200304 American Renaissance

8/8/2019 200304 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/200304-american-renaissance 1/16

American Renaissance - 1 - April 2003

Continued on page 3

There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.— Thomas Jefferson

Vol. 14 No. 4 April 2003

Fade to Brown

American Renaissance

Immigration and the endof white America.

by Stephen Webster

Of all the unfortunate legislationto emerge from the so-calledCivil Rights Era, none has been

more harmful than the 1965 Immigra-tion Act (technically, the amendments tothe Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, or the Hart-Celler Act of 1965).In 1960, whites were approximately 90 percent of a population of 178.5 million.By 2000, they were only 69.1 percentof a population of 281.4 million, and if current immigration trends continue, by2050 or 2060 they will be a minority of a population of 430 million or more. Thiswill be a decline from overwhelming majority to minority in little more than alifetime. Thanks to the 1965 Act, which brought about a radical departure fromtraditional patterns of immigration,white children born today will enter middle age as minorities in their owncountry.

Early Immigration Policies

The post-1965 changes would shock the architects of America’s earlier im-migration policies, which were intendedto keep America white and culturallycohesive. The young nation’s very firstnaturalization law, passed in 1790, re-

quired that new citizens be “free white persons.” Most immigrants coming tothe United States during the republic’sfirst 60 years were Northwestern Euro- pean Protestants, mainly from Britainand Germany. They differed very little— ethnically or religiously—from the pio-neers who settled colonial America, andthey helped establish traditional Ameri-can culture.

The first substantial change to that pattern was the result of the Irish potato

famine of 1845 and political turmoil inEurope around 1848, which fueled arapid influx of Irish and continentalCatholics. The first immigration reformmovement, the so-called Know-Noth-ings or members of the secret Order of the Star-Spangled Banner, was estab-

lished in 1849 in response to these newimmigrants. The Know-Nothings—whogot their nickname because they were pledged to say they “knew nothing” if asked about the order by outsiders— were cultural nationalists who thoughtCatholicism was incompatible withAmerica’s liberal, democratic political

values. They wanted to bar the foreign- born from voting or holding public of-fice, and called for a 21-year residencyrequirement for citizenship and the es-tablishment of mandatory public schoolsto mold newcomers into proper Ameri-cans.

The order soon gave rise to a massmovement known as the American Party,

which won hundreds of local, state andfederal elections. The Congress that metin 1855 had no fewer than 43 avowedKnow-Nothing members, and the Ame-rican Party even ran former presidentMillard Fillmore in a bid for the WhiteHouse in 1856, in which he won 21.5 percent of the popular vote. Its growingsuccess was stopped short when the partysplit over slavery. As the Civil War ap- proached, many northern Know-Noth-ings joined the new Republican Party,while Southerners defected to the Demo-crats. The movement faded, but its in-sistence that immigrants should assimi-late became part of the American iden-tity and is its lasting legacy.

Some states took immigration policyinto their own hands. In 1855, Califor-nia levied a fine of $55 per person onChinese immigrants. Three years later,when it was clear the fine had notstopped the flow, the state passed anoutright ban on all people of “Mongo-lian” descent, except in cases of ship-wreck or accident. Survivors were ex- pelled as soon as they recovered. Thecity of San Francisco passed its ownlaws, taxing Chinese laundries and door-to-door vegetable peddlers. Perhapsmost imaginative was a “queue” ordi-nance, which required a mandatory hair-cut for anyone convicted of a crime. Thiswas aimed at Chinese, for whom it wasa great disgrace to lose the pigtail.

From 1854 to 1874, Chinese couldnot testify against whites in California

courts. The legislature declared thatChinese “have never adapted themselvesto our habits, modes of dress, or our edu-cational system . . . . Impregnable to allthe influences of our Anglo-Saxon life,they remain the same stolid Asiatics thathave floated on the rivers and slaved inthe fields of China for thirty centuriesof time.”

In 1875 the US Supreme Court de-clared immigration a federal, not a state

The gang of three: architects of

immigration reform.

California passed anoutright ban on all peopleof “Mongolian” descent,

except in cases of ship-wreck or accident.




American Renaissance is published monthly by the

New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.

Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $36.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.

Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com Electronic Mail: [email protected]

Continued from page 1

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor

James P. Lubinskas, Contributing Editor George McDaniel, Web Page Editor

responsibility, but the US government picked up where California and other states left off. Beginning in 1882, it

passed a series of laws barring Asians.The first Chinese exclusion act, in forcefor 10 years, was renewed in 1892 and1902. In 1904 Congress made the ban permanent, and it was in effect until1943, when China was our ally in thewar against Japan, and a total banseemed unfriendly.

Japanese and Koreans tried to immi-grate later than the Chinese, but got thesame treatment. The Japanese and Ko-rean Exclusion League, founded in 1905in San Francisco, whipped up so muchanti-Asian sentiment that Teddy Roose-

velt persuaded the Japanese governmentin 1907 to withhold passports from any-one who wanted to emigrate to Ame-rica—the so-called Gentleman’s Agree-ment. The Immigration Act of 1917 cre-ated an “Asiatic Barred Zone” that vir-tually eliminated all Asian immigration,and also required literacy tests for Eu-ropean immigrants.

During this period, there was another round of European immigration, knownas the Great Wave. Unlike earlier Euro- pean arrivals, Great Wave immigrantswere mostly from Southern and Eastern

Europe, and differed far more signifi-cantly—culturally, religiously, linguisti-cally and ethnically—from native stock than had the Irish and German Catholicimmigrants of the 1840s. It was a far larger wave, which peaked in 1907 with1.3 million foreigners, but continued toroll along until the First World War. Inthe decade between 1900 and 1910,nearly nine million immigrants arrived,a number not exceeded until the 1990s.

Immigration resumed after the war.More than 800,000 came in 1920 alone,and the Commissioner of Immigration predicted the number would soon rise

to two million a year. Worried that thisflood threatened the Anglo-Saxon majority, Congress acted in 1921 to pro-tect the demographic balance.

Albert Johnson, chairman of theHouse Committee on Immigration and Naturalization and who gave his nameto the new law, put it this way: “TheUnited States of America, a nation greatin all things, is ours today. To whom willit belong tomorrow? . . . The UnitedStates is our land. If it was not the landof our fathers, at least it may be, and itshould be, the land of our children. We

intend to maintain it so. The day of un-alloyed welcome to all people, the dayof indiscriminate acceptance of all races,has definitely ended.”

The Johnson Quota Act of 1921 wasthe first to put numerical restrictions onimmigrants. It set an annual ceiling of 357,000 Eastern Hemisphere immi-grants—this meant Europeans—butthere was no limit on Western Hemi-sphere immigration because aside froma few white Canadians, no one was com-ing from the Americas. The law also es-tablished an annual quota for all national

groups of three percent of its represen-tation in the 1910 census—a provisionclearly intended to keep the ethnic bal-ance exactly as it was. The 1921 QuotaAct was provisional, and was replacedin 1924 by the Johnson-Reid Immigra-tion Act, which further reduced immi-gration. It cut Eastern Hemisphere ar-rivals to just over 160,000, and loweredthe quota for different nationalities totwo percent of that nationality’s repre-sentation in the earlier census of 1890.

By using population figures from be-fore the massive post-1900 immigrationsurge, the drafters of the act tried to undosome of the demographic changewrought by the Great Wave. The quotasensured that 70 percent of all immigrantswould be from Great Britain and Ger-many—the countries that provided

nearly all of the founding stock—andIreland. Business leaders had opposedthe quotas, and wanted to import crowdsof cheap foreign workers, but whenCalvin Coolidge signed the 1924 act, henoted that maintaining a common na-tional culture was more important thenwhatever economic benefits more immi-grants might bring.

This meant an unmistakable prefer-ence for the old Americans over Italians,Czechs, Poles, etc. and even at the timethere was much complaining about “dis-crimination.” Colorado Congressman

William N. Vaile replied to these chargesduring the debate on the 1924 Quota Act:

“That people from Southern and East-ern Europe did not begin to come in largenumbers until after 1890 certainly provesthat those who came before them had built up a country desirable enough to

attract these latecomers. Shall the coun-tries which furnished these earlier arriv-als be discriminated against for the veryreason, forsooth, that they are repre-sented here by from 2 to 10 generationsof American citizens, whereas the oth-ers are represented by people who havenot been here long enough to becomecitizens? If there is a charge of ‘discrimi-nation,’ the charge necessarily involvesthe idea that the proposed quota variesfrom some standard which is supposed

Millard Fillmore, who knew a lot.




to be not ‘discriminatory.’ What is thatstandard?”

Already we see the signs of eventualcapitulation. Congressman Vaile wassuggesting that the quotas were not dis-criminatory, or if they were, it was be-cause they violated an impossible stan-dard. Vaile would have served subse-quent generations better if he had been

more straightforward: Certainly the quo-tas were discriminatory, but Old Ameri-cans had every right to discriminate infavor of themselves, and in favor of cul-tural and ethnic continuity. To concedethat discrimination was wrong, but thatnational quotas were somehow not dis-criminatory was to concede a moral po-sition that could only lead to defeat.

Already in 1927, immigrants fromEastern Europe succeeded in gettingCongress to change the quota baselinefrom the 1890 to the 1920 census,thereby opening up more slots for them-

selves. In exchange, Congress slightlyreduced the annual Eastern Hemispherequota to 154,227—a figure that re-mained in effect until 1965. There wasstill no quota on immigration from theAmericas, because no quota was needed.

The next major change in immigra-tion law was the Immigration and Na-tionality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act). This act eliminated the banon Asians—each Asian country was al-lotted a token 100 immigrant visas—and

established a preference system withinthe national origin quotas favoring im-migrants with special skills or family tiesto citizens. The act did not alter either the basic quota system or the annual ceil-ing on immigration from the EasternHemisphere.

The immigration reforms of the 1920swere a great success. They ended Great

Wave immigration (from 1930 to 1970,annual net immigration averaged185,000), and gave non-traditional im-migrants time to assimilate. America in1960 was still the white nation itsfounders intended, but by then, the ra-cial and cultural consensus that producedthe quota system had begun to break down.

Quota Opponents

There were opponents to McCarran-Walter, including President Harry

Truman. The law had to be passed over his veto, and he complained about “thecruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law.” “In no other realm of our national life,” he added “are we so ham- pered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immi-gration.” Truman was hardly a multi-ra-cialist. He was a firm segregationist (de-spite integrating the army), and oncewrote, “I am strongly of the opinion

Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellowmen in Asia and white men in Europeand America.” His real objection to na-tional quotas was that they gave the So-viet Union a reason to tell Third World people America was “racist.” Despitethe Cold War, the quota system was over-whelmingly popular. The House of Rep-resentatives voted 278-113 to override

the veto, and the Senate voted 57-26.Truman was not alone, however, in

worrying that immigration quotas werea liability in the Cold War. Novelist PatFrank, in Alas, Babylon!, a story of nuclear war between the Soviet Unionand the United States published in 1959,has the lead character, a Southern lib-eral, lament that “nativists” were “los-ing” Asia. This belief is one of the mainreasons McCarran-Walter set up tokenquotas for Asians. President DwightEisenhower wanted to double immigra-tion at the very least, and to bring in thou-

sands of East European and Asian refu-gees from Communism, but Congressstood firm.

Popular opposition to quotas camemainly from people who thought the sys-tem discriminated against their group.After the Second World War, quotasfrom Britain and Germany largely wentunfilled, and there was no provision tolet other countries take their slots. In1965, 250,000 Italians competed for 5,666 quota slots. Italian ethnic lobby-

Note decline during the First World War, and the success of the restrictions of the 1920s. The spike in 1991-2 is due to IRCA amnesties.




ists and Southern and Eastern Europe-ans desperately wanted to change thequotas, but did not have enough politi-cal power.

Most ethnics worked only to get moreof their own people into the country, butJews consistently lobbied for more im-migration from everywhere. American

Jews have always favored liberal immi-gration policies, in the belief that Jewsare more secure in a culturally diversecountry without a strong racial, cultural,or religious identity. Throughout the19th century, American Jews fought allexclusionary immigration laws, eventhose aimed at Asians. They were par-ticularly opposed to the quota acts,

which they saw as an anti-Semitic reac-tion to the recent arrival of large numbers of Jewish immigrants.

Groups like the American JewishCommittee funded and directed much of the anti-restrictionist activity. During the1930s when Jewish refugees fleeingHitler were barred from entry, Jews werealmost the only segment of Americansociety pressing for more immigration,and Jewish organizations poured enor-mous amounts of money and effort intohelping pass the 1965 Immigration Act.

However, if there is one man who can

take the most credit for the 1965 act, itis John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems tohave inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’sWASP aristocracy. He voted against theMcCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and sup- ported various refugee acts throughoutthe 1950s. In 1958 he wrote a book, A

Nation of Immigrants, which attackedthe quota system as illogical and with-out purpose, and the book served asKennedy’s blueprint for immigration

reform after he became president in1960.

In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sentCongress a proposal calling for the elimi-nation of the national origins quota sys-tem. He wanted immigrants admitted onthe basis of family reunification andneeded skills, without regard to national

origin. After his assassination in Novem- ber, his brother Robert took up the causeof immigration reform, calling it JFK’slegacy. In the forward to a revised edi-tion of A Nation of Immigrants, issuedin 1964 to gain support for the new law,he wrote, “I know of no cause whichPresident Kennedy championed morewarmly than the improvement of our

immigration policies.” Sold as a memo-rial to JFK, there was very little opposi-tion to what became known as the Im-migration Act of 1965.

Immigration as a Civil Right

The historical context of the bill wasvery important. Writer Lawrence Auster describes the Immigration Act of 1965as a “civil rights bill applied to the worldat large,” because although it was billedas a tribute to a fallen president, it wasvery much a part of the revolution in race

relations of the 1960s. Congress passedit at the same time as the 1964 CivilRights Act and the 1965 Voting RightsAct, and its purpose was to end the dis-crimination of national origins quotas.Indeed, its supporters often invoked thedomestic “civil rights” bills in calling for support.

As Rep. Phillip Burton of California put it: “Just as we sought to eliminatediscrimination in our land through theCivil Rights Act, today we seek by phas-

ing out the national origins quota sys-tem to eliminate discrimination in im-migration to this nation composed of thedescendants of immigrants.” Another Democratic congressman, Robert Swee-ney of Ohio, said: “I would consider the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act to be as important as the

landmark legislation of this Congressrelating to the Civil Rights Act. The cen-tral purpose of the administration’s im-migration bill is to once again undo dis-crimination and to revise the standards by which we choose potential Americansin order to be fairer to them and whichwill certainly be more beneficial to us.”Immigration reform was a moral cru-sade, and like so many other moral cru-sades, it was sold on the pretense that itwould actually be “more beneficial tous.”

Supporters of the 1965 Immigration

Act made another questionable argu-ment: that it was really only a symbolicgesture that would not produce muchreal change. At the signing ceremony,President Johnson declared, “This billwe sign today is not a revolutionary bill.It does not affect the lives of millions. Itwill not restructure the shape of our dailylives.”

Senator Edward Kennedy, whoguided the bill through Congress, reas-sured Americans that “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants an-nually. Under the proposed bill, the

present level of immigration remainssubstantially the same . . . . Secondly,the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset . . . . Contrary to the charges insome quarters, [the bill] will not inun-date America with immigrants from anyone country or area, or the most popu-lated and deprived nations of Africa andAsia. . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to changeas sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Illinois Democratic CongressmanSidney Yates added, “I am aware that

this bill is more concerned with theequality of immigrants than with their numbers. It is obvious in any event thatthe great days of immigration have longsince run their course.”

Rhode Island Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell agreed: “Contrary to theopinions of some of the misinformed,this legislation does not open the flood-gates.”

Some saw writing on the wall. BarryGoldwater’s running mate in the 1964

Pre-19704,109

652305

83543197

1,590476

318912

128

All Countries

MexicoCanadaCent. AmericaCaribbeanS. AmericaEuropeE. Asia

S. AsiaMiddle EastSub-Saharan AfricaNot Reported/Oceania

1990-9912,449

4,254178895

1,030788

1,3511,982

855340306472

1980-897,962

2,38996

752826493606

1,771

386243120278

1970-794,604

1,35079

252521253594975

17820345

153

Number32,454

9,659713

2,1603,1082,0214,5475,752

1,746963607

1,173

Percent ofImm. Pop.

100.0

29.82.26.79.66.2

14.017.7

5.43.01.93.6

When Arrived

2000-023,330

1,01455

178188290406548

29688

124142

Pre-19704,109

65230583

543197

1590476

318912

128

Region of Birth of Current Immigrant Population

(in thousands, does not include prisoners)




presidential campaign, Rep. WilliamMiller of New York, warned “We esti-mate that if the President gets his way,and the current immigration laws arerepealed, the number of immigrants nextyear will increase threefold and in sub-sequent years will increase even more .. . .”

During debate on the act, FloridaDemocratic Senator Spessard Hollandtold his colleagues, “What I object to isimposing no limitation insofar as areasof the earth are concerned, but sayingthat we are throwing the doors open andequally inviting people from the Orient,from the islands of the Pacific, from thesubcontinent of Asia, from the Near East,from all of Africa, all of Europe, and allof the Western Hemisphere on exactlythe same basis. I am inviting attentionto the fact that this is a complete andradical departure from what have always

heretofore been regarded as sound prin-ciples of immigration.”

As “conservatives” almost always do,opponents of the 1965 act could not bring themselves to defend their posi-tions honestly and clearly. Senator Hol-land evoked “sound prin-ciples of immigration” butdid not explain why theywere sound. There is norecord in the congressionaldebate of anyone pointingout that European civiliza-tion can be carried forward

only by Europeans, thatThird-World immigrants bring the Third-World withthem, and that whites haveevery right to keep their country white. These argu-ments would not necessarilyhave prevailed, but theywould have been straightfor-ward, coherent statements of racial common sense rather than wooly appeals to “whathave always heretofore beenregarded as sound principles.”

On Oct. 3, 1965, President LyndonJohnson signed the act at a ceremony atthe base of the Statue of Liberty. Whatwere its provisions? Most significantly,it abolished the national origins quotasystem and gave all foreigners an equalchance. It slightly increased the quotafor the Eastern Hemisphere—which nowmeant not just Europe but Asia and Af-rica as well—to 170,000, and estab-lished a ceiling of 120,000 for WesternHemisphere immigrants.

Just as significant was an importantshift in preferences. Before 1965, skilled professionals were at the top of the list,

and family unification got little empha-sis. The new law reversed this, meaningthat the Third-Worlders who could nowcome were not being chosen for whatthey could do but because they were re-lated to someone who was already here.

Until 1965, people admitted to thecountry legally had no automatic right

to bring their families; skilled profes-sionals came before wives and children.The new law gave the top preference tounmarried adult children of US citizens but the very next preference categorywas spouses, minor children and unmar-

ried adult children of immigrants. This

was a huge change. Under the old law,only citizens had the right to sponsor immigrants. Now, as soon as he got here,any newcomer could send for his fam-ily. This is what produced the chain mi-gration that has emptied entire Mexicanvillages.

The allocation of hemispheric quotaswas another dangerous precedent. Nocountry in the Eastern Hemisphere couldsend more than 20,000 people a year, but the 120,000 Western Hemisphere

quota had no per-country limits at all.This set the stage for a single country— Mexico—to dominate immigration.

And, indeed, the 1965 ImmigrationAct and its sequelae have restructuredthe shape of our daily lives. Our citiesare being flooded with a million immi-grants annually, and the ethnic mix of

our country has been upset. The year after the 1965 act, 323,040 immigrantsarrived. During the 1970s, the numbersaveraged 450,000 a year. In the 1980sthe average yearly intake rose to740,000, and by the 1990s, the figuresreached 900,000. These were only thelegal immigrants, and we now have anestimated seven to thirteen millionillegals living among us—the equivalentof eight to fourteen years worth of legalimmigration. Some 350,000 to 500,000 break into the country every year.

If illegals are included, between 1970

and 1980, the number of foreigners liv-ing in the US rose by 47 percent (4.5million). Between 1980 and 1990, thenumber rose by another 40 percent (5.7million), and during the 1990s, increased by a staggering 57 percent (11.3 million,

the largest single-decade in-crease ever). This meant thatin 2002, 33.1 million immi-grants were living inAmerica—11.5 percent of thetotal population. Immigrationdrives US population growth.Since 1965, immigration and

the children of immigrantshave accounted for 70 percentof the increase, giving theUnited States populationgrowth rates like those of Third-World countries.

Nearly 90 percent of recentimmigrants are non-whites,and most are from LatinAmerica or Asia. Pace Sena-tor Kennedy, we are indeed being inundated with immi-grants from one country—

Mexico. There are now no fewer than

20.6 million Mexicans in this country,of whom 9.7 million are first-generationimmigrants. Mexico alone accounts for 29.8 percent of all current legal immi-grants and the majority of illegals.

Whites have been largely pushed outof the immigrant stream. Seventy per-cent of foreign-born residents come fromLatin America, the Caribbean, and EastAsia. Of the top ten countries sendingimmigrants to the US, only one— Canada at number nine—has a majority

Scene of the crime.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1790 1830 1870 1910 1950 1990 2030 2070

Whites

Blacks

Asians

Hispanics

Racial Percentages of US Population

(Projections after 2000)




white population, and probably for notmuch longer. America’s traditionalsources of immigrants are far down thelist. Germany ranks 11th and Britain is

12th. Ireland is not even in the top 25.Whites are a majority in only six of thetop 25 source countries, and by no meansall of the immigrants they send are white.

Bad as it was, the 1965 act cannot takeall the blame for the rising tide of color.That law could theoretically have heldimmigration at 300,000 every year.Since then, Congress has yanked up thequotas while doing little to screen im-migrants for useful skills. In 2000, for example, the country accepted 849,807immigrants, nearly three times as manyas envisaged in 1965. Of that number,

41 percent were immediate family members of US citizens and 28 percent wererelatives of non-citizens, meaning thatno fewer than 69 percent were let in be-cause of family ties. Another eight per-cent were refugees—this is how we getSomalis, Nicaraguans, etc.—13 percentreceived employment preferences, six percent came on “diversity” visas cho-sen by lottery for people who don’t havefamily connections, and four percent gotinto the country one way or another andhad their status adjusted to get perma-nent residency.

Of course, one of the most breathtak-ingly stupid things Congress did—andthis includes the 1965 act—was the Im-migration Reform and Control Act(IRCA). This was a law passed in 1986that granted amnesty to illegals who had been in the country since before 1982and had kept their noses reasonablyclean. This was supposed to be a once-and-for-all, never-again amnesty to becombined with tough policies to keep outany more illegals. The Border Patrol was

supposed to be beefed up, and there wasto be fierce punishment for employerswho hired any more illegals that camein. In the end, no fewer than 2.6 million

law-breakers got amnesty, very few of them white, and the illegals just kept oncoming. “Employer sanctions” were a joke, and the IRS soon gave up anything but token enforcement. It was back to business as usual: Anyone who couldmake it across the border had little tofear from la Migra.

The surge in immigration initiated bythe 1965 act shows no sign of slowing. Neither the foundering economy nor theSept. 11 terrorist attacks have discour-aged newcomers: More than 3.3 millionlegal and illegal immigrants have arrived

since 2000. Immigration boosters saythis is a natural phenomenon over whichwe have no control, a byproduct of theglobal economy. Of course, it is no moreuncontrollable than the Great Wave of the late 19th and early 20th centuries,which was stopped by the quota acts of the 1920s.

Now that immigration is destroyingthe unity and cultural coherence of thecountry, it has become fashionable todescribe vice as a virtue, to claim thatethnic enclaves, schools full of childrenwho speak no English, increasing racial

conflict, voodoo cults, bilingual ballots,Mexican irredentism, interpreters in hos- pitals and courtrooms, and countless“discrimination” cases are all evidenceof wonderful enrichment and “diversity.” No one can point to just how diversityis actually benefiting the country buteveryone is convinced it is a great thing.

Jews, in particular, continue to think they are better off in a rag-bag countrywith no majority. As Charles Silbermanhas written, “American Jews are com-

mitted to cultural tolerance because of their belief—one firmly rooted in his-tory—that Jews are safe only in a soci-ety acceptant of a wide range of attitudesand behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups.” The He- brew Immigration Aid Society (HAIS)has traditionally worked to increase Jew-

ish immigration to the United States, butnow that fewer Jews are coming, it hasopened an office in Nairobi, of all places—explicitly to encourage non-Jewish immigration. As HAIS presidentLeonard Glickman recently explained tothe Jewish paper Forward , “The morediverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.” Earl Raab, president of Brandeis University, has argued that onlywhen whites are reduced to a minoritywill the United States no longer be capable of establishing an anti-Semitic, Nazi-like regime.

Recently a few Jews have begun towonder if massive Third-World immi-gration is not quite so good for them af-ter all. Stephen Steinlight, a former ex-ecutive of the American Jewish Com-mittee wrote a paper in 2001 in whichhe argued that Hispanics and Asians arenot sufficiently sensitive to Jewish in-terests, and that Muslim immigrants area clear threat. Some individual Jews havespoken out strongly against Third-Worldimmigration, but Jewish organizationsoverwhelmingly favor it. Gentile whitesgenerally resist “diversity” arguments,

and large majorities consistently tell pollsters they want fewer immigrants.

The arguments of the supporters of the quota system—that it was necessaryto maintain cultural cohesion—are nowmore obviously true than ever. In the1920s and as late as the 1950s, whitesstill had enough unspoken racial con-sciousness to pass laws in their own in-terests. They failed, however, to put thecase in clear, racial terms, and as racialconsciousness diminished, whites in the1960s were even less capable of mak-ing racial arguments, and found them-

selves disarmed in the face of appealsto “equality” and “non-discrimination.”

Our nation achieved character andgreatness precisely because of discrimi-nation. Our ancestors understood that people and races are not interchange-able, and that failure to discriminatewould produce a warring mix of incom- petents and unassimilables. If we are notto lose our country, it is up to us onceagain to make racial principles an ex- plicit part of the national debate. Unless

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

10.3

13.5 13.9 14.2

11.610.3 9.7 9.6

14.1

19.8

31.1

35

N u m b e r o f I m m i g r a n t s ( i n m i l l i o n s )

2002

33.1

30

25

20

15

10

5

Immigrant Population: 1900-2002




“conservatism” is rescued from thecapitulationist spirit of compromise

piled on top of compromise, our grand-children will not have a country worth

A King Among MenFrank Miele, Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations With Arthur R. Jensen ,

Westview Press, 2002, 243 pp. $26.00.

The mind of the great sci-entist.

reviewed by Jared Taylor

Probably no man in the 20th cen-tury has contributed more to thestudy of human intelligence than

Arthur Jensen—and probably no scien-tist has been more hated for it. Were hiscontributions in any other field, Prof.Jensen, emeritus of U.C. Berkeley,would have received every scientificaward and honor. Instead, by demon-strating the unitary and hereditary natureof intelligence and the genetic originsof racial differences in mental ability, hehas been viciously attacked by the igno-rant, while earning the mostly privateadmiration of specialists. Ever the de-tached scientist, Prof. Jensen has never let personal or political considerationsaffect his work, and has rarely revealedmuch about his private life. This collec-tion of conversations with journalistFrank Miele clearly summarizes his most

important scientific ideas, but for read-ers who are generally familiar with re-cent findings on intelligence, the best part of this book is the glimpse it offersof Arthur Jensen himself.

Prof. Jensen’s paternal grandparentswere Danes who immigrated fromCopenhagen. His maternal grandfather was a German, who dismayed his fam-ily by marrying a Polish Jew. Born inCalifornia in 1923, Arthur Jensen grewup as a quiet boy, who read a great dealand showed no interest in team sports.He was a precociously accomplished

student of the clarinet, and played withthe San Diego Symphony for a year when he was only 17. He graduated fromU.C. Berkeley in 1945, and worked as ahigh school biology teacher and orches-tra conductor before going on to Colum- bia in 1952 to study educational andclinical psychology. He liked to auditcourses outside his field, and remembersMargaret Mead’s energy and “boundlessenthusiasm:” “Her lectures were im-mensely colorful and entertaining,” he

says, “and it was clear that she thor-oughly enjoyed her showmanship.”Even then, he recalls, many were skep-tical of her zeal for the “blank slate” viewof human nature (see last month’s reviewof The Blank Slate), and his psychology professors warned him that she knewnothing about psychology.

After earning his Ph.D., the youngscholar spent the years 1956 to 1958working in Hans Eysenck’s laboratoryin London. This was his first exposureto the London School of psychology, inwhich Prof. Eysenck carried on the empirical tradition of the great British pio-neers, Francis Galton and Charles

Spearman. It was a turning point in Prof.Jensen’s career: “Eysenck was a kind of genius,” he says, “or at least a person of very unusual talents, and the only per-son of that unusual caliber that I havecome across in the field of psychology.I got perhaps as much as 90 percent of my attitudes about psychology and sci-ence from Eysenck. The three years I

spent in his department have been a last-ing source of inspiration.”

Eysenck was among the first post-war psychologists to study racial differencesin IQ. In London, Prof. Jensen also at-tended a lecture by Sir Cyril Burt, onhis pioneering work on the heritabilityof intelligence and the genetic originsof group differences. He says Burt’s“was the best lecture I had ever at-tended,” and found Burt “a brilliant andimpressive man.”

Still, Prof. Jensen did not abandon hisconventional beliefs in the power of en-vironment to raise or lower intelligence,and went on to publish 30 papers and build a non-controversial reputation be-fore he finally concluded that Eysenck and Burt were right. In 1969 he shockedthe country with his famous Harvard

Educational Review article, “How MuchCan We Boost IQ and ScholasticAchievement?” This 123-page paper,which demolished the view that proper instruction could raise children’s IQs,may have been the most sensationalscholarly article ever published inAmerica. Although only five percent of it was about racial differences in intelli-gence—which Prof. Jensen concludedhad a substantial genetic component— it was enough to make him a pariah anda household name.

Frank Miele’s book does not dwell onthe insults, death threats, and mob ac-tions that “Jensenism” provoked, and thetarget of this hostility is admirably philo-sophical about it. Mr. Miele says Prof.Jensen bears no grudges, and there seemto be two sources of his equanimity inthe face of attacks that would have si-

lenced lesser men. One is the capacityto endure what Prof. Jensen calls “strongdisapproval.” “I myself don’t like it,” hesays, “but I sometimes wonder why Iseem to tolerate it. I believe one has tohave relatively little need to be liked. Isuppose it’s a kind of eccentricity to bewilling to risk strong disapproval.”

The other source of Prof. Jensen’scalm appears to be the inspiration hefinds in his chief role model. “MahatmaGandhi has been my number-one hero

The best part of this book is the glimpse it offers of Arthur Jensen himself.

conserving. If our generation fails tosave the country it will be too late. ΩΩΩΩΩ




since I was 14 years old,” he says, add-ing that Gandhi was “one of the few people I know of who lived nearly hiswhole adult life by principle, entirely by principle. . . . He is the one who firstcomes to mind whenever I feel puzzledas to the right course of action.”

The right course has been a stance not

unlike that of Thomas Jefferson, who isquoted under the American Renaissancenameplate. As Prof. Jensen puts it: “Oneof the tenets of my own philosophy is to be as open as possible and to strive for a perfect consistency between mythoughts, both spoken and published, intheir private and public expression. Thisis essentially a Gandhian principle, onethat I have long considered worth striv-ing to live by.”

The trouble with Prof. Jensen’s ad-mirable public/private consistency is thathe has reached such unfashionable con-

clusions. He refuses to think something just because others do. “If anything, myattitudes are based on a rather lifelongantipathy to believing anything withoutevidence,” he says, noting that he was“more or less kicked out of Sundayschool” because he did not see enoughevidence for the things he was told to believe. His life would have been vastlyeasier if he had, like many scientists,shaded his findings or simply stayedaway from race, but this was not his way.“I have only contempt for people wholet their politics or religion influence

their science,” he says. Group differ-ences are an important aspect of thestudy of intelligence, and to dodge therace question would have been, for him,an act of intellectual cowardice.

Now, after nearly 35 years of researchfollowing the Harvard Educational Re-view article, Prof. Jensen’s position isstronger than ever (for a review of hismagesterial The g Factor , see AR, Sept.1998). He says that since the appearanceof his famous article, he has becomeeven more convinced that education andsocial milieu have little effect on IQ, and

that it is almost misleading to talk about“environmental” influences on intelli-gence:

“I prefer the terms ‘genetic influ-ences’ and ‘nongenetic influences’ be-cause so many people think environmentmeans just the psychological, social, andcultural milieu in which a person growsup. These nongenetic influences beginvirtually at the moment of conception.They have direct effects on the brain’sdevelopment and are probably the most

important of all environmental effects on g [general cognitive ability—see below].They include intrauterine conditions re-lated to the mother’s age, health, and blood type; incompatibility betweenmother and fetus; nutrition; certain medi-cations; and substance abuse. Then thereare perinatal conditions such as anoxia,

birth trauma, and extreme prematurity.And also post-natal conditions—mainlyearly nutrition and the various childhooddiseases.”

Elsewhere, Prof. Jensen refers tothese as the “biological microenviron-ment,” adding that “these microenviron-mental effects may contribute as muchas 20 to 25 percent of the total variance

in IQ in the population.” Prof. Jensensuspects that improvements in health,nutrition, and child delivery explain agood part of what is known as the Lynn-Flynn effect: “The reduced occurrenceof . . . unfavorable microenvironmentalelements in the industrialized countriesis probably one of the causes of thegradual rise in mental test scores in thesecountries during the last 60 or 70 years.”

In Prof. Jensen’s view, the home or social environment may influence what

field a person may enter, and what hedoes with his intelligence, but they havelittle effect on intelligence itself. He points out that the IQ correlation be-tween adopted children reared together is a modest 0.3, but that the correlationdrops to nearly zero by late adolescence.After the early years, shared home and

parents seem to have no effect.Intelligence can now be determined by direct physiological assessment of the brain. People differ in the rates at whichtheir brains consume glucose, and in thecomplexity and shape of their brainwaves. Tests of this kind are as good aswritten IQ tests, and it is hard to imag-ine how the social environment could in-fluence such things as glucose uptakerates.

People who believe in the power of environment over intelligence shouldexpect a deaf child, who has heard noth-

ing his entire life, to be severely afflicted.In fact, children born deaf perform nor-mally on non-verbal intelligence tests.

Another fashionable notion Prof.Jensen dismisses is the idea that race isa “social construct.” He points out thatalthough there are very few instances of genetic variations unique to a particular population, strong group tendencies atmany different genetic locations add upto consistent racial differences. Thesedifferences are more than skin deep:“Given the fact that as many as 50 per-cent of the genes in the human genome

are involved with the structural and func-tional aspects of the brain, it would besurprising indeed if populations that dif-fer in a great many visible characteris-tics and in various genetic polymor- phisms [different forms of the samegene] did not also differ in some char-acteristics associated with the brain, the primary organ of behavior.”

As Prof. Jensen points out, in nature,when animals differ in form and appear-ance, they differ in behavior, and thereis no reason to think humans are any dif-ferent. He notes that Robert Plomin of

England has already identified four genes, or DNA segments, that affect IQ.As more are discovered, it is extremelyunlikely that the different forms of thesegenes will be distributed equally amongall races.

Although some psychometricians stillargue that environment accounts for ra-cial differences in IQ, there is essentiallyunanimity on the view that a person’s in-telligence is largely fixed at birth. “Thefact that g is more strongly genetic than




most other psychological variables is notreally controversial among empirical re-searchers in this field,” says Prof. Jensen.“It is highly controversial only in the popular media. Just try to find any realcontroversy among the experts whoknow the research on this issue.”

Indeed, on Nov. 26, 1998, Intelli-

gence, the premier journal in the fieldof IQ research, published an entire is-sue of tributes to Prof. Jensen under thegeneral title: “A King Among Men:Arthur Jensen.” Even when it comes toracial differences, he can find no one inthe field willing to debate him seriously. Non-genetic arguments simply do nothold up: “The purely environmental or ‘culture-only’ theory . . . has had to fall back on a series of ad hoc hypotheses.They lack any underlying theoretical basis and are often inconsistent with eachother, since each one was invented to

explain some single phenomenon.”This does not mean the “culture-only”

theory is dead, only that it should be.“Undergraduate psychology textbooksare misinforming hundreds of thousandsof college students on this subject everyyear,” says Prof. Jensen. “It almost sick-ens me even to thumb through most of the introductory psychology books pub-lished in recent years.”

Although he is notorious for his find-ings on race, what may be Prof. Jensen’smost important scientific contributionshave been his work on the nature of in-

telligence. No one else has so carefullydemonstrated the reality of a concept thatearlier researchers like Charles Spear-man suspected but could never prove:the unitary nature of intelligence, or thedependence of virtually all cognitiveabilities on a single underlying abilityknown as the g factor. If we can imagineseparate factories in the mind, turningout spatial or numerical or verbal or other kinds of insights, g , or the “gen-eral” factor, can be thought of as thecommon source of power for these fac-tories. The different factories vary in

efficiency from person to person, and people have different areas of strengthand weakness, but it is differences in thelevel of g that best explain individualdifferences in mental ability. This is why,with the exception of very unusual people like idiot savants, those who aregood in one subject in school are usu-ally good in all of them.

There are theories of “multiple intel-ligences,” according to which there aremany discreet abilities independent of

each other. Liberals like this idea be-cause they pretend to believe all peopleare equally gifted, but just not in exactlythe same ways. As Prof. Jensen explains, the evidence for separate,unrelated intelligences is very thin:“Even though many attempts have been made to devise tests of mental

ability that have zero or negative cor-relations with each other, no one yethas succeeded. It appears that zeroand nonpositive correlations amongability tests are the psychometricequivalent of perpetual motion in physics—you can imagine them butyou can never demonstrate them inthe real world.”

Politics

In an age when anyone who canmanage to get to a microphone

seems to think he is competent tospout opinions on anything, Prof. Jensenis unusually humble: “I myself don’t feelinclined or properly qualified to think through what others may consider the‘politics’ of my work.” Elsewhere, headds, “My aim in this is to produce goodscience, as best I can, not to change theworld or push any social or political pro-gram.” Also: “The acquisition of factualknowledge should stand apart from policy. But to be effective, policy mak-ing must take into account our best fac-tual knowledge about the alternatives

under consideration.”The problem, of course, is that most

policy-makers ignore facts that runcounter to prevailing orthodoxy, and will

not take positions that displease the me-dia. As Prof. Jensen puts it: “Too many politicians take research results less se-riously than purely political consider-ations. The popular media seldom helpeither, as they are also more politicallythan scientifically oriented.”

He credits his opponents with goodintentions, but points out that “good in-tentions must be backed up by evidencethat the prescribed means for achieving

them actually work.” Many scholarsknow perfectly well that uplift programswill not work, but they remain silent.

Prof. Jensen is too much a gentleman tocall anyone a coward, but he does saythis: “Most academicians, of coursespeak up on controversial issues onlyafter they are no longer controversial. If it weren’t so disheartening, it would beamusing to see so many of them run for cover when threatened by ideologicalcriticism.”

Not surprisingly, on any controversialsubject, the number of people willing totake a position is much less important

than the scientific findings: “The idea of consensus is not very meaningful or important in science, especially at the fron-tiers of knowledge. At first, a consensusis nearly always opposed to any innova-tion.” For Prof. Jensen, good science al-ways comes first: “Whether I’m right or wrong in any particular instance isn’t thereally important thing. What is impor-tant is that scientific research on thesematters should be encouraged and al-lowed to advance unfettered.” Needlessto say, on a host of topics, not just scien-tific but historical, we have nothing like

“unfettered” research.Prof. Jensen reports that no fewer than

eight publishers turned down his mostsignificant contribution to science, Theg Factor . This is a book any publisher should have been delighted to sponsor, but fear of prevailing taboos nearly keptit from being published at all.

Despite his general unwillingness todiscuss “politics,” interviewer Frank Miele did manage to draw out Prof.Jensen on a few controversial subjects:

“No First World countrycan expect to have anopen border with a

Third World countrywithout serious risk to its

own economy andquality of life.”

Prof. Jensen’s hero.




waiting for an organ transplant, whichmeans two American probably died be-cause Miss Santillan got the organs theydidn’t. Now that the parents are widelyknown to be here illegally, will the fedsdo their job and show them the door?[Michelle Malkin, Rolling Up the Medi-cal Welcome Mat, WorldNetDaily.com,

Feb. 21, 2003. Rob Stein, Teenage Girlin Botched Organ Transplant Dies,Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2003, p. A1.]

The contrast to the case of ErnstZundel could not be greater. Mr. Zundelis a German citizen, married to anAmerican. He is notorious in Canada,where he used to live, because he claimsthe Nazis killed far fewer than six mil-lion Jews. On Feb. 5, three INS agentsand two local policemen arrested him athis house in East Tennessee. Mr. Zundelwas in the United States legally, but— though the details are a little murky—

he is said to have missed a hearing of some kind, and the INS says it will banhim from the United States for 20 years.For a 63-year-old man, this is close to permanent expulsion. At one point itseemed likely Mr. Zundel would be ex- pelled to Germany, where he could facefive years in prison for “inciting hatred,”something that is fortunately not yet acrime in the United States. Now, it appears he will be shipped to Canada,where he still has permanent residencyrights.

With an estimated seven to thirteen

million illegal aliens in the country, whyis the INS expelling the legal residentspouse of an American citizen becauseof what appears to be a minor technical-ity? Although the First Amendment, for now, means we do not officially havethought crimes in this country, this kindof selective law enforcement certainlysuggests our rulers believe in them in principle.

Organized Crime

Carole Joy is likely to get an organ

transplant, just like Jesica Santillan. Sheis a convicted murderer doing time inthe Nebraska pen, who destroyed her liver with alcohol and heroin. Accord-ing to a 1976 US Supreme Court ruling, prisoners are eligible for transplants justlike the rest of us, and Miss Joy has beenconditionally approved to go on the listof 17,300 people nationwide waiting for new livers. Apparently she must loseweight and control her diabetes better in order to become the perfect candidate

for the $200,000 operation. Miss Joywould not be the first yard bird to get anew organ. A 32-year old California in-mate got a new heart but died last De-cember, 11 months after the operation.In 1999, a convicted murder who haddone his time got a new heart, but hassince been charged with several crimes,

including possession of child pornogra- phy. [Convicted Killer Still Sparks Con-troversy Over Transplant, AP, Feb. 22,2003.]

African Heroes

The Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950sagainst British rule in Kenya was one of the bloodiest uprisings against colonialrule in Africa. A Kikuyu tribesmannamed Dedan Kimathi led the revolt,which succeeded in killing 32 white set-tlers and 100 British soldiers. Kimathi

and 500 followers managed to elude cap-

ture for more than a year before the Brit-ish finally caught and executed him.

Kimathi had no mercy for blacks whowould not join his uprising, and killedfar more Africans than whites. Once hismen cut in half the young son of a chief who would not join, and drank his blood.Then they threw the two halves of his body at the boy’s mother and killed her.They hacked to death hundreds of oth-

ers who would not fight the British.The Mau Mau specialized in horrible

initiation rites. Recruits were made todrink human blood, semen or urine, andin some cases were ordered to eat hu-man brains, sometimes of their own rela-tives. Others had to eat the flesh of mur-dered babies.

Mau Mau fighters were best knownin the West for murdering whites, espe-cially after they attacked a doctor whoran a clinic for Africans, and hacked her

to death along with her husband and six-year-old son. Gray Leakey, great-uncleof the white Kenyan politician and con-servationist Richard Leakey, was another victim. His captors buried him alive af-ter eating some of his (unspecified) ex-tremities. His own supporters finally hadenough of Kimathi’s torture and murder

of fellow Africans, and betrayed him tothe British. A black African jury con-victed him, and he was buried in a massgrave with other Mau Mau leaders.

The new Kenyan government of Mwai Kibaki that won power in Decem- ber has announced it will exhumeKimathi’s body and give him a state fu-neral. It also plans to honor other MauMau “heroes” whom it considers free-dom fighters. White Kenyans asked theBritish government to denounce these plans, but that was silly. “We wouldn’ttake a stand one way or another,” says a

British High Commission spokesman.[Adrian Blomfield, Honour for MauMau Leader Who Ate Victims, Tele-graph (London), Feb. 13, 2003.]

Eenie, meenie, minie,dough

Two years ago, Grace Fuller andLouise Sawyer, both black, were aboutto fly out of Las Vegas on SouthwestAirlines, when a flight attendant got onthe intercom to ask passengers to sitdown. “Eenie, meenie, minie, moe; pick

a seat, we gotta go,” said Jennifer Cundiff, who is white. The second lineis usually “catch a tiger by the toe,” butMiss Fuller and Miss Sawyer said therhyme was directed at them, since anolder version was “catch a nigger by thetoe.” They say passengers laughed— they think at them—as if blacks were toostupid to find a seat.

The women have sued for damagesin the US District Court in Kansas City,where Judge Kathryn Vratil has, amaz-ingly, granted a trial date in March. “Thecourt agrees with plaintiffs that because

of its history, the phrase ‘eenie, meenie,minie, moe’ could reasonably be viewedas objectively racist and offensive,” shewrote. Miss Cundiff, who was 22 at thetime she recited the lines, says she hadnever heard the “nigger” version, andthat she learned the rhyme from a co-worker who used it to encourage pas-sengers to find seats, since Southwestdoes not have assigned seating. Besidesmoney, the women want Southwest to promise never to use the rhyme again,

Kenyan hero, Dedan Kimathi.




and to train their employees in racialsensitivity. [Trial Set in Southwest Rac-ist Rhyme Suit, AP, Feb. 10, 2003.]

Family Affair

Last August, a woman from Mastic, New York, showed up at the Poospatuck

Indian reservation, also in Mastic, look-ing for crack cocaine. She had with her only a pair of stolen boxer shorts andher 15-year-old granddaughter. Thewoman, whose name was withheld andrace not specified, found a drug dealer known as “Jo-Jo,” and asked if he wouldtake the shorts for some crack. He saidno. She asked for credit and again he saidno, but said he thought the granddaugh-ter looked “cute.” The woman agreed torent her granddaughter out, and after getting the crack, shoved her towards Jo-Jo and told her to “give him a kiss.” Jo-

Jo took her about ten yards away, andraped and sodomized her, as shescreamed for help. Afterwards, her grandmother made her urinate, in thehope of washing away DNA evidenceof the rape, and took her home andscrubbed her in the shower. The womanhas a long history of theft and drug prob-lems, and had just moved in with her daughter and granddaughter. She has been arrested and could face 25 years in prison. [Andrew Smith, Girl Raped inDrug Deal, New York Post, Feb. 1,2003.]

Respecting the Natives

Australian Aborigines have their ownrules for conjugal relations that whitecourts used to ignore but are now re-specting as multiculturalism requires.For example, it is common for older Abos to pay for future delivery of younggirls as soon as they are born. This prac-tice recently came to light when JackieJamilmira claimed a 15-year-old girl onwhom he had been making regular pay-ments, took her home and raped her.

He was tried and sentenced for un-lawful sexual intercourse, but an appeals judge said Aboriginal custom should prevail, and reduced the sentence to oneday. As Mr. Jamilmira’s lawyer explained, “The behavior complained of by the white community is not recog-nized in this community as unlawful con-duct. Rather it is viewed as appropriateand morally correct.” Aborigines do notrecognize underage sex or marital rapeas crimes.

Judge John Gallop agreed that Mr.Jamilmira was simply exercising conju-gal rights Abos have recognized for cen-turies, that the girl “knew what was expected of her,” and did not need the pro-

tection of the white man’s law. The girlherself may think otherwise. She said Mr.Jamilmira beat her, and that when shetried to escape he fired a shotgun into

the air. She is now in hiding. [KathyMarks, Aborigine Insists Tribal LawGives Right to Underage Sex, Indepen-dent (London), Feb. 22, 2003.]

Another Hoax

Nicholas and Tracey Gatlin are a black couple who used to live in a housein Timber Valley in Harris County,Texas. They set fire to the house in De-cember to collect $120,000 in insurancemoney, painted insulting graffiti on theruins, and blamed “racists.” Arson in-

spectors were immediately suspiciouswhen they found the Gatlins had movedall their possessions out of the house before the fire, but included them in theinsurance claim. The couple face up tolife in prison if they are convicted of in-surance fraud and arson. [Darren Lyn,Couple Allegedly Torch Their Home,Then Say it Was Hate Crime, ABC13Eyewitenss News (Houston, Texas), Jan.30, 2003.]

The ‘Ugly’ Truth

AR editor Jared Taylor appeared onMSNBC’s Phil Donahue program Jan.22 and Feb. 10, to talk about race. Anold-style 1970s liberal, Mr. Donahueappeared shocked that a person like Mr.Taylor could even exist, much less ar-ticulate and defend white interests. His“anti-racist” arguments were clichés.

There were the usual attempts to am- bush Mr. Taylor with “racist” quotationsfrom American Renaissance , all but oneof which Mr. Taylor defended and en-

dorsed. The one exception was the fol-lowing, which Mr. Donahue read as anexample of AR’s mean-spiritedness.“Ugly Mexicans and ugly Haitians comehere to live permanently, but we are supposed to be endlessly sensitive to their peculiarities . . . .”

Mr. Taylor replied that he did not re-

call calling immigrants “ugly,” but if thatwas what was in AR, it must have beenwhat he wrote. In fact, the context givesthe sentence a very different meaning:

“There used to be much talk about‘ugly Americans,’ who traveled overseasexpecting to find hamburgers and En-glish-speakers, and who ignorantly dep-recated the quaint customs of the natives.We were supposed to be deeply ashamedof them—and they were only tourists!‘Ugly Mexicans’ and ‘ugly Haitians’come here to live permanently, but weare supposed to be endlessly sensitive

to their peculiarities, and revel in thediversity of toadying to their ethnic de-mands.” (AR, June 1996.)

The quotation marks around “uglyMexicans” and “ugly Haitians” were, of course, inaudible when Mr. Donahueread the passage, and it is hard to think this was anything other than an attemptto give a false impression. Mr. Taylor has published at least a million words, but liberals apparently have to distortthem to find something shocking or un-reasonable.

For the Feb. 10 appearance, Mr. Tay-

lor was the only guest for the entire hour.Afterwards, the producers said Mr. Tay-lor had attracted a large number of view-ers, and an unusual amount of viewer response—much of it positive. TheDonahue staff was frankly surprised bythe strong support for Mr. Taylor. AR itself has been swamped with enthusias-tic reactions and comments. We have hada sharp rise in subscriptions, and canhardly keep up with the e-mail. The re-sponse is proof, once again, that manywhites have healthy, common-senseviews about race, and are only waiting

for leadership.Incorrigible liberal though he is, we

were sorry to learn that MSNBC discon-tinued Mr. Donahue’s program on Feb.22. Although Mr. Taylor has been onmany television programs, he never be-fore had a national audience for a fullhour. This may have been only a des- perate attempt to boost Mr. Donahue’sratings and save a struggling program, but whatever the motive, it was an ex-cellent opportunity.




Transcripts of both programs are onour web page at www.AmRen.com.

Sink or Swim

Because the city of North Miami,Florida, is close to the Atlantic, its po-lice department requires that new re-

cruits be proficient swimmers. CityCouncilman Jacques Despinosse thinksthis is unfair to blacks. “We can’t swim,”complains the Haitian councilman;“Most of us didn’t come here on theMayflower; we came on slave ships,” asif that explained anything. He says therequirement also keeps black officersfrom other departments from joining the North Miami police. Police Chief Gwendolyn Boyd-Savage, who is also black, has no plans to change the require-ment. She says most rejects fail writtenexams or background checks, and that

the department will arrange lessons for otherwise promising recruits who can-not swim. [David Ovalle, SwimmingRequirement Called Unfair, Herald (Mi-ami), Feb. 17, 2003, p. 3B.]

Relocation Echoes

During an appearance on a Greens- boro radio program on Feb. 3, Rep.Howard Coble (R-NC) said he did notthink it was necessary to round up Ar-abs in the wake of the Sept 11 attacks, but said he agreed with President

Roosevelt’s Japanese relocation pro-gram. “We were at war,” he said; “Some probably were intent on doing harm tous.” He also said the camps kept Japa-nese away from angry Americans whomight have attacked them.

Japanese and Arab activists are in adither. Ed Nakawatase of Asian Ameri-cans United, who was born in a reloca-tion camp, says Mr. Coble is falsifyinghistory. The Japanese American CitizensLeague wants Mr. Coble to apologize,and resign as chairman of the House Ju-diciary subcommittee on crime, terror-

ism, and homeland security. Tawfik Barqawi, head of the Burlington County, New Jersey, human relations committee,says Mr. Coble owes both Japanese andArabs an apology. [Remarks by 2 NCLawmakers Upset Arabs, Japanese, AP,Feb. 7, 2003]

Rep. Michael M. Honda (D-CA), wholived in a relocation center during thewar, wants Republican leaders to con-demn the remarks, and calls their silence“outrageous.” Mr. Coble’s spokesman

Missy Branson says the congressman issorry if he offended anybody, but standsfast on his original view on relocation.[Wendy Thermos, Honda Seeks GOPAction over Remarks on Internment, LosAngeles Times, Feb. 16, 2003.]

Other Democrats are calling for anannual National Day of Remembrance

to commemorate the victims of reloca-tion. Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington saysAmerica needs a new holiday “becausewe as a nation temporarily forgot thevalues of liberty and succumbed to the power of fear.” [Inslee Disputes Claimthat WWII Internment Was ‘A GoodIdea,’ The Sun (Bremerton, Wash.), Feb.11, 2003.]

Shortly after Mr. Coble’s remarkswere first reported, AR sent his office acopy of the article on relocation thatappeared in our January issue. The con-gressman read the article, and tele-

phoned personally to tell us how usefulhe had found it.

Snipe Hunt

For more than 30 years Americanuniversities have been trying to foster “diversity,” but as a recent article in the

New York Times concedes, race relationshave not improved: “Decades after col-leges and universities across the coun-try began actively recruiting minoritystudents, many campuses are more di-verse than ever. But that does not mean

that students connect across racial andethnic lines.”

By the 1980s, colleges had begun tolay on deans for diversity, ethnic studiescourses, and even racial and ethnic “af-finity houses” where non-whites could bask in homogeneity, and take a break from whites. But still the races don’t mix,and non-whites invariably claim they are“devalued” on campus.

What to do? At Dartmouth, in NewHampshire, the answer is to spend mil-

lions of dollars trying to get students to“connect.” Freshman orientation used tomean hiking up mountains or campingon the Appalachian Trail. Now it meansa series of diversity pep talks, beginningwith the welcoming address by univer-sity president, James Wright. Dartmouthrequires all non-teaching staff to take

diversity training, and recommends it for students and faculty. According to theTimes, “Training for staff members in-cludes workshops in which they areasked to think of Dartmouth in terms of classism, racism and sexism, and thento make recommendations for improve-ments. They are also told to find waysto incorporate those suggestions intotheir own lives.” Students are subjectedto lectures from non-whites who tellthem all the things to which whitesshould be sensitive.

Even the Times recognizes all this

could be a wild goose chase: “No onehas a formula for success; there is noteven a consensus about what successwould look like. Experts say that diver-sity programs on college campusesamount to a constantly evolving experi-ment, which in some cases in the pastmay have done more harm than good.”

Predictably, it takes a non-white to point out just how much rubbish this allis. “Racial diversity, which has been anobsession of the administration, has beenmisguided,” said Chien Wen Kung, 21,a junior from Singapore. “My opinion

is that Dartmouth should be focusing onintellectual diversity.” [Sara Rimer, Col-leges Find Diversity Is Not Just Num- bers, New York Times, Nov. 12, 2002.]

Bad Substitute

David Franklin, 21, used to be a sub-stitute teacher at Horizons AlternativeSchool, a special middle school for re-fractory children in Fort Worth, Texas.According to police, on Jan. 23, Mr.Franklin, who is black, walked into hisclassroom and found two boys playing

with a 14-year-old girl “in a sexual man-ner.” Rather than stop the boys, Mr.Franklin reportedly turned off the lightsand computer monitors and raped thegirl, while six boys watched. Two boysalso assaulted the girl. “It was so incred-ible, we really had to make ourselves tryto believe the details,” says Fort WorthPolice Sgt. Dave Stamp. “Not only didhe not stop the action that was going on,he basically joined in.” Police arrestedMr. Franklin on Jan. 31, and released

Dartmouth




him on a $75,000 bond. His mother sayshe told her he’s innocent. The two boyswill also be charged. [Teacher Accusedof Raping Girl in Class, AP, Feb. 2,2003. MSNBC.com, Teacher In CustodyAccused Of School Rape, January 31,2003.]

UNAACPThe United Nations is getting ready

to recognize the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP) as an official non-governmen-tal agency (NGO). Once so designatedthe NAACP gains “consultative status”with the United Nations Economic andSocial Council (UNESCO), whichwould let it propose agenda items andmake presentations at UN meetings.Under the leadership of former congress-man Kweisi Mfume, the NAACP has

emphasized international concerns. Itmonitored the recent elections in Zim- babwe, and is planning a conference onthe Caribbean and the Americas later thisyear. Mr. Mfume recently met FidelCastro of Cuba to promote human rightsand trade. Percy Hintzen, chairman of the African American studies depart-ment at the University of California atBerkeley, says the NAACP may be shift-ing its focus to international affairs inorder to remain “relevant.” [DeborahKong, NAACP Aspires to Global Role,AP, Feb. 1, 2003.]

INS RIP

On March 1, 2003, the US Immigra-tion and Naturalization Service ceasedto exist. Taking its place within the newDepartment of Homeland security are

two new federal agencies: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, whichwill enforce immigration law, and the

Bureau of Citizenship and ImmigrationServices, which will issue visas and natu-ralize new citizens.

One man who will fortunately not be part of the new INS is Kenneth Elwood,former chief of the Philadelphia district,who retired on Jan. 3. Mr. Elwood is alltoo typical of the people who are sup-

posed to be guarding our border. He began his career in the enforcement arm, but soon moved to services. “Enforce-ment . . . hardens you,” he says. “You begin to think they’re [illegals] all law- breakers, but most people are doing itfor good reasons. Out of a half-millionillegals every year, very few are here todo something bad.”

“People all over the world can look to America and see themselves,” headds. “Somebody from every national-ity, whether Somali or French or Rus-sian, can see images of themselves in

America. That’s such a great advantagefor the United States.” After the Sept.11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Elwood opposedthe government’s efforts to detain Mus-lims. “I pulled everybody together andsaid I’m not going down in history likethe person who locked up all the Japa-nese after Pearl Harbor,” he says. Mr.Elwood thinks red tape and xenophobic politics made the old INS fail in its mis-sion, which he believes is to bring inmore workers. “The economy is the 900- pound gorilla; it’s going to get what itwants, no matter what we do.” [Thomas

Ginsberg, Departing INS Chief Leery of Changes Facing Agency, PhiladelphiaInquirer, Jan. 5, 2003.]

Cable News for Blacks

Black-owned Atlanta-based Major Broadcasting Cable Network (MBC),known for televising sports at black col-leges, plans to launch a 24-hour cablenews network for blacks. MBC News:The Urban Voice will be modeled onCNN’s Headline News, and MBC hashired black former CNN anchor Gordon

Graham as a host. The decision comesafter Black Entertainment Television(BET) decided to cut back public affairs programming. Last December, BET can-celled the interview show “BET To-night,” on which Sen. Trent Lott apolo-gized for praising Strom Thurmond.BET also cancelled its Sunday morningnews, and a program for teenagers.

BET president Debra Lee doubts anall-news cable channel for blacks willsucceed. She says blacks say they like

news programs, but don’t necessarilywatch them. She also doubts MBC hasenough money to succeed. Fewer than aquarter of American households getMBC. It is unavailable in New York, butis in Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit,Houston and Los Angeles. [DavidBauder, Black News Channel in the

Works, AP, Feb. 12, 2003.]

‘Call to Arms!’

Chris Simcox a former Los Angelesschoolteacher, is now editor and pub-lisher of the Tombstone, Arizona, Tum-bleweed . On a vacation in the Arizonadesert after the Sept. 11 attacks, he sayshe came across five separate organized paramilitary groups running drugs.“These were highly organized groups,”he says; “three vehicles, with the cam-ouflage-wearing troops escorting the

vehicles on both sides in columns andcarrying automatic weapons—AKs,mini-14s, the whole works.”

Mr. Simcox called the Border Patrol,only to be told that they knew all aboutit, but could do nothing. He also learnedthat the Park Service has listed thearea—Organ Pipe National Monu-ment—as the most dangerous national park because of Mexican smugglers.“That,” he explains, “was when I real-ized something was really wrong. We’reunder attack but we leave the borderswide open. People are coming across in

thousands, even as organized militaryunits, and there’s nothing we can doabout it—there’s no way of knowing if these people illegally crossing our bor-ders are terrorists. That’s when it oc-curred to me that I own a paper, and Ithought, ‘Wow, if the rest of the countrywon’t print what is going on out here, atleast I can.’ ”

In October 2002, Mr. Simcox ran anow-famous headline: “Enough isEnough! A Public Call to Arms! Citi-zens Border Patrol Militia Now Form-ing!” When responses poured in, he es-

tablished the Civil Homeland Defense,to run regular patrols: “We are merely putting bodies on the border, acting as a presence, trying to create a deterrent tothose who are trying to cross the border illegally. Off the record, the U.S. Bor-der Patrol—the guys on the ground— will tell you that they appreciate our help.” Members of the militia are notrequired to carry weapons, but must havea concealed carry permit, which meansthey have passed a background check.

Now a collectors’ item.



2002 AR Conference speaker GlennSpencer also runs a civilian border watch. His group, American Border Pa-trol, uses high-tech surveillance equip-ment to locate and monitor “suspected border intruders” (SBIs). He posts theinformation on his website, www.americanborderpatrol.com: “All any Ameri-

can has to do is log on to our website tosee what is happening along this border in real time,” he says; “People will beamazed.” “When we find a group of SBIs we tell them this is the UnitedStates of America, they have been reported to the Border Patrol and pleasewait here. They usually just sit down. If they take off we do not attempt to stopthem. If they run, they run.”

Americans living along the border saythe region is increasingly violent. Theysay drug smugglers have threatenedthem and their families, and they will not

walk their property unarmed. They wanttroops on the border.

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO)is the most outspoken politician back-ing military patrols, but his is a lonelyvoice. Homeland Security SecretaryThomas Ridge says “cultural and politi-cal reasons” prevent use of troops. As aresult, says Rep. Tancredo, “Somethingvery ugly is going to happen down there.. . . We don’t even fight fires at night insome places down there because of thefear of the drug smugglers. It sounds un- believable, but it is true, so the cynicism

about elected officials not wanting to doanything about the illegal-alien problemis totally warranted.” [Kelly PatriciaO’Meara, Civilians Patrolling the Bor-der, Insight, Jan. 20, 2003.]

Armando Lopez Nogales, governor of the Mexican state of Sonora, wants Ari-zona Governor Jane Hull to put downthe Citizens Border Patrol Militia, andsays he will ask the US government tostop other militias from “hunting” ille-gal Mexicans. “We want to address re-spect for the rights of our countrymen,”he says. [Mexico Governor to Ask US

to Stop Vigilantes ‘Hunting’ Immigrants,TheNewsMexico.com, Nov. 20, 2002.]

Madness in Malawi

We reproduce the following newspa- per story verbatim and in toto:

MALAWI —Horrifying stories of vampires attacking villagers in the dead of night and sucking their blood haveforced Malawi’s government to wage amassive public relations blitz to calm the

public. Last week, frightened villagers beat to death a man suspected of being avampire, attacked and nearly lynchedthree visiting priests and destroyed anaid group’s encampment they feared wasthe vampires’ headquarters. [VillagersSuddenly Afraid of Vampires, Santa Bar- bara News-Press, Dec. 23, 2002.]

Straw Man

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary inTony Blair’s Labour government, saysmany of today’s worst international problems are Britain’s fault. “A lot of the problems that we are having to dealwith now—I have to deal with now— are a consequence of our colonial past,”he says. In an interview given to NewStatesman, he says that in India and Pa-

kistan “we made some quite serious mis-takes; bad story for us. . . . The conse-quences [disputes between the two coun-tries] are still there.” In Afghanistan,Britain “played less than a glorious roleover a century and a half.” Iraq is a prob-lem partly because “the odd lines for Iraq’s borders were drawn by Brits.”Britain’s role in bringing about the Arab-Israeli dispute was “not entirely an hon-orable one.” As for Zimbabwe, he sayshis “huge arguments” with RobertMugabe are over democracy and good

governance. Presumably killing whitesand running them off the land is all right, because “when any Zimbabwean, anyAfrican, says to me land is a key issue .. . the early colonizers were all about tak-ing land.” In reply to critics of Mr. Staw’sapologetics, Downing Street said the for-eign secretary had given “a sensiblestatement of history.” [Anton La Guar-dia, Straw Blames Crises on Britain’sColonial Past, Telegraph (London), Nov.15, 2002.]

Cooking Up Trouble

In February, Republican students atthe University of California at Los An-geles put on an “Affirmative ActionBake Sale,” to show what they think of racial preferences. The cookies were allthe same, but they charged different

prices according to race and sex: 25cents for black, Hispanic, and AmericanIndian women, 50 cents for the men,$1.00 for white women, and $2.00 for white men and all Asians. They alsowore badges that said such things as“White Oppressor,” “Self-Hating His- panic Race Traitor,” and “Uncle Tom.”

Chairman of the California Demo-cratic Party Art Torres pronounced him-self “deeply saddened and disheartened” by the bake sale, and said, idiotically,that the Republicans must have beenemboldened by Sen. Trent Lott’s recent

remarks about Strom Thurmond—whichcost him his job. Other supporters of racial preferences screeched, too, but asWalter Williams asks in a column, “Why be offended by a money version of ra-cial preferences?” [Walter Williams,Bake Sale of Ideas, Washington Times,March 2, 2003, p. B4.]

Biting the (White) Hand

On October 29, 200 Haitians in a rick-ety freighter showed up off the Miamicoast, jumped into the water and swam

for shore. Television cameras whirred,as authorities quickly rounded up thewould-be immigrants, who were put indetention to wait asylum hearings. TheHaitian Secretary of State for Commu-nications, Mario Dupuy, says the entireincident is America’s fault. The US andother donors held up $500 million ineconomic aid after the governmentrigged legislative elections in May 2000.Mr. Dupuy says the resulting hardshiphas forced Haitians to take desperatesteps. Needless to say, he acknowledgesno misbehavior on the government’s

part, calling the aid holdup “economicsanctions.”

The per capita income of Haiti is$250, which puts it on the same level asthe poorer countries of Africa. Last year,the US Coast Guard intercepted 1,400Haitians on their way to America. Manywere foundering and would havedrowned if Americans had not rescuedthem. [Michael Diebert, Haiti BlamesForeign Aid Freeze for Boat People,Reuters, Oct. 30, 2002.]

Apologizing for Britain.

ΩΩΩΩΩ

200304 American Renaissance

Documents

Transcript of 200304 American Renaissance