200705 American Renaissance

8/7/2019 200705 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/200705-american-renaissance 1/16

American Renaissance - 1 - May 2007

Continued on page 3

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

Vol. 18 No. 5 May 2007

Hispanic Racial Consciousness, Part II

American Renaissance

They make no secret of wanting your country.

by Jared Taylor

Part I described thedeep racial/ethnic loyal-ties Hispanic Americansretain to their countriesof origin, and explained how they have turned their backs on assimila-tion and expect theUnited States to accom-modate their loyaltiesand preferences. It con-cluded by noting that ev-ery year several thou-

sand Mexican-Ameri-cans go home in coffinsto be buried in the coun-try they consider their

true home.

If some Mexican-Americans havetheir way, they will not have to go back to be buried; Mexico will come

to them. What is called the Reconquistamovement aims to break the Southwestoff from the United States and reattachit to Mexico or even establish it as anindependent, all-Hispanic nation. In his-toric terms, it would reverse the territo-rial consequences of the Mexican-American war. Reconquista is generally promoted by the best-educated Hispan-

ics, many of whom were born in theUnited States.Charles Truxillo, a professor of

Chicano studies at the University of NewMexico, thinks Republica del NorteXwould be a good name for a new His- panic nation. The Republic of the Northwould contain all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and the south-ern part of Colorado. Its capital would probably be Los Angeles. The Albuquer-que-born Prof. Truxillo says the new

nation is “an inevitability,” and should be created “by any means necessary.” Hedoubts violence will be necessary, how-ever, because shifting demographics willmake the transition a natural one. “I maynot live to see the Hispanic homeland,”

he says, “but by the end of the centurymy students’ kids will live in it, sover-eign and free.”

Juan Jose Peña, Hispanic activist andvice chairman of the Hispanic Round-table of New Mexico agrees with Prof.Truxillo, adding, “I’ve studied lots of civilizations. The United States is just

like any other empire. It’s not going tolive forever. Eventually it will break down because of stresses.”

Armando Navarro, Hispanic activistand professor at the University of Cali-fornia at Riverside is another Recon-quista advocate, noting that if current

social and demographic trends continue,secession is inevitable. “One could ar-gue that while Mexico lost the war in1848, it will probably win it in the 21stcentury, in terms of the numbers,” heexplained. “A secessionist movement is

not something that youcan put away and say it isnever going to happen inthe United States,” headds. “Time and historychange.”

Xavier Hermosillo, a prominent businessmanand leader of a Hispanicactivist group in Los An-geles, explained that“we’re taking it [Califor-nia] back, house by house, block by block.” He adds:“People ought to wake upand smell the refried beans.”

Probably the best known Reconquista organization is the

Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, better know by its Spanish acronym of MEChA. The word Aztlan in the organi-zation’s name means “the bronze conti-nent,” and is the name activists plan togive the new nation they carve out of theUnited States. One of its founding docu-ments, El Plan de Aztlan, describes white people as “the brutal ‘gringo’,” and callsfor Mexicans to reclaim “the land of their birth” and “declare the independence of our mestizo nation.” The group’s motto

is Por la Raza todo. Fuera de La Razanada: “For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing.”Founded in 1969 at the University of California at Santa Barbara, MEChAnow has chapters on nearly every Cali-fornia college campus and in most highschools in the state. It has a consider-able presence in other Western states aswell. The official symbol of MEChA isan eagle holding an Incan battle axe and

Demonstrating for amnesty. Are they Mexican or American?

“We’re taking Californiaback, house by house,

block by block. Peopleought to wake up andsmell the refried beans.”




Letters from ReadersSir — I wanted to express my appre-

ciation for Jared Taylor’s “Banned inHalifax” in the February issue. It’s the

best debunking I’ve ever read of themandatory group think of our times. I’vesent copies to several friends.

It’s also a sad and shocking requiemfor a country of which the worst thatcould have been said was that it is a bitcold and boring. African gangs inWinnipeg? MS-13 in Calgary, beneaththe glorious Canadian Rockies? How inHeaven’s name did they get there? Noone could have even imagined this 20years ago, and yet Canadians seem to be determined to close their eyes to whatthey are doing to their country.

Robert Michael, Ft. Collins, Colo.

Sir — So Jared Taylor was finally ableto tell the people of Halifax what hethinks about racial diversity (see “Re-turn to Halifax” in the April issue). LastI heard, the city was still standing, andif Ottawa has begun mass deportationof non-whites, I must have missed thestory. What were these people so afraidof? If the left believes racial diversityand multiculturalism are strengths, whynot let people like Jared Taylor take an

opposing view? If everybody believesmillions of non-whites are a benefit toCanada, no one will listen anyway.

In fact, Mr. Taylor tells the truth, andthe rulers of this PC empire don’t wantthe people to notice they are wearing noclothes. I don’t agree with the AR posi-tion on everything, but you make somevalid points. There are problems withracial diversity. I support a multiculturalCanada, and see absolutely nothingwrong with talking about its problems.

That’s how solutions are found.Michael O’Rourke, Nelson, B.C.,

Canada

Sir — I’m glad to see that you areselling copies of the Taylor-March debate on DVD. I know next to nothingabout Peter March, but he has my re-spect. As far as I can tell, he got nothingout of the debate, except perhaps seeinghis name in the papers. I’m sure he didn’twin friends in the faculty lounge at St.Mary’s University. Let us be thankfulthere is at least one man in Halifax whostill believes in free speech.

Irene Santrock, Kittanning, Penn.

Sir — It is indeed inspiring to see thatthere are some whites who unapol-ogetically stand up for the interests of their people, as do the men of the VlaamsBelang (see “Men of the West, Stand andFight” in the April issue.) What is evenmore encouraging is that the VB is a powerful electoral force. When willthere be an American party that speaksfor whites?

Bill Travis, Plano, Tex.

Sir — As an American, perhaps I am

naive, but how can a court declare a po-litical party illegal? I thought Belgiumwas a democracy. But I suppose in acountry so sick that the establishmentcurries favor with a hostile alien minor-ity—one that despises and seeks to de-stroy its host—anything is possible.What a pity Belgians don’t have SecondAmendment rights. Frank Vanhecke andPhilip Dewinter seem like the kind of men who would use them for more thanduck hunting.

Charles Ford, Jackson, Miss.

Sir — The photo on the cover of theApril issue is of a group of smiling His- panics who must have been demonstrat-ing for amnesty. One holds a sign thatsays humanity is una raza or “one race.”

Another holds one that says, in English,“I love diversity.” Curiously, every facein this little group appears to be His- panic.

Like all non-whites, Hispanics “lovediversity” only for whites. They are keen boosters of mixing when that means ad-mission for them into neighborhoods,institutions, or a civilization they couldnot create or maintain. Once they be-come a majority, they lose interest in “di-versity,” instead preferring to turn what-ever part of the United States they haveconquered into foreign outposts. They

take from us only our material advan-tages and the crudest bits of our popular culture; our demeanor, our way of be-ing, our ideals, and our heritage remainutterly alien to them.

I suspect that the strong sentiment inthis country against illegal immigrationis a sign that more and more Americansunderstand this. Opposition to illegalshas become the one more-or-less accept-able expression of a long-suppressedwhite racial consciousness, though eventhis is constantly scrutinized for signs of “hate.” I have some optimism that anti-

illegal feeling now runs so high thatCongress dares not pass a broad am-nesty. If Congress does take firm actionagainst illegals, I would like to believethat sentiment against them will not dis-sipate, that whites will begin to say moreopenly that it makes no differencewhether it is legal or illegal—displace-ment will not be tolerated.

The giant is slowly awakening!Aaron Harding, Columbia, S.C.

Sir — Thank you for “Hispanic Con-

sciousness” in the April issue. I’m sick of pressing “one for English!” It’s re-freshing to hear someone discredit His- panics with their own words. Whatever these people are—saints or sinners— they ain’t us, and they don’t belong here.

I’m looking forward to reading parttwo. Articles like this, and the earlier series on black racial consciousness (seeAR, Sept, Oct. and Nov. 2006), are whyI subscribe to AR.

John White, Littleton, N.H.




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 $28.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $40.00. 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

Continued from page 1

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor Ronald N. Neff, Web Site Editor

a lighted stick of dynamite. The sloganthat goes with the symbol, Hasta lavictoria, siempre! (Until victory, al-

ways!) was a favorite of Fidel Castro andthe Cuban revolution.

On some campuses, conservativeshave called attention to MEChA’s ra-cially divisive message, and Stanfordstudents voted by a narrow margin towithhold university funding from thegroup. At the University of California atLos Angeles, the campus Republicanstried at least to get the group to denouncethe explicitly secessionist El Plan de

Aztlan, but it refused. “We will stand bythe ‘El Plan de Aztlan’ because it has

guided us,” MEChA chairwoman Eliza- beth Alamillo explained.

Many Mexican intellectuals eagerlyanticipate Reconquista. According toone newspaper report:

“The Mexican writer Elena Ponia-towska affirmed today that Mexico is presently recovering the territories lostin the past to the United States, thanksto emigration: ‘The people of the poor,the lice-ridden and the cucarachas[cockroaches] are advancing in the

United States, a country that wants tospeak Spanish because 33.4 million His- panics impose their culture.’ Ms. Ponia-towska added that ‘this phenomenon . . .

fills me with jubilation, because the His- panics can have a growing force betweenPatagonia and Alaska.’ ”

Even Mexican government spokes-men speak the language of irredentism.At a symposium in Los Angeles on the150th anniversary of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which marked theend of the Mexican-American War, theMexican consul general, Jose AngelPescador Osuna observed, “Even thoughI am saying this part serious and part joking, I think we are practicing la Reconquista in California.”

In 2005, Reconquista sentimentgot an unusual public airing when75 billboards appeared in Los An-geles advertising Spanish-languageKRCA-TV. The billboards showedtwo newscasters in front of thedowntown skyline, with “Los Ange-les, CA” written above them. The“CA” was crossed out, and “Mex-ico” was stamped over it in brightred letters. Below, it said in Span-ish: Tu ciudad. Tu equipo. (Your city.Your team.) Even a few gringos got themessage. “The joke here is, ‘We’re tak-

ing back California,’ ” explained StuartFischoff, who teaches media psychologyat California State University at LosAngeles. “Underneath the joke is part of the truth.”

Part of the great appeal Fidel Castrohas long enjoyed in Mexico is his un-wavering support for Mexican irre-dentism. In a 1997 speech in MexicoCity, he renewed his call for the UnitedStates to return Texas, California, Ari-zona, and New Mexico. He said Ameri-

cans are “terrorized” when Mexicanscross into what is in fact their own terri-tory.

The spirit of conquest need not be lim-ited to the Southwest. Mass immigration,and the unwillingness of native-bornAmericans to insist on assimilation bynewcomers leaves the impression the

whole country is up for grabs. Riverside, New Jersey, is one of a handful of Ameri-can cities that have tried to pass ordi-nances to discourage hiring or rentingto illegal immigrants. Rev. MiguelRivera, president of the National Coali-tion of Latino Clergy & Christian Lead-ers, noting that legal residency is notrequired to purchase property in the US,said illegal aliens would retaliate by buy-ing rather than renting. New ownerswould welcome other illegals, whowould eventually dominate throughsheer force of numbers. “Riverside is

going to be ours,” he said.

The Official Mexican View

It is official Mexican government policy to urge Mexicans living in theUnited States to remain loyal to Mexico.This policy applies broadly to all natu-ralized and even US-born citizens of Mexican origin, but government spokes-men direct their strongest efforts towards

Mexican-Americans who hold electedoffice. In 1995, for example, then-presi-

dent of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo himself told a group of Mexican-American poli-ticians, “You’re Mexicans—Mexicanswho live north of the border.” Two yearslater in Chicago, he took the same mes-sage to the Hispanic advocacy group, the National Council of La Raza. He“proudly affirmed that the Mexican na-tion extends beyond the territory en-closed by its borders and that Mexicanmigrants are an important—a very important—part of this.”

Elena Poniatowska even wants Alaska.




The administration of Vicente Foxcontinued the policy of ensuring thatMexican-Americans remained Mexican.In 2002, his government established the

Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exte-rior (Institute for Mexicans Abroad) to promote “a more comprehensive approach” to promoting Mexican loyalty.A primary function was to invite Ameri-

can elected officials of Mexican originto Mexico, to deepen their Mexicanidentity. In October 2003, for example,the Instituto invited 30 American statelegislators and mayors for two days inMexico City, where they met Mexicanlegislators, ministry officials, scholars,and advocates for immigrants. The in-stitute had plans to bring 400 Mexican-American lawmakers and communityleaders on similar trips in 2004.

The Instituto also sends representa-tives to the United States. Jacob Prado,counselor for Latino affairs at the Mexi-

can Embassy, explained to the NationalAssociation of Latino Elected and Ap- pointed Officials that it was in “Latinoofficials like yourselves that thousandsof immigrants from Mexico find a po-litical voice.” He went on to explain:“Mexico will be better able to achieveits full potential by calling on all members of the Mexican Nation, includingthose who live abroad, to contribute withtheir talents, skills and resources.”American elected officials are still“members of the Mexican Nation.”

One Instituto official, Juan Hernán-

dez, typifies its approach. Born in theUnited States, and therefore a US citi-zen, Mr. Hernández was at one time a professor at the University of Texas atDallas, but makes no secret of where hisreal loyalties lie. On the web page of thePresident of Mexico he reported in 2002that he had “been commissioned to bringa strong and clear message from thePresident to Mexicans abroad: Mexicois one nation of 123 million citizens— 100 million who live in Mexico and 23

million who live in the United States.”On ABC’s Nightline on June 7, 2001,he was candid about his goals: “I wantthe third generation, the seventh genera-

tion, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’ ” He has also explained that Mexican immigrantsare unlike Europeans because

they “are going to keep one footin Mexico” and that they “are notgoing to assimilate in the senseof dissolving into not being Mexi-can.”

Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, wholater became national securityadvisor to Vicente Fox, describedthe basic thinking of all Mexican

administrations. In an article in the Mexi-can newspaper El Siglo de Torreon, hewrote that the Mexican governmentshould work with the “20 million Mexi-cans” in the United States to advance

Mexican “national interests.”All political factions in Mexico are

united in the view that the US-Mexican border is illegitimate, and that Mexicanshave the right to cross it any time.Former president Vicente Fox’s officialview was that any measures the UnitedStates took to catch or deport illegalimmigrants were a violation of humanrights. Felipe Calderon, who succeededhim in 2006, shared that view, adding,“like many . . . I have cousins, uncles,in-laws who are undocumented and livein the United States.” Mexican Interior

Secretary Santiago Creel once complained, “It’s absurd that (the UnitedStates) is spending as much as it’s spend-ing to stop immigration flows that can’t be stopped . . . .” When he took over in2004 as the man in charge of border re-lations with the United States, ArturoGonzalez Cruz explained that his ulti-

mate goal was to see the border disappear entirely.At the time of the “A Day Without

Immigrants” demonstration in May,2006, Mexicans showed their solidarity by organizing what was to be a massive boycott of American products. Mexicanunions, political and community groups,newspaper columnists and a number of government officials issued the call.“Remember, nothing gringo on May 1,”said a typical e-mail message, urging people not to patronize McDonald’s,Burger King, Starbucks, Sears, Krispy

Kreme or Wal-Mart. The goal was to pressure Congress into looser border

control and amnesty for illegal immi-grants.

In 2004, the government distributedmillions of free copies of The Guide for the Mexican Migrant , a comic-book-for-mat set of instructions on how to sneak into the United States. It explained whatto pack for a desert or river crossing,techniques for surviving extremes of heat or cold, and how to avoid the Bor-der Patrol. Once in the United States, itadvised Mexicans to keep their heads




down and not attract attention.Grupo Beta is a government-funded

organization set up in the early 1990s tohelp illegal border-crossers. It maintainshundreds of staging areas just south of the border, marked with blue pennantsto indicate that drinking water is avail-able. Mexicans planning a run for the

border can flag down its bright orangetrucks any time for help. Grupo Beta fre-quently gives lectures on safety and con-cealment, typically ending them with thewords, “Have a safe trip, and God blessyou!”

The Mexican state of Peubla has goneeven further. In late 2006, it announcedan innovative program to keep emigrantsfrom getting lost when they cross the border illegally. Jaime Obregon, the co-ordinator for the Commission for Mi-grants, said the state would give hand-held satellite navigation devices to any-

one who registered as a border-crosser.“Our intention is to save lives,” he explained, saying he expected the state tohand out 200,000 devices during the fol-lowing year.

The view that Mexicans have a natu-ral right to enter the United States explains the vitriol that met American dis-cussions in 2006 about ways to stop il-legal crossings, and an eventual Con-gressional vote to build a wall along cer-tain parts of the Mexican border. Presi-dent Vicente Fox called the plan for awall “disgraceful and shameful,” and promised that if it were ever built it

would come down like the Berlin Wall.Interior Ministor Santiago Creel boastedthat “there is no wall that can stop” Mexi-cans from crossing into the US. ForeignSecretary Luis Ernesto Derbez warnedthat “Mexico is not going to bear, it isnot going to permit, and it will not allowa stupid thing like this wall.” He evensaid he would ask the United Nations tolook into the American plan and declareit illegal.

Ordinary Mexicans were just as out-

raged. “It’s against what we see as partof our life, our culture, our territory,”exclaimed Fernando Robledo of the stateof Zacatecas. “Our president should op- pose that wall and make them stop it, atall costs,” said 26-year-old MartinVazquez of Mexico City. Jose LuisSoberanes, head of the Mexican Na-

tional Human Rights Commission, didn’tthink the government was being force-ful enough. “I would expect more ener-getic reactions from our authorities,” hesaid. “It’s preferable to have a more de-manding government, more confronta-tion with the United States.”

Other Latin American countries wereequally outraged. Guatemalan VicePresident Eduardo Stein said a wallwould be “absolutely intolerable and in-human.” The foreign ministers of Co-lombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hon-duras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and

the Dominican Republic all gathered inMexico City to denounce the Americanmeasures and to coordinate strategy tomake sure the border remained open toillegal immigrants.

Latin American countries, them-selves, carefully control their borders, but their governments insist that theUnited States remain open. In an act of unusual candor, Mexican PresidentFelipe Calderon acknowledged in 2006that in light of the harsh measures

Mexico takes against illegal immigrantsfrom Central America it was inconsis-tent to complain about American border controls. In 2005, Mexican authoritiescaught nearly a quarter million illegals,mostly from Guatemala, Honduras andEl Salvador.

Mexico probably takes a more force-

ful and even high-handed interest in do-mestic American policies than does anyother country in the world. Mexican con-sular officers work closely with Hispanicorganizations in the United States to press for amnesty, free medical treat-ment, welfare benefits, driver’s licenses,and in-state university tuition for illegalaliens. The Instituto de los Mexicanosen el Exterior keeps databases of Mexi-can activists who can be counted on to pack the galleries of state legislaturesand city councils whenever there is avote that might affect immigrants. Such

a crowd was on hand during the Califor-nia legislature’s debates in 2003 over whether to grant driver’s licenses toillegals. When an assemblyman complained, “This bill paves the way toAztlan!” everyone in the gallery stoodup and applauded. When the city coun-cil of Holland, Michigan, debatedwhether to accept Mexican consular identification cards issued to illegal im-migrants, a Mexican official brought acrowd of compatriots. They caused such

‘Guide for the Mexican Migrant:’ come one, come all.

GPS will get them here safely.




a disturbance the city council was un-able even to deliberate.

As noted above, in May 2006, His- panics in America mounted massivedemonstrations against proposed mea-sures to control immigration. The Mexi-can legislature issued a declaration of support for the demonstrators, and voted

to send a delegation to Los Angeles toshow solidarity. These gestures receivedthe overwhelming support of every po-litical party.

Likewise, when California Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger denounced a plan to grant temporary driver’s permitsto illegal immigrants the assembly of Baja California promptly voted him“persona non grata,” theoretically bar-ring Gov. Schwarzenegger from visitingthe neighboring Mexican state.

The Mexican government is carefulto see that Mexicans living in Americareceive every possible benefit availableto them. A few welfare programs areclosed to illegal immigrants but FoodStamps are not. Some illegal immigrantshesitate to apply for them for fear their

status will be discovered and they will be deported. Mexican consul LuisMiguel Ortiz Haro of Santa Ana in Or-ange County, California, went on Span-ish-language television to tell Mexicansit was safe to apply. “This program isnot welfare,” he said. “It won’t affectyour immigration status.” More than1,200 people applied for Food Stampsthe next day.

No other country so frequently inter-venes in the interests of its citizens. In

2000, for example, the Mexican consulin Atlanta urged Hispanics to start a na-tional boycott of any company that doesnot offer services in Spanish. In San Di-ego, the Mexican consul officially urgedMexicans who work as janitors to join aclass-action lawsuit against California’ssupermarket chains. “This lawsuit is

important because it involves large numbers of our nationals, and because it in-sists that their rights be respected regard-less of their legal status,” said LuisCabrera Cuaron. Most Americans haveno idea of the extent to which Mexicocriticizes and tries to influence Ameri-can affairs.

Every Mexican institution nurturesunfavorable views of the United States,and immigrants bring with them the sen-timents they learned as children. As oneAmerican observed:

“I was visiting the Museum of Na-

tional History in Mexico City where Iobserved a class of perhaps 40 10-year-old school kids sitting on the ground infront of a huge mosaic map that was la- beled ‘Mexico Integral,’ or ‘Greater Mexico.’ Their teacher expounded onhow the Norteamericanos stole half of Mexico in 1847 in what theMexicans refer to as the NorthAmerican Intervention. Themap showed Mexico to in-clude Texas, Oklahoma, Colo-rado, New Mexico, Utah, Ari-zona, Nevada, California,

most of Idaho, and Oregon andWashington up to the Alaska panhandle.”

According to one poll, 58 percent of Mexicans believethe southwestern United Statesrightfully belongs to them, and57 percent believe they havethe right to cross the border without US permission. Mexicans alsoassume that America is not serious about border control or citizenship. As JesusCervantes, director of statistics for Mexico’s Central Bank explained,

“There have been amnesties and reforms before, and they will continue to occur periodically.”

The illegal crossing into America isso much a part of the Mexican psychethat in Ixmiquilpan, in the central stateof Hidalgo, there is a theme park devotedto reproducing the experience. At $15.00a head, Mexicans can spend an eveningcrossing a fake Rio Grande, squishingthrough mud while a fake people-smug-gler in a ski mask shouts “Hurry up! The

Border Patrol is coming!” Advertise-ments for the theme park offer the chanceto “Make fun of the Border Patrol!” andto “Cross the Border as an ExtremeSport!”

Many Mexicans believe the UnitedStates cannot function without them. Ina 2004 Mexican film called A Day With-

out a Mexican: The Gringos Are Going to Weep, all the Hispanics in Californiasuddenly disappear. In just 24 hours, pompous, helpless whites find thatschools have closed, grocery shelves areempty, and piles of garbage clog thestreets. Martial law is declared. The His- panics miraculously reappear the nextday, and are greeted with hugs andkisses—even by the Border Patrol.

The Mexican view of the UnitedStates is a mixture of historic resentment,envy, and contempt for a nation that sub-mits to insult and cannot control its bor-

ders. These sentiments start at the top. Near the end of his term, former presi-dent Vicente Fox, who frequently boasted of his close friendship withPresident George W. Bush, explained toMexicans why they should be thankfulfor their heritage. “We are already a step

ahead, having been born in Mexico,” hesaid. “Imagine being born in the UnitedStates; oof!”

When Mexicans in the United Statesget in trouble with the law, the usual ex-

planation is that they were corrupted byAmerica. As Jesse Diaz of the Leagueof United Latin American Citizens explained, “They’re picking up those badhabits of cheating, of drinking, anddrugs” after they arrive, adding that US popular culture undermines the “conser-vative Catholic values” they broughtwith them from Mexico.

This is essentially the average Mexi-can view. A 2006 Zogby poll gave thefollowing results: 84 percent of Ameri-

Vicente Fox says . . .

. . . keeping out illegals is ‘disgraceful and shameful.’




cans said they had a positive view of Mexicans, but only 36 percent of Mexi-cans had a positive view of Americans.Eighteen percent of Americans thoughtMexicans were racist, while 73 percentof Mexicans thought Americans wereracist. Forty-two percent of Americansthought Mexicans were honest, but only

16 percent of Mexicans thought Ameri-cans were honest.Mexicans are devoted soccer fans,

and sports seem to bring out their truefeelings. On February 11, 2004, theAmerican Olympic soccer team playeda qualifying match against Mexico in theMexican town of Guadalahara. Thecrowd drowned out “The Star SpangledBanner” with their boos, and shouted“Osama! Osama! Osama!” as the US players left the field. This only repeatedthe treatment the Americans got just afew days earlier when they played a

match in Zapopan: hooting down thenational anthem, booing when theAmericans scored, and shouting “Osa-ma! Osama!” However, that game wasnot even against Mexico. The Americanswere playing Canada.

Why Are We Passive?

With the possible recent exceptionsof Iran and North Korea, no other coun-try treats us with such contempt. Gov-ernment officials openly subvert our policies, ordinary people insult us, and

many Mexicans even appear to have

designs on part of our territory. Why arewe so passive? Why do American uni-versities say nothing when Hispanic fac-ulty and students openly advocate break-ing up the United States? Why do no politicians complain when many Hispan-ics send home hundreds of dollars ev-ery month—and then seek medical treat-ment at taxpayer expense? Why are wesilent when Mexicans take US citizen-ship while openly proclaiming their loy-alty to Mexico? Why do most journal-

ists and politicians tacitly agree with theHispanic view that immigration controlis “racist”?

Much of the answer lies in the factthat Hispanics are not white, and thatmost whites are so fearful of beingcalled “racist” they dare not take astand against any non-white group.

Let us imagine that France weresending us millions of poor, unedu-cated Frenchmen who made no ef-fort to learn English, who celebratedFrench holidays rather than Ameri-can holidays, who sent money outof country but demanded free ser-vices, who expected ballot papersand school instruction in French,who ignored our immigration laws,who insisted on hiring and collegeadmissions preferences because theyoffered us “diversity?” What if someof them talked openly about taking

over parts of the United States andkicking out the rest of us? Would our press and politicians remain silent?

What if the French governmentopenly encouraged all this? What if it offered French-American electedofficials free, loyalty-boosting trips back to France, and encouraged French-Americans everywhere to work and votefor French rather than American inter-ests? What if the French jeered at our national anthem and chanted “Osama,Osama” when our athletes took the field?

Americans would be furious. We

would recall our ambassador. We woulddeport every French illegal, and severelylimit further immigration from France.There would be calls to strip naturalizedFrenchmen of US citizenship—particu-larly if they had shown their true loyal-ties by maintaining French citizenship.

Let us not forget how angry Ameri-cans were when France opposed the in-vasion of Iraq. That affront to our pridewas nothing compared to what we havesuffered every day for decades at thehands of Mexicans and their govern-ment. If the French were to treat us as

Mexicans do, there would be universaloutrage and immediate countermeasures because we would not be paralyzed bythe fear of being called racists.

With Hispanics, however, not onlydoes race make us powerless to resist,race is part of what drives their refusalto assimilate and fuels their contempt for our culture and our interests. Demands,insults and loyalties are ultimately in thename of la raza, and that is what makesthem so durable and so dangerous—and

makes it impossible for us to respond asany normal, healthy nation would re-spond to similar provocations.

Another reason for our passivity is thefact that Hispanics are now nearly 15

percent of the population, and their numbers are growing rapidly. Politiciansfrom both parties say they cannot affordto alienate Hispanics because of their in-creasing power at the ballot box. Theydo not seem to recognize the danger of currying favor with a voting bloc whoseloyalties may not even lie with our own

country. American citizens who placeforeign interests over those of the UnitedStates do not deserve the same politicalconsideration as loyal Americans. Whatif there were a sharp crisis with Mexico?Is there any doubt which side Mexican-Americans—citizens or not—wouldtake?

It is already nearly impossible to dis-cuss immigration rationally, or even en-force laws that are on the books. If weare already afraid to take measures thatwould antagonize 15 percent of the population, how likely are we to be able

to act in our own interests if Hispanics become 20, 30, or even 40 percent of the population?

The number-one political goal of His- panics is amnesty for illegal immigrantsand yet more Hispanic immigration. If American politicians refuse to set policyaccording to national needs, if they sac-rifice the longer-term interests of America for the short-term political gainof placating Hispanic voters, they willeventually find themselves pushed aside

If the French were totreat us as Mexicans do,there would be universaloutrage and immediate

countermeasures becausewe would not be para-

lyzed by the fear of beingcalled racists.




by sheer force of numbers.Like those of blacks, Hispanic group

interests are narrowly defined and do notleave much room for broader, nationalinterests. There is no sign that as His- panics increase in numbers they are ex- panding their horizons to include these broader interests.

After decades of accepting sole re-sponsibility for the failure of blacks to become full-fledged Americans, whites

should have learned that multi-racialismis an endless Calvary of accusations, re-sentments, demands, failures, and con-flicts. It was the worst of folly needlesslyto have established yet another minorityto tread this bitter and all-too-familiar ground.

More and more Americans recognize

that we are, in effect, giving our countryaway to foreigners who care nothing for us or for our traditions. It is this largely

inchoate realization that drives ordinaryAmericans and even a few in Congressto see that we face a choice that is noth-ing short of a civilizational crisis: Willwe remain part of the West or will weleave to our grandchildren a shapeless,Third-World jumble in which the menand culture of Europe are on their way

to oblivion? We still have a choice if onlywe have the will.

To the Edge of the PrecipiceShelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise

of the Civil Right Era, Harper Collins, 2006, 181 pp., $24.95.

A black man’s remarkableracial insights.

reviewed by Thomas Jackson

This is a short book—just 181 pa-

perback-sized pages—but it hasmore good sense packed into it

than books five times longer. ShelbySteele, who was a black radical in the1960s, has since acquired a view of both blacks and whites that is almost completely unclouded by dogma. Dr. Steele,

who has been a fellow at the Hoover In-stitution since 1994, is perhaps the firstmainstream author to analyze white guiltand describe the tremendous damage itdoes. Dr. Steele does not get everythingright, but his elegant dissection of whiteself-absorption and black opportunismis one of the best antidotes now avail-able to the shelves of nonsense that passfor wisdom on race.

Dr. Steele begins by musing on what

the William Clinton-Monica Lewinskyscandal told us about how moral stan-dards change. He writes that he recallsreading that President Eisenhower usedto use the word “nigger” when he was

on the golf course. That posed no threatto his presidency, just as Mr. Clinton’sdebauching an intern posed no threat tohis. However, suggests Dr. Steele, hadeach man done what the other did, theywould have been hounded out of office.“Race simply replaced sex as the primaryfocus of America’s moral seriousness,”Dr. Steele writes and, as we shall seelater, he finds a connection between thetwo.

The central insight of White Guilt isthat “racism” is now America’s mostdespised crime. Dr. Steele is silent on

how this came to be, but he is right tosee it as the fundamental psychologicaltransformation of our time. This trans-formation meant that far from being ableto face other races with confidence andeven a sense of superiority, “the idea of evil had begun to attach to America andto whites.” Anyone who could be ac-cused of “racism” immediately lost au-thority, and not just on social questions.“Racists” lost all standing as respectablehuman beings. As Dr. Steele points out,the rigid new structure of taboos thus“makes the moral authority of whites andlegitimacy of American institutions con-tingent on proving a negative: that theyare not racist.” (Dr. Steele’s emphasishere and throughout)

One of Dr. Steele’s keenest observa-tions, and the one that has earned himthe most liberal wrath, is that the rituals by which whites avoid the taint of “rac-ism”—protestations of love for blacks,denunciations of “bigotry”—have littleto do with wanting to help blacks andeverything to do with demonstrating in-

nocence. As he explains:“Surely genuine goodwill may also be

a part in such efforts. But the larger re-ality is that white guilt leaves no roomfor moral choice; it does not depend on

the goodwill or the genuine decency of people. It depends on their fear of stig-matization, their fear of being called rac-ist.”

Whites submit to just about any hu-miliation if that is what it takes to dem-onstrate that they are untainted—whatDr. Steele calls “dissociation from rac-ism at almost any cost”—and he empha-sizes “the classic liberal mistake of try-

ing to pass off mere dissociation fromracism as selfless virtue and real humanempathy.” Liberals preen themselves ontheir compassion, but, as Dr. Steelewrites, “in the age of white guilt, whitessupport all manner of silly racial poli-cies without seeing that their true moti-vation is simply to show themselves in-nocent of racism.” Blind to his real mo-

Shelby Steele.

Ω




tives the liberal genuinely believes he is“a better man than the world has seen before.”

One of the best recognized ways todemonstrate guiltlessness is to practiceracial preferences, to join the scrambleto lure indifferently qualified blacks ontocollege campuses. “And what is enough

minorities?” asks Dr. Steele. “Enough is just enough to clearly dissociate the in-stitution from America’s old racist pat-terns. Without preferences it would beutterly impossible to admit enough mi-norities for a convincing dissociation.Dissociation requires evidence of a pro-active effort, a self-conscious and highlyvisible display of minority recruitment.”

Dr. Steele points out that all Ameri-can institutions do this. The army angersits white soldiers and stigmatizes its

blacks and browns with racial prefer-ences—not because this improves thearmy but because the white officer corpsthat merit would produce would not meettoday’s standards for moral authority.

White self-absorption goes further. AsDr. Steele points out, since it would be“racist” to say blacks have any respon-sibility for their failings, white liberalsride forth to smite racism, promisinguplift that does not require blacks tomove a muscle. Dr. Steele puts it this

way:“If a young black boy cannot dribble

well when he comes out to play basket- ball, no one will cast his problem as aninjustice . . . . But if the boy’s problem isreading or writing . . . . [c]areer-hungryacademics will appear in his little world,and they will argue that his weaknesses

reflect the circuitous workings of racism.. . . The boy will not be asked to trulywork harder.”

Low black test scores cannot be dueto laziness, stupidity, or brutish parents.Instead, whites lather black students withAfro-centric math, black history, Negrorole models, and multi-culti voodoo of every kind. Blacks can never save them-

selves, “so the very structure of theliberal faith—that whites and ‘so-ciety’ must facilitate black uplift— locks white liberals into an unex-amined white supremacy.” Dr.

Steele notes that all this anti-racist posing gives liberals a moral glow, but their inability to treat blackslike real men with control over their lives makes it impossible for themto accomplish anything.

Merit, excellence and ability,writes Dr. Steele, are “unfor-givingly exclusionary.” “Inclusion”requires that excellence be ignored,that mediocre Third-Worlders betreated like great artists, that black tinkerers be hailed as geniuses, andthat every obscure Negro be put on

a postage stamp. This racial climatecreates a demand for snake-oilsalesmen, black andwhite, who claim toconfer authority onwhites by teaching themhow to genuflect.

Dr. Steele pushes hisargument a bit too far,however, when he sug-

gests that liberals may actu-ally want blacks to stay de-graded: “Whites needed re-sponsibility for our problems

in order to gain their ownmoral authority and legiti-macy. So they set about—once again— to exploit us, to encourage and even nur-ture our illusions, to steal responsibilityfrom us, to take advantage of our back-wardness just as slave traders had oncedone on the west coast of Africa.”

People in the uplift business mightworry for their jobs if they actually suc-ceeded in helping anyone, but probablynot even the most cutthroat liberals take

real joy in black degeneracy.

The Souls of Black Folk

It did not take blacks long to discover the fun to be had in the brave new worldof white guilt. “By the mid-sixties,”writes Dr. Steele, “white guilt was elic-

iting an entirely new kind of black lead-ership . . . bargainers, bluffers, harangu-ers . . . who could set up a trade withwhite guilt.” The militant Shelby Steeleof 30 and 40 years ago “began to under-stand that my country was now repen-tant before me,” and that this brought anew power over whites: “This power toshame, silence, and muscle concessionsfrom the larger society on the basis of past victimization became the new‘black power.’ ”

Dr. Steele writes that the older gen-eration of civil rights leaders believed

their behavior had to be impeccable, thatthey had to act better than white peopleif their call for equal treatment was to be taken seriously. Things changed in the1960s:

“[B]lack power would no longer come from being better than whites; itwould come from not being better. . . . [Ihad] the feeling that being black releasedme from the usual obligation to commondecency and decorum. . . . I was licensedto live in a spirit of disregard toward myown country.”

Even whites in positions of authority

were cowed by black swagger. As Dr.Steele explains, black power grew in

direct proportion to white guilt, andcould not have been possible without it.Many people have noted that the black riots of the 1960s came after the pas-sage of the major “civil rights” laws, not before, and it is likely that those con-cessions to black grievance encouragedthe very violence they were supposed to prevent. As Dr. Steele explains in this

How the army establishes legitimacy.

Detroit 1967: ‘burn, baby, burn.’




particularly acute passage:“Anger is acted out by the oppressed

only when real weakness is perceived inthe oppressor. So anger is never auto-matic or even inevitable for the oppressed; it is chosen when weakness inthe oppressor means it will be effectivein winning freedom or justice or spoils

of some kind. Anger in the oppressed isa response to perceived opportunity, notto injustice. And expressions of anger escalate not with more injustice but withless injustice.”

The last three decades of the 20thcentury were therefore the golden ageof the racial shakedown. The whole pointof black militancy was to make whitesresponsible for black progress. Insteadof feeling shamed by the failures of their own people, blacks could parade themas an accusation. And, of course, any hintof “racism” was—and still is—a trophy

to be cherished, to be waved in the faceof abashed whites as often as possible.

The most profitable pose a black could strike was therefore that of vic-tim, and “when victimization is identity,then the victim’s passionate anger can be called out even when there is no ac-tual victimization.” As Michael Levinhas pointed out, the angrier blacks got,the more they were able to convincewhites there was something to be angryabout, and the more likely whites wereto do as they were told.

The old left had been trying to makerace an irrelevance; the new left discov-ered the tremendous advantages in be-ing as black as possible. Dazzled by the

rewards, not many realized that the vic-tim pose came with a price. “[I]t quickly became the most totalitarian and repres-sive identity that black America has ever known. All dissent became heresy, pun-ishable by excommunication . . . .”

At the same time, “if you were black and thus a victim of racial oppression,this new morality of social justice meantyou could not be expected to carry thesame responsibilities as others.” This,writes Dr. Steele, was the worst possible

trick to play on blacks. Just when un- precedented opportunities were open tothem white liberals and black hustlerstold them success would never comeuntil whites transformed them-selves and their society.

But once again, Dr. Steele pushes his argument too far: “It

is always the black who paysthe price for white self-delu-sion.” He writes that even whenwhites run elaborate programsof racial preference, they “willnever suffer from the systemsthey devise, but will be forever celebrated for their good inten-tions, their courage in confront-ing such an intractable prob-lem. . . . [E]ven the most giftedand affluent blacks—many of whom can compete on their own—must pull on the Sambo

mask and reinvent themselvesas the sort of inferiors that willtrade well with white guilt.”

Wrong on both counts.There are countless whites whohave been denied promotions,recognition, or admission touniversity so that some black or Hispanic could be pushed for-ward. And we hardly need feelsorry for the unqualified black who gets a full scholarship tothe Ivy League. He pulls on noSambo mask. If he puts on a mask at all,

it is the far more profitable one of ag-grieved victimhood.

Global Racism

Dr. Steele recognizes that hardly any-one in America has the slightest desireto oppress blacks, and that it is nearlyimpossible to point to anyone with any power who is a “racist.” That is whatgives rise to “the now common argumentthat racism is ‘systemic,’ ‘structural,’ and‘institutional,’ ” or “global,” as he callsit. When no people can be found who

are “racist,” then institutional racism hasto be invented to explain black failure.Dr. Steele puts it neatly: “ ‘impersonal’and ‘structural’ forces . . . worked by the‘invisible hand’ to stifle black aspirationeven when real racists were nowhere to be seen.”

This fiction solved an important prob-lem: “For black leaders in the age of white guilt the problem was how to seizeall they could get from white guilt with-out having to show actual events of rac-

ism. Global racism was the answer.” AsDr. Steele explains, “global racism en-ables blacks to frame racism to the scaleof white guilt rather than to the scale of

white racism—too weak these days tocount for much.”

Dr. Steele writes about pampered black college students: “Global racismallows these students to feel aggrieved by racism even as they live on campusesnotorious for almost totalitarian regimesof political correctness—and to feelmore aggrieved than black students didforty years ago, before the civil rightsvictories. This is because their feelingof racial aggrievement is calibrated tothe degree of white guilt on university

campuses and not to actual racism.”He continues: “Global racism pre-

vails precisely where whites and institu-tions most aggressively search for moralauthority around race. Even announce-ments of a new commitment to ‘diver-sity’ within an institution will very likelyincrease feelings of racial aggrievementin minorities. We blacks always experi-ence white guilt as an incentive, almosta command, to somehow exhibit racialwoundedness and animus.”

The more whites whoop about ‘diversity’ the

more resentments non-whites discover.“For black leaders in theage of white guilt the

problem was how to seizeall they could get from

white guilt without having to show actual

events of racism.”




Even the most hard-nosed businessescan be shaken down for millions in thename of global racism, because “even ahint of racism proves the rule of systemicracism. So these corporations never payto the measure of any actual racism; they pay to the measure of racism’s hyped-up and bloated reputation in the age of

white guilt.” The golden age of the racehustler may slowly be ending, but thereare a great many campus officials andcorporate executives who would do wellto ponder Dr. Steele’s words.

White Guilt goes on to make a number of larger points, the most importantof which is the following:

“[W]hen white supremacy was deli-gitimized, whites did not simply lose theauthority to practice racism. The loss of authority generalized well beyond that,so that whites also lost a degree of their authority to stand proudly for the values

and ideas that had made the West a greatcivilization despite its many evils.”

Some of the values that were discred-ited along with “racism” were: “personalresponsibility, hard work, individual ini-tiative, delayed gratification, commit-ment to excellence, competition bymerit, the honor in achievement, and soon. How could these principles be important when they had coexisted so eas-ily with racism? Weren’t they, in fact, a part of the machinery of white supremacy?”

With all traditional standards discred-

ited, there was virtually no check onadolescent rebellion for the generationof the 1960s. For college students, thecrassest self-indulgence could be passedoff as fighting “the system,” and the Hip- pies found “a far greater collapse of adultmoral authority than previous genera-tions had experienced.”

The result? “The sixties generation of youth is very likely the first generationin American history to have actually wonits adolescent rebellion against its elders.One of the reasons for this, if not the primary reason, is that this generation

came of age during the age of white guilt,which meant that its rebellion ran intoan increasingly uncertain adult author-ity.”

“The loss of moral authority,” explains Dr. Steele, “went too far the other way. . . . After America admitted whatwas worst about itself, there was notenough authority left to support whatwas best.” One prominent side effect waswidespread acceptance of “the idea thata lack of sexual inhibition signified a

deeper and more compassionate human-ity.” Dr. Steele adds: “It was white guiltthat powerfully stigmatized (with racism,militarism, etc.) precisely the traditionalvalues that had always prevented asexual revolution.”

There is much truth in all this. Oncethe ancient distinction between black andwhite was broken down, the 1960s madeshort work of virtually every other dis-tinction whites had taken for granted:man and woman, heterosexual and ho-mosexual, normal and perverted, dili-gence and sloth, health and sickness,good and bad. As Dr. Steele points out,

the collapse of so many traditions abet-ted the ’60s generation’s illusion that ithad a mandate to remake the world.

Good as this book is, Dr. Steele can-not be expected to understand that whathe calls “racism,” though it undoubtedlygave rise to ugly excesses, was an es-sential part of Western consciousness. Itwas at the same time the part most vul-nerable to clever appeals to Western principles. But when whites lost the willto conserve that which was most urgentlyto be conserved—the biological integ-rity of the people who built our civiliza-

tion—they lost the will to conserve muchof anything else. That is why, as Dr.Steele writes, “baby boomer-countercul-ture consciousness is now the establish-ment consciousness, while traditionalAmerican values now constitute a kindof counterculture.” When the central re-doubt of racial consciousness fell, noouter rampart could remain standing.

Something else Dr. Steele cannot beexpected to understand is that one of hisassertions—tossed off as if it goes with-

out saying—is a death sentence to a raceand civilization. “[B]eyond an identitythat apologizes for white supremacy,absolutely no white identity is permis-sible,” he writes. “In fact, if there is awhite racial identity today it would have

to be white guilt—a shared, even unify-ing, lack of racial moral authority.”

Dr. Steele is surely too smart not toknow that filling the country with Third-Worlders will not bring back the stan-dards of excellence he says must be re-asserted. Surely he must see that His- panics and other non-whites have takentheir cue from blacks—not from whites

—and have slipped into the pose of vic-tim as if they were to the plantation born.Whites show no more backbone in theface of non-white immigrants than theyshow in the face of blacks, and unlessthey resurrect healthy racial pride, theywill disappear as a distinct people witha distinct culture. It may be giving himmore credit than he deserves, but Dr.Steele shows signs that he might not en-tirely favor consigning the white manand his civilization to oblivion, but untilhe understands the implications of de-nying to whites any identity other than

that of penitent, he is as much our un-dertaker as the black frauds and con art-ists he despises.

But let us not make too much of theshortcomings of this book. Dr. Steelecomes closer than nearly all whites tounderstanding the meaning and implica-tions of white guilt. If whites are to havea future, they will have to see the preci- pice for themselves. Dr. Steele hasshown us more than we can reasonablyask.

The first generation ever to win its adolescent rebellion.

Ω




Who Profits From These Registrations?

France tries to cheat theNationl Front—again.

by Jérôme Bourbon

The French presidential elections will take place on April 22. There are four major candidates: the socialist Ségolène

Royale, the centrist François Bayrou,the right-of-center former interior min-ister Nicolas Sarkozy, and Jean-Marie

Le Pen. If, as seems likely, no one winsan outright majority the two top-poll-ing candidates will have a runoff twoweeks later on May 6.

The mass media have been happilytelling us that in 2006 the number of new voter registrations has

broken all records. Registrations oftenrise the year before an election, espe-

cially a presidential election, but this risehas been extraordinary. A glance at thetelevision images last December of longlines of people (of so many hues!) wait-ing to register at city halls around thecountry was enough to show what is hap- pening.

Although the final voter lists have notyet been made public, we already knowthat the number of registered voters qua-drupled in Metz, tripled in Toulouse, anddoubled in Nantes and Lyons. At

Roubaix, where it is well known that themajority of the population are foreign-ers, the number of voters rose more than

tenfold, from 52 to 577! Since the pre-vious presidential elections in 2002, thenumber of voters has increased 12 per-cent in Marseille, 60 percent in Nancy,and 76 percent in Amiens.

What is true in the provinces is justas true in Paris and the surrounding re-gion. In the capital there has been anincrease of 32 percent—330,000 vot-ers—since the last presidential race, asBertrand Delanoë [the openly homo-sexual, Tunisian-born mayor of Paris]keeps reminding us. Heavily-immigrantsuburbs like Saint-Denis (2,000 new vot-

ers this year) and Gennevilliers (up2,300) have seen big gains, and Bondy,which was a notorious hot spot duringthe Ramadan riots of 2005 (see “Franceat the Crossroads,” AR, Jan. 2006) now

boasts 20 percent more voters. Trappes,yet another “exotic” suburb, had a re-markable 90 percent increase. In Franceas a whole, there will be hundreds of thousands of new voters this spring.

The Specter of April 21

There has been nothing spontaneousabout this huge increase. It is the resultof a campaign mounted by the left and by showbiz and sports personalities like

Moroccan actor Jamel Debbouze, rap- pers Joey Starr and Daim’s [ sic], andGuadeloupian soccer player Lilian

Thuram. They have been beating thedrum, reminding people in the occupiedsuburbs that Jean-Marie Le Pen made itinto the presidential runoff on April 21,2002 (See “France Sets the Tone,” AR,June 2002), and are also doing their bestto make sure Nicolas Sarkozy loses.Leftist of all stripes can no longer counton the votes of native-born Frenchmen,whom they have continually betrayed,despised, and fleeced, and are lookingto a new electorate: immigrants. Thiscynicism, which amounts to a crimeagainst France, has born fruit, with im-

migrants voting massively for the left— 67 percent for the Socialists alone.Will that always be the case, given

that the Socialists as well as the main-stream “right” couldn’t care less aboutimmigrants and are just using them for electoral cannon fodder? Will these for-eigners realize, like Dieudonné, that theyare being used? Dieudonné [a contro-versial mulatto comic who has been ac-cused of anti-Semitism and who nowsupports the National Front] has cer-tainly understood, and plans to perform between the first and second rounds of

the election and to tell the audience tovote for Jean-Marie Le Pen if he is stillin the running.

Even the leader of the National Fronthas come to understand the importanceof the non-white vote, and tried to appeal to it by means of that controversial poster (see “The National Front: GoingSoft or Getting Wise?” AR, March,2007). We will soon see whether that wasa good tactic, but judging from press andTV interviews with these new voters— even if they have all been carefully se-lected—there is reason for worry. (They

are invariably identified only by firstname, which makes them sound less for-eign.)

“Le Pen in the run off? I don’t wantthat to happen. That’s why I registeredto vote,” explains 26-year-old Jennifer,waiting in line at the mayor’s office inGennevilliers. “I’m afraid of Franceturning to the extreme right,” worries 22-year-old Quentin. “I don’t want Jean-Marie Le Pen as president,” says Rachid.“I have never voted before,” explains

‘This may be your last chance to vote against Le Pen!’




Nathalie, in her forties, “but now I haveto. In 2002 I felt responsible for whathappened . . . . Now I have a clear con-

science.” Dabia and Yacine registered“in response to an appeal by Diam’s andJoey Starr,” while Dorothy and Arc’han-tael (yes, that is a real name), both stu-dents, say they woke up to politics in2002.

The great tragedy is that the votes of young native-born French people, dosedfrom their early school days with anti-Le Pen propaganda, could be as disas-trous as those of the neo-French.

Looking Out for Themselves

Ever since the last presidential elec-tion, we have seen how well appeals tothe horror of April 21, 2002, haveworked for all the parties that are part of the System. And let us not be deceived:Even if it is mathematically possible for Jean-Marie Le Pen to make it into thefinal round this year as he did five yearsago, it will be infinitely more difficult.In 2002, the establishment was takencompletely by surprise, and panicked allthe way to the runoff on May 5.

Why was no one prepared? The right

had split in late 1998 (See “Crisis in the National Front,” AR, Feb. 1999), andthere had been poor results in the localand European elections in 2001. Let usnot forget that just one year before April21, 2002, the National Front had wononly seven percent of the vote and the breakaway faction from the NationalFront, led by Bruno Mégret, had wononly three.

This year, knowing that as CharlesMaurras [monarchist and conservative

theorist, 1869-1952] used to say, the republic governs badly but protects itself well, we can be sure that our rulers willdo everything possible to prevent a sec-ond political earthquake. They have beenruthless in keeping out splinter candi-dates, thereby herding everyone behindtheir favorites, Sarko and Ségo. The plan

is for Mr. Sarkozy and Miss Royal eachto get more than 25 percent of the first-round vote, thereby putting them beyondreach of Mr. Le Pen, who could get asmuch as 24 percent.

At the same time, we see this mas-sive registration of freshly naturalizedcitizens. It is hardly without precedent.In 1987, Charles Pasqua, who was inte-rior minister for Jacques Chirac, sentconvoys of buses to the projects to haulimmigrants in to register in Marseille inthe runup to the 1988 elec-tions for the National Assem-

bly. These Frenchmen-on- paper, who accounted for half the new voters that year, performed as ordered: Jean-Marie Le Pen, Bruno Mé-gret, and Jean-Pierre Stir- bois, another National Frontcandidate, lost by a hair— and not a blond hair.

We have also seen in therecent municipal elections inBelgium how massive voting by immigrants, especially in places like Anvers, blunted

the Vlaams Belang’s driveand kept it from winning asingle mayoral election inFlanders (See “Men of theWest, Stand and Fight,” AR, Feb. 2007).

Despicable Methods

Even when the System does not suc-ceed in completely betraying the elec-torate and the nationalist right wins anelection, as happened in Italy withGianfranco Fini [leader of the NationalAlliance] and in Austria with Jörg Haider

[former leader of the Austrian FreedomParty], the System fights dirty by usingsome administrative trick to invalidatethe results or finds some kind of retro-spective ineligibility. We saw this in theFrench cities of Toulon and Vitrolles,when three victorious National Frontcandidates for mayor—Jean-Marie LeChevallier, Bruno Mégret, and then hiswife Catherine Mégret—were declaredineligible one after another.

Republican France has frequently

Mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë.

played this trick, not scrupling to vio-late the principles it is supposed to ven-erate: Less than five years after the Re- public was established, the coup d’étatunder the Directorate of September 4,1797 simply invalidated the results for every royalist deputy (member of the National Assembly) elected—and then

went on to sentence most of them to ban-ishment in Guiana. Only supporters of the Republic kept their seats, whichmade for less contentious politics. Morerecently, in 1952, the executive clearlyviolated the constitution by unseating 11of 52 Poujadist deputies (named after na-tionalist and populist leader PièrrePoujade,1920-2003), thereby keepingthe Poujadists from reaching the criticalnumber of 50 deputies required to forma parliamentary group and thereby con-

trol committees, influence legislation,etc. (Twenty deputies are now requiredto form a group in the assembly.) It isworth noting that the 11 deputies so scan-dalously eliminated were promptly andarbitrarily replaced by men from thethen-governing parties.

We can count on the System: It willshow the greatest ingenuity when it

comes to strangling any nationalist re-naissance in its crib. Which is to say thatit will take all the talents, cleverness, andforce of conviction of which the leader of the National Front is capable, alongwith the combined effort of every pa-triot to overcome such formidable ob-stacles.

This article appeared in the Jan. 12,2007, issue of the French weekly Rivarol(www.rivarol.com), and is translated and reprinted with permission.

Charles Maurras.

Ω




O Tempora, O Mores!

Safe for Whites

Most of the 406 people murdered in

Philadelphia last year died from gunshotwounds. Overall, the city had 2,004shootings in 2006, up 31 percent from1,528 in 2001, which means that on av-erage five people are shot in Philadel- phia every day. Most shootings take place on weekends (349 on Saturday,336 on Sunday) between 9 pm and 2 am,with the most (192) from midnight to oneam. Philadelphia criminals are not earlyrisers—they shot only 23 people be-tween 9 am and 10 am. Most shootingvictims (75 percent) are black men, andmost are between 18 and 25 years old.

The majority of shootings are in poor black neighborhoods. There is very littleviolence in rich, white areas.

Criminologist Lawrence W. Shermanof the University of Pennsylvania spoutsthe usual mush: Shootings reflect a “sys-tematic placement of black males at the bottom of the social structure,” leavingthem feeling “rejected” and prone to vio-lence. “We have to recognize the role of concentrated black poverty,” he says.

He may have a point, however, whenhe says that “the untold story, the storythe hotels want you to write, is that Phila-

delphia is a very safe place for white people.” Indeed, of the 2,004 shootingvictims in 2006, only 341 were “white.”Since the Philadelphia police call His- panics white, the actual number of whiteshooting victims is probably very small.[Robert Moran, Phila. Shootings Up31% Since ’01, Philadelphia Inquirer,Feb. 18, 2007.]

Rape in Liberia

According to a survey by the medicalaid agency Merlin, three out of four

Liberian women have been raped. Someof the victims are as young as three yearsold. Claire Parker, who is reproductivehealth coordinator for the agency, saysnearly half the victims she sees are un-der age 12, and that some are as youngas three. As she explains, “If a person isseeking a position of power here, thereis a traditional belief which says that if you spill the blood of a child, or take thevirginity of a child, that will give youincreased power.”

Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Africa’s first elected womanhead of state, has promised to crack

down on sexual violence but Miss Parker

doesn’t think much will change. “Thevast majority of rape cases don’t evenmake it to a conviction, let alone to the

imprisonment of the perpetrator,” shesays. “People are reluctant to report rapecases because of the shame that goesalong with it.” [Kate Thomas, Three Outof Four Liberian Women Have BeenRaped, Survey Finds, Independent (Lon-don), March 8, 2007.]

Ragin’ Nagin

New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin seemsto have a habit of saying what he reallythinks. The mayor angered many whiteswhen he predicted last year that despite

the population decline that followedHurricane Katrina, New Orleans wouldstill be a “chocolate city.” In March, Mr. Nagin told an audience of black newspaper publishers and editors that theslow recovery of his city is part of a con-spiracy against New Orleans and other black-run cities to dilute their racialmakeup and change their political lead-ership. “Ladies and gentlemen, whathappened in New Orleans could happenanywhere,” he said. “They are studying

this model of natural disasters, dispers-ing the community and changing theelectoral process in that community.” He

added that his “chocolate city” remark

made him a target for people who wantto make sure he goes no further. [HamilR. Harris, Nagin Suspects a Plot to Keep

Blacks Away, Washington Post, March17, 2007.]

Urban ‘Renewal’

According to US Census Bureau es-timates, native-born Americans are flee-ing US cities. Between 2000 and 2006,more than 600,000 natives moved from New York, 200,000 from Los Angeles,188,000 from San Francisco, and101,000 from Boston. The native-bornare even leaving smaller cities like Ames,Iowa and Battle Creek, Michigan. These

cities are not losing population, however, because immigrants are replacing thenative-born. Despite losing more thanhalf a million natives, New York Cityactually grew 2.7 percent between 2000and 2006, and Los Angeles grew 4.7 percent.

The Census Bureau says there are 36million immigrants living in the UnitedStates—the most ever—and suspectsthat at least a third are here illegally.[Without Immigrants, Metro Areas

Children playing in the streets of Monrovia, Liberia.




Would Shrink, AP, April 5, 2007.]

Still Milking It

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center recently sold a collection of the greatman’s papers—more than 10,000 docu-ments—to the city of Atlanta for $32

million. The papers will be kept at King’s black alma mater, Morehouse College.Given this windfall, one would think theKing Center wouldn’t mind if otherscollected a few crumbs from the “Kinglegacy,” but no, the center wants it all(see “Milking the Dream,” AR, April2002).

A woman who claims to be a child-hood friend of King’s plans to auctionoff a small collection of his papers shehas had for nearly 40 years. The uniden-tified woman says she got the papers,which include first drafts of speeches and

letters, as part of a debt settlement witha radio station with which King was onceaffiliated. Bidding starts on April 15, andthe 25 documents could fetch $100,000to $300,000.

The King family is fighting the sale.“Unless the woman has documentationthat the papers were given to her, theyare owned by the King Estate,” saysIsaac Newton Farris, president and chief executive officer of the King Center.[Another Set of King Documents Set for Auction, AP, April 3, 2007.]

Too Old, Too White New York state’s Division of Human

Rights enforces the state’s anti-discrimi-nation laws. A black woman, KumikiGibson, who had been acting head of thedivision since January, was officiallyappointed to the job in March. MissGibson is a former senior vice presidentof the National Urban League and wasonce an advisor to Al Gore.

The day after the New York senateconfirmed her appointment, two whiteformer employees filed with the federal

Equal Employment Opportunity Com-mission (EEOC), accusing Miss Gibsonof age and race discrimination. MicheleHeitzner, 60, former deputy commis-sioner, and Martha Furlong, 63, whoworked in the personnel department, sayMiss Gibson fired them because theywere old and white. They say that whenMiss Gibson took over as acting com-missioner, she had a conference call withall her employees, in which she said shewanted “young folks, young people”

working for her, and that as a “womanof color” she wanted to bring “diversity”to the agency. Miss Heitzner says Miss

Gibson told her “that she did not see a place for me in ‘her vision.’ ” Miss Fur-long says Miss Gibson told her “that Idid not ‘fit’ in with her plans for the di-vision.”

The lawyer for the two women saysthey will also sue in federal and statecourts. Miss Gibson denies any wrong-doing. [Fredric U. Dicker, RightsWronged Us: Suit, New York Post,March 8, 2007, p. 5.]

School Race Gap

Britain has well established racialgaps in school performance. Passingrates for the national curriculum test for English, given at age 11, are: Chinese – 86 percent, Indians 85 percent, whites – 80 percent. For many Indians and Chi-nese, English is not their native language.

Between the ages of 14 and 16, Brit-ish children are tested for what is calledthe General Certificate of SecondaryEducation, or GCSE. Again, there arewell established racial differences in the percentages of students who get topgrades in five or more subjects: Chinese

– 65.8 percent, Indians – 59.1 percent,and whites – 44.3 percent. Blacks do poorly, with only 22.7 percent, but theyare not the worst group. That honor goesto Gypsies, or Roma as they now like to be called. Only four percent get topgrades in five or more subjects.

At the next level of secondaryachievement, Chinese boys are four times more likely than white boys to earnthree or more A (advanced) level ratingsin science, and Indian boys are three

times more likely. [Richard Garner, Chi-nese Pupils Eclipse All Other EthnicGroups in English Tests, Independent(London), Feb. 21, 2007.]

Diversity at the CIA

The Central Intelligence Agency has

done a lot of hiring since the Sept. 11,2001 terrorist attacks. Forty percent of all current personnel have joined sincethen, with the agency setting a hiringrecord in 2006. It expects to set another record next year. The agency particularlywants people who speak Chinese, Ara- bic, Farsi, Urdu and other so-called“mission critical” languages (only 12 percent of agency hires are proficient inforeign languages).

Director Michael Hayden is using thehiring boom to get a more exotic racialmix, on the assumption that in many

countries non-whites will make moreconvincing spies. In 2006, 23 percent of new employees were black, Hispanic,Asian or Indian. The CIA also wantsAmericans of Arabic, Iranian, and SouthAsian descent.

Today, half of all CIA managers arewomen or non-whites. Thirty percent of CIA station chiefs are either women or non-whites, as are 35 percent of Direc-tor Hayden’s senior advisors. That’s notenough, says associate deputy director Michael Morell: “We need to do better.”[Stephen Barr, Fast-Changing CIA Puts New Emphasis on Recruiting, Washing-ton Post, Feb. 19, 2007.]

The CIA is also airing radio spots,

touting America as the most diverse na-tion on earth, and claiming it is our great-est strength. The ads are voiced by a black man.

Better than Detroit

In a March radio interview about Iraq,Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) toldhost Jack Elbing that 80 to 85 percentof the country “is reasonably under con-trol, at least as well as Detroit or Chi-

Kumiki Gibson: likes them young and non-white.



cago or any of our other big cities. That’san encouraging sign.” When Mr. Elbingsaid he hadn’t heard Iraq compared toDetroit before, Rep. Walberg added,“Well, in fact, in many places it’s as safeand cared for as Detroit or Harvey, Illi-nois, or some other places that havetrouble with armed violence . . . .”

Spokesmen for Detroit and Harvey, both 80 percent black, denounced thecongressman’s remarks. “It’s absurdto compare Detroit and Iraq in anyway,” complained James Canning, aspokesman for Detroit mayor KwameKilpatrick. “Unfortunately, for years people have beat up on the city of De-troit. Detroit is the word for negative.We are working very hard to trans-form that image of our city.”

Harvey mayor Eric Kellogg wasless diplomatic, saying Rep. Wal- berg’s comments take “racial profil-

ing and stereotyping to extreme lev-els. . . . [W]e still have members of Congress who suffer from the high-est levels of ignorance and stupidity.”[Michigan Congressman Who SaysParts of Baghdad ‘As Safe’ as DetroitDraws Criticism, AP, March 22,2007.]

Liberty, Equality. . .

France will be holding the firstround of presidential elections onApril 22, and polls show a tight race

between Socialist Ségolène Royaleand conservative frontrunner NicolasSarkozy.

During a campaign swing throughthe Caribbean island of Martinique,Miss Royale gushed, “Miscegenationis an opportunity for France.” She

added that as president she would en-courage immigration and would be

Are You Fighting MadAbout What is Happen-

ing to Your Country?

Then do something about it.

Work for AR.

American Renaissance needs an edito-

rial assistant to work in our Oakton,Virginia office. We want someone who

can write and do general office work, but wewill give you as much responsibility as youcan handle.

We want someone who is good with com- puters, and web publishing experience would be a plus, but brains and commitment are worthmore to us than experience. A recent collegegrad could be just the person we need.

This will be a great opportunity to learnabout writing and print/Internet publishing,while you make a real contribution to the racerealist movement.

Please send a cover letter, resume and writ-ing sample to AR, PO Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. No phone calls, please.

“president of a France that is mixed-raceand proud of it.”

Not to be outdone, at a campaign rallyJanuary 14 in Paris, Mr. Sarkozy de- parted from his prepared text to praise“a France that understands that creationcomes from mixing, from openness,from coming together, and from—I’m

not afraid of the word—miscegenation.”[Ségo et Nico Apôtres de la FranceMétisse, Rivarol (Paris), Feb. 2, 2007, p. 2.]

Too Many Handouts

Hanne Nabintu Herland is a mixed-

race Norwegian religious historian whogrew up in Africa. She’s also the author of a new book that claims Norwegiansand their over-generous welfare systemare the reason so many immigrants areunemployed.

“To criticize the [jobless] foreignersis like criticizing the symptoms and not

the problem,” she adds, accusing so-cial workers of “waiting at the airportand doling out social services avail-able for asylum seekers and immi-grants” instead of sending them toclasses where they could learn to be“Norwegian.” “Lots of people haveinterpreted this as an invitation notto work. Many have viewed Norwayas a country where the state pays your monthly salary and where housing is provided.”

Norwegians, she concludes, “au-tomatically feel sorry for people with

dark skin. We put them on welfare,instead of putting them to work.” Thisis because Norwegians think Third-Worlders cannot work; Norway hasdeveloped “a rock-hard segregatedsociety, where people are evaluatedin terms of ethnicity, not compe-tence.” [Historian Blames ImmigrantWoes on ‘Segregated Society,’ Aften- posten (Norway), Jan. 15, 2007.]

More Apologies

The senate of the state of North

Carolina has unanimously voted anapology for the state’s role in slavery.Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand,who is white, said the apology willhelp legislators “to try to be better children of God and better represen-tatives of all the people of this state.”

Black senators called the vote agood first step: “This is a noble ges-ture, but . . . don’t let it end here,”said Democratic Sen. Larry Shaw.“There’s plenty of work to be done.”The North Carolina house has yet tovote on the bill, so the apology is still

unofficial. [N.C. Senate ApologizesFor Slavery and Jim Crow Laws, AP,April 6, 2007.]

In March, the Maryland legislatureunbosomed a similar apology, express-ing “profound regret” that the state’s citi-zens once “trafficked in human flesh.”[Maryland Issues Apology for Its Rolein Slavery AP, March, 27, 2007.] Vir-ginia started this recent trend, and theMissouri legislature is considering asimilar proposal.

Ségolène Royale.

Ω

200705 American Renaissance

Documents

Transcript of 200705 American Renaissance