that it would have little effect on the country. “Under the proposed bill,” explained Senator Edward Kennedy, “the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset. Contrary to charges in some quarters, it will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area.” The senator suggested that, at most, 62,000 people a year might immigrate.
When President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law, he also downplayed its impact: “This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power.”
The point here is not that the backers were wrong about the bill – even though in 1996, for example, there were a record 1,300,000 naturalizations and perhaps 90 percent of the new citizens were non-white. The point is that “diversity” of the kind that immigration is now said to bless us with was never even hinted at as one of the law's benefits.
No one dreamed that in just 20 years ten percent of the entire population of El Salvador would have moved to the United States or that millions of mostly Hispanic and Asian immigrants would threaten to reduce whites to a racial minority in California by 1998. In 1965, before the discovery that “diversity is our strength,” most people would have been shocked by the thought of such population changes.
Today, the intellectual climate is different, but in entirely predictable ways. “Racism” looms ever larger as the greatest moral offense a white person can commit, and anyone who opposes the arrival of yet more non-whites cannot but be “racist.” There is therefore no longer any moral basis for opposing the prospect of minority status for whites, and what would have been an unthinkable prospect before 1965 must now be seen as an exciting opportunity. Thus did diversity become a “strength,” despite the suspension of disbelief required to think it so.
This is a perfect example of an assertion, for purely ideological reasons, of something obviously untrue. Like the equality of the races, the equivalence of the sexes, the unimportance of heredity, the normalcy of homosexuality, and the insignificance of physical or mental handicap, the strength of diversity is one of a whole series of monstrous absurdities on which liberalism depends.
Having started with race, diversity now includes just about anything. Feminists, angry people in wheel chairs, AIDS carriers, militant homosexuals, and people who would rather speak Spanish than English have all taken much of their style and impetus from the civil rights movement. Demands for “inclusiveness” almost always include the language of grievance and compensation pioneered by blacks. Fat people fight discrimination, ugly people struggle against “lookism,” and at least one local government has required that the stage set for a strip tease show be wheel-chair accessible. Anyone who opposes the glorification of the alien, the abnormal, and the inferior can be denounced with much fanfare and a huge sense of superiority. The metastasis of diversity is a fascinating story, but the disease began with race.
Occasionally a mainstream author sniffs around the edges of the population problem. At some risk to his professional respectability, columnist Scott McConnell of the New York Post has pointed out that if it will be such a good thing for whites to become a minority, there is no reason to wait until the next century. We could throw open the borders right now and become a minority in just a few years. “Why deny ourselves and our children the great benefits of Third Worldism that we are planning for our grandchildren?” he asks.
Advantages of Diversity
On those rare occasions when people actually attempt to defend diversity, the one claim they make with any semblance of conviction is that its advantages will become evident as the world becomes more “international.” It will be a great thing to have citizens from all around the world as nations have more and more contact; specifi- cally, our “international” population will boost American exports. Of course, since this view is based on the assumption that people communicate better with people like themselves, it is an argument against national diversity. If it takes a Korean to deal with the Koreans, how are Americans supposed to get along with the Koreans who live in America?
If anyone really thought a diverse population is good for trade, we would presumably be adjusting the mix of immigrants in accordance with trade potential. There would be no point in admitting Haitians, for example, since Haiti is a pesthole and never likely to be an important trade partner. After Canada, Japan is our largest trading partner. Does this mean we need more Japanese? No one ever talks about immigration this way, because no one really believes immigra- tion has anything to do with promoting exports.
The example of Japan in fact shows just how little racial diversity has to do with international trade. Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. By American standards, Japanese are hopeless “racists,” “homophobes,” “sexists,” and “nativists.” They even eat whales. Here is a country that should therefore be a complete failure in the international economy – and yet it is probably the most successful trading nation on earth.
Taiwan and Korea are close behind, with China now recording huge trade surpluses with the United States. These countries are even more closed and exclusionist than Japan. If they could ever be made to understand the American notion of diversity, Asians would politely wait until we had left the room and then die laughing. Germany is likewise one of the world's great exporting nations. Who would dream of thinking this was due to the presence of Turkish Gast- arbeiter.
The fact that millions of Mexicans now live in the United States does not make our products more attractive to anybody – certainly not to Mexico, which already has plenty of the things Mexicans know how to make. “Diversity” adds exactly nothing to our international competitiveness.
Racial diversity is also supposed to bring cultural enrichment, but what are its real achievements? The culture of ordinary Americans remains almost completely untouched by the millions of non-white immigrants who have arrived since 1965. Perhaps they have now heard of the Cinco de Mayo festival, but even if they live in California or Texas how many Americans know that it commemorates a Mexican military victory against the French?
Immigrants do not teach us about Cervantes or Borges or Lady Murasaki and it would be silly to think they did. Chinese stowaways do not arrive with a curator's knowledge of Ming ceramics and copies of the Tao-te Ching in their pockets. The one cultural artifact immigrants bring with them is their language – which increasingly becomes an Americanized farrago that would astonish their countrymen – but the so-called “culture” of immigrant settlements is a tangle of peasant folkways, Coca-Cola, food stamps, T-shirts with writing on them, and truculence.
High culture and world history cross borders by themselves. Who in America first learned of Tchaikovsky or the Mayans from an immigrant? Nearly every good-sized American city has an opera company but it wasn't established by Italians.
What, in the way of authentic culture have Miami's dwindling non-Hispanic whites gained from the fact that the city is now nearly 70 percent Hispanic? Are the art galleries, concerts, museums, and literature of Los Angeles improved by the fact that its population is now nearly half Hispanic? How has the culture of Washington, D.C. or Detroit been enriched by majority-black populations? If immigration and diversity bring cultural enrichment, why is that the places being the most intensively enriched are the places where whites least want to live? Like the trade argument, the “cultural enrichment” argument collapses with a pinprick.
It is true that since 1965 more American school children have begun to study Spanish, but fewer now study French, German, or Latin. How is this an improvement? People can, of course, study any language they want without filling the country with immigrants. Virtually all Norwegians speak excellent English, but the country is not swarming with Englishmen.
Any discussion of the real advantages of ethnic diversity usually manages to establish only one benefit people really care about: good ethnic restaurants. Probably not even William Clinton would claim that getting an authentic Thai restaurant in every city is a major national objective.
At a different level, it is now taken for granted that public services like fire and police departments should employ people of different races. The theory is that it is better to have black or Hispanic officers patrolling black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Here do we not have an example of one of diversity's benefits?
On the contrary, this is merely the first proof that diversity is a horrible burden. If all across America it has been demonstrated that whites cannot police non-whites or put out their fires it only shows how divisive diversity really is. The racial mix of a police force – touted as one of the wonders of diversity – becomes necessary only because officers of one race and citizens of another are unable to work together. The diversity that is claimed as a triumph is necessary only because diversity does not work.
The same is true of every other effort to diversify public services. If Hispanic judges and prosecutors must be recruited for the justice system it means whites are incapable of dispassionate justice. If non-white teachers are necessary “role models” for non-white children it means that inspiration cannot cross racial lines. If newspapers must hire non-white reporters in order to satisfy non-white readers it means people cannot write acceptable news for people of other races. If blacks demand black television newscasters and weathermen, it means they want to get information from their own people. If majority-minority voting districts must be set up so that non-whites can elect representatives of their own race, it means that elections are nothing more than a racial headcount. All such efforts at diversity are not expressions of the inherent strength of multi-racialism; they are admissions that it is a debilitating source of tension, hostility, and weakness.
Just as the advantages of diversity disappear upon examination, its disadvantages are many and obvious. Once a fire department or police force has been diversified to match the surrounding community, does it work better? Not if we are to judge from the never-ending racial wrangles over promotions, class-action bias law suits, reverse discrimination cases, acrimony over quotas and affirmative action, and the proliferation of racially exclusive professional organizations. Every good-sized police department in the country has a black officers' association devoted to explicit, racially competitive objectives. In large cities, there are associations for Asian, Hispanic, and even white officers.
Many government agencies and private companies hire professional “diversity managers” to help handle mixed work forces. This is a new profession, which did not exist before the idea that diversity is a strength. Most of it boils down to trying to bridge the gaps between people who do not understand each other, but since it concerns subjects about which management is afraid to ask too many questions, some of it is pure snake oil.
Maria Riefler has trained Nestle, Walt Disney, Chrysler and Chevron. She likes to divide employees into groups that represent the body and the “triune brain.” This is supposed to help them understand how “stereotypes are hidden deep within the primitive part of ourselves.”
It is a very peculiar “strength” that requires the constant attention of experts and other bumcombe artists. Like hiring black police officers to patrol black neighborhoods, “diversity training” is an admission that a mixed work force is a liability.
This is the merest common sense; it is hard to get dissimilar people to work together. Indeed, a large-scale survey called the National Study of the Changing Work force found that more than half of all workers said they preferred to work with people who were not only the same race as themselves, but were the same sex and had the same level of education. Even more probably felt that way but were afraid to say so.
These days there is much chirping about how diversity is going to improve profits. American companies are hard-headed about profits. A great deal of research, much of it quantitative, goes into decisions about product lines, new markets, establishing joint ventures, issuing stock or moving the head office. If there has been any serious research showing that “diversity” improves profits it would have been first-page news long ago. Not even the most desperate data massage seems to have produced a study that can make such a claim.
Just how big a headache diversity actually is for companies is clear from the endless stream of news stories about corporate racial discrimination. In just one month – November, 1996 – “diversity” made quite a lot of news. Texaco agreed to spend $176 million on black victims of company “racism,” and lawyers for the firm that sued Texaco were getting about ten calls a day from people asking how to file for discrimination settlements. Just a few days later, 22 former employees of the nation's largest printing company, R.R. Donnelley and Sons, sued over what they claimed was $500 million worth of racism.
In the same month, both the U.S. State Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms settled multi-million dollar class action discrimination suits brought by blacks. Likewise in November, three blacks brought a class action suit against an Avis Rent-A-Car franchise with outlets in North and South Carolina, claiming they had been turned away because of race. Within the month, the owner of Avis said it would break its contract with the franchisee, and hired a law firm to check up on other Avis operators. Every one of these cases, which are expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally damaging, is a consequence of racial diversity – and these were just the cases that made the news.
It would be edifying to count the number of public and private organizations that exist in the United States only because of its diverse population, and that are not needed in places like Japan or Norway. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and every state and local equivalents of these offices exist only because of racial diversity. Every government office, every university, every large corporation, and every military installation has employees working full-time on affirmative action, discrimination claims, and other “diversity” issues.
Countless outreach programs, reconciliation commissions, blue-ribbon panels, and mayoral commissions fret professionally about race every day. Not one of these would be necessary in a nation of a single race. There must be tens of thousands of Americans consuming hundreds of millions of dollars every year enforcing, adjusting, tuning, regulating, and talking pure nonsense about the racial diversity that is supposed to be our strength.
Indeed, Tom McClintock, a former candidate for controller of the state of California estimated that before the 1996 state ballot initiative was approved to abolish racial preferences, the annual cost just to administer California's affirmative action programs was from $343 million to $677 million. This figure did not include the cost of private preference programs or the cost of state and local anti-discrimination machinery, none of which was affected by the 1996 measure.
If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits. If diversity were enriching, people would seek it out. It is in private gatherings not governed by some kind of “civil-rights” law that Americans show just how much strength and enrichment they find in diversity. Such gatherings are usually the very opposite of diverse.
Generally speaking, whatever timid opposition to diversity that ever arises is characterized as the whining of resentful, ignorant whites. Nonwhite are thought to have a better appreciation of the importance of inclusiveness. This is just so much more nonsense. Now that immigration has added Hispanics and Asians to the traditional black-white racial mix, fault lines are forming in all directions.
Though we are told over and over that it is ignorance and lack of contact that cause antipathy, it is groups that have the most contact that most dislike each other. This is why “outreach” and “bridge building” do not work, as even the New York Times unintentionally revealed in a June 18, 1990 headline: “Ethnic Feuding Divides Parade for Harmony.”
The idea that hostility is cured through contact is now enshrined as part of the diversity myth. George Orwell touched on this in his essay, England Your England:
“During the war of 1914-1918 the English working class were in contact with foreigners to an extent that is rarely possible. The sole result was that they brought back a hatred of all Europeans, except the Germans, whose courage they admired.”In America one need not go overseas to have contact with foreigners. What has been the result? In Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York City, blacks have tried to drive Korean merchants out of their neighborhoods. They firebomb stores, assault shop keepers, and mount boycotts against “people who don't look like us.” In Los Angeles, relations were so bad that in 1986 a Black-Korean Alliance was formed to reduce tensions. It staggered on uselessly until late 1992, when it was dissolved in mutual recrimination and accusations. The more blacks and Koreans talked to each other the angrier they got.
There are now schools and school districts completely dominated by blacks and Hispanics, which have race wars involving no whites at all. Some examples? Locke High School in Los Angeles is almost exactly half-black and half-Hispanic. In February, 1996, 50 police officers had to be called in to break up a pitched battle involving hundreds of students. After order was finally restored and school dismissed, police in riot gear had to keep students from rejoining battle in the streets. What touched off the battle? Hispanics were annoyed – certainly not “enriched” – by the February observances of Black History Month.
Norman Thomas High School is located at Park Avenue and 33rd Street in Manhattan. In 1992, tension between blacks and Hispanics erupted into a free-for-all involving both boys and girls. “The only thing people cared about was skin color,” explained one 16-year-old. The New York City Board of Education has “rapid mobilization guards” for just such emergencies.
Farragut High School in Chicago is two-thirds Hispanic and one third black. Recently, racial tension built up to what the principal called “total polarization,” and it became dangerous to let students mix without police supervision. At the height of the tension, extra- curricular activities were canceled for 30 days and the school's homecoming football game had to be played without a single student in the stands, for fear they would attack each other.
In Huntsville, Texas, Hispanic students say they need to arm themselves against violent blacks. In Dallas, Hispanic parents say their children are afraid to go to school for fear of attacks by blacks. Tensions of this kind are usually reported only in local newspapers, and are probably quite widespread.
There is the same racial animosity in jails. Guards keep some cell blocks in a near-constant state of lock-down because blacks and Hispanics kill each other if they are allowed to mingle. Life in prison is more intensely integrated than anywhere else in the country. If diversity is such a good thing why is racial segregation always one of the top demands when prisoners list their grievances?
Of course, high-school fistfights and jailhouse brawls are nothing compared to what can happen when diversity really goes wrong. In the summer of 1967, 83 people were killed and nearly 2,000 injured when blacks rioted all across the country. The national guard had to be called out to stop violence in Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Newark, northern New Jersey, and Detroit.
Nor are race riots a relic from the 1960s. The single worst outbreak in the nation's history was in Los Angeles in 1992, when rioters killed 58 people and injured more than 2,300. They also burned 5,300 buildings, causing nearly a billion dollars in damage. There was smaller-scale violence – all of it directed at whites – in Atlanta, Las Vegas, New York City, and Richmond and San Jose, California.
The Los Angeles riots showed that Hispanics can behave as badly as blacks. Although the grievance was ostensibly about a miscarriage of justice for the black criminal, Rodney King, more than half of the 15,000 people arrested for looting were Hispanic.
“Diversity” can pit one set of Hispanics against another. Puerto Ricans in Miami have rioted, claiming to have been excluded by the city's Cuban power structure. “Cubans get everything; we get nothing,” explained one rioter. The greater the diversity, the more varied the possibilities for disaffection and violence.
An occasional glance at a newspaper is all it takes to learn that diversity of the kind that is supposed to benefit the United States is a problem wherever it is found. Every large-scale and intractable blood-letting, be it in the Middle East, Ireland, Burundi, or the former Yugoslavia is due to “diversity,” that is to say, people who differ from each other trying to live in the same territory.
Most of the time, the reasons for discord are not even as salient as race. They can be religion, language, or ethnicity. From time to time, Americans have fought each other for these reasons, but race is the deepest, most constant source of antipathy. Unlike language or religion, race cannot change. Differences between men that are written deep into their bodies will always be a source of friction.
The Diversity Double Standard
Diversity, of course, is only for whites. Wherever only whites gather charges of “racism” cannot be long in coming. On the other hand, it would be tedious to list the racially exclusive non-white gatherings the country takes for granted. Shule Mandela Academy in East Palo Alto, California is only a little more outspoken than most when its students meet every morning and pledge to “think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black.”
The same racial double standard is found in national policies. It is only white nations – Canada, the United States, and Australia – that permit large-scale immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all.
Some nations, of course, could attract no immigrants even if they wanted to; there is not much pressure on the borders of Bolivia or Uganda. However, as soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbors they quickly become keen to keep strangers out. Malaysia, for example, recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. The Ivory Coast, which is better-run and more successful than its West African neighbors, has launched an Ivoirite (Ivorian-ness) campaign to expel all residents who cannot prove that their grand parents were born within the national territory.
Even nations that are unattractive to immigrants sometimes display their feelings about diversity by expelling what few aliens arrived in the past. Idi Amin became ruler of Uganda in 1971. The very next year, his government expelled the 70,000 to 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis whom the British had brought in to be merchants. Black Ugandans, who did not like dealing with people unlike themselves, were delighted.
Hundreds of thousands of poor Mexicans sneak into the United States every year, but even Mexico is attractive to some Central Americans, whose countries are poorer still. Mexico guards its southern border with military troops, and is ruthless about expelling illegals. Not even United States citizens have an easy time moving to Mexico, which has no intention of diluting its national culture in the name of diversity.
Only whites babble about the advantages of diversity. One of the alleged advantages is so nutty, it is hard to believe it can be proposed by people capable of human speech, but since we are shooting fish in a barrel why not fire a final round? We are told that since whites are a minority of the world population (they are about 15 percent of the total), they should happily reconcile themselves to minority status in America, that such a status will be good training for life on an ever-shrinking planet.
Of course, in a world-wide context, every human group is a minority. There are many more of everyone else than there are Hispanics or Africans, for example. Does this mean that Mexicans and Nigerians, too, should strive to become minorities in Mexico and Nigeria? Like so much that is said about race or immigration, this idea falls to pieces as soon as it is applied to anyone but whites.
It is only whites who have ever attempted to believe that race is a trivial matter, so it is only whites who think it may be “racist” to preserve their people and culture. Having decided to deny the findings of biology, the traditions of their ancestors, and the evidence of their senses, they have denied to themselves any moral basis for keeping out aliens. They have set in motion forces that will eventually destroy them.
E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, “two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” (emphasis in the original) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: “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.”
Human nature is part of animal nature. Racial diversity, which only whites promote – and always at their own expense – is nothing more than unilateral disarmament in a dangerous world. If current population movements continue, and if the thinking of whites remains unchanged, there will be little doubt as to which group’s fate will be the “disaster and oblivion” Prof. Hall so confidently predicts.
Who Reads American Renaissance?
Responses to the AR Reader Survey.
by Jared Taylor
In september 1996, all AR subscribers received a reader survey. As the months began to pass, some began to ask when we would print the results, and several wondered if we were too embarrassed to print them. One subscriber even wrote that he had been thinking of letting his subscription lapse, but was resubscribing only so he could see the results – and we had better not disappoint him. We are sorry to have taken nearly a year to finish this project, but it took time to tabulate the replies.
Three hundred ninety-one subscribers returned their surveys. This is only a fraction of the readership, and we cannot know how representative it is. However, two indicators suggest that it is a good sample. We know that 4.5 percent of AR subscribers are women, and the percentage of women among the respondents – 4.8 percent – was virtually the same. Also, a comparison of the postmarks with the geographical distribution of subscribers suggests that every region and foreign country responded in about equal proportions.
As the table on general characteristics shows, readers are a mature group, with an average age of 52. The oldest is 95 and the three youngest are 19. Readers are also well paid. Both average and median incomes are around $45,000. Forty-three (out of the sample of 391) report incomes of more than $100,000, and one claims an annual income of one million dollars.
Forty-five percent of respondents were once liberals on race – one reports that his liberalism was a youthful spasm that lasted about 20 minutes – and the rest have always had a clear view. We were hoping that some of the liberals we know to be “monitoring” AR would respond, but none did.
Readers subscribe to magazines with a conservative tilt; Chronicles, Instauration, American Spectator, National Review, and New American are the most popular. However the entire list, including magazines read by only one respondent, runs to over 300 different titles, so there are readers who take the New Yorker (8), Bon Appetit (5), Mother Earth News (3), Soldier of Fortune (3), Organic Gardening (2), Beekeepers (1), and Opera News (1).
On the list of Americans who have advanced our interests, partisans were once again at work, but the names still make for interesting reading. Eight respondents thought O.J. Simpson was helpful to our cause, and Marcus Garvey and Rodney King each got two votes. Once again, AR contributors Michael Levin and Lawrence Auster got three each. The complete list runs to nearly 300 names, and includes Audrey Shuey, John Tanton, Otto Scott, Phyllis Schlafly, Bill Lord, Michael Hill, and Alan Simpson.
There were several questions that left room for open-ended replies, most of which could be put into fairly broad categories. We asked readers who had once been liberal on race why they had changed. The most frequent reply was experience with non-whites (46). Several people mentioned being attacked by blacks or serving in the military with non-whites, or having to manage them at work. The next most frequent reply was, essentially, that age and experience had opened their eyes (45). Other reasons were: Studied racialist and scientific literature (42), Experienced or learned of the excesses of “civil rights” laws (26), Was shocked by the demands and attitudes of blacks (15), Learned about non-white behavior, primarily through the news (14), Offended by racial double standards (12), Fear crime by non-whites (12), Amazed by the antics of liberals (9), Saw effects of non-white immigration (6), Someone personally opened their eyes (4), Natural revulsion for miscegenation eventually won out over liberalism (4).
To quote some of the more pungent responses: “My Southern pappy was right; my Ivy League profs were wrong.” “Blacks are now blacker, Hispanics are more Hispanic, and whites are becoming vegetables.” “As I matured I realized I had been duped.” “I grew up in Minnesota where few blacks live. I lived six years in Manhattan and 12 years in L.A. and my views changed completely.” “I moved into a mixed neighborhood and my neighbors were not Bill Cosby or Sidney Poitier.” “I moved to Los Angeles from Portland Oregon!” “I started living in Oakland, CA.” “I was raised by a social worker father. Then I went to high school and actually had to deal with blacks as they really are.”
What type of material would readers like to see more often in AR? Many respondents were kind enough to say they liked the editorial mix as it is (49). Others want more articles about History (29), More O Tempora items (29), Solutions to our problems (27), Promotion of white consciousness (20), Pro-white activism, domestic and foreign (18), Book reviews (17), Science and genetics (17), Exposés of government and media bias (15), Exposés of non-white thinking and behavior (14), Immigration/demographics (13), Racial differences and IQ (13), Discrimination against whites (10), Exposés of Jews (9), Legal/Constitutional matters (8), Crime (7), Useful statistics (7), Christian points of view (6), First-person accounts (6), Anti-white thinking and behavior (5).
One reader wanted interviews with interesting people. Two, to our considerable surprise, wanted treatments of 19th and 20th century German anti-liberals, and one wanted “articles that credit enemies of the West with IQs of more than 70.” Another urged us to publish more “inspirational, analytical, thoughtful letters.” We publish every one we get.
What did AR readers want to see less of? There were far fewer complaints, but they are worth noting: Christianity/religion (22), Statistical and technical material (12), IQ and racial differences (8), Evolution (7), Articles by Jews (7), Scholarly/philosophical articles (5), Long articles (4), Accounts of non-white behavior (4), Genetics (3), Pessimistic articles (3).
The survey was mailed in the issue following the one with a cover story by an Orthodox priest, Fr. James Thornton. Several referred specifically to this article as the kind they do not like. Some readers think we have too much in the way of “boring book reviews,” “subjective bulls**t,” and “boring essays by second-raters.” Well, we're opposed to these things, too.
What did readers like least about AR? The most frequent complaint, we are happy to say, is that AR does not have enough pages and articles. The table belows registers multiple complaints on a wide range of issues. One reader complained about “mild Southern chauvinism,” and was presumably not asking for a more pronounced Southern chauvinism. Another thought we could increase circulation with a “swimsuit edition,” and one dislikes “the ugly fellow at the head of the letters section.” One reader didn't like “the sense that a small, smart, horrendously overworked group of people – a mere handful – are behind it.” We don't like that either.
We hope the results of the survey are as interesting to you as they have been to us. As your editor, I try to produce a publication that satisfies its readers, and I have thought a great deal about your suggestions and complaints. At the same time, AR has an educational purpose that goes beyond satisfying either my reading preferences or those of subscribers. We are grateful to all of you who took the time to fill in your surveys, and look forward to any other suggestions you may have to make AR as good and effective a publication as possible.
Report From the Galtonian Front
A sampling of recent science literature.
by Glayde Whitney
This is the first in an occasional series of articles by Prof. Whitney that will summarize the latest scientific findings in areas of interest to readers of AR. We are pleased to introduce this unique and valuable column.
More on the Genetic Reality of Race
Although readers of AR are well informed about the genetic reality of human races (see “Diversity in the Human Genome”, AR, March 1997), more is becoming public knowledge all the time. The April 1997 issue of American Journal of Human Genetics contains a report from a project whose principle goal was “to identify a set of genetic markers that would allow the confident determination of ethnicity, for use in a forensic setting.” The authors point out that crime suspects are often easily categorized by simple observation, but it has been more difficult to specify the race of an unknown suspect from crime scene residue such as blood or semen.
The genetic markers often used for DNA fingerprinting of individuals are not necessarily suitable for distinguishing races. The investigators set out to survey published and unpublished data sets to see if they could come up with a set of markers, already known, that could be used to specify the race of unseen perpetrators. Although individuals of various races share many genes, there are plenty of “PSAs” [population-specific alleles] useful for the task at hand. A PSA is a gene that is unique, or almost unique, to one race.
The present report concentrates on the three population groups that constitute 95 percent of U.S. residents: blacks, whites, and Hispanics. It is easiest to separate African ancestry from everything else, because Africans are genetically most different from all other human races. However, the task requires the combination of results across a profile of PSAs, because of the “admixture” of genes in the miscegenated population of the U.S. It is estimated that genes of European ancestry constitute about 25 percent of the genes in contemporary African Americans, while the European genetic component is about 60 percent of today's Hispanic population. It would not be difficult to select similar sets of markers to differentiate other populations and combinations. [Shriver, M. D. (and 6 co-authors), (1997) “Ethnic-affiliation estimation by use of population-specific DNA markers” American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol.60, pp. 957-964.]
Priests Have Different Genes
The Cohanim, or priests, are still recognized by some Jewish groups as descendants of the kohen gadol or “high priest” of the days of the first temple of Solomon 3,000 years ago. Entry into the priesthood, which is different from the rabbinate, is by strict patrilineal descent, and a man can become a priest only if his father was a priest. Being a priest carries social and religious obligations that help preserve the identity of Jewish communities, and surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones suggest that priests make up approximately five percent of the seven million males of the world Jewish population. (For a wealth of background information see MacDonald, K. (1994) A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers).
Something else that follows strict patrilineal descent is the human Y chromosome, since it is the Y chromosome that determines maleness. Every male has one, and he passes it to his sons. Accordingly, a group of investigators from America, Europe and Israel set out to see if the Y chromosome of Cohanim might be characteristically different from the Y chromosomes of lay Jews. For six gene markers on the Y chromosome, they compared samples of priests and lay persons from Ashkenazic (Jewish communities of northern Europe) and Sephardic (Jewish communities of North Africa and the Middle East) populations.
Sure enough, within each population the priestly Y chromosomes were significantly different from those of the laymen. Further, Ashkenazic and Sephardic priests resembled each other, while differing from their respective communities. The authors state “This result is consistent with an origin for the Jewish priesthood antedating the division of world Jewry into Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities, and is of particular interest in view of the pronounced genetic diversity displayed between the two communities.” [Skorecki, K., (and 7 co-authors), 1997, “Y chromosomes of Jewish priests”, Nature, Vol. 385, p.32.]
Oriental IQ Averages About 105
New data from Taiwan are consistent with those from most previous studies in suggesting that children of Japanese and Chinese ancestry tend to have slightly higher IQs than the Caucasian peoples of the United States and Europe. Newly available data include scores on a standard test of intelligence, the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, for a representative sample of 2,476 Taiwanese at 9 to 12 years of age. After performing appropriate conversions and comparisons to British IQ data, Professor Lynn estimates that this sample of Taiwanese have an average IQ of 104.7.
These results are generally consistent with most other studies in suggesting that on average Orientals score higher than Caucasians. A notable exception is a well-known study by educational psychologist H. Stevenson and colleagues. Dr. Stevenson reported that children from Taiwan, Japan, and the American City of Minneapolis performed the same on ten different cognitive tests. Here Prof. Lynn points out that Dr. Stevenson's Minneapolis sample were virtually all white, and that whites in Minnesota are known to have an average IQ of 105, a bit above the national average of 100. Thus, if Dr. Stevenson found no difference between Minneapolis (avg. 105) and Japan or Taiwan, his results are consistent with the rest of the literature in suggesting that Orientals average about 105.
Prof. Lynn concludes, “My suggested reading of the data is that 26 studies all indicating slightly higher mean IQs in Japanese, Chinese and other East Asian populations is too many for happenstance and that these results probably have to be accepted as valid.” [Lynn, R. (1997) “Intelligence in Taiwan”, Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 44, No.4, pp. 585-586.] (Professor Lynn's book, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, was reviewed in AR, April 1997).
Caucasian Resistance to AIDS
Sure to provide grist for black conspiracy theorists is a new report concerning genetic resistance to HIV infection. DELTAccr5 is a gene that, when homozygous (a person has two copies, one from each parent) appears to provide strong resistance to HIV infection, even after repeated high-risk exposures. Being heterozygous (having one copy) for the gene may delay the progression to full-blown AIDS of people harboring the virus. Previous work had found the DELTAccr5 gene to have a frequency of about 10% among people of European ancestry, and to be absent elsewhere.
Armed with a newly devised test for the gene, the authors screened 3,342 individuals from a globally-distributed range of populations. The gene was found at low frequency throughout Europe, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent – the traditional home range of Indo-European (Aryan) peoples. Rare and isolated occurrences of the gene elsewhere in the world were most likely the result of recent European gene flow into the indigenous populations. [Martinson, J.J. (and 4 co-authors), (1997) “Global distribution of the CCR5 gene 32-basepair deletion,” Nature Genetics, Vol. 16, No. 1, May, 97]
Glayde Whitney is past-president of the Behavior Genetics Association. He is a professor in psychology, psychobiology and neuroscience at Florida State University.
As an antidote to today's degeneracy, it is good to read novels that date from the days before the white man lost his nerve. Beau Geste, is the classic 1924 story about life in the French Foreign Legion. It is a rip-roaring tale later made into a “photoplay” starring Ronald Colman. The author, Percival Wren (1885-1941), was an English hunter and world traveler who served in the legion, and the book is stuffed with manly virtues.
It is also stuffed with what are, by today's standards, odious prejudices, two of which are in full view in the book's very first scene. After several years of separation, George Lawrence of the Nigerian Civil Service happens upon Henri de Beaujolais, Major of the Spahis (native North-African cavalry commanded by French officers):
“For de Beaujolais, Lawrence had a great respect and liking as a French soldier of the finest type, keen as mustard, hard as nails, a thorough sportsman, and a gentleman according to the exacting English standard. Frequently he paid him the remarkable English compliment, ‘One would hardly take you for a Frenchman, Jolly, you might almost be English,’ a bouquet which de Beaujolais received with less concern by reason of the fact that his mother had been a Devonshire Cary.
“Although the Spahi officer was heavily bearded, arrayed in what Lawrence considered hopelessly ill-fitting khaki, and partially extinguished under a villainous high-domed white helmet (and looked as truly French as his friend looked truly English), he, however, did not throw himself with a howl of joy upon the bosom of his cher Georges, fling his arms about his neck, kiss him upon both cheeks, nor address him as his little cabbage. Rather as his old bean, in fact.”
“[T]he train would take him, after a three days' dusty journey, to the rubbish-heap called Lagos, on the Bight of Benin of the wicked West African Coast. There he would embark on the good ship Appam, greet her commander Captain Harrison, and sink into a deck chair with that glorious sigh of relief, known in its perfection only to those weary ones who turn their backs upon the Outposts and set their faces towards Home.”
Nor is there any question about the superiority of the British. In the Foreign Legion, the book's three English heroes meet all manner of Europeans, but the Germans are louts, the Italians and Portuguese are thieving cutthroats, the Americans are stout but simple, and though the French are capable of producing an occasional man of parts, they never quite get it right.
The story is one of valor, treachery, and innumerable opportunities for the heroes – three brothers – to show of what stuff they are made, and it is here that Beau Geste is even more of a departure from the present than in its antique nationalism. The brothers hew to the highest possible code, and will not violate its slightest part no matter how great the reward. They will not perform a dishonorable act, no matter how insignificant, even to save their own lives.
These Englishmen behave as if their motto were “death before dishonor,” but they would have thought the phrase far too grandiose. Heroism is simply a matter of gentlemen doing their duty, though they do permit themselves to say “Stout fellow,” to each other after surviving the worst.
Did real people ever behave this way? Probably not. However, our ancestors were reared to ideals like these. Honor was not a joke or an empty phrase for them. Today, it would be impossible to publish a book that takes duty for granted, whose characters do not calculate advantage. Today Percival Wren would be laughed out of every publishing house in New York City – and in London, would probably be arrested for violating the Race Relations Act.
For this, of course, we pay a price. Boys who watch “Beavis and Butthead” do not grow up to be the same men as boys who read and thrill to Beau Geste.
The Long Retreat
The University of Mississippi
reviewed by Victor Craig
The rapid abandonment of Southern resistance to integration is much remarked upon, but little understood by white Americans who fear for their race's future. In the fall of 1962 the University of Mississippi, long viewed as a bastion of racial awareness, was the site of a famous struggle between the federal and state governments over the admission of a black, James Meredith. It was one of the pivotal battles in the fight to preserve segregation.
The eventual admission of Mr. Meredith is a well known victory of the “civil rights movement,” which has today become part of the sacred multi-racial history of America. Less well known is the background of Ole Miss, as the school is affectionately known, and why it achieved such symbolic significance. The University's past helps illustrate the nature of the South's racial, cultural, religious and historical passion in the days before liberalism brought it to its knees.
The Band Played Dixie, by Nadine Cohodas, recounts the story of pre-integration Ole Miss, the details of the Meredith affair and the school's subsequent history. Its perspective is decidedly on the side of racial mixing, and the author accepts the dogmas of egalitarianism. Nonetheless, she has done her homework and the facts are by and large left to stand on their own.
A Southern Bastion
The University of Mississippi opened its doors in the small town of Oxford on November 6, 1848. It was founded to support “the process by which a culture transmits itself across generations.” At first it succeeded admirably. A little over a decade after its founding, a few weeks before secession, a student group called the “University Greys” began military training. A month after the war began the school was forced to close, since all but five students had volun- teered for Mr. Davis' army.
By 1865, 111 out the 135 University Greys were dead. The monument erected to their memory on campus reads: “In honor of those who with ardent valor and patriotic devotion sacrificed their lives in defense of principles inherited from their fathers and strengthened by the teachings of the Alma Mater.”
A commencement address by Reverend T.D. Witherspoon in 1867 showed insights his descendants would do well to keep in mind: “We must have an educational literature of our own, or we have no security for the future against a thralldom far worse than that of the bayonet.”
In 1882 the school admitted women. The case for their admission was light years removed from contemporary dogma: “We are not teaching women to demand the ‘rights’ of men nor to invade the place of men.” The goal was merely to improve “the sensibilities of her aesthetic faculties, of the moral and religious parts of her being, which fit her for the ways of modest usefulness . . . and which invest her with that true womanly character that constitute the charm of social life and the queen of the house.”
In the 1920s, the ideals of Ole Miss were still intact. The chancellor, Albert Hume, once wrote that a hypothetical professor who would suggest that Robert E. Lee was a “traitor” would find his position “instantly vacant.” He would be told, if claiming academic freedom, “You are free, but so are we, and you may not trample underfoot what we regard as sacred so long as you hold a position in our institution.”
In 1936 the school adopted “Rebels” as the nickname for its athletic teams. In 1948, at the height of the enthusiasm surrounding the Dixiecrat's departure from the Democratic Party in protest of Truman's support for early “civil rights” legislation, Ole Miss began the practice of having the cheerleaders run onto the field at football games waving Confederate flags while the band played “Dixie.” Cheerleaders then tossed bundles of flags to the crowd, which would wave them throughout the game. The school's mascot became Colonel Rebel, dressed as a Southern plantation owner.
Confident that their way of life would preserve their racial and cultural identity, the students at Ole Miss were little disturbed by the 1954 Brown decision. In 1956 a student poll showed that only 19 per cent (the vast majority of whom were northerners) supported integration. Relying on the firm rhetoric of its political leaders, the South thought it could resist the “second reconstruction.” It was in for a surprise.
Tolerance and Gradualism
The Band Played Dixie gives ample evidence of the two errors that have led to the dismantling of traditional social structures throughout Western nations in this century. The first is a mistaken idea of the type of dissent the social fabric can tolerate. In societies as diverse as post-Franco Spain, post-Verwoerd South Africa, and the post-World War II South, authority neglected its primary task which is the placing of life's fundamental assumptions beyond the boundaries of debate. Once these assumptions become subject to critical debate they are endangered. Leftists have always understood this, whether it be Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, or the ruthless controllers of contemporary public discourse. The right has rarely grasped it.
The second error is the belief that revolutionary movements can be satisfied by granting “minor” concessions. It didn't work for Louis XVI or Nicholas II and it utterly doomed South Africa and the American south.
Miss Cohodas notes a report presented to the university's trustees in the fall of 1958 by two university alumni, state representative Wilburn Hooker and former representative Edwin White, which detailed substantial cracks in the school's commitment to what they saw as its basic principles. They noted that books supporting integration were displayed prominently for browsing on the library’s shelves while those favoring segregation were kept in the stacks. They cited many professors who were less than sympathetic to the Ole Miss world view. These were not frivolous points. One need only think of how much today's top universities, for example, safeguard their students from exposure to racialist arguments. However, Miss Cohodas tells us, “White and Hooker appeared to have been rebuffed in their crusade to rid Ole Miss of the alleged heretics.”
The sorry tale of Governor Ross Barnett's secret negotiations with the Kennedys in the fall of ‘62 has been detailed elsewhere, but Miss Cohodas also touches on it. In public, Barnett was telling his people that, “No school will be integrated in Mississippi while I am your governor,” and “We must stand up like men and tell them never! We will not drink from the cup of genocide.” In private, he was begging Bobby Kennedy to allow him to make a theatrical public stand in opposition while allowing Meredith to enter the school.
A popular song of the time illustrates the people's faith in their leader:
Never, Never, Never, No-o-o Never, Never, NeverMiss Cohodas presents a rather one-sided picture of the violence that swept the campus after Meredith's admission, suggesting that it was demonstrators rather than the federal forces who struck first. Her bibliography lacks Earl Lively's 1963 book, The Invasion of Mississippi, which presents a perspective on those events unadulterated by the Washington regime's propaganda line. Whatever the details, though, the surrender had been accomplished; Ole Miss was integrated.
The Slippery Slope
The token presence of one black on campus was just the beginning. As the final chapters of The Band Played Dixie amply demonstrate, the South could have continued its resistance in many forms, but it chose instead to bow down; not overnight, but slowly, inch by inch. Miss Cohodas details it all. By November first of 1962, Chancellor Williams was warning the student body to accept Mr. Meredith's presence peacefully or be expelled. Despite opposition from a group called the Rebel Underground, which labeled Williams “a liar and a Quisling,” students and faculty obeyed.
The next year Ole Miss played against an integrated football team for the first time. (In South Africa this was one of the first capitulations of the post-Verwoerd government, which agreed to a match with an integrated rugby team from New Zealand. Less than thirty years later the same National Party surrendered the entire country without firing a shot.)
In 1966, a liberal student group had Bobby Kennedy speak on campus (!), and the event proceeded peacefully. Kennedy's words had an unintended ring of truth to them: “You have no problem the nation does not have. You carry no burden that they too do not carry.”
By 1969, there was a “Negro history celebration” and a “Negro History Week.” A sit-in on the steps of the chancellor's office led to the inevitable creation of a Black Student Union. The following fall, with over two hundred black students attending Ole Miss, the basketball team was integrated.
According to Miss Cohodas the reason was the realization “that Ole Miss was not going to be competitive unless it tried to get the best players around regardless of their skin color.” (This was an old argument. In 1947, Pee Wee Reese refused to sign a petition launched by Dixie Walker to protest Jackie Robinson's presence on the team because he “didn’t care what color he was so long as he could help the Dodgers win.” Why are there no tributes to the idealism of Dixie Walker?)
At Mississippi Southern the school's mascot, “General Nat,” referring to Nathan Bedford Forrest, had been shelved in 1970 to placate black football players. In 1972 Ben Williams became the first black to suit up for the “Rebels,” and “black studies” courses began at about the same time. By June, 1976, Williams was voted to the honorary campus leadership position of Colonel Rebel!
Blacks had slowly found their way into the driver's seat. An attempt to provide Colonel Reb with a horse to be named Traveler in honor of General Lee's mount was nixed because of black protests. In 1980, over two dozen “Rebel” football players were black, and in April, 1982, the first black was elected to the cheerleading squad. He promptly announced that he would not wave the Battle Flag at games.
In the 1980s the university began various affirmative action programs to lower admissions standards for blacks, and it actively sought black professors. James Meredith, invited back to speak at a commemoration event celebrating his admission, said that the Confederate flag, Colonel Rebel, and Dixie “must be removed as school symbols and songs.”
In 1990 Miss Ole Miss was black. By the mid nineties the Confederate flag was furled. No longer would the cheerleaders rush out onto the field waving the flag of their forefathers.
Lately, we read that Ole Miss has just hired a public relations firm to study the university’s “image,” which is apparently still unacceptable. Although polls taken in Mississippi show that the school's supporters want no more dismantling of tradition, Chancellor Robert Khayat wants new supporters. His goal is to make Ole Miss 35 percent black.
And so it was over. In a little over three decades the University had been transformed from a bulwark of Southern tradition to an instrument of the multi-racial revolution.
As the battle for Ole Miss raged in 1962 a wise man remarked to me that if the university did integrate we could expect three things. 1) Southerners would be called upon to reject the heritage of their ancestors. 2) Integration would lead to crime, taxation and a breakdown of the social order. 3) Miscegenation would lead to the end of the white race. The first has come to pass. The second is all around us, except that whites survive by hiding in the suburbs and paying protection money in exorbitant taxes. Why has miscegenation not led to the end of the white race? Perhaps because non-whites have too much racial pride to mingle with whites.
Will whites ever regain the racial consciousness needed to reclaim power in their own land? If it is to be our fate to follow South Africa into the abyss, we will have many to thank. Among them will be the Washington liberals who enforced integration while insulating themselves from its effects. Also responsible are the Southerners of the 50s and 60s, who so craved comfort and respectability. They first deceived themselves into thinking that fiery words were the same as firm resistance, and then completely jettisoned their racial and cultural identities. Can a race, the blood of whose proudest peoples such as the Southerners and the Afrikaners has clearly grown anemic, long survive? The answer will be ours to give.
Victor Craig is the pen name of a clergyman and academic who remembers the fall of ‘62 all too well.
Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense
Defamatory material from the
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
Guidebooks about “right-wing extremism” are not ordinarily of interest to anyone but the people who write them. However, the third edition of the Anti-Defamation League's list of miscreants, Danger: Extremism, came to our attention because it includes several pages on American Renaissance. We were curious to see what sort of company we are said to keep, and were intrigued by the psychology of an “anti-defamation league” that writes unkind things about people who have never given it a thought.
“Watchdog” is a curious calling. In a 13-page introduction, the authors have a go at explaining what they are up to but appear mainly to have assumed the duty of deciding which opinions are not merely incorrect but despicable. They then go hopelessly wrong by jumbling together violent criminals with people who express these opinions – and basically treating them the same. In this way the book implies that disagreement with its positions is – or certainly should be – criminal.
No one needs the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to tell him that murder and arson are wrong, but which opinions are at the same moral level? The introduction explains: “The ultimate threat to American society posed by extremism cannot be measured without first gaining a sense of what defines the American mainstream.” The ADL is happy to define the mainstream for us but this is trickier than it lets on. As Danger: Extremism concedes elsewhere, one of its cherished enemies, David Duke, received a majority of the white vote in two state-wide elections in Louisiana. Does this tell us anything about the “mainstream”?
The introduction's central statement of the mainstream is this: “The growth of opportunities to realize political freedom can be best seen in the evolution of the U.S. Constitution, which through the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the emancipation of slaves and the enfranchise- ment of women greatly elaborated –at least in theory – the document's original concept of American citizenship.”
Whatever this sentence may actually mean, we are to think of the history of the United States as a remarkable flowering of the “principles of inclusion and social equality.” The evil of “right-wing extremism” lies in opposing this march to progress.
The sheep and the goats are therefore easily divided; anyone who thinks Washington and Jefferson or even Theodore Roosevelt got it right more often than Theodore Kennedy or Janet Reno is a hatemonger. Anyone who finds greater wisdom in some of the social arrangements of the country's first 180 years than in the last 40 is an enemy of civilization.
The book's authors would probably not insist that Mr. Kennedy and Miss Reno are actually wiser than the Founders. They would claim only that the march of liberalism is simply carrying forward their good work. Therefore, if the Constitution did not actually mention women in combat, welfare for non-citizens, homosexual marriage, and massive non-white immigration, this was an oversight. Without putting it in so many words, the ADL has decided who are the spiritual heirs to the nation that began in 1776, but in so doing it has disinherited anyone who actually agrees with the Founders on certain matters.
So what is the danger and who are the extremists? Although the authors concede that the days are long gone when the Ku Klux Klan had five million members, there is still much to worry about. First, quite a few people don't care for the federal government, and now that someone has actually blown up a federal building, it seems that any outspoken opponent of government power can be suspected of plotting violence.
“More ominous [than this] is the rhetorical support these extremists have received from the mainstream.” When the National Rifle Association decries the high-handed tactics of federal agents, when G. Gordon Liddy suggests that they should sometimes be dispatched with shots to the head, when Congressmen permit themselves to be interviewed on Radio Free America – this is disturbing evidence of “the porousness of the line separating the mainstream from the fringe.” Not even the mainstream can be trusted!
Another big worry are skinheads. The ADL seems to have counted 3,500 of them, and we learn that their numbers have not increased since 1993, but they are still a threat. The militia movement, of with the ADL counts 15,000 members, is an even bigger threat. Of greatest concern, however, appears to be the World Wide Web. Those who claim to champion the American way might have praised this breakthrough in free speech, but no: “wild-eyed, long- discredited, paranoid fantasies pass easily through cyberspace, looking spiffy on the screen.” Boobus Americanus might just fall for ideas not pre-digested by higher authority.
Throughout the book, we have the left's favorite analysis tool: links. A certain ostensibly reputable scholar is “linked” to a disreputable scholar who is “linked” to a certifiable nut who is “linked” to a man who once had lunch with a man who is in jail for throwing a bomb. This way, people can be denounced, not for what they say or do, but for what other people say or do, and tens of thousands of people can be anointed with the odor of fertilizer and jet fuel.
The greater part of Danger: Extremism is given over to short chapters on 57 individuals and 28 organizations. Among them are the names one would expect – Tom Metzger, David Duke, Willis Carto, William Pierce – but most are unknown to anyone but specialists. Who is Richard Scutari – or Oren Potito, Joseph Dilys, Shawn Slater or Margos Margoian? These chapters are boring. Who cares about the leadership struggles of Klan factions or about the odd views of people one is never likely to hear of again?
The most lasting impression this section leaves is that the people it parades as terrifying hate-mongers are, for the most part, utterly ineffectual. Of the 57 the ADL would have us be on the lookout for, three are dead, three are in jail, four are solitary pamphleteers, three are with the Klan (which the ADL concedes is essentially moribund), and three appear to have retired from whatever it was the watchdogs were watching them do. Of the rest, aside from the names one recognizes, it is nearly impossible to judge their influence. What sort of damage do Dan Gayman, Gordon Winrod or Kim Badynski – to pick names almost at random – really do?
Then there are the exotics. Robert Brock, is “the only known African-American participant in the white supremacist movement.” This is the book's silly conclusion from the fact that Mr. Brock has apparently talked to Kluxers about the creation of a black American homeland. There is also Harold Von Braunhut who, if the book got the facts right, is a pretty unusual fellow. He is “a Jewish businessman originally from New York City,” holder of “more than 167 patents,” and an official in the Aryan Nations, which “militantly advocates anti-Semitism.” No doubt he, too, is a fearful disturbance of the peace.
Part of the time, the ADL itself seems to be laughing at the boobishness of the people we are supposed to fear. The authors love to write sic all over the misspellings and bad grammar they quote, and here is an important message from an important hatemonger: “The moment I am seen to go out with a bag, the Jewish poisoners employ thousands . . . to guard subway stations, bus stops, and all U.S. mail boxes so that the Jews can know where I go and, specifically, into which U.S. mail boxes I mail my letters containing this document, which the Jews instantly steal.” This person is a nut, not a menace to democracy.
The 28 organizations the book profiles are likewise very mixed. Seven are defunct, either because their leaders are all in jail or because they have disbanded. Three apparently petered out back in the 1980s, and one wonders why the ADL still worries about them. Of the rest, once again it is hard to judge their level of menace or effectiveness. The Jubilee, “Common Law Courts,” Christian Defense League, Committee to Restore the Constitution, American Promise Ministries – are they really a danger to anyone? There is no way to tell from this book.
After all, American Renaissance, great force for evil that it is, gets four hand-wringing pages – more than the National Alliance or Liberty Lobby. Why? AR is “a publication that uses pseudo-science to justify racism.” It “gathers racists together in the guise of academic seminars.” It calls Arthur Jensen “a pioneer” despite the fact that Prof. Jensen has received money from the wicked Pioneer Fund. One of its “key contributors” is the wicked Samuel Francis, and such wicked people as Michael Levin and Philippe Rushton have spoken at its conferences. And that wicked Jared Taylor has been heard to say, “Israel will change in countless, unacceptable ways if it ceases to be Jewish just as America will change in countless and unacceptable ways if it ceases to be white.” Is this what one expects to find in a book the ADL advertises with a flyer whose blood-red headline screams: “Who Are The Most Violent Extremists In America Today?”
Threats to Jews
It is easy to mock Danger: Extremism's alarmism, but in all fairness it has unearthed some hair-raising threats to Jews. One Identity Christian leader has reportedly claimed, “My Bible says that the Jews are the people of Satan . . . . And our God has commanded us to exterminate them.” One of the watchwords of something called SS-Action Group is reported to be “Six million more.” One group is said to have distributed literature reading: “When you've had enough and you're ready to kill Jews call . . . .” The tiny number of people who really carry on this way probably do bear watching – by the police.
But of the 20,000 murders and 1,000,000 aggravated assaults committed in this country every year, how many are the work of “right-wing extremists”? This book frets about middle-aged whites tramping through the woods with rifles but ignores young blacks shooting up cities with pistols. They are more afraid of men with ideas than of thugs with guns. That can be the only reason to have included AR in this uneven mix of eccentrics, felons, skeptics, dissenters, skinheads, and Kluxers.
And this leads to what must be the real purpose of Danger: Extremism – to blur the line between thought and crime. People who are sure of their ground do not defame their opponents or treat them like criminals. Only people who fear debate, who lack conviction, who dread the exposure of their own shabby prejudices are driven to make bogeymen out of cranks and to treat dissent as if it were a crime.
The Future of the Species
In Heredity and Humanity, anthropologist Roger Pearson sums up a lifetime of investigation into the most fundamental human question: the genetic future. In this short, but important book, he traces the course of man's understanding of heredity, and describes the terrible damage that has been done under the current reign of egalitarianism. He concludes with the cautious prediction that modern genetic research will eventually undermine egalitarian dogma, but reminds us that Nature exacts a high price – extinction – from any species that flouts its laws.
Dr. Pearson points out that men have always had an intuitive understanding of breeding; that the ancient Greeks, for example, examined the lineages of their spouses with as much care as that of their horses. The discovery of Mendelian genetics and the introduction of evolutionary theory established the basis for a science of heredity, and Dr. Pearson recounts the speed with which eugenic thinking spread across Europe and America. It was soon so well established that the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, under its entry for “civilization,” predicted that the future progress would include “the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity.”
This promising beginning was upset by a sequence of misfortunes from which science – and society – have yet to recover. Dr. Pearson traces the work of anthropologist Franz Boas who, with his disciples at Columbia University, drove biology almost completely out of the social sciences. He also recounts the rise of Marxist genetics, and the damage done by Lysenkoism. After the defeat of Nazism, the minds of nearly all intellectuals were captured by an egalitariansim so fierce that it amounted to willful blindness.
In the latter part of his book, Dr. Pearson describes the difficult, persecuted work of scientists, who have tried to reestablish the importance of genetics. As author of Race, Intelligence, and Bias in Academe (reviewed, AR, June, 1992) Dr. Pearson is recognized as an authority on the subject, and leaves no doubt that the work of Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, Thomas Bouchard, and many others is building up a virtually unassailable scientific basis for the racial and genetic views of the early eugenicists.
Dr. Pearson also has high hopes for the Human Genome Project, which will finally vindicate eugenics – by demonstrating its principles at the most basic, molecular level. The real question is when the egalitarian media will pass on to the public what is now common knowledge to specialists, and how soon public policy will be based on fact rather than fantasy.
Dr. Pearson expresses some fear that even in the face of the most convincing evidence, Europeans will continue to support dysgenic policies for themselves and to promote the interests of other groups over their own. He finds some of the origins for this behavior in modern versions of Christianity, but notes grimly that Nature provides built-in correctives: “Any ethic which has overall dysgenic implications will eventually eliminate the society which adopts it.”
Dr. Pearson's entire career has been an effort to ensure that the age of compassionate fools will not be the final one; that it will be followed by a healthier, more vigorous age. This little volume is his summary of the ills that afflict us and the knowledge that can save us.
Heredity and Humanity is available directly from Scott-Townsend, Box 34070 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20043 at a special price of $14.00, which includes postage.
O Tempora, O Mores!
Going Over Down Under
Australian legislator Pauline Hanson (see AR, Dec. 1996), goes from strength to strength. Last year she was kicked out of the ruling Liberal Party for saying that Australia is being “swamped” by Asian immigrants and that Aborigines are being coddled. She refuses to apologize for the “white Australia” policy that lasted until 1973, and says that people are afraid to say what they think for fear of being called “racists.” Now she has started her own political party, One Nation, and reports more than 40,000 supporters.
She has also published a book, Pauline Hanson: The Truth, which explains her ideas in greater detail. The first print run of 1,000 paperbacks sold out immediately, and in May copies were changing hands for about US $40.00. What most infuriates liberals is her account of Aboriginal cannibalism. She first got in trouble on this subject last year when she decided to turn the tables on people who think whites should feel guilty for having civilized Australia: “Will the descendants of those blacks who cannibalized Chinese miners on the Palmer River in 1875 [a notorious event in Australian history] be required to bear the guilt of their forefathers?” Today's Australia prefers to ignore the Aboriginal taste for long pig, and an archbishop objected that questions like Miss Hanson's should never be asked.
Press reports describe Miss Hanson's book as if it did nothing more than toss off a few unsubstantiated accusations about cannibalism. Far from it. She quotes at length from such books as River of Gold: The Story of the Palmer River Gold Rush by Hector Holthouse, The Passing of the Aborigines: A Lifetime Spent Among the Natives of Australia by Daisy Bates, and Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice by G. Hogg.
Mr. Holthouse writes of the Aborigines of the Palmer River region that “they killed and ate their own women and children, and occasionally their men. The older women were often killed for eating purposes like livestock.” Of the Chinese employed to dig gold, he writes, “Hundreds of them were ambushed, captured, and eaten at leisure.”
Daisy Bates (1859-1951), a social worker who devoted her life to Aborigine uplift, writes that “baby cannibalism was rife among the central-western peoples.” She wrote of Dowie, a member of the Baadu tribe, who went through four wives, killing and eating them as he tired of them.
It is now mandatory in Australia to think of “native peoples” as spiritual, peace-loving darlings brutalized by whites, so Miss Hanson's book must be denounced with invective rather than facts. On May 25, at a four-hour anti-Hanson rally in Brisbane, a Jewish leader told the crowd that she and her book were the equivalent of Hitler and Mein Kampf. He said the name of her One Nation Party was suspiciously close to the Nazi slogan, “One Nation, One Folk, One Leader.”
Asians don't care for her book either. She writes that if they keep pouring into the country, by 2050 Australia will have a president named Poona Li Hung, a “lesbian of Indian and Chinese back- ground.” A Chinese group has filed a petition with the Australian Electoral Commission claiming that her new party violates the federal Racial Discrimination and Racial Hatred Acts and should be banned. If her party is not banned, the group vows to join with every possible non-white group to oppose her.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has been accused of not denouncing Miss Hanson with sufficient vigor. He has finally gotten the message from the people who really run the country, and has managed to strike something like the right tone: “She is wrong when she suggests that Aboriginals are not disadvantaged. She is wrong when she says that Australia is in danger of being swamped by Asians. She is wrong to seek scapegoats for society's problems ...” he said in May to a private group that is trying to do more business in Asia. He went on to accuse her of “empty populism, cheap sloganeering, and bitter and divisive recriminations.”
Meanwhile, opinion polls show that her party already has the support of 10 to 15 percent of the public and its popularity continues to grow. With Australia's system of proportional representation, One Nation is likely to seat half a dozen senators or, as the newspaper The Australian puts it, “enough to hold the balance of power in the senate and to determine the course of legislation.” Somehow, these interesting overseas developments have largely failed to make the American news.
Flying High at the Academy
First Lieutenant Kelly Flinn, the fornicator and now-retired lady- bomber pilot, has been baking in the limelight while one of her black former classmates at the Air Force Academy languishes in unde- served obscurity. Crista Davis, likewise a first lieutenant, could get 55 years in prison if she is convicted of various charges, including an adulterous affair with a married officer that produced a child.
The married officer in question, Maj. Greg Russel is, we hope, an unusual case. He is a black gentleman, with tattoos on both arms and, when out of uniform, likes to wear bracelets, chains, earrings, and a ring through his pierced tongue. Until 1994, he taught at the Air Force Academy, but was suspended from teaching because of various criminal charges, not all of which have been made public. He appears to have misused an Air Force credit card and to have refrained from repaying debts, but these charges were dropped when military psychiatrists determined that he had been legally insane since 1992 – two years before his teaching career came to an end.
First Lieutenant Davis, now mother of Maj. Russel's child, Christophe, began her affair with him in 1995, two years after graduating from the Air Force Academy. She claims that she thought he was single, but she is charged with writing spiteful, obscenity- laced letters to his wife, boasting about the glorious sex she was having with him. The recipient of these letters has since become the third woman to divorce Maj. Russel.
First Lieutenant Davis appears to have been a miserable soldier. She is charged with absence without leave, willful dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer, making false official statements, and disobeying orders. Her lawyer claims that these are false, vindictive charges, brought because “she's black, she's female and she has exposed racism and sexism in the Air Force.” (Air Force Officer Faces Prison, Associated Press, May 20, 1997.)
Doing Her Bidding
Black television personality, Oprah Winfrey, has launched an on-air book club. She is so influential that all five books she has recommended have gone to the top of the best-seller list. When she chooses a new book, her producers alert the publisher in advance so it can print enough copies. She also insists that the publisher make 10,000 copies of the book available to libraries to meet demand. (James Howard, Oprah Plugs Book; Price Rises $5, Rocky Mountain News, April 19, 1997, p. 9D.)
Will They Ever Learn?
White South African liberals have discovered that they get no gratitude from blacks for the fight against apartheid. Helen Suzman, now 79, was one of the original white anti-white activists. “I am surprised at the hostility to liberals these days, even from moderates in the African National Congress,” she says; “I expected it from the right and the far left, who have always called us ‘Lenin's useful idiots,’ but I didn't expect it from them.”
Professor Ithumeleng Mosala explains why blacks despise liberals: “Liberalism is rooted in individualism and that is part of the problem in our society, and it is rooted in possessiveness. Instead of having a proper revolution in this country, we've had a liberal revolution and that is why blacks are still where they are today, in the gutter, and why whites are still rich.” Today, it is routine for whites who worked for majority rule to be called “racists” by the people they helped put in power.
Miss Suzman expects the best: “Liberals are a sort of endangered species, but as far as I am concerned we have won – look at the constitution, the bill of rights, they are everything we stood for – so let them rant. I am surprised, but I am not worried.” (Richard Meares, White Liberals Face Hostility in New South Africa, Reuters, March 17, 1997.)
Affirmative action brings many unprepared blacks to universities. This is reflected in dropout rates. What follow are the percentages of white and black students at various universities who manage to graduate within six years. University of North Carolina - whites 86 percent, blacks 64 percent; Rutgers University - 80, 60; U.C. Berkeley - 84, 58; University of Illinois - 82, 54; Penn State - 80, 51; University of Delaware - 73, 56. (After Late Start, University Works Hard to Graduate Blacks, New York Times, Dec. 1, 1996, p. 16.)
The Diversity Hustle
Towers Perrin is a consulting firm that touts its customized, individ- ually crafted “diversity programs” to help bring companies into the multi-culti future for which we are said to yearn. The American subsidiary of Japan's Nissan Motor Company recently paid the company $105,000 to produce a diversity proposal but was disappointed to find that everything in it was extremely general and not specific to Nissan. In fact, Towers Perrin has boiler plate diversity analyses that it can slap together for most any client. The Wall Street Journal got hold of eleven Towers Perrin diversity reports and found startling similarities. Most similar, of course, was the final recommendation – employee training to be conducted by Towers Perrin.
Sample blather: “As the nature of [insert company name]'s work changes from a command and control style to a more empowering style where invisible leveraging will be a key to success, leaders must learn how to build, lead, and facilitate both diverse work units and cross-functional teams . . . .” (Douglas Blackmon, Consultant's Advice on Diversity was Anything But Diverse, Wall Street Journal, March 11, 1997, p. 1.)
Why They Get Fat
Nearly half of all black women and one third of white women are overweight. Recent research shows that blacks are more likely to get fat because they have more efficient metabolisms. In the resting state, fat black women consume five percent fewer calories than fat white women. (Jane Brody, Health Watch: Race, Gender and Weight, New York Times, March 26, 1997.)
In March 1996, about one out of every 10 people in the United States, or 24.6 million, were foreign-born. They were worse off than natives in virtually every respect, with a poverty rate of 22.2 percent v. 12. 9 percent, unemployment at 4.9 percent v. 3.8 percent, and with 5.8 percent v. 4.5 percent getting cash assistance form the government. Needless to say, the native-born include many non-whites. (Census Bureau News Release, Economic Challenges Wane With Time Among the Nation's Foreign-Born Population, CB97-55, April 8, 1997.)
New Irish Eyes
Ireland has become a popular destination for “asylum” seekers. In 1992 there were 39 applications; in the first three months of 1997 they poured in at a rate of 2,500 a year. Rumanians – mostly Gypsies – account for a third of the rush, followed by Zairians, Somalians, Algerians, and Nigerians. Many of the Gypsies speak no English. They stand on street corners, some suckling infants, and beg by showing passersby hand-written cards asking for money. (Paul Cullen, Images Aimed at Tourists Attract Refugees as Well, Irish Times, April 19, 1997. Nuala Haughey, Better Here, Say Romany Gypsies, Irish Times, April 19, 1997,)
Race and Murder
Like many other cities, New York has been enjoying a drop in its murder rate. A temporary lull in the number of people in the most crime-prone age bracket is one of the causes, and we are also seeing the effect of several years of longer sentences for offenders. When they are off the streets they cannot commit more crimes. However, the statistics for New York City show an interesting racial disparity: Murder is down only for non-whites. In the two years from 1993 to 1995, the victimization rate for blacks dropped from 54 per 100,000 to 32 per 100,000 and that of Hispanics from 32 per 100,000 to 20 per 100,000. These are significant reductions, and people who used to sleep in their bathtubs for fear of stray bullets are now back in their beds. The rate at which whites are murdered has stayed the same at about eight per 100,000. (Bob Herbert, Ferrer's Outta Here, New York Times, May 16, 1997, p. A29.)
Riots Becoming More Common
Researchers at Northeastern University in Boston report that rioting is on the rise in America. Jack Levin and Benjamin Steiner define riots as violence by groups of more than 50 people, and find that there were nine in 1994 and twelve in 1995. They note that disturbances are often race-related and write that many are touched off by white police action against non-white criminals. They also point out that the teenage population will increase 17 percent during the next nine years, especially in non-white neighborhoods, and this is sure to lead to more rioting. (Michael Hedges, Violent Disturbances on the Rise; ‘Trust Level’ of Police, Courts Cited, Washington Times, Nov. 25, 1996, p. A6.)
Diversity in California
From 1990 to 1996, the percentage of California K-12 students who cannot understand English well enough to know what is going on in class rose from 18 percent to 25 percent. In the past decade the number of such students nearly tripled from half a million to 1.3 million. By 2005 – in just eight years – more than half of all California K-12 students are likely to be Hispanic. The state's fourth graders perform near the bottom in national achievement tests, but the problem is even worse than this, since many children who cannot speak English are exempted from taking the test.
The Ravenswood School District in East Palo Alto is a good example of things to come. In a decade, it has gone from 85 percent black, to 68 percent Hispanic and 29 percent black. Sixty-eight percent of the students are classified as “limited English proficient,” and qualify for special help. This means as much as $6,000 a year is spent on them as opposed to the $3,900 spent on native English speakers. (Julian Guthrie, Schools Struggle With Shifting Ethnic Balance, San Francisco Examiner, may 14, 1997.)
Many of the black students can scarcely make themselves under- stood in English either, and their parents resent the fact that so much money is spent on Mexicans. School board meetings have to have interpreters so that the two groups can understand each other, and at a recent meeting tempers flared. “Take [your children] back to Mexico,” yelled one of the blacks at the Mexican interpreter, and lunged for her. Others had to hold the two women apart until police came. (S.L. Wykes, Cops Halt Tumult at Ravenswood Event, San Jose Mercury News, April 25, 1997.)
Other states with large numbers of immigrants are keeping a worried eye on how California copes with “diversity.”
They Never Miss a Chance
Steven Spielberg's new movie about dinosaurs, The Lost World, is breaking new ground in race mixing. One of the characters, played by Jeff Goldblum, has a 10-year-old child who just happens to be black. Her mother, vaguely referred to as being in Paris, is never seen on-screen. The father-daughter duo is introduced without commentary. “I think the way it's dealt with in the film is neat,” says Mr. Goldblum, “the way it's not even explained and kind of just accepted.” (Steve Persall, ‘Lost World’ Ventures into Multiracial Relationships, Chicago Sun-Times, May 23, 1997.)
After 23 useless years, the Harlem Urban Development Corporation has finally been shut. It's job was to bring renovation and new businesses to Harlem, but even after running through $100 million in state money it failed to attract a single new major commercial development. An audit of the corporation's expenditures has found so few records that its authors wonder whether “the lack of supporting documentation for such an extremely large number of transactions was a deliberate attempt to conceal certain irregular activities.”
One of the regular activities appears to have been car washes for the agency director's car, at $50.00 a wash, no receipts. One lawyer that had contracted to provide services for $30,000 actually got more than $170,000. Black New York Congressman, Charles Rangel, complains that the audit is “a bunch of Republicans going through the files of a defunct organization run by Democrats.” (A Troubling Audit for Harlem, New York Times, May 5, 1997.)
Two black Chicago girls, aged 11 and 13, have been charged with a hate crime. They were with a group of other black girls when they saw a 10-year-old white girl roller skating with an 11-year old black girl. Children in the group of blacks recognized the black skater and someone shouted that she “shouldn't be hanging around with whites” and that she was “disrespecting her folks.” The two hate criminals then knocked the black girl to the ground and punched her white companion. (Jim Casey, Girls Charged in Attack on Interracial Pals, Chicago Sun-Times, May 23, 1997.)
Unsuitable for Prisons
Readers with a copy of the April, 1997 AR, may want to take a look at page 11. We recently received something called a “Publication Denial Notification” from the Texas prison system, saying that the page “contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve a breakdown of prisons through inmate disruption such as strikes or riots.” There are three perfectly ordinary “O Tempora” items on that page, none of which mentions prisons or prisoners. Needless to say, nothing in AR is ever written even partly for the purpose of causing prison riots.
Separate Works Best
Hernando High School in Hernando, Mississippi does not pretend that race does not matter. Ever since 1970, when it was integrated, it has had a black principal and a white principal. There are homecoming queens of each race, and the yearbook designates white and black class clowns and class flirts. Some student government offices are held in alternate years by a black and a white. Most students find this system agreeable, and Harold Kinchelow, Hernando's black principal, says the policy worked so well from the start that “we just never thought about it” again. There are other schools in Mississippi that have dual systems, but the state does not keep track of their numbers. (School Gives Separate But Equal a New Meaning, Chicago Tribune, May 23, 1997, p. 17.)
Always In Season
A few good citizens have taken it upon themselves to nab some of the illegal immigrants pouring into California. Fifty-seven-year-old Robert Maupin leads a group called “Bob's Boys,” which patrols Mr. Maupin's 250-acre ranch in San Diego County. They carry rifles, dress in camouflage, take along an Alsatian dog, and rarely fail to find illegals. “My dog speaks their language,” says Mr. Maupin. “As soon as they see his teeth they understand him right away. We tell them to lay down on the ground and then we radio for the Border Patrol.”
There are other groups that operate along other sections of the border. Deputy Sheriff Robert Novak says, “We know these guys and they are within their rights to arrest anyone they find trespassing on their property.” (John Hiscock, Vigilantes Target Illegal Mexican Migrants, Daily Telegraph (London), May 20, 1997.)
The recent elections in Britain returned the first Muslim member to Parliament. Mohammed Sarwar is now discovered to have kept the culture of his native Pakistan as well as its religion. He appears to have offered opposing candidates the equivalent of $100,000 to stay out of the race and to have paid another $8,000 to conduct a listless campaign. Mr. Sarwar is one of nine non-whites in the 659-member Parliament. (Warren Hoge, Bribery Case in Britain: Labor Figure is Accused, New York Times, May 20, 1997, p. A5.)
Judging from his photograph, George Perry is a black Hispanic. He is a member of the Latin Kings gang. Recently, he and five other Latin Kings were on trial in Providence, Rhode Island for murder and other assorted crimes. Right in the middle of his jury trial, he unzipped his trousers and urinated on the courtroom floor. He was ordered kept in his cell for the remainder of the trial. His five co-defendants filed for a mistrial, saying Mr. Perry's behavior had prejudiced the jury. Judge Mary Lisi denied the request. (Suspect Urinates at Trial, Chicago Sun-Times, April 4, 1997.)
Send 'em South
The state of Arizona is considering operating a prison in Mexico to handle most of its Mexican prisoners. Their number has gone from 58 in 1980 to 2,373 today, and accommodations cost $40 million a year. Labor accounts for 70 percent of operating costs, and a prison in Mexico could be run for half the US rate. The language of the prison would be Spanish and the mess hall would serve Mexican food, offering what a spokesman for the state calls a “more culturally compatible environment.” The usual people have objected, saying that Mexican prisons are hotbeds of corruption and cruelty, and that our prisoners deserve better. (James Brooke, Arizona Looks into Building Private Prison in Mexico, New York Times, April 20, 1997.)
In New York City, many of the available public schools are so bad parents go to extraordinary lengths to sneak their children in somewhere else. A common trick is to pretend to live in some other part of town or across the line in a different community where the schools are better. Parents fool the authorities by presenting fake leases or deeds. They also have telephones installed in their own names in the homes of friends who live in good districts, or even have their own names put on the utility bills of well-placed friends.
Some suburban districts that border on New York City are so plagued by freeloaders that they hire private eyes to check up on suspicious students. The Mount Vernon school district in West- chester catches 100 to 200 district hoppers every year, and the Lawrence, Long Island district recently filed criminal charges against Russian immigrants who had forged documents and lied about their address. (Denis Buffa & Susan Edelman, Some Families Teach Children Deception 101, New York Post, May 11, 1997, p. 6.)
That'll Do the Job
On April 30th, the United States Senate unanimously passed a resolution declaring that day “National Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism Day.” The resolution also calls on the President to issue a proclamation calling on all citizens to make eliminating racism and hate crimes a national priority. “We hope to reinforce in the American people that our diversity is something to be proud of,” said Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), who helped introduce the bill. (Business Wire, April 30 Declared as “National Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism Day,” April 30, 1997.)
Meanwhile, in Washington, DC, the YWCA was to sponsor a five kilometer “race against racism,” led by Olympic medalists and show-biz personalities. “The Race Against Racism is part of the YWCA’s strong commitment to help women and children to eliminate racism, sexism and other forms of discrim- ination,” explained YWCA Executive Director, Prema Mathai- Davis. (PRNewswire, World Class Runners and Celebrities Support Cause, April 30, 1997.)
Juries in Orange Country, California are selected both from voter rolls and lists of registered drivers. Since many drivers are not citizens, there is a box they can check to be exempted from jury duty. People chosen from voter rolls – all presumably citizens – get the same form, and 448 were recently found to have claimed exemption as non-citizens. Oh dear. California has been paying more attention to voter fraud since it was discovered last year that the Hispanic “rights” organization, Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, had registered 700 non-citizens as voters. The situation in Orange County is so bad that a Congressional committee has ordered the INS to check the citizenship status of all 1.3 million voters in the county. Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union protests that such an investigation would unfairly put non-white voters under a cloud of suspicion. (Peter Warren, Citizenship Check Asked for 448 in Juror Pool, Los Angeles Times, May 1, 1997. Panel Orders INS to Certify All O.C. Voters, Los Angeles Times, May 15, 1997.)
The Price of Folly
The Center for Immigration Studies reports that the ten-year cost of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) amnesty of 2.7 illegal aliens has been approximately $78 billion. This works out to a total federal, state, and local government subsidy of more than $29,000 per amnesty. The center calculates that the illegals got $102 billion in direct government services and paid $78 billion in taxes. Another $54.6 billion went on services for their children and for Americans who have been put out of work.
IRCA was supposed to be a compromise, in which illegals already in the country would get amnesty in return for stiff measures to keep any more out. Only the amnesty came to pass. According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, illegals continue to come in at such a rate that there are just as many now as before the IRCA amnesty – some five million. Another 420,000 or so long-term illegals are thought to arrive every year. (Center for Immigration Studies News Release, May 5, 1997.)
Offenders of the Faith
Prince Charles of England has said that when he assumes the throne and becomes Defender of the Faith, Christianity is not the only faith he would like to defend. He is getting his wish. In just five years there are likely to be more mosque-going British Muslims than active members of the Church of England. Even without further immigration, young Pakistanis are flocking to The Prophet in such numbers that mosques get about 32,000 new members each year. The Church of England loses about 14,000 members every year. At this rate, by 2002 active membership in both faiths is likely to stand at around 760,000. More than 100 new British mosques are planned to keep up with the boom, while Christian clerics wonder what to do with empty churches.
The Rt. Rev. Roger Sainsbury, Bishop of Barking, thinks he is on to the secret of success. “One of the attractions of Islam to disadvan- taged young people is that Muslims campaign on both racial and social justice. The Church of England should learn from this.” Or perhaps the Bishop of Barking should just convert. (Rajeev Syal & Christopher Morgan, Muslims Set to Outnumber Anglicans, Sunday Times (London), May 13, 1997.)
American clerics are, of course, no better. In May, the bishops of the South Carolina divisions of the Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, and United Methodist churches issued a statement confessing to the sin of racism and asking forgiveness. They asked God to “help us in our struggles to overcome the sin of racism, the powerful prejudice which pits one race against the other to the damage of all.” The statement followed a two-day reeducation session on “racism,” in which the bishops fretted over how to increase the number of blacks in church “leadership positions,” and exhibited anguish over the long-gone practice of relegating blacks to the balcony or the back pews. (Bruce Smith, The Sin of Racism, Associated Press, May 16, 1997.)
The South African government has just published a self-congratu- latory pamphlet designed to fight “Afro-pessimism,” or the feeling that the continent has run itself onto the rocks and can only get worse. The government is afraid that screaming headlines about crime in Johannesburg and slaughter in Burundi will scare away foreign investors. As the Times of London points out in words that would never be printed in the Times of New York, there are other reasons for self-promotion:
“As continental leaders, South Africa's elites see Afro-pessimism and the assumptions that surround it as an affront to their self-respect and virtually a suggestion that things would have been better if the Continent had stayed under white-minority rule. They want to assert that Africans can govern themselves democratically and well, that they are not innately backward or violent, and that their economies can grow.” (R.W. Johnson, Pretoria Launches Attack on Wave of ‘Afro- pessimism,’ Times (London), May 13, 1997.)
Mr. Clinton Gets it Right!
William Clinton wants to be known to history as a racial healer. At a June 14th commencement address at the University of California at San Diego he plans to unveil a great initiative that will endear him to posterity. A group of White House bureaucrats is secretly working out the details. “People have held back in private discussions,” says the President; “That duplicity has to end because there are ideas and convictions about race that must be challenged and changed, and neither can happen unless there is an honest laying on the table of what we all believe and think.” Seldom do we find ourselves in such complete agreement with our President, but we wonder just what it is he plans to unbosom as part of this “honest laying on the table.” (Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1997, p. A16.)
Happy Melting Pot
The last census found 301,000 Salvadorans and 159,000 Guatemalans living in the Los Angeles area. A recent study finds that they are victims of discrimination – from Mexicans. Louis DeSipio, professor at the University of Illinois who managed the two-year study, reports that Guatemalans and Salvadorans compete with better-established Mexicans for jobs in the garment industry, and are often snubbed and belittled. Many are Indians who do not speak Spanish, and Mexicans despise them. Latin Americans often treat Indians as primitives, and they bring their attitudes with them when they come north. (Julio Laboy, Mix of Hispanic Groups Creates Workplace Tension, Study Finds, Wall Street Journal, March 26, 1997.)
Stupid Party Gets Stupider
The Republican Party appears to have decided to court the ever-larger number of Hispanic voters. To this end they will downplay opposition to affirmative action and immigration. One unnamed party official has told the Los Angeles Times, “We need a couple of years off from controversial initiatives in the area of race.” He also said he would do his best to derail any ballot initiatives on race-related subjects. “It doesn't matter whether they're good on the merits,” he explained. “You have to weigh the effects it has on our society to have as much racial controversy as we've had.”
What he means, of course, is that Republicans are afraid they may lose elections if they even flirt with race-related issues. Republican “strategist,” Dan Schnur, explains further: “If you talk about cracking down on illegal immigration, you have to act in support of legal immigration. If you criticize racial preferences, you have to outline what alternative programs are going to look like.” (Mark Barabak, GOP Seeks New Image Among Latinos, Los Angeles Times, March 30, 1997.)
Blessings of Diversity
Six months ago Leif O'Connell of South Bend, Indiana was engaged to marry Annie Fulford. He was so obviously smitten that his friends would tease him about it. The couple had picked out a ring and planned to announce their engagement on April 18th, Miss Fulford's birthday. “All they talked about was getting married, settling down and giving me grandkids,” Miss Fulford's mother says.
The bride-to-be did not make it to her next birthday. She was shot to death when the young couple walked into an attempted robbery by four blacks on Miss Fulford's older brother. Mr. O'Connell was devastated by the death of his fiancee and would come to her house every morning and sob uncontrollably as he stared at her ashes. Less than two months later, he started shooting black men at random. On several separate forays, he and a friend killed one man and wounded four. When they were finally arrested, he told police that he felt better after the shootings. In July he will go on trial for murder, and faces life in prison. Mr. O'Connell had no known history of antagonism towards blacks. (Nancy Armour, AP, Man Whose Girlfriend Was Killed In Robbery Accused of Shooting Black Men in Retaliation, May 13, 1997.)
Correcting Official Racism
A Michigan County Circuit Court Judge has found that the Michigan State Police have discriminated against whites and men. In Lewis v Michigan State, he awarded $305,000 in damages to a white man who had been on the force for 24 years. Recently, the same court awarded another white trooper $850,000. The court found that the Michigan State Police have routinely inflated the test scores of blacks and women, and that it made a number of appointments strictly on the basis of race and sex. (Michigan Court Deals Another Severe Blow to Michigan State Police, PRNewswire, May 15, 1997.)
Sir – I disagree with Dickson's May article on one point. Although there has always been a liberal stain in Western society, I don't believe that our current problems are due to either a genetic or cultural flaw. Rather, I believe, along with Peter Brimlow, that the current denatured, post-racial, post-national consciousness – which might be called “international universalism” – is a virus we contacted while fighting World War II. It is Hitler's revenge on the victors. His pathological racialism has given even the most attenuated expressions of racial consciousness a bad name – except for certified “victim groups” i.e., all non-whites.
There is room for hope in that no generation lasts forever. Future generations not trained in the verities of the MLK civil rights movement – a hustle that can be perpetrated only once – will be less diversity-besotted and less likely to sacrifice their own interests in the name of abstract egalitarianism. The main threat here is immigration, because it can destroy the nation in the interim. I would like to see more in your newsletter about the need to curb immigration.
Sir – Sam Dickson asks “How is it that the leading minds of our people have succumbed to the fallacy of egalitarianism?” He then speculates some sort of “genetic weaknesses” on our part. Having taught for nearly a third of a century in various universities, I am inclined to lay the blame on institutions of higher learning, which educate just about all of the people who have an influence on shaping the way we think. But why do professors think the way they do?
Perhaps the most important reason is that some 85-90 percent of American professors depend on government sources for their salaries. That has a tendency to make them advocates of big, redistributive government which, for a multitude of reasons, has a vested interest in egalitarianism. Also academic salaries are low. This causes jealousy and resentment towards people in other professions who have much higher incomes. There are even professors who find sadistic satisfaction in creating psychological conflict between sons and fathers who pay their tuition. Finally, at a more subtle level, lies the importance professors like to attribute to their own efforts. They would like to think that the intellectual environment they create is far more important than genetically transmitted ability.
Sir – Sam Dickson states that only liberals “outperform Christians in the business of guilt.”
St. Paul murdered Christ's friends, but did he wallow in guilt? No; he writes “I press on” (Philippians 3:12), “forgetting the past” (v. 13) because Christ died for Paul's true moral guilt and gave him the courage to admit it. It is wicked for the modern “Christian” leaders to incite and exploit guilt trips in their people because of their fathers' racial sins.
God created ethnic groups by scattering them at the Tower of Babel, yet interracial hostility has no place within the Christian church (Colossians 3:11). But “Christian” impostors who foolishly try to reverse God's scattering of the races will never banish interracial hostility outside the church. Aren't white vices bad enough? Then why force us to mingle with black vice.
Sir – In a June “O Tempora” item you refer to The New York Times' recent apology for a headline that referred to affirmative action as “bias”(“‘ Bias,’ as a term for affirmative action was neither impartial or accurate. I should not have appeared,” the Times wrote. This has inadvertently handed the paper's critics – i.e. anyone with an honest mind – a useful weapon.
In the future whenever the Times runs one of its usual stories suggest- ing that such phenomena as low black test scores or a lack of blacks in professions are due to “bias,” alert readers should flood the Times with letters stating: “The Times use of ‘bias’ as an explanation for black underperformance was neither impartial nor accurate. It should not have appeared.”
Sir – In the June cover story, Thomas Jackson basically says that blacks do not take part as subjects in medical research because they are too selfish to care about future benefits for strangers. I wonder.
However, I do note a recent report in the Detroit Free Press (4/26/97) confirming Mr. Jackson's statement that blacks make their organs available for transplant less often than whites. But there is a further problem. Even when people agree to let their organs be harvested, their families often refuse to permit it. In Michigan, whites refuse about half the time, but in some black communities they refuse 80 percent of the time.
Why? It is probably not possible to say, but I would prefer to think the reason is some distinctive black attitude toward organ donation rather than brute selfishness.
Is there really any evidence that personality traits like selfishness or persistence or gregariousness differ from one race to another?