The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Available Books
/
Wilmot Robertson
The Dispossessed Majority
🔊 Listen
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search TextOpen All Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
Table of ContentsOptions
List of Images
List of Tables
List of Bookmarks
Quotation

In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
— T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets

Preface • 500 Words
ORDER IT NOW

The most truly disadvantaged are those who are hated for their virtues not their vices, who insist on playing the game of life with opponents who have long ago abandoned the rules, who stubbornly go on believing that a set of highly sophisticated institutions developed by and for a particular people at a particular point in time and space is operational for all peoples under all circumstances.

The intent of this book is to supply members of this discomfited and threatened group — here provisionally defined as the American Majority — with a systematic diagnosis of the diseases and debilities that have laid them low and some suggestions for their recovery.

So many liberals having become minority racists and so many conservatives having become rootless cranks, so much religion having become social science and so much social science having become intellectual sleight-of-hand, the thoughtful Majority member has nowhere to turn but to himself. This, however, may be his salvation. In isolation the critical faculty cuts deeper. Only now is it possible to understand the tragic and humiliating fate of the American Majority because only now are a few Majority minds, deepened by decades of solitary contemplation and sharpened by the grim chronicle of events, finally tuning to the emergency wavelength of collective survival.

On the surface America appears lost. But the animalization of the body and the brutalization of the spirit, the desecration of the environment, the venality of politics, the drug and homosexual plagues, AIDS, the taste-killing shock waves of pornography, ghetto savagery, the feminist madness, reverse discrimination, the degeneration of the military, the torrents of illegal immigrants, the apostasy of the professors and journalists, the mindlessness of the students, the phobic materialism and Babbittry of their parents — all these, perhaps, are not the irreversible regressions they seem but merely short-term roadblocks or detours on the Great Trek to a higher and more luminous life form. In the sequence of organic rebirth, what is to be done must first be undone. Unthinking must precede rethinking. According to the sine curve of human action, degeneration alternates with regeneration. Quite possibly the present phase is one of reculer pour mieux sauter.

On the hopeful side the chromosomal material, the first and fundamental requirement for an American resurgence, is still in abundant supply. Life scientists and those few social scientists worthy of the name are seething with insights and breakthroughs which cannot help but unbait some of the dogmatic traps that have been deliberately set for the more active Majority intellects. From the raked-over ashes of burnt-out historicism flashes a spark or two of authentic history. There is even the glimmer of a new religion (or the rejuvenation of the old) in the Promethean utterances and riddles of the new ontology.

At all events, the Majority will soon be out of limbo. There is nowhere for it to go but up — or all the way down. It is really a matter of timing, a race between the encroaching jungle and the ripening harvest. The moon walk may turn out to be the last mile, or the crossing of the Rubicon.

Part I • Racial Dynamics

Chapter 1 • The Concept of Race • 1,100 Words

Nothing has raised man to higher peaks of creativity or lowered him to greater depths of destructiveness than the dual notion of human similarity and dissimilarity.

Every man is like every other man in that he belongs to the same species, Homo sapiens. The seven-foot Watusi, the four-foot Pygmy, the milk-white Swede, the coffee-colored Latin American mestizo, and the almond-eyed and almond-tinted Oriental are all capable of interbreeding. Consequently, the idea of human likeness has biological origins. But so does the idea of human unlikeness. Every man differs physically and mentally from every other man, which accounts both for human individuality and group differences.[1]Even identical twins differ slightly in height, weight, head length, and head width. L. C. Dunn and Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity, Race and Society, New American Library, New York, 1960, p. 27. “Deux jumeaux identiques, provenant du meme oeuf, possedant la meme constitution genetique, manifestent chacun une personnalite differente.” Alexis Carrel, L’homme cet inconnu, Librarie Plon, Paris, 1935, p. 336. As Shakespeare wrote:

Strange is it that our bloods,
Of colour, weight, and heat, pour’d all together,
Would quite confound distinction, yet stand off
In differences so mighty.[2]All’s Well That Ends Well, act 2, scene 3.

The average person probably starts life as a similarist and ends as a dissimilarist. The child grows older and wanders from the family hearth, only to find that all fathers do not look like his father, all mothers not like his mother, all children not like his brothers and sisters. As he strays farther afield, he discovers noticeable physical and cultural differences among the populations of big cities and foreign countries.[3]One social scientist, George Murdock, claims to have found 73 elements common to all cultures, among them: courtship, dancing, division of labor, education, family, folklore, games, hairstyles, hospitality, law, and magic. The Science of Man in the World Crisis, editor Ralph Linton, Columbia University Press, New York, 1945, p. 124. Inevitably he recognizes that some human beings have a set of physical and cultural characteristics similar to his own while others do not. With or without the help or advice of father, mother, teacher, book, or television, he has separated one group of people from another. Like it or not, he has subscribed to the concept of race.

The belief that every man belongs to a distinct human breed is the bugbear of social anthropologists and a challenge to physical anthropologists who have been trying to eradicate such “loose thinking” by coming up with a more rigorous definition of race. So far their efforts have been largely concentrated on the accumulation and classification of biometric data and have produced as much controversy as agreement. Even if they eventually succeed in establishing the physiological component of race on firm scientific ground, they will still be faced with the mysteries and complexities of the psychological component. Race, as every American politician is well aware, goes far beyond the realm of the physical.

Unfortunately for those anthropologists and biologists who work with tape measures and computers, and will only permit biological factors to determine and define race, the concept of race leans as heavily on the awareness of blood relationship as on the fact.

Statesmen, poets, and prophets take a less scientific approach. They know the immense power that feelings of kinship exert on human affairs and the vast political and social transformations that take place when these feelings are kindled or rekindled in human hearts. When men cannot appeal to anthropology to justify the existence of race, they will often appeal to history and folklore. “The device of myths to establish a common ancestry for an ethnic group,” psychologist E. K. Francis noted a half-century ago, “is a very ancient one.”[4]“The Nature of the Ethnic Group,” American Journal of Sociology, March 1947, p. 396.

Ethnic group is a favorite term of those social anthropologists who wish to drain race of its emotional content and subjectivity. Even more anemic is population group. But changing man’s vocabulary does not necessarily change his thinking. Although ethnic group, population group, cline, Formenkreis, and the like are handy and appropriate labels for classifying certain segments of mankind with minimal friction, they fall far short of telling the whole story.

There are other, less watered-down synonyms for race, a few of the more common being stock, breed, and nationality. They still hit rather wide of the mark. More descriptive, though more awkward, are such neologisms as we-feeling and wegroup. William Graham Sumner, a pillar of the once dominant conservative school of sociology, had a particular fondness for ethos, a word of Greek origin for the ideas, standards, and habits that characterize an individual or a group.[5]William Graham Sumner, Folkways, Ginn & Co., Boston, 1906, p. 12. Ethos, however, leaves much to be desired because of its tendency to sidestep the physical stratum.

Perhaps the word that most closely approximates race is people, either modified by a possessive pronoun, my, our, your, or as used by Oswald Spengler when he wrote, “The Roman name in Hannibal’s day meant a people, in Trajan’s time nothing more than a population.”[6]The Decline of the West, trans. C. F. Atkinson, Knopf, New York, 1957, Vol. II, p. 165. More highly charged expressions for race are the crude but communicative “blood brother” and “soul brother,” which black store owners sometimes paint on their windows during ghetto riots to escape the wrath of arsonists and looters.

So meaningful and at the same time so meaningless, the concept of race encompasses so many facts and fancies, so much love and hate, so much reason and unreason that it is more easily sensed than understood. In some respects race is similar to certain other four-letter words in English. It throws a hard emotional punch, and its use is studiously avoided in polite and academic circles. For all its semantic sloppiness, however, race exerts a profound influence on men’s minds. As one leading social scientist put it a half-century ago, The absence among the people of a clearly formulated definition of race, far from weakening it, actually adds to the potency of the race idea.”[7]Edgar T. Thompson. “Race in the Modern World,” Journal of Negro Education, Summer, 1944, p. 8. Man is the amalgam of his physiological inheritance and his sociological acquisitions. He can shed the latter but not the former. He ca«n give up his religion, his country, and his culture. He cannot give up his race. Or, more precisely, he cannot give up the physical side of his race, which, apart from superficial alterations by plastic surgeons and beauticians, is inexorably determined by the laws of genetics.[8]Even the phenomenon of passing is primarily involved with non-physical aspects of race. Essentially the man who passes is trading the cultural trappings of one community for those of another. Biologically speaking, the black who looks” so white that he is accepted as a white is still a fractional black.

Footnotes

[1] Even identical twins differ slightly in height, weight, head length, and head width. L. C. Dunn and Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity, Race and Society, New American Library, New York, 1960, p. 27. “Deux jumeaux identiques, provenant du meme oeuf, possedant la meme constitution genetique, manifestent chacun une personnalite differente.” Alexis Carrel, L’homme cet inconnu, Librarie Plon, Paris, 1935, p. 336.

[2] All’s Well That Ends Well, act 2, scene 3.

[3] One social scientist, George Murdock, claims to have found 73 elements common to all cultures, among them: courtship, dancing, division of labor, education, family, folklore, games, hairstyles, hospitality, law, and magic. The Science of Man in the World Crisis, editor Ralph Linton, Columbia University Press, New York, 1945, p. 124.

[4] “The Nature of the Ethnic Group,” American Journal of Sociology, March 1947, p. 396.

[5] William Graham Sumner, Folkways, Ginn & Co., Boston, 1906, p. 12.

[6] The Decline of the West, trans. C. F. Atkinson, Knopf, New York, 1957, Vol. II, p. 165.

[7] Edgar T. Thompson. “Race in the Modern World,” Journal of Negro Education, Summer, 1944, p. 8.

[8] Even the phenomenon of passing is primarily involved with non-physical aspects of race. Essentially the man who passes is trading the cultural trappings of one community for those of another. Biologically speaking, the black who looks” so white that he is accepted as a white is still a fractional black.

Chapter 2 • Racism • 1,300 Words

As the idea is to ideology, so the concept of race is to racism.[1]“An ideology is a complex of ideas or notions which represents itself to the thinker as an absolute truth for the interpretation of the world and his situation within it; it leads the thinker to accomplish an act of self-deception for the purpose of justification, obfuscation, evasion, in some sense or other to his advantage. ” Karl Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, trans. Michael Bullock, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1968, p. 132. “Roughly defined, an ideologist is a thinker convinced he has discovered clear solutions to certain human problems or predicaments — solutions capable of expression in general theoretical terms.” Times Literary Supplement (London), Jan. 29, 1970, p.l. This leads to the definition of racism — the British call it racialism — as a belief in the race idea. But belief implies some measure of assent, some inward or outward activation of the belief. Racism, accordingly, can be described as the overt or covert expression of the concept of race at one or more levels of human activity — in politics, art, religion, business, community life, and in the privacy of the home.

Racism, which presupposes a common ancestry, is not the same as nationalism, which presupposes a common citizenship. It is usually, but not invariably, associated with such an exalted form of nationalism as patriotism, such extreme forms of nationalism as chauvinism and jingoism, such localized forms as sectionalism, regionalism and provincialism. Racism is present both in the foundation and in the dissolution of empires. It may reinforce nationalism in homogeneous societies and oppose it in multiracial states. In proletarian revolutions and fascist counterrevolutions it may play a far more important role than class.[2]See Chapter 25.

When races are geographically separated or isolated, racism is likely to be directed externally across and beyond the boundaries of one province, region, or state to another province, region, or state. Where races live side by side, in the same neighborhood or school district, racism is apt to be directed internally to the city block or classroom. Racism of both types is present in most large nations (Japan and China being the most obvious exceptions). Russia, the principal heir of the decomposed Soviet Union, having become much more homogeneous with the breakup of the communist imperium, is an example of a country that practices externalized racism, in contrast to the United States, where owing to the many dissimilar racial elements living cheek by jowl, especially in large metropolitan areas, racism is more internalized.

As far as can be ascertained, practically every nation or society has passed through one or more racist cycles. Despite their endless internecine wars and political and cultural rivalries, the ancient Greeks, according to historian H. A. L. Fisher, “believed themselves to be one in race, language and institutions.”[3]As quoted by T. J. Haarhoff, The Stranger at the Gate, Longmans Green, London, 1938, p. viii. They classified all foreigners as barbarians and generally treated them as inferiors, ironically the same status conferred later on the Hellenes by the Romans, who considered them to be corrupt weaklings. Even to this day, many Jews have indulged in the idea of separateness and “Chosenness.” Prototypical racial attitudes of the Spanish conquerors and British colonialists infused all their dealings with American Indians and Negroes. The traditionally hostile sentiments of Chinese towards non-Chinese need no elaboration; neither does the white supremacy once endemic in the mind-set of the European empire builders.[4]For a more detailed summary of racist manifestations among the peoples of the world, see Sumner, op. cit., p. 29.

Like national defense or the balance of payments, racism is frequently regulated and modified by outside events and influences. Although a homogeneous or a heterogeneous society may display few signs of racism in times of peace, once a neighboring state begins acting aggressively, once a few thousand fellow citizens or racial cousins abroad become the victims of oppression, the dormant racism of the nation or of one or more population groups within the nation may be quickly aroused and assume a dynamic instead of a static character.

Racism, it should also be observed, operates in different orbits in different locations. Consider two American soldiers, one of Scandinavian, the other of Southern Italian origin, guarding a lonely outpost facing the North Koreans or North Vietnamese. At home the first might have called the second a Latin or an Italian when he was trying to be polite, a “wop” or a “greaser” when he was not Now he feels he is in the presence of a fellow white.

Perhaps the first law of racism is that racism begets racism. Paradoxically, so does antiracism, which focuses so much attention on race and implants it so deeply in the public consciousness that the net amount of racism is actually increased. Antiracism, moreover, permits many people to practice racism vicariously by adopting the cause of every race but their own.

In one respect racism is a form of group morale. It provides a protective psychological shell for the most defenseless and defensive peoples. It is also largely responsible for the high aggression quotient of dynamic peoples. In the course of promoting tribalism in both the most retarded and most advanced nations, racism makes the modern industrial state with its sophisticated technology a fearsome opponent. Everything else being equal — manpower, industrial plant, scientific proficiency, and natural resources — a racist state can muster a deadlier military force than a nonracist state. Since families have more fighting spirit than less closely related groups, when war breaks out the tribe or race will often act as the extension of the family. Death comes easier to those who believe they are dying for their people as well as for their country. The soldier with only a modicum of race consciousness may have more difficulty being brave. Conscientious objectors, pacifists, and draft evaders are in short supply in racially oriented societies.

So much of racism remains below the surface in any given historical setting that students of the past seldom give it proper emphasis. Quite possibly, it is the force majeur in human achievement — and human failure. Who can prove the contrary? Who can prove that racism is not a better clue to the rise and fall of civilizations than economics, religion, organic growth and decay, weather, great men, or even fate?

Take the United States with the homogeneous genetic substrate of the Founding Fathers, the racial struggle with the Indians, the racial overtones of the Civil War, the racial differences of the Old and New Immigration, the racial mechanics of big-city and Southern politics, the mounting tempo of minority demands and agitation. Take the United Nations, now coalescing into a conglomeration of racial blocs. Take the twentieth-century revolt of the colored peoples of Asia and Africa against white colonialism. Weigh all this evidence, then wonder at the liberal and conservative historians who grind out their thickly annotated histories which either avoid racism altogether or treat it as a disease rather than as a basic element of human nature.

At present, worldwide movements are afoot to abolish racism. But as indicated by events in the United States and foreign countries, far from being abolished anywhere, it is becoming intensified everywhere.

Instead of attempting to destroy the indestructible, it might be wiser to learn more about man’s racial reflexes. Research into the sources of racism might produce effective ways of civilizing it, controlling it, and directing it into more creative and constructive channels.[5]“The application of this principle [racism] has governed the evolution of all advancing societies since soon after the beginning of agriculture.” C.D. Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1969, p. 607. Such knowledge might also aid in distinguishing between the racial behavior that helps build nations and the racial behavior that tears them apart.

Footnotes

[1] “An ideology is a complex of ideas or notions which represents itself to the thinker as an absolute truth for the interpretation of the world and his situation within it; it leads the thinker to accomplish an act of self-deception for the purpose of justification, obfuscation, evasion, in some sense or other to his advantage. ” Karl Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, trans. Michael Bullock, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1968, p. 132. “Roughly defined, an ideologist is a thinker convinced he has discovered clear solutions to certain human problems or predicaments — solutions capable of expression in general theoretical terms.” Times Literary Supplement (London), Jan. 29, 1970, p.l.

[2] See Chapter 25.

[3] As quoted by T. J. Haarhoff, The Stranger at the Gate, Longmans Green, London, 1938, p. viii.

[4] For a more detailed summary of racist manifestations among the peoples of the world, see Sumner, op. cit., p. 29.

[5] “The application of this principle [racism] has governed the evolution of all advancing societies since soon after the beginning of agriculture.” C.D. Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1969, p. 607.

Chapter 3 • Racial Metaphysics • 4,700 Words

The he concept of race and the racial ideologies that flow from it permeated the great civilizations of antiquity. The Bible divided the races of mankind into the sons of Shem (Semites), Ham (non-Semitic Mediterraneans),[1]Christian theologians later gratuitously added Negroes to this white racial category. and Japhet (Northern peoples). Among the sons of Shem were the Jews, who were warned by Jehovah to preserve their racial identity, as they were “a special people unto himself, above all the people that are upon the face of the earth.”[2]Deut 7:6. Strictures against exogamy are found in 7:3.

The Aryans who invaded India were so concerned with race that they set up a complex caste system, by means of which the priesdy Brahmans partially succeeded in preserving their original physical type for more than 2,500 years, although their once fair complexions, as a result of mutations and some miscegenation are now better adapted to the blasting Indian sun.[3]“The first caste division…was not by status but by color; it divided long noses from broad noses, Aryans from Nagas and Dravidians …. The caste system had the eugenic value of keeping the presumably finer strains from dilution. …” Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1954, pp. 398, 487. The tomb and temple paintings of the ancient Egyptians depicted a simpler and less sophisticated form of racism. The gods and pharaohs were larger than life, whereas Negroes and other outlanders were posed in cringing obeisance.[4]References to Negroes in the English captions of these wall paintings on view at the British Museum in 1968 had been partially erased. Apparently some modern descendants of the victims of ancient Egyptian racism had not wanted to be reminded of past indignities.

As might be expected, the Greeks were the first to look for natural causes of racial differences and to philosophize about racial matters. Hippocrates’ essay, On Airs, Waters and Places, gave climate and geography as possible reasons for variations in human physiology and temperament.[5]Hippocrates, On Airs, Waters and Places, trans. Francis Adams, Great Books of the Western World, Chicago, Vol. 10, p. 18. Plato thought it would be good to inculcate a feeling of racial purity in youths destined for the future leadership of the commonwealth. Such an idea, which he described as a “noble lie,” would develop a greater measure of pride and responsibility in the young elite — qualities which presumably made for better statesmanship.[6]Republic, III, 414-15, trans. Paul Shorey, The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Bolingen Series, LXXI, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1969. On the other hand, Aristotle helped institutionalize slavery with his theory of the “natural-born” slave.[7]Ernest Barker, The Politics of Aristotle, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950, pp. 13-14.

Full-blown “scientific” racial theories, however, did not take form for another 2,000 years. It was not until the late eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century that enough data had been collected to permit a few intrepid anthropologists and biologists to categorize mankind according to race. Along with the classifications came the value judgments. Since whites had now conquered or settled much of the earth and were remaking it in their image, an innately superior bloodline was proposed for the supermen, who were variously described as Aryans, Indo-Europeans, Anglo-Saxons, Nordics, Celts, Alpines, and Teutons.

The theory of Northern European racial supremacy was assisted and expanded by the discovery of a surprising linguistic relationship between the Aryan (in this instance meaning a specific division of the white or Caucasian race) invaders of India, Hittites, Kassites, Persians, Greeks, and Romans of the ancient world, and the French, British, Germans, Slavs, and other peoples of modern Europe. Although a common language does not necessarily presuppose a common race, the Indo-European languages,[8]One Indo-European root word: name (English), name (Old Persian), noma (Sanskrit), onoma (Greek), nomen (Latin), nome (Italian), nombre (Spanish), nom (French), Name (German), eemya (Russian). as they came to be called, and the Indo-European speakers gave birth to a racial hypothesis in which a blond, light-complexioned people with rare creative gifts fertilizes new civilizations or refertilizes moribund ones.[9]Some examples: Aryan invasion of India; Dorian invasion of Greece; Germanic overrunning of the Western Roman Empire; Norman conquest of Normandy and Sicily. For more on the Indo-European peoples, see Chapter 9.

Among the chief advocates of this hypothesis, often designated as the Aryan theory, were: Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882), a French count and Germanophile who wrote one of the first coherent, though somewhat fanciful, racial interpretations of history;[10]“La ou l’element germanique n’a jamais penetre,” de Gobineau declared, “il n’y a pas de civilization a notre maniere.” Essai sur Vinegalite des races humaines, Librarie de Firmin-Didot, Paris, 1884, Vol. I, p. 93. Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927), an Englishman who became a naturalized German citizen and whose grandiose Weltanschauung detected Teutonic genes in almost all the great men of the past, including Jesus; Madison Grant (1865-1937), American lawyer and naturalist who expounded on the decline of the great culture-bearing, culture-creating Nordic peoples and whose arguments were helpful in securing the passage of restrictive United States immigration laws in the early 1920s; Lothrop Stoddard (18831950), American political philosopher, also active in the immigration issue, who warned that whites would soon be overwhelmed by the fecundity of the colored races.[11]Chamberlain’s principal work was Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts; Grant’s, The Passing of the Great Race, Stoddard’s, The Rising Tide of Color.

Although his Spanish ancestry and his Puritan associations in New England precluded any special affection for the Teuton, the philosopher George Santayana was one of the most vigorous subscribers to the idea of racial hierarchies, as the following paragraph demonstrates:

Some races are obviously superior to others. A more thorough adjustment to the conditions of existence has given them spirit, vitality, scope and a relative stability. … It is therefore of the greatest importance not to obscure this superiority by intermarriage with inferior stock, and thus nullify the progress made by a painful evolution and a prolonged sifting of souls. Reason protests as much as instinct against any fusion, for instance, of white and black peoples The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the English were never so great as when they confronted other nations…but this greatness falls whenever contact leads to amalgamation.[12]The Life of Reason, Scribner’s, New York, 1922, Vol. II, pp. 166-67.

In the 1930s, probably for the first time in history, theories of racial superiority became state doctrine when the Nazi Party took command in Germany.[13]Or was it the second time? Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederacy, once declaimed: This our new government is the first in the history of the World based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.” Charles and Mary Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, Macmillan, 1930, Vol. 2, p. 68. But after the inventory of Hitler’s racial politics was taken at the close of World War II, all arguments for racial supremacy were placed beyond the pale of permissible thought.

Race being so deeply personal a subject, it comes as no surprise that advocates of racial superiority usually belong to, or think they belong to, the race they consider superior. It is equally no surprise that in America the opposition to theories of Nordic or Northern European superiority was led by anthropologists and social scientists who were in most cases members of minority groups. Perhaps in the belief that one good myth deserves another, Franz Boas (1858-1942), a scholar of German-Jewish origin and professor of anthropology at Columbia University, advanced the first comprehensively developed theory of racial equality. Boas hypothesized that nurture, not nature, was the chief determinant of important racial differences. He went so far as to assert that even such a persistent genetic trait as head shape (cephalic index)[14]Cephalic index is maximum head breadth divided by maximum head length times 100. The lower the index, the longer the head. like physical scientists, anthropologists have a fondness for using long-winded Greek derivatives for simple and precise English expressions. Dolichocephalic is long-headed; brachycephalic is round-headed. could be altered by environmental changes in one or two generations.[15]Franz Boas, “Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants,” American Anthropologist, New Series, 14:530-62. Boas’s quasi-Lamarckian views were refuted by Henry Pratt Fairchild, a prominent social scientist, in Race and Nationality, Ronald Press, New York, 1947, p. 105.

Ashley Montagu, a physical anthropologist of Anglo-Jewish origin, became the great vulgarizer of racial equalitarianism with a seemingly endless stream of best-selling books, television appearances and speeches before learned and unlearned societies.[16]As one of the sponsors, together with the late Bishop James Pike and British-born Zen Buddhist Alan Watts, of a computer dating service, Montagu may have been able to put his theories to the ultimate test San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, Date Book, Jan. 19, 1969, p. 24. Other leading members of the equalitarian school, not all of them anthropologists, were Otto Klineberg, Melville Herskovits, Alexander Goldenweiser, Isador Chein, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Gene Weltfish, Kenneth Clark, and two vociferous Anglo-Saxon females, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead.[17]Mead and Benedict belonged to a somewhat exotic breed of WASP womanhood. They were lesbian lovers for a time, and the former claimed to have had a Sephardic grandmother. Mary C. Bateson, With a Daughters Eye, William Morrow, New York, 1984, pp. 72, 106. Mead’s semi-classic, Coming of Age in Samoa, was effectively skewered by Australian anthropologist Derek Freeman in Margaret Mead and Samoa, Harvard University Press, 1983. Gene Weltfish achieved some notoriety by asserting the American army had resorted to germ warfare in the Korean War. Kenneth Clark, a black, took a leading part in convincing the Supreme Court to order school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In his scholarly monographs, Dobzhansky, a graduate of the University of Kiev, tactfully acknowledged some differences in racial capabilities, but practically denied them in his writings for public consumption. Leslie White’s evolutionist school of anthropology and W. H. Sheldon’s attempts to associate temperament with body type (endomorph, mesomorph, ectomorph) received scant recognition because of their anti-Boas stance.

Overall racial equality received the official sanction of the United Nations upon the publication of the 1950 and 1962 UNESCO statements on race. Sounding more like declarations of faith than reasoned scientific arguments, the UNESCO papers generated the following axioms:

The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capabilities in all ethnic groups is much the same. … As for personality and character, these may be considered raceless …. [G]iven similar degrees of cultural opportunity to realize their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same.

Although really intending to describe the behaviorist school of psychology, which went hand in glove with the equalitarian anthropologists by stressing human malleability, sociologist Horace Kallen aptly summed up the UNESCO statements in words which should be carved on Boas’s and Montagu’s tombstones: “At birth human infants, regardless of their heredity, are as equal as Fords.”[18]See Kallen’s article, “Behaviorism,” Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Macmillan, New York, 1963, Vols. 1-2, p. 498. Several decades earlier, J. B. Watson (1878-1958), the founder and explorer of behaviorism, had provided a psychological basis for equalitarianism by stating, ‘There is no such thing as an inheritance of capacity, talent, temperament, mental constitution and characteristics. * 19 His most famous disciple, B. F. Skinner, later conditioned rats so successfully that it was assumed he could perform equal wonders with humans. In fact, Skinner designed a Utopia around his reinforcement techniques in a book, Walden II, which served as a combination Bible and Constitution for a live commune which never worked out too well. It should be stated, however, that the inventor of the Skinner Box never denied the importance of genetic factors in human behavior.

By the early 1960s the idea of innate racial equality had become so firmly established in modern education and in the communications media that it was difficult to question it and still maintain one’s academic or professional respectability. Nevertheless, a largely unpublicized but persistent reaction set in, stimulated by school desegregation and the violence that accompanied increasing black demands for a place in the American sun.

Garleton Putnam, American air transport pioneer and historian, declared that the Boas school of anthropology based its conclusions concerning racial equality on a misconceived self-interest Advocating a realistic acceptance of the sharp differential in black thought patterns and learning capacity, he argued that racial integration on all but the economic level would lead to a steady, relentless deterioration of American education, social life, culture, and national power, as well as to the deterioration of the Negro himself.[20]See Putnam’s Race and Reason (1961) and Race and Reality (1967), Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 76, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Boas and his followers, Putnam maintained, gave

the Negro the idea that he has a grudge against the White man and the White man the notion he should feel guilty about the Negro. The grudge incites the Negro to riots and crime, and the guilt leads the White man to a policy of perpetual permissiveness and appeasement[21]Paper on “General Race Differences,” Feb. 5, 1969.

Elsewhere Putnam stated, “The core of the deceit has been in teaching that the greater part of the differences in status of individuals and groups among us is due to social injustice, whereas the scientific fact remains that, frequent as injustice is, these differences are primarily attributable to innate differences in capacity. “[22]Congressional Record, Nov. 13, 1969, pp. E9630-32.

Henry E. Garrett, chairman of the Department of Psychology, Columbia University, went further than Putnam by calling the equalitarian dogma “the scientific hoax of the century.” Garrett accused social scientists of relying on moral denunciation when their real evidence regarding Negro mental abilities became feeble. He blamed church leaders for falsifying science to bolster their ethical arguments for racial equality.[23]See Garrett’s article, “The Equalitarian Dogma,” in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Summer, 1961.

William Shockley, who won the Nobel Prize in physics for coinventing the transistor, joined the controversy when he suggested that all contemporary programs for Negro betterment were based on false premises. ‘The major deficit in Negro intellectual performance,” Shockley asserted, “must be primarily of hereditary origin and thus irremediable by practical improvements in environment. “[24]Speech before National Academy of Sciences, April 24, 1968. He also stressed that the high birthrate of the poorest and most disadvantaged blacks was a “dysgenic tragedy.”

Other believers in disparities in racial intelligence included Sir Cyril Burt[25]Burt’s studies of identical twins reared apart were important props of the hereditarian argument. In 1976, Oliver Gillie, a British journalist, launched a posthumous, ad hominem attack on Burt, who died in 1971, asserting he had falsified his research, a charge later picked up and repeated by Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould, two vituperous Jewish academicians. Some years later two books, The Burt Affair by Robert B. Joynson and Science, Ideology and the Media; the Cyril Burt Scandal by Ronald Fletcher, rehabilitated the dead Briton. and H.J. Eysenck in Britain, J. Philippe Rushton in Canada, Arthur Jensen and the British-born Raymond Cattell in the United States. Jensen created a sensation by refusing to attribute the 15-point shortfall in black I.Q. scores to environmental causes or to tests that were “culturally biased. ” With scant regard for consistency, Julian Huxley, the noted British biologist who helped prepare the UNESCO statements decrying race, went on record as stating that it was probably true, “Negroes have a slightly lower average intelligence than the whites or the yellows.”

A few leading twentieth-century anthropologists and sociologists attempted to stand above or straddle the question of racial differences, among them A.L. Kroeber, Ales Hrdlicka,[26]Proceedings of the Third Race Betterment Conference, Jan. 1928, pp. 84-85. and Pitirim Sorokin.[27]Contemporary Sociological Theories, Harper & Bros., N.Y., 1928, pp. 291-93. Hrdlicka warned of the danger of a mass inflow of black genes into the American population but refused to say why it was a danger. Sorokin admitted there was evidence of mental differences among races, but underplayed the function of heredity. Some of this reticence was doubtlessly due to fear, some to the natural reluctance of bona fide scientists to generalize on what they considered to be insufficient data. One of the great modern anthropologists, Professor Carleton Coon of Harvard, wrote, “The subject of racial intelligence…has not progressed far enough to merit inclusion in a general work of racial history.”[28]The Races of Europe, Macmillan, N.Y., 1954, p. vii. Coon died in 1981. His last work, Racial Aptitudes, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1982, does touch on this subject

Nevertheless, Coon provided powerful ammunition for the antiequalitarian or hereditarian school with a startling and illuminating theory on the origin of races. For thousands of years it had been taken for granted that the races of man had descended or branched out from a single species. In direct and iconoclastic contradiction to this traditional doctrine, Coon stated that the five living races of mankind, which he named Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Capoid and Congoid, had evolved separately into Homo sapiens following different timetables. If Coon was right about the parallel genesis of races, there now existed an evolutionary basis for racial differences, and the case against the equalitarians was strengthened. Even more damaging to the equalitarian viewpoint was Coon’s assertion that the Negro race, which he assigned to the Congoid group, was the last of the major races to evolve. The blacks, according to Coon, had been in a sapiens state for a shorter time than the white and yellow races (40,000 versus 210,000 years). 29 This led inexorably to the conclusion that blacks were the least developed and least articulated of mankind’s principal racial divisions.

The violent and vituperative reaction which greeted Coon’s theories vividly demonstrated the metaphysical nature of the race question. Ashley Montagu, who before the publication of Coon’s work had said that the multiracial origin of man was “inadmissible,” declared that Coon’s facts were fraudulent and compared the onetime president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists to “the racial anthropologists [of] a hundred years ago.”[30]Man in Process, New American Library, New York, 1961, p. 103, and Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, World, Cleveland, 1964, p. 86. Marvin K Opler, another anthropologist of the Boas persuasion, was equally vehement, stating, “it is easy to see why Coon’s theory should make him the darling of segregationist committees and racists everywhere…he cannot convincingly write human history, even racial history. He will have to acquire more knowledge, more compassion and more humility for that.”[31]New York Herald-Tribune, Book Section, Dec. 9, 1962, p. 7.

Instead of invective, which is often self-defeating because it publicizes the target, the silent treatment was given to another great modern anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who held the view that the greatest outburst of man’s biological progress occurred in the hunting band, when a combination of geographical isolation and group cohesion produced the balanced gene pool necessary for the efficient functioning of the evolutionary process. Keith was afraid that the total racial integration demanded by the more dedicated equalitarians might have a dysgenic effect on man by swamping beneficial mutations before they had a chance to take hold. The Scottish anthropologist also pointed out that prejudice, discrimination, xenophobia, and certain other human achievements now considered sinful may actually serve an important evolutionary purpose. They may be nature’s chief tools for race-building and creating favorable growth conditions for the variegated cultures and peoples that have made the mosaic of man so rich and colorful.[32]See Keith’s A New Theory of Human Evolution, Watts, London, 1950; Essays on Human Evolution, Watts, 1948.

If professional anthropologists can descend to the lowest levels of polemics, vindictiveness, and thought control, how, it may be asked, can the layman acquire enlightened ideas about race? One answer is to look at the historical evidence, which points inescapably to the fact that certain races or peoples have accomplished far more than others in the fields of technology, material comfort and popular government. If these accomplishments are due to genetic causes, the low-achieving races in Western lands will always be saddled, as they have been in the past, with the stigma of underperformance, even though they may be perfectly capable of overperformance in their ancestral societies, many of which are still extant.

Much of the bitterness of the present-day racial debate stems from some races being forced to compete or choosing to compete, in a world they never made. The all-important question of whether heredity or environment has the upper hand in the shaping of human destiny has degenerated into a quasi-theological dispute involving such crucial psychological ingredients as pride and facesaving. One side appeals to heredity to explain past successes; the other to environment, society, and “historical accidents” to excuse past failures.

If heredity was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the central factor in human achievement, the proof would almost certainly be rejected in the present climate of modern thought. Anti-hereditarians have too much at stake, both physically and spiritually, to abandon their cause for any reason, least of all a negative scientific verdict on the validity of their ideas and programs. They are only too well aware that the acceptance or acknowledgement of important genetic diversities in man would seriously undermine the entire foundation of prevailing political and social dogma, the fountainhead of the miraculous changes wrought in the status of privileged and underprivileged minorities.

Nonetheless, time seems to be working unflaggingly for the hereditarian party. Although investigations into racial intelligence are still largely taboo, research teams keep approaching the subject tangentially with significant new discoveries relating to racial divergences in brain structure, resistance to disease, blood group distribution, glandular function, hormone activity, and gene recombination.

By the late 1960s the investigations of Nikolaas Tinbergen, a Hollander, and Konrad Lorenz, a German, into the heritability of aggressive and territorial instincts had been widely published, both under their own names and by popularizer Robert Ardrey, whose profuse digressions often reached high levels of political and social commentary. If man had been a hunter for millions of years, a farmer for 10,000, and a factory worker for 150, Ardrey wanted to know how his deeper instincts — his reptilian and mammalian brains — could be changed by a few years of inferior education. The author advised those who wished to improve man to understand, not ignore, his instinctual nature.

Another blow was struck against the environmentalist hegemony with the publication in 1974 of Race by John R. Baker, an internationally renowned Oxford biologist and a Fellow of the Royal Society. 33 Dr. Baker minced no words and ducked no issues in what one respected scientific journal called “perhaps the best documented book on human races ever published.” In contrast to the Boasites, Baker found significant mental as well as physical differences among the races which he classified, analyzed, and evaluated with such professional skill that hardly anyone rose to challenge him. In the United States the book was generally ignored by the mass media, an exception being the Washington Post, which ran a splenetic review by Amitai Etzioni, a sociologist and former Israeli commando.

A year later Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, opened up new vistas for genetic determinists when he practically invented the science of sociobiology. Genes, according to Wilson, not only govern individual behavior but social behavior as well. Death on the battlefield, for example, is a supreme act of altruism in which one sacrifices one’s own genes so that the closely related genes of one’s family or one’s group will survive. Xenophobia is simply an inherited response to threats of contamination of the gene pool by outsiders.[34]Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.

Wilson’s ideas, together with the fascinating speculations of theoretical biologists R. L. Trivers, W. D. Hamilton, J. Maynard Smith, and Richard Dawkins stirred up a vortex of controversy. Two minority scientists, Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, reacted by insinuating that sociobiology was racist. Other scientists, such as George Wald, a highly politicized Nobel laureate, lashed out at Wilson and the determinist school of biology by calling for an end to amniocentesis, the screening of fetuses for genetic defects. Walter Bodmer and Liebe Cavalli-Sforza wanted to outlaw investigations into black and white I.Q. differences. Still others demanded a government ban on any research that might substantiate racial theories or lead to any form of genetic engineering. When Pope John Paul II joined the fray and lent his considerable support to these strictures, 35 a strange inquisitional alliance between the ultrareligious and the ultraleft seemed in the making.

That so many anti-Wilsonians were minority members of the Marxist persuasion was probably the effect rather than the cause of their apparently innate abhorrence of even a hint of biological determinism. Although Marx had once tried to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, a strong believer in inherited racial differences, his followers have always nourished a secret fondness for Lamarck, who believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In his desperate attempt to force science to yield to ideology, Stalin elevated the charlatan Lysenko to the higher reaches of Soviet science, while allowing a brilliant geneticist like Nikolai Vavilov to perish in a gulag. Even if biology says no, most Marxists still want man to be 100 percent moldable. Moldable men can be made into good Marxists, whereas genes have no ears to hear the revolutionary blandishments of a Lenin. Indeed the attachment for Lamarck is so persistent that, though his theory has been totally discredited, it keeps cropping up, not only in the pamphlets of extraterritorial Marxists (Russia and the other former Soviet republics have now rehabilitated Mendelian genetics), but also in the books and sermons of Christian fundamentalists.

The war against Wilson in particular and against all scientific research into genetically induced behavior all too frequently descended from words to acts — often rather sordid acts. Wilson himself was physically threatened and doused with water during a conference. William Shockley had some of his college lectures disrupted by black and white radicals. H. J. Eysenck was assaulted during a lecture in London, and his eyeglasses smashed. Richard Herrnstein, who hardly mentioned race, was continuously harassed for proposing that a meritocracy might derive from high I.Q. matings. Edward Banfield, an urbanologist who had some unkind things to say about ghettos, had to sit silently on a podium, while being threatened by left-wing and minority students flaunting brass knuckles. The trials and tribulations of Arthur Jensen will be recounted in a later chapter. The only allegations of racial differences which do not provoke a bitter reaction from the intellectual establishment are those proposing the superiority of Jews.

As man’s environment becomes increasingly man-made, its effect on creating and perpetuating racial differences is bound to shrink. Human surroundings are growing increasingly similar, particularly in highly civilized areas where a common technology, a common educational system, a common communications network, and common occupations prescribe a common way of life. According to equalitarian theory, the performance and achievement levels of different races will converge as their environments converge. Consequently, the supreme test of environmentalism may come in the not too distant future.

Meanwhile, as the issues raised by the hereditarians become more relevant each day, it is hard to believe that the scientific curiosity of the world’s most scientifically curious societies can be prevented much longer from penetrating one of the most challenging and most exciting frontiers of knowledge. It should be kept in mind, however, that the metaphysics of racial equality, although so far having failed to provide any workable solutions to modern man’s most difficult problems, still fires the hearts of tens of millions, who when it comes down to it can be forgiven for refusing to accept the harsh possibility that nature practices a form of racial Calvinism.

Because the faithful are certain not to relinquish their cherished equalitarian dreams without a fight, it is more likely there will be a Galileo of genetics before there is a Newton.

Footnotes

[1] Christian theologians later gratuitously added Negroes to this white racial category.

[2] Deut 7:6. Strictures against exogamy are found in 7:3.

[3] “The first caste division…was not by status but by color; it divided long noses from broad noses, Aryans from Nagas and Dravidians …. The caste system had the eugenic value of keeping the presumably finer strains from dilution. …” Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1954, pp. 398, 487.

[4] References to Negroes in the English captions of these wall paintings on view at the British Museum in 1968 had been partially erased. Apparently some modern descendants of the victims of ancient Egyptian racism had not wanted to be reminded of past indignities.

[5] Hippocrates, On Airs, Waters and Places, trans. Francis Adams, Great Books of the Western World, Chicago, Vol. 10, p. 18.

[6] Republic, III, 414-15, trans. Paul Shorey, The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Bolingen Series, LXXI, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1969.

[7] Ernest Barker, The Politics of Aristotle, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950, pp. 13-14.

[8] One Indo-European root word: name (English), name (Old Persian), noma (Sanskrit), onoma (Greek), nomen (Latin), nome (Italian), nombre (Spanish), nom (French), Name (German), eemya (Russian).

[9] Some examples: Aryan invasion of India; Dorian invasion of Greece; Germanic overrunning of the Western Roman Empire; Norman conquest of Normandy and Sicily. For more on the Indo-European peoples, see Chapter 9.

[10] “La ou l’element germanique n’a jamais penetre,” de Gobineau declared, “il n’y a pas de civilization a notre maniere.” Essai sur Vinegalite des races humaines, Librarie de Firmin-Didot, Paris, 1884, Vol. I, p. 93.

[11] Chamberlain’s principal work was Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts; Grant’s, The Passing of the Great Race, Stoddard’s, The Rising Tide of Color.

[12] The Life of Reason, Scribner’s, New York, 1922, Vol. II, pp. 166-67.

[13] Or was it the second time? Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederacy, once declaimed: This our new government is the first in the history of the World based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.” Charles and Mary Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, Macmillan, 1930, Vol. 2, p. 68.

[14] Cephalic index is maximum head breadth divided by maximum head length times 100. The lower the index, the longer the head. like physical scientists, anthropologists have a fondness for using long-winded Greek derivatives for simple and precise English expressions. Dolichocephalic is long-headed; brachycephalic is round-headed.

[15] Franz Boas, “Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants,” American Anthropologist, New Series, 14:530-62. Boas’s quasi-Lamarckian views were refuted by Henry Pratt Fairchild, a prominent social scientist, in Race and Nationality, Ronald Press, New York, 1947, p. 105.

[16] As one of the sponsors, together with the late Bishop James Pike and British-born Zen Buddhist Alan Watts, of a computer dating service, Montagu may have been able to put his theories to the ultimate test San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, Date Book, Jan. 19, 1969, p. 24.

[17] Mead and Benedict belonged to a somewhat exotic breed of WASP womanhood. They were lesbian lovers for a time, and the former claimed to have had a Sephardic grandmother. Mary C. Bateson, With a Daughters Eye, William Morrow, New York, 1984, pp. 72, 106. Mead’s semi-classic, Coming of Age in Samoa, was effectively skewered by Australian anthropologist Derek Freeman in Margaret Mead and Samoa, Harvard University Press, 1983.

[18] See Kallen’s article, “Behaviorism,” Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Macmillan, New York, 1963, Vols. 1-2, p. 498.

[19] J. B. Watson, Behaviorism, W.W. Norton, New York, 1930, p. 94.

[20] See Putnam’s Race and Reason (1961) and Race and Reality (1967), Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 76, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920.

[21] Paper on “General Race Differences,” Feb. 5, 1969.

[22] Congressional Record, Nov. 13, 1969, pp. E9630-32.

[23] See Garrett’s article, “The Equalitarian Dogma,” in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Summer, 1961.

[24] Speech before National Academy of Sciences, April 24, 1968.

[25] Burt’s studies of identical twins reared apart were important props of the hereditarian argument. In 1976, Oliver Gillie, a British journalist, launched a posthumous, ad hominem attack on Burt, who died in 1971, asserting he had falsified his research, a charge later picked up and repeated by Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould, two vituperous Jewish academicians. Some years later two books, The Burt Affair by Robert B. Joynson and Science, Ideology and the Media; the Cyril Burt Scandal by Ronald Fletcher, rehabilitated the dead Briton.

[26] Proceedings of the Third Race Betterment Conference, Jan. 1928, pp. 84-85.

[27] Contemporary Sociological Theories, Harper & Bros., N.Y., 1928, pp. 291-93.

[28] The Races of Europe, Macmillan, N.Y., 1954, p. vii. Coon died in 1981. His last work, Racial Aptitudes, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1982, does touch on this subject

[29] Coon, The Origin of Races, Knopf, New York, 1962, pp. 3, 4, 85, 655-59, and The Story of Man, Knopf, New York, 1962, 2nd edition, pp. 35-38.

[30] Man in Process, New American Library, New York, 1961, p. 103, and Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, World, Cleveland, 1964, p. 86.

[31] New York Herald-Tribune, Book Section, Dec. 9, 1962, p. 7.

[32] See Keith’s A New Theory of Human Evolution, Watts, London, 1950; Essays on Human Evolution, Watts, 1948.

[33] Originally published by Oxford University Press, Race was reprinted in 1981 by the Foundation for Human Understanding, Athens, Georgia.

[34] Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.

[35] Speech to UNESCO representatives in Paris, June 2, 1980.

Chapter 4 • The Physiological Stratum of Race • 4,100 Words

IT HAS been remarked that race begins with the physical. To provide a clearer picture of the physiology of race, a few of the better known systems of racial classification will be briefly summarized in the first part of this chapter. The second part will be concerned with the race-sorting methods of the man in the street, whose amateurish yet appraising eye is sometimes more perspicacious in such matters than the cold professional scrutiny of the physical anthropologist.

According to zoologists there are well over one million living species of animals. Man, Homo sapiens, is one of them. The derivation goes like this: Animal Kingdom; Phylum Chordata; Subphylum Vertebrata; Class Mammalia; Order Primates; Family Hominidae; Genus Homo; Species sapiens.[1]R. W. Hegner and K A. Stiles, College Zoology, Macmillan. New York, 1959, pp. 2,8. Here zoology stops and anthropology takes over. After the species comes the race.

Serious attempts at racial classification began almost two centuries ago. Most have been based on skin color with primary emphasis on the three most common and most noticeable shades of pigmentation: White (Caucasoid), Yellow (Mongoloid), Black (Negroid). J. F. Blumenbach (1752-1840), the father of physical anthropology, decided that the Brown (Malayan) and Red (Amerindian) races should be included in the color spectrum.[2]J. F. Blumenbach, The Anthropological Treatises, trans. Thomas Bendyshe, Longmans, London, 1865. Using such criteria as nose form, stature and head shape as well as skin color, Joseph Deniker devised a sophisticated catalog of eighteen races. 3 A. L. Kroeber, professor of anthropology at the University of California, added four races — Australoid, Veddoid, Polynesian, Ainu — to the basic three. 4 Carleton Coon’s raciology has been mentioned in the previous chapter. One or two anthropologists have classified races according to hair form: straight, woolly, and curly. 5 Relying on such identifiable genetic traits as blood groups, W. C. Boyd divided man into thirteen races.[6]Coon, The Living Races of Man, pp. 18-19.

As regards the racial classification of whites, the most popular, if not the most accurate, is that of William Z. Ripley, a prominent American anthropologist whose three categories deserve notice because of their influence on shaping racial theories in the early part of the century. Ripley’s white races, together with their “racial markers” and Old World homelands, are listed below.[7]W. Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe, Appleton, New York, 1910, Chapter 6.

Many anthropologists, both before and after Ripley, developed more complicated, more subtle, and often contradictory classifications for the white portion of mankind. Carleton Coon, who added seven more white races to Ripley’s three, made a special point about the Alpines, stressing not only their physical dissimilarities, but their different origin in time and place. According to Coon and several European anthropologists, Alpines are descended from Upper Palaeolithic races which retreated to the remote areas and mountain fastnesses of Europe upon the arrival of Neolithic (Nordic and Mediterranean) invaders. In Coon’s view the Alpine represents the reemergence of the Old European, a racial reincarnation increasing in frequency and seemingly favored by urbanization.[9]Coon, The Races of Europe, pp. 220, 289-93, 510, 560.

Of special interest to Americans is the ethnological research of E. A. Hooton, who proposed nine separate racial divisions for the white population of the United States. In the list below only the races, their physical traits and their European points of origin are given. 10 Their quantitative distribution will be found in Chapter 8.

  • NORDIC-MEDITERRANEAN. Long-headed with light eyes and dark hair or dark eyes and fair hair. Old World habitat: British Isles.
  • NORDIC-ALPINE. Round-headed with high concentration of blondism or Nordic features and physical build. Old World habitat: Slavic lands, Germany, France.
  • PREDOMINANTLY NORDIC. Not quite the pure Nordic. Old World habitat: Britain, Scandinavia.
  • DINARIC. Round-headed, narrow nose, with great range of pigmentation. Old World habitat: Scotland, France, Germany, Poland, Near East.
  • KELTIC. Long-headed, red or reddish hair with blue eyes, or dark hair with blue eyes. Old World habitat: Southern Ireland.
  • PURE MEDITERRANEAN. Long-headed, dark eyes, dark hair. Old World habitat: Portugal, Spain, Italy.
  • EAST BALTIC. Pure blond round-heads with short, broad noses. Old World habitat: Germany, Poland, Russia.
  • PURE ALPINE. 11 Dark-haired, dark-eyed, round-heads with broad noses. Old World habitat: France, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Balkans, Near East.
  • PURE NORDIC. Long-headed, ash blond or golden hair, pure blue or pure gray eyes. Old World habitat: Britain, Scandinavia.

The formal terminology of Hooton’s races has by no means penetrated the popular idiom. While the average layman may agree in principle with some of the broad racial categories of the professional anthropologist, he resorts to a briefer nomenclature. To the ordinary American, Mediterranean is the name of a sea and has no racial significance. The popular synonym for Mediterranean, in its anthropological sense, is “Latin.” “Foreign looking,” an even more ambivalent term, also describes the American who has darker than average skin, hair and eye coloration. But not too dark a coloration I The American black is not “foreign-looking.”

Amateur anthropologists are not afraid to subdivide Latins. When someone is perceived to be “Italian-looking” or “Spanish-looking,” it signifies that persons of Italian or Greek descent can presumably be reccognized on sight. Other popular attempts to identify Mediterraneans, by nationality group as well as by race, are indicated by such slur words as *wop” (Italian), “dago” (Spaniard or Italian), and “spic” or “greaser” (applied to all Latins and to the part-Mediterranean Mexican mestizo). Occasionally even American Indians are categorized as Latins by urbanites and suburbanites who have never been near a reservation.

Alpine is another racial term never used by the general public. The stocky, round-headed assembly-line worker from Central and Eastern Europe and the barrel-necked bartender from Ireland[12]An Alpine racial specimen. The red-headed, freckle-faced Irish American and the blue-eyed colleen have a lot of Nordic genes. are too blurred a racial type to have earned a special category in popular anthropology. They may still bear the peasant look of their Old World ancestors, but they no longer have a peasant’s occupation. In general, the popular classification of Alpines in the United States has been limited to localized slang terms like “Bohunks” and “Polacks” — expressions that are often disparaging and based largely on national and geographic origins.

Nordic is the only white racial designation of the professional anthropologists to have found a place in the vernacular. Although the term is most frequently applied to Scandinavians, many Americans, particularly the willowy, blond film stars, are described as “Nordiclooking.” But because of its frequent association with the Hitlerian theory of a master race, Nordic is used rather sparingly. An unflattering and imprecise substitute is the acronym WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) , now a common tag for Americans with a preponderance of Northern European physical traits, although millions of fair Americans are neither Protestant nor Anglo-Saxon. Since, racially speaking, there is no such thing as a nonwhite Anglo-Saxon, a less redundant and equally stinging acronym would be ASP.

Majority is another term of increasing importance in the American racial dictionary. Practically ignored by professional anthropologists, the American Majority comprises the Nordic, Alpine, Nordic-Alpine and Nordic-Mediterranean elements of the population, as distinguished from the darker Mediterranean and colored elements. It is far from being an authentic race, but it does contain demonstrable traces of an “American” physical norm. When traveling abroad, Majority members will “look like Americans” to the local populace, to whom American citizens of Mediterranean, Oriental or Negro extraction will not look “American.” Even on the home front — among the towheaded school children of the Midwest farm belt, among air force officers, airline pilots and astronauts, among skiers, surfers, polo players and members of yacht clubs — there are those who appear more “American” than others, meaning that they are well within the racial parameters of the Majority physical model. If there is an American racial type in the making, it will almost certainly emerge from the Majority gene pool.[13]For Wyndham Lewis’s discovery of a “Super-European” American physical type, see Chapter 12, The Aesthetic Prop.

Professional anthropology is as reluctant to extend racial recognition to the American Majority as it is to bestow racial status on American Jewry. Not one physical anthropologist in a hundred will admit that there is a Jewish race, although Carleton Coon has found some uniformity of cephalic index, facial structure, and coloration among Russian and Polish Jews, who account for 80 percent of the American Jewish population.[14]The Races of Europe, pp. 643-44. A few ethnologists have detected a certain “nostrility” in Jews, but deny there is a unique set of Jewish facial expressions and gestures.[15]George Eaton Simpson and J. Milton Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities, Harper, New York, Revised Edition, 1958, pp. 57-59. “Although Jews in Europe,” writes C. D. Darlington, “always have different frequencies of blood groups from the Christian populations around them, they depart from the average Jewish frequencies in the direction of these populations.”[16]Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, pp. 467-68.

Historically, Jews were Semites and belonged to the Near Eastern branch of the Mediterranean race. Many Sephardicjews still retain Near Eastern physical traits, often characterized as Jewish in the United States because only recendy has there been a large influx of Arabs. Many Northern and Central European Jews, including some Sephardim who gravitated to Holland after their expulsion from Spain in 1492, possess a few Nordic traits and a measure of blondism. Eastern European Jews, who also exhibit occasional signs of light coloration, are racially distant from the olive-skinned, long-headed Sephardim of the Mediterranean area. Their round heads probably derive from intermarriage with Armenoids and Alpine Slavs.

One of the hoariest of racial old wives’ tales attributes the origin of the Ashkenazim (Eastern European Jews) to the conversion of the Turkish tribe of Khazars to Judaism in the eighth century. Arthur Koestler, a novelist and essayist, who in his lifetime has traversed the entire ideological spectrum from Communist party activist to vitalism, wrote a whole book on the subject. 17 Intrigued by the legend, A. E. Mourant, who specializes in blood group analysis, tested thousands of Jews in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East and came to the conclusion that a strain of genetic homogeneity does run through Jewry, but not a Khazar strain. Even in Russia, Mourant found very little evidence of Khazar additions to the Jewish — or non-Jewish — gene pool. What Mourant and two associates did find was that Jews as a whole exhibit an admixture of 5-10 percent Negro genes, which they may have picked up in their stay in ancient Egypt or in miscegenation with North African peoples. 18 Another argument for a common Jewish biology is a number of specifically Jewish genetic diseases: Tay-Sachs, Niemann-Pick, and Guacher’s.

Whatever the biological verdict may be, a sizable part of the American public, as well as many Jews themselves, continue to think of Jews as a separate and distinct race. They base their judgment on biblical references to a common Jewish historical origin and on various sets of physical traits which have a higher incidence among Jews than among members of any other American population group. The concentration of Jews in the more visible occupations and their irrepressible group solidarity does much to nourish the popular idea of Jewish racehood.

In classifying the Mongoloid population groups in the United States, amateur and professional anthropologists again part company. The general public considers American Indians a race apart, in line with traditional white attitudes towards the “Red Man,” but physical anthropologists put them in the broader Mongoloid racial category.[19]In the frontier days, because of their war paint and the sun’s reflection on their highly toned skin, Indians were called Red Men. From this came the concept of a red race, an ethnological oversimplification that was later abandoned. Actually, Indian skin color varies from light yellow to mahogany. Coon, The Living Races of Man, p. 153. To the man in the street, the Mongoloid race is the yellow race and is composed entirely of Orientals — Chinese, Japanese and other East Asians — who “all look alike,” presumably because popular techniques of identifying Mongoloids do not proceed much beyond the slanted eye (epicanthic fold).[20]Americans who have had firsthand experience in the Far East or who have lived in Hawaii or San Francisco have learned to detect certain racial differences among Mongoloids, particularly the darker coloration of southeastern Asians. Professional anthropologists also place Eskimos and Polynesians generally in the Mongoloid racial niche, while recognizing the Australoid presence in the Polynesian racial background.[21]Coon, op. cit., pp. 138, 184, 294. Nonprofessionals often consider Eskimos and the ever diminishing number of pure Polynesians, especially Hawaiians, as belonging to separate races.

In the darkest areas of the racial palette, professional and popular anthropologists are again at odds. The former estimate that the white contribution to the genetic composition of American Negroes ranges from a low of four percent in some Southern areas to a high of twenty-six percent in Detroit.[22]Baker, Race, pp. 228-31. The public has adopted a less sophisticated approach, simply designating as a Negro anyone with the slightest touch of the tarbrush. Except in a few large cities where they have been given a distinct racial status of their own, the darker breeds of Puerto Ricans are generally labeled Negroes, even those who have more Mediterranean than Negro genes. The same loose treatment is frequently given to many Mexicans, who are an Amerindian-Mediterranean racial mix and have not a single Negro gene in their DNA. In general, sensitivity to skin coloration is so great that most white Americans would call a high-caste Hindu, the possessor of a narrow face, long nose, and other aristocratic traits, a Negro because of the shade of his epidermis.

The principal variations in the popular and professional racial classifications of the American population are summarized in the table on the next page, a table designed to emphasize and reemphasize the overriding importance some anthropologists and almost all laymen attach to skin color.

PIGMENTATION SPECTRUM xxx

The designation Hispanic, which has been adopted by many federal agencies, is an umbrella term for various Mediterranean, Mongoloid, and Negro mixtures of Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking peoples in the Western Hemisphere.

Broadly approximate and far from rigorous in its presentation of the American racial amalgam, the Pigmentation Spectrum, in addition to illustrating the spectroscopic method of racial identification, does serve to clarify in graphic fashion what seem to be the four cardinal rules of American race relations and racial etiquette:

a) The farther apart races are in the Spectrum, the more raceconscious will be the behavior of their members towards each other, and the more they will treat each other as stereotypes rather than as individuals.

b) The closer together races are in the White area of the Spectrum, the more easily their members may submerge or ignore their racial difference, even to the point of claiming the same racial affiliation.

c) The farther a race is to the right of the Spectrum, the more it will vary from the American physical norm as defined by Majority racial parameters. In this respect, the Spectrum serves as an “assimilation meter.” With one important exception, the Jews, the more races differ from the Majority in skin color, the less chance their members have of assimilation.

d) The farther apart races are in the Spectrum, the more the members of one race will accentuate the color differences of the other. Whites will find Latins darker, Orientals yellower, and Negroes blacker than they really are. Conversely, members of colored races will think whites much paler than their pigmentation merits.

Rule (a) refers to the extensive use which the ordinary citizen makes of stereotypes in racial classification. The bane of professional anthropology, stereotypes often come in pairs: the idealized version of one’s own race and the caricature of the other person’s race. The degree of caricature may depend on the degree of tension between any two races at any particular moment.

In the Philadelphia suburbs, for example, the Main Line family of old American lineage may identify with the Nordic stereotype of the tall, handsome blond with regular features, light eyes, elevated brow, and long head. In Philadelphia’s inner city, Negroes may have a different image of their Main Line neighbors. The neck is thicker, the head rounder, the build stockier. Cruel lips, cold eyes, and a frigid expression add up to an almost brutish appearance. The blond or brunet beast instead of Prince Charming.

Alpine stereotypes, many imported from the Old World, range (depending on who is doing the stereotyping) from the bloated Milwaukee burgher to Santa Claus, from the thick-jointed, flatfaced trucker to the nutbrown maid. Latin stereotypes are divided between grimacing gangsters and soulful Valentinos, Carmens and Carmelites.

To many nonjews, the Jew is often a squat, plutocratic vulgarian or a bespectacled, hothouse egghead. The Jew himself clings to the stereotype of an aristocratic, white-maned Moses, an ingenious Nobel Laureate or a swashbuckling Israeli sabra. Negroes like to identify with towering black athletes, charismatic preachers, Emperor Joneses, and rifle-toting Black Panthers. Many whites, on the other hand, cannot dissociate the Negro image from Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, Stepin Fetchit, urban muggers, or head-hunting cannibal chiefs with bones through their noses.

The physiological stratum of race also includes character and intelligence, insofar as such traits have a genetic origin. Plato, who equated the beautiful with the good, posited a direct relationship between physical appearance and moral conduct.[23]Lysis, 216d, trans. J. Wright, The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Hippocrates found that people with blond complexions were a in disposition and passions haughty and self-willed. “[24]On Airs, Waters, and Places, trans. Francis Adams, Great Books, Vol. 10, p. 18. Hansen’s famous study of the temperamental and character differences of the fair and dark populations of Norway was cited by Havelock Ellis in his comparison of skin color with performance.[25]A Study of British Genius, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1926, pp. 306-7. Dr. Morgan Worthy, a Georgia psychologist, has shown that light-eyed persons are more selfpacing, more inhibited, and less reactive to their environment than their dark-eyed counterparts.[26]Morgan Worthy, Eye Color, Sex and Race, Droke House/Hallux, Anderson, South Carolina, 1974.

Low foreheads and pointed heads have long been accepted as signs of stupidity and imbecility. In Elizabethan England there was a proverb: “Very round head, forgetful and stupid. Long head, clever and attentive.”[27]Thomas Hill, Pleasant History, London, 1613. In Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra (act 3, scene 3), the heroine asks: “Bears’t thou her face in mind? is’t long or round?” The messenger replies, “Round even to faultiness.” Cleopatra: Tor the most part, too, they are foolish that are so.” The Englishman’s poor opinion of brachycephalism may be explained by the fact that the English have a lower incidence of roundheadedness than any other Northern European population. 28 Cromwell’s Roundheads were so called, not because of their head shape, but because of their bowl-shaped haircuts, which contrasted sharply with the long, flowing hair of the Cavaliers.

No matter how controversial or exaggerated they may be, racial stereotypes which go beyond surface physical characteristics cannot be ignored if they provide meaningful clues to popular conceptions of racial differences. A case in point is the average white American of Northern European extraction who considers himself and a his kind” to be wise, hard-working, brave, dedicated, honest and God-fearing — on the whole a slightly deflated combination of Puritan divine, Virginia planter and Western pioneer. On the intelligence scale he rates the Orientals and Jews rather high, but finds more craftiness than wisdom. He views Latins as frivolous, sexually volatile, superficial and prone to organized crime and treachery. He believes Indians, Mexicans and Negroes to be stupid, shiftless, unclean, and overfond of alcohol and narcotics.[29]Medill McCormick’s statement that Theodore Roosevelt understood the “psychology of the mutt” reveals another common attitude of oldline Americans towards all other Americans, white or colored. Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition, Knopf, New York, 1949, p. 230.

In return, the more sophisticated Latins and Jews classify the average Majority member as a plodding, credulous, loutish Philistine, while viewing themselves as the inheritors of a superior religion and culture. To the Gentile, Jews are often as avaricious as Shylock, whereas they view themselves as extremely charitable. Indians and Negroes are likely to typecast whites as unbridled horse traders, paragons of insensitivity, specialists in genocide, sexually repressed Horatio Algers and whip-cracking Simon Legrees.

Many such stereotypes dissolve and many new ones emerge as the political, economic, and social status of Americans alters. Since a change of status usually occurs long before a change of stereotype, it may take a little time for the public stereotype to catch up with the publicized stereotype. In less than a century, however, the Jewish pawnbroker has yielded to the affectionate Jewish supermother; the shuffling and obsequious Negro to the champion prizefighter; the drunken Irish brawler to the kindly priest; the opium-smoking, pigtailed coolie to Charlie Chan. The repulsive traits, both physical and psychological, now heaped upon Nazis and Arabs were once reserved for the “unspeakable Turks. n In many a television, motion picture and Broadway production the blond hero has become the blond villain.

Today racial stereotypes have come under as sharp an attack as racism itself. But those most opposed to stereotypes usually have their own, and in the end all that is accomplished is the substitution of one set of stereotypes for another. Rather than concentrate on the abolition of stereotypes — as impossible a task as abolishing our innate tendency to generalize — social scientists might welcome them as instructive signposts for the study of intergroup behavior. They have an impressive pedigree, deriving not only from gossip, hearsay and the lower depths of human depravity, but from folklore, myth, religion, literature, art, and music. Some of the most sublime expressions of man’s creativity have made liberal and extended use of racial stereotypes.

Carleton Coon is one of the few modern anthropologists who is not too disturbed about stereotypes: “Popular, subjective labels in the designation of races, used among persons ignorant of the existence of physical anthropology, are often truer than the hesitant results of erudite wanderings in the labyrinth of numbers.” 30

To arrive at a broader understanding of American racial dynamics, it is now time to enter “the labyrinth of numbers” and move from the qualitative to the quantitative aspects of race.

Footnotes

[1] R. W. Hegner and K A. Stiles, College Zoology, Macmillan. New York, 1959, pp. 2,8.

[2] J. F. Blumenbach, The Anthropological Treatises, trans. Thomas Bendyshe, Longmans, London, 1865.

[3] Coon, The Races of Europe, pp. 281-82.

[4] A. L. Kroeber, Anthropology, Harcourt Brace, New York, 1948, p. 132.

[5] Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 18, pp. 864-65. For reasons of its own, the Britannica concealed for years references to its 14th edition. The copyright date, 1963, is the only means of identifying the volumes cited throughout this study. In 1974 the publication of the 15th edition was announced with great fanfare by philosopher Mortimer Adler in his capacity as chairman of the board of editors. Revised in 1985, the 15th edition comprises 32 volumes.

[6] Coon, The Living Races of Man, pp. 18-19.

[7] W. Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe, Appleton, New York, 1910, Chapter 6.

[8] Most contemporary anthropologists are leeiy of such racial designations. When they do use them, they make it plain they are referring to frequencies and averages, mindful of the extensive racial overlapping that makes classification of the white races so difficult and so frustrating. A Nordic in current anthropological language merely means an individual who possesses more Nordic than Alpine or Mediterranean traits. After millennia of racial mixing, pure races are hard to come by, although there are still many individuals who closely approximate idealized racial models.

[9] Coon, The Races of Europe, pp. 220, 289-93, 510, 560.

[10] E. A. Hooton, Twilight of Man, G. P. Putnam, New York, 1939, pp. 203-210. The above classification was based on the physical studies of some 29,000 adult American males by the Harvard Anthropological Museum.

[11] Hooton, unlike many of his colleagues, does not subdivide his Alpine category to include Armenoid, the dark, round-headed Alpine-Mediterranean hybrid of East-Southeast Europe and the Middle East.

[12] An Alpine racial specimen. The red-headed, freckle-faced Irish American and the blue-eyed colleen have a lot of Nordic genes.

[13] For Wyndham Lewis’s discovery of a “Super-European” American physical type, see Chapter 12, The Aesthetic Prop.

[14] The Races of Europe, pp. 643-44.

[15] George Eaton Simpson and J. Milton Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities, Harper, New York, Revised Edition, 1958, pp. 57-59.

[16] Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, pp. 467-68.

[17] Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, Random House, New York, 1976.

[18] A. E. Mourant, The Genetics of Jews, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978. If Mourant is right, the anti-Zionists who claim Zionists have no biological ties to Palestine are wrong. The argument that David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Menachem Begin are the descendants of non-Jewish Khazars must then be abandoned.

[19] In the frontier days, because of their war paint and the sun’s reflection on their highly toned skin, Indians were called Red Men. From this came the concept of a red race, an ethnological oversimplification that was later abandoned. Actually, Indian skin color varies from light yellow to mahogany. Coon, The Living Races of Man, p. 153.

[20] Americans who have had firsthand experience in the Far East or who have lived in Hawaii or San Francisco have learned to detect certain racial differences among Mongoloids, particularly the darker coloration of southeastern Asians.

[21] Coon, op. cit., pp. 138, 184, 294.

[22] Baker, Race, pp. 228-31.

[23] Lysis, 216d, trans. J. Wright, The Collected Dialogues of Plato.

[24] On Airs, Waters, and Places, trans. Francis Adams, Great Books, Vol. 10, p. 18.

[25] A Study of British Genius, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1926, pp. 306-7.

[26] Morgan Worthy, Eye Color, Sex and Race, Droke House/Hallux, Anderson, South Carolina, 1974.

[27] Thomas Hill, Pleasant History, London, 1613.

[28] Coon, The Living Races of Man, p. 399.

[29] Medill McCormick’s statement that Theodore Roosevelt understood the “psychology of the mutt” reveals another common attitude of oldline Americans towards all other Americans, white or colored. Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition, Knopf, New York, 1949, p. 230.

[30] The Races of Europe, p. 335.

Part II • Racial Composition of the United States

Chapter 5 • White Immigration • 2,200 Words

IT IS TRUE that all Americans — Indians included — are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. It is equally true that radically different kinds of immigrants came to America for radically different reasons. One thinks of the Indian inching his way over the Aleutian land bridge in search of food, the Pilgrim building his city of God in the New England wilderness, the Negro chained to the hold of a slave ship.

From the earliest colonial times to almost the middle of the nineteenth century, white immigrants were motivated by love of fame and adventure, by land hunger, by fortune hunting, by the hope of retaining and expanding their religious identity,[1]The religious motivation must not be overrated. Only a small percentage of the early colonists were church members (see Chapter 19) . One reason for the Pilgrims’ transatlantic passage was the fear that their sons and daughters would Ved out in the world” if they prolonged their period of exile in what could then be described as the “swinging” Netherlands. by misgivings about the governments of their homelands and their governments’ misgivings about them, by a concern for liberty,[2]D. H. Lawrence argued that the Puritans were running away from liberty and were unwilling to put up with the increasing humanism of post-Renaissance England. In Lawrence’s view there was far more religious tolerance in the England they left than in the New England they founded. Studies in Classical American Literature, Viking Press, New York, 1964, pp. 3, 5. and, perhaps most of all, by the nagging and endemic Northern European wanderlust. The immigration stream was composed of farmers, artisans, tradesmen, and soldiers of fortune, with a light froth of dissident aristocrats and a thin sediment of jailbirds. Though it is often forgotten, many of the early white immigrants had already enjoyed a fair measure of prosperity in their native lands.[3]Alexis de Tocqueville, De la democratie en Amerique, Gallimard, Paris, 1961, Tome 1, p. 31. Where it existed the economic drive was important, but it was directed more towards economic gain than economic security.

Natural selection was extremely hard on the pioneering vanguard. Half the Mayflower‘s passengers died either on the sea voyage or during their first year in Massachusetts.[4]Ellsworth Huntington, The Character of Races, Scribner’s, N.Y., 1925, p. 304. In Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in America, there were more than 500 colonists in 1609. No more than sixty were alive a year later.[5]William W. Sweet, The Story of Religion in America, Harper, N.Y., 1939, pp. 42, 51 . On the morning of March 22, 1622, an Indian war party fell upon colonial settlements in the upper reaches of Virginia’s James River. In a few hours 347 whites were killed without respect to age or sex.[6]Ibid., p. 34.
(William W. Sweet, The Story of Religion in America, Harper, N.Y., 1939, pp. 42, 51 .)
Elsewhere famine, disease, Indian raids, and the rigors of the frontier carried on a relentless winnowing, culling, and sifting of a people who, from the outset, had never been a typical cross section of the English or of any other Old World population.[7]Puritans came largely from East Anglia, one of England’s blondest regions. Ellis, A Study of British Genius, footnote, p. 39. Selective processes were going on in all immigration phases. Polish immigrants, for example, were taller and thinner than the Poles who remained at home. Coon. The Races of Europe, p. 565.

In 1689 the number of whites in the thirteen colonies was approximately 200,000. By 1754 it had grown to a million— 300,000 in New England, 300,000 in the Middle Colonies, 400,000 in the South. In 1790, the year of the first Federal Census, the national origins of American whites and their percentage of the total white population were estimated as follows: British (77), German (7.4), Irish (4.4), Dutch (3.3), French (1.9), Canadian (1.6), Belgian (1.5), Swiss (0.9), Scandinavian (0.9), other (l.l).[8]Population figures in this paragraph from Morris Davie, World Immigration, Macmillan, N.Y., 1949, p. 21. Percentage figures from Immigration Quotas on the Basis of National Origin, Senate Document 259, 70th Congress.

The profoundly Protestant character of white immigration persisted until the 1840s when the Irish, driven out by a potato blight, began crossing the Atlantic by the hundreds of thousands, together with large contingents of Central Europeans, including political refugees from the abortive 1848 revolutions. 9 Although its religious balance may have shifted a little over the next three or four decades — 3 million Irish arrived, plus millions of continental Catholics — the United States still remained overwhelmingly Northern European in racial background. The Alpine, Keltic, and Dinaric genes which had been injected into the American bloodstream were of the light-complexioned variety, and the few Irish and Central European racial traits that were at odds with Northern European physical norms did not clash in the critical area of skin color. Even so, the old Old Immigrants mounted a large-scale, cryptoracial attack against the new Old Immigrants, chiefly the Irish, who in a revival of rip-roaring Reformation polemics were charged with “popery.”[10]The American Party, whose members were called Know Nothings by their political opponents, claimed forty-three representatives, five senators and seven state governors shordy before the outbreak of the Civil War. The increasing urgency of the slavery issue, however, played havoc with a political party which, in addition to its Protestant bias, was drawing subtle racial distinctions among whites. Ibid., p. 88.
(The Catholic Irish are to be distinguished from the Protestant Scotch-Irish, a large number of whom originated in the lowlands of Scodand and later moved to Northern Ireland. Some 200,000 Scotch-Irish arrived in the fifty years preceding American independence. Davie, op. cit., pp. 21-24.)

Long before the Old Immigration came to an end, descendants of the original settlers began a new mass migration which took them to western New York and the Midwest, eventually to Texas and the Far West, and denuded New England of half its AngloSaxons. It was this migration, as historically important as the one from England to New England, which fixed an enduring racial stamp on much of the trans-Appalachian United States.[11]Stewart Holbrook, The Yankee Exodus, Macmillan, New York, 1950, p. 4.

The 1880s marked the start of the New Immigration, which brought in millions of Jews, Slavs, Italians and other Eastern and Southern Europeans. This time the character of white immigration, which had been changing very slowly for almost half a century, underwent a rapid and profound transformation. Most New Immigrants were brunet, olive-hued Mediterraneans or belonged to the darker-complexioned divisions of the Alpine race. Most came to escape starvation, not to risk it — to crowd the cities, not clear the land. Old Immigrants had been more than willing to trade security for insecurity. The new arrivals had reverse priorities. Both groups were overloaded with dreams, but the New Immigrants were more mundane. Whether the fault of genetics or environment or both, the mental traits of the Old and New Immigrant types were often in sharper contrast than their physical characteristics.

The last organized nationwide manifestation of what might be called Old Immigrant solidarity was the attempt to dam the flood of the New Immigration that culminated in the 1924 Immigration Act Total immigration from Europe was limited to approximately 150,000 annually, as compared to the record high of 1,285,000 arrivals in 1907.[12]Total immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe for the period 18201930 was 13,944,454. Furthermore the legislation was racially selective in that European countries were given quotas according to their relative contribution to the American population as of 1920.[13]Davie, op. cit., p. 377. As Congress planned it, whatever small amount of immigration still trickled in was to be weighted in favor of the Northern European racial matrix.

But events took a different course. Many Northern European countries left their quotas partly unfilled or filled them with persons in transit from other parts of Europe. Congressional and Presidential dispensations were given to anti-Nazi and anti-Communist refugees, World War II displaced persons, and 120,432 “war brides,” many of them Asians.[14]Ency. Brit., Vol. 15, pp. 467-68. (Nonwhite immigration is the subject of the next chapter.)Some 290,000 European Jews, a large proportion of them concentration camp survivors, came to the United States between 1933 and 1954.[15]James Yaffe, The American Jews, Random House, New York, 1968, p. 8. By the late 1950s they had been joined by some 50,000 Hungarians who arrived after their failed attempt to shake off Soviet rule. As of 1965 nearly 10 million legal immigrants had come to America under the quota system.[16]Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1969, p. 91.

Both in regard to type and number, the immigrants who came under the quota system violated the letter and the intent of the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924. The primary aim of this legislation had been to preserve the racial profile of the United States as it had been defined and defended by the Founding Fathers[17]Washington was opposed to unrestricted immigration because he wanted to protect the “American character. ” Jefferson feared that, since the bulk of European immigration would eventually have to come from Central, Southern and Eastern Europe, the newcomers would import with them the ideas and principles of absolute government under which they and their ancestors had lived for so many centuries. Charles Beard, The Republic, Viking Press, New York, 1962, pp. 10-11. An argument against all immigration was that it limited the natural increase of the native population. According to “Walker’s Law,” which assumes that the fecundity of indigenous groups is reduced by immigrant competition, the 3.5 million American whites of 1790 would have increased to a number equivalent to the presentday population if the Constitution had forbidden all immigration. Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent, Scribner’s, New York, 1933, p. 276. and as it had become “fixed” in the late nineteenth century. It was much too late for laws that would permit a privileged caste of fair-haired Nordics to lord it over a bottom layer of black slaves and white ethnics. But it was not too late for Congress to prevent the Northern European racial nucleus from being physically and culturally submerged by continuing mass migrations of Southern and Eastern Europeans.

Quotas based on national origins temporarily succeeded in the accomplishment of what might be described as the Grand Congressional Design. The Northern European preponderance was safeguarded in the political, economic and cultural realm. But after the end of World War II immigration became more than a trickle, and most of it was composed of the very racial elements that Congress had sought to bar.

Although the quota system, it is hardly necessary to point out, had always been a running sore to liberal and minority organizations, it was an outrage to those who sincerely believed in racial equality and a stumbling block to those who were beginning to promote other than Northern European brands of racism. In 1965, bowing somewhat cravenly to an unprecedented lobbying effort that had been gathering momentum for more than half a century, President Lyndon Johnson signed a new immigration act which kept the quota system, but radically changed the nature of the quotas. The national origins provisions so hateful to the liberalminority forces, were abolished and immigration limited to: relatives of American citizens and permanent residents (74 percent); members of professions and others of “exceptional ability” (10 percent); skilled and unskilled workers certified by the Secretary of Labor (10 percent); refugees from political persecution or national calamities (6 percent). The first category, which crowded out all others, was immediately dominated by the spouses and unmarried children of immigrants from Greece, Italy and the Philippines.[18]New York Times, Aug. 31, 1970, pp. 1, 37. Between 1900 and 1980 the United States received 30 million legal immigrants and lost 10 million emigrants. Population Reference Bureau, as cited in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 3, 1988. With respect to numbers, an annual ceiling of 170,000 and 120,000 was placed on immigrants from the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, respectively, thereby imposing a quota for the first time on Canadians and Latin Americans.[19]A 1976 amendment to the Immigration Act extended the limit of no more than 20,000 immigrants per Old World country to New World countries.

When the Johnson immigration bill came before the Senate, only eighteen votes were cast against it, all from Southern senators whose constituencies contained the nation’s largest concentration of old-fashioned color-conscious, whites.[20]Time, Oct 1, 1965, p. 27. The great immigration debate, which had become the great racial debate, was over, at least in regard to immigrant type. At the direction of a British-descended, Southern-minded, Texas-born president, Congress had decided that the descendants of the British and other Northern Europeans, who had both created and put their cultural mark on the United States, no longer deserved legislative protection.[21]Representative Emanuel Celler of New York was one of the strongest opponents of the 1924 Immigration Act, often called the Johnson Act, after Albert Johnson, chairman of the House Committee on Immigration. Celler lived long enough to be the House sponsor of the 1965 bill, usually and ironically entitled the Kennedyjohnson Act.

After the 1965 bill became law, white immigration began to dry up. Notable exceptions were those who claimed refugee status: upwards of 400,000 Jews from Europe via Israel and 250,000 Jews directly from the Soviet Union (before and after its breakup).

In 1991 President Bush signed into law an amended immigration bill that raised the number of immigrants, excluding refugees and other special cases, to 700,000 per annum, with most of the slots going to family members of the newer breed of citizen.

White immigrants still trickle into America. A few European countries and Canada complain about a brain drain. Nevertheless, as we shall see in the next chapter, white immigration in recent decades has amounted to little more than a drop in the genetic bucket of the total immigration, legal and illegal, which, as government leaders freely and supinely admit, is now out of control.

Footnotes

[1] The religious motivation must not be overrated. Only a small percentage of the early colonists were church members (see Chapter 19) . One reason for the Pilgrims’ transatlantic passage was the fear that their sons and daughters would Ved out in the world” if they prolonged their period of exile in what could then be described as the “swinging” Netherlands.

[2] D. H. Lawrence argued that the Puritans were running away from liberty and were unwilling to put up with the increasing humanism of post-Renaissance England. In Lawrence’s view there was far more religious tolerance in the England they left than in the New England they founded. Studies in Classical American Literature, Viking Press, New York, 1964, pp. 3, 5.

[3] Alexis de Tocqueville, De la democratie en Amerique, Gallimard, Paris, 1961, Tome 1, p. 31.

[4] Ellsworth Huntington, The Character of Races, Scribner’s, N.Y., 1925, p. 304.

[5] William W. Sweet, The Story of Religion in America, Harper, N.Y., 1939, pp. 42, 51 .

[6] Ibid., p. 34.

[7] Puritans came largely from East Anglia, one of England’s blondest regions. Ellis, A Study of British Genius, footnote, p. 39. Selective processes were going on in all immigration phases. Polish immigrants, for example, were taller and thinner than the Poles who remained at home. Coon. The Races of Europe, p. 565.

[8] Population figures in this paragraph from Morris Davie, World Immigration, Macmillan, N.Y., 1949, p. 21. Percentage figures from Immigration Quotas on the Basis of National Origin, Senate Document 259, 70th Congress.

[9] The Catholic Irish are to be distinguished from the Protestant Scotch-Irish, a large number of whom originated in the lowlands of Scodand and later moved to Northern Ireland. Some 200,000 Scotch-Irish arrived in the fifty years preceding American independence. Davie, op. cit., pp. 21-24.

[10] The American Party, whose members were called Know Nothings by their political opponents, claimed forty-three representatives, five senators and seven state governors shordy before the outbreak of the Civil War. The increasing urgency of the slavery issue, however, played havoc with a political party which, in addition to its Protestant bias, was drawing subtle racial distinctions among whites. Ibid., p. 88.

[11] Stewart Holbrook, The Yankee Exodus, Macmillan, New York, 1950, p. 4.

[12] Total immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe for the period 18201930 was 13,944,454.

[13] Davie, op. cit., p. 377.

[14] Ency. Brit., Vol. 15, pp. 467-68.

[15] James Yaffe, The American Jews, Random House, New York, 1968, p. 8.

[16] Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1969, p. 91.

[17] Washington was opposed to unrestricted immigration because he wanted to protect the “American character. ” Jefferson feared that, since the bulk of European immigration would eventually have to come from Central, Southern and Eastern Europe, the newcomers would import with them the ideas and principles of absolute government under which they and their ancestors had lived for so many centuries. Charles Beard, The Republic, Viking Press, New York, 1962, pp. 10-11. An argument against all immigration was that it limited the natural increase of the native population. According to “Walker’s Law,” which assumes that the fecundity of indigenous groups is reduced by immigrant competition, the 3.5 million American whites of 1790 would have increased to a number equivalent to the presentday population if the Constitution had forbidden all immigration. Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent, Scribner’s, New York, 1933, p. 276.

[18] New York Times, Aug. 31, 1970, pp. 1, 37. Between 1900 and 1980 the United States received 30 million legal immigrants and lost 10 million emigrants. Population Reference Bureau, as cited in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 3, 1988.

[19] A 1976 amendment to the Immigration Act extended the limit of no more than 20,000 immigrants per Old World country to New World countries.

[20] Time, Oct 1, 1965, p. 27.

[21] Representative Emanuel Celler of New York was one of the strongest opponents of the 1924 Immigration Act, often called the Johnson Act, after Albert Johnson, chairman of the House Committee on Immigration. Celler lived long enough to be the House sponsor of the 1965 bill, usually and ironically entitled the Kennedyjohnson Act.

Chapter 6 • Nonwhite Immigration • 1,700 Words

IF the English began the Old Immigration, the Indians, who arrived some 20,000 years earlier, initiated what could be defined as the Prehistoric Immigration. In the year 1500, there were an estimated 850,000 Indians within the geographic limits of the present-day continental United States and Canada.[1]Our American Indians at a Glance, Pacific Coast Publishers, Menlo Park, Calif., 1961, p. 6. By 1770 the Indian inhabitants of the area occupied by the thirteen colonies had been for the most part exterminated, evicted, or isolated. During and after the Winning of the West, Indians were placed on reservations. At one time their total number may have been reduced to less than 250,000.[2]In recent decades the Indian population has made a substantial recovery. See American Indians section, Chapter 16.

The Mongoloid migration to North America — Amerindians can be classified as offshoots of the Mongoloid race — was revived after a score or so of millennia with the arrival of Chinese coolies in California.They first toiled in the gold mines, then helped build the western end of the transcontinental railroads. Derogatorily called Chinamen and Chinks, the Chinese and their esoteric customs raised the hackles of local whites. From time to time western state legislatures and Congress tried to keep their numbers down by acts of exclusion. In 1890 the Chinese head count was 107,000.

The Japanese immigration did not begin until after the Civil War and never quite reached the proportions of the Chinese. In 1907 it was brought to a halt by the “Gentleman’s Agreement” worked out with Japan by Theodore Roosevelt. After World War I, Asian immigration was such a rarity that the annual quota of 100 set for China and Japan by the 1924 Immigration Act actually resulted in an increase in the number of legal immigrants from these two countries.[3]The immigration history of the Hawaiian Islands is sui generis and will be briefly examined in Chapter 16.

Not aliens in the terminology of the 1924 Act, Filipinos were later so designated by Congress. By 1930 some 45,000 had come to the United States. When the Philippines was granted independence in 1946, Filipinos were put in the same category as other Orientals and their annual quota fixed at fifty.[4]Davie, op. cit, pp. 342-47. Today, they are coming at the rate of almost 60,000 a year.

The nonwhite immigration which has had the most lasting effect on the nation’s racial composition has been that of the Negroes. Blacks from Africa were never categorized as Old Immigrants because of their skin color and because of the different set of circumstances which brought them to America. They could not be called New Immigrants, since almost all of them had come long before the New Immigration had started. In point of fact, some Negroes arrived in the colonies almost as soon as the first whites. Like many whites, some came as indentured servants. But while the whites were able to work off their servitude (the average term in the Southern colonies was four years), the Negroes’ status hardened into one of permanent and perpetual indenture, otherwise known as slavery. By far the greater number of blacks, however, were slaves upon arrival.

In the year 1790, according to the first Federal Census, there were 697,623 Negro slaves and 59,538 free Negroes in the newly independent colonies. Few black Africans came after 1820, when the British oudawed the slave trade. By 1860 the count was 3,953,760 Negro slaves and 488,070 free Negroes. If these figures are accurate, this means that when slavery was the order of the day in the United States the Negro population sextupled. In the next 130 years it sextupled again.

The largest influx of immigration since World War I did not originate in the Old World, but below the Rio Grande and in the West Indies. Although they cannot be classified as 100 percent nonwhite, the millions of Hispanics who are currently to be found in California, the Southwest and the big northern cities are certainly more Indian than white. Also largely in the nonwhite category are the vast numbers of part-Negro, part-Mediterranean Puerto Ricans who migrated north, principally to New York City, after 1945.[5]Simpson and Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities, p. 136.

The 1965 Immigration Act, which purportedly ended racial quotas, had the effect of favoring nonwhites over whites. Although the Western Hemisphere quota should have significantly reduced the genetic flow from Mexico, other Central American countries, and the Caribbean Islands, Hispanics and colored West Indians have never paid much attention to immigration controls in the past and are not likely to change in the near future. Of the millions of illegal immigrants or aliens estimated to be in the United States in 1992, as many as 80 percent were probably Mexicans. As citizens, Puerto Ricans continue to have free entry, although there has been some backtracking to the home island.

The Eastern Hemisphere allotment, as well as the priorities given to family members and to professional and skilled workers, has resulted in an increase of Asians but not black Africans. The latter are not noted for their occupational skills and have been separated far too long from American Negroes to have maintained any family ties. On the other hand, the number of legal and illegal blacks from the Caribbean area has risen sharply.

How the 1965 Immigration Act, not fully implemented until 1968, changed the pattern of American immigration is shown by listing the number of legal immigrants in 1965 and 1992, from the ten principal immigration sources.[6]New York Times, Aug. 31, 1970, p. 37, and INS Advance Report, May 1993.

Legal Immigrants and Country of Origin
19651992
Canada40,103Mexico91,332
Mexico37,432Vietnam77,728
United Kingdom29,747Philippines59,179
Germany26,357Former Soviet Union43,590
Cuba20,086Dominican Republic40,840
Dominican Republic10,851China (mainland)38,735
Italy10,344India34,629
Colombia9,790Poland24,837
Poland7,458El Salvador21,110
Argentina5,629United Kingdom19,757

It is noteworthy that only three of the countries in the 1992 column, the former Soviet Union, Poland, and the United Kingdom, furnished white immigrants (mostly Jews, it so happened), and they are not at the top of the list. The other seven countries that accounted for the most immigrants in 1992 are nonwhite.

Legal immigration, it should be added, is only part of the immigration picture. One to two million illegal aliens,[7]A 1980 Census Bureau report guesstimated a total of 5 million illegals in the U.S. In early 1986 Maurice Inman, general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, put the number at 12 to 15 million. the great majority of them Hispanics, enter the United States each year, not all of them successfully. In 1992 the Border Patrol made 1.6 million apprehensions, but most of the apprehended try and try again.

The current wave of minorities brings with it some dangerous and expensive baggage. Approximately 150,000 legal and illegal Haitians, more than a few infected with tuberculosis, venereal disease and AIDS, made their way to Florida between 1981 and [1990] In the spring of 1980 a makeshift fleet of more than 100,000 anti-Castro Cubans sailed into Key West and Miami. The criminal element among them, the offscourings of Cuba’s jails, later rioted and burned down government installations, giving an extra boost to the accelerating U.S. crime rate. Illegals from everywhere qualify for welfare and free health services almost the moment they arrive. Babies conceived below the Rio Grande are born in American hospitals at no cost to their Hispanic mothers — and automatically become American citizens. Other tens of thousands of immigrants continue to arrive as the result of various congressional “deals.”[8]In one such deal a congressman who introduced a bill to permit the entry of 5,000 Sicilians obtained the support of another congressman by promising to vote for the latter’s bill to let in 3,000 Iraqi Jews. Time, Nov. 21, 1969, p. 86. Part of the bribe money given to congressmen in the 1980 Abscam scandal was an advance payment for private immigration bills for mythical Arab sheiks.

As of August 1993, no serious effort to solve the immigration problem has been made by the President or Congress. In late 1986 Congress did enact legislation which penalized companies that knowingly hired illegal aliens. The law also increased the size of the Border Patrol, but — and this is a very big but — at the same time it offered amnesty to illegal aliens who arrived before January 1, 1982.

The amnesty will certainly attract more millions of the euphemistically titled “undocumented workers,” who will no doubt expect the same lenient treatment By March 1988, some 1.5 million applications for amnesty had been received by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

At last count immigration of one form or other, legal and illegal, is running at the rate of at least 2 million a year and brings with it an annual tab of $30.6 billion, most of it expended on free hospital care, welfare payments, crime prevention, and mountains of paper work.[9]Donald Huddle, a Rice University economist, Newsweek, August 9, 1993, p. 19 Dr. Huddle asserts that in 1993-2002 legal immigrants will cost taxpayers $482 billion; illegal immigrants $186.4 billion. The cost is almost bankrupting some states, particularly California, where Governor Pete Wilson has called for an end to most welfare for illegal immigrants, and wants to deny the right to citizenship of their children born in the United States.

Whatever happens on the immigration front, American whites, although most want a sharp reduction in all types of immigration, will continue to be put through the racial grinder. The seemingly unstoppable influx of legal and illegal nonwhite immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, combined with the relatively high birthrate of blacks, Asians and Hispanics, and the below-replacement birthrate of most American whites, are fostering a rapidly increasing proportion of nonwhites that is making an indelible imprint on the American racial mold. Not imperceptibly, the nation’s complexion grows darker year by year.[10]An eerily insightful novel, The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail, a noted French writer, depicts an invasion of France by a vast armada of starving people from India. For humanitarian reasons the French government decides not to oppose the landing. In no time the nation is overrun, conquered, and destroyed. The only military action is directed against the few Frenchmen who try to resist Since the original version of the book was written in 1972, Raspail’s uncanny foresight, when applied to what is happening to and in the present-day United States, is a memorable example of history imitating art

Footnotes

[1] Our American Indians at a Glance, Pacific Coast Publishers, Menlo Park, Calif., 1961, p. 6.

[2] In recent decades the Indian population has made a substantial recovery. See American Indians section, Chapter 16.

[3] The immigration history of the Hawaiian Islands is sui generis and will be briefly examined in Chapter 16.

[4] Davie, op. cit, pp. 342-47.

[5] Simpson and Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities, p. 136.

[6] New York Times, Aug. 31, 1970, p. 37, and INS Advance Report, May 1993.

[7] A 1980 Census Bureau report guesstimated a total of 5 million illegals in the U.S. In early 1986 Maurice Inman, general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, put the number at 12 to 15 million.

[8] In one such deal a congressman who introduced a bill to permit the entry of 5,000 Sicilians obtained the support of another congressman by promising to vote for the latter’s bill to let in 3,000 Iraqi Jews. Time, Nov. 21, 1969, p. 86. Part of the bribe money given to congressmen in the 1980 Abscam scandal was an advance payment for private immigration bills for mythical Arab sheiks.

[9] Donald Huddle, a Rice University economist, Newsweek, August 9, 1993, p. 19 Dr. Huddle asserts that in 1993-2002 legal immigrants will cost taxpayers $482 billion; illegal immigrants $186.4 billion.

[10] An eerily insightful novel, The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail, a noted French writer, depicts an invasion of France by a vast armada of starving people from India. For humanitarian reasons the French government decides not to oppose the landing. In no time the nation is overrun, conquered, and destroyed. The only military action is directed against the few Frenchmen who try to resist Since the original version of the book was written in 1972, Raspail’s uncanny foresight, when applied to what is happening to and in the present-day United States, is a memorable example of history imitating art

Chapter 7 • The Fusion and Mosaic Fallacies • 1,500 Words

The great American dream has been a potpourri of dreams, one of the wilder variety being that of the Melting Pol The Melting Pot visionary prophesied that any immigrant, no matter what his race, nationality or social background, once immersed in the giddy liquefaction of American life, would be transformed into a uniquely American solute with all the Old World heritage of caste and cultural disparity dissolved away.[1]Israel Zangwill wrote a book entitled The Melting Pot (Macmillan, New York, 1909), in which he defined America “as a crucible in which divers races and nationalities are being fused into a new and greater race with a superior culture.” If Zangwill was the high priest of the Melting Pot, Emma Lazarus was the high priestess. Never much of a poet, Miss Lazarus was even less of a prophet. She may have invited the “teeming refuse” of Europe to American shores, but when the New Immigrants, as they were called, arrived in Ellis Island she was not there to greet them. In later life, she turned out to be something of a racist, with her uncharitable remarks about Russians and ancient Greeks and her glowing Semitism. See The Poems of Emma Lazarus, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1889, particularly “The Crowing of the Red Cock,” “The Banner of the Jew,” and “Gifts.” Also see her ethnocentric communication to Rabbi Gottheil in H. E. Jacob’s The World of Emma Lazarus, Schocken Books, New York, 1949, p. 78.

That dream, long dying, is now dead. The Melting Pot, which worked to some extent in the time of the Old Immigration when the ingredients were more racially and culturally harmonious, failed to do its job when the New Immigration was added. Melting Pot advocates seemed to forget that different races thrown together in the same environment rather than fuse are more likely to stratify and separate. The more two different peoples grow alike in externals,” George Santayana pointed out, “the more conscious and jealous they become of diversity in their soul….”[2]The Life of Reason, Scribner’s, New York, 1951, Vol. 2, p. 166.

What population mixing there has been in the United States has largely taken place among nationality, not racial, groups. As one demographer, Dr. Richard D. Alba, put it, “Nearly 99% of nonHispanic whites married other non-Hispanic whites, while 99% of black women and 97% of black men married within their race.”[3]New York Times, Feb. 11, 1985. Dr. Alba did not address the question of Jewish-Gentile intermarriage, which can be answered by saying Jews are marrying Gentiles in the upper reaches of the economy and “society,” in the professional and show business world, and in the smaller cities, where marital opportunities within the Jewish community are limited. Some surveys claim, perhaps exaggeratedly, that 50 percent or more of Jewish marriages now involve a nonjewish spouse. Occasionally in such cases, the spouse, usually the wife, converts, and the children are brought up as Jews. Integrationists predicted a big upswing in the black/white intermarriage rate after the 1967 Supreme Court decision overturning a miscegenation law in Virginia. Though there was a noticeable uptick, it was not quite as large as expected. One study counted 45,019 black/white births in 1989, up from 21,438 in 1975[4]Other mixed-race births in 1989: Asian/white 38,896; Asian/black 3,435; Amerindian/white 21,088; Amerindian/black 1,308; Amerindian/Asian 711. Population Reference Bureau, USA Today, Dec. 11, 1992, p. 7A, and the Bureau of the Census. The total number of black/white married couples was 246,000 in 1989, still relatively small, when compared to the 50.9 million married couples in the total population.

Racial crossing in the United States, which began with Pocahontas, did not end with the marriage of former Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s daughter to a Negro. It has either been highly publicized, as with the interracial marriages of screen stars and celebrities, or clandestine, as with white liaisons with Indian maids on the frontier, slave girls on the plantation, or fancy mulatto mistresses in Charleston and New Orleans. It is a sign of the times, and of the lengthening shadow of the nonwhite presence that the husband in marital miscegenation is now more than twice as likely to be nonwhite as the wife, except in the case of American servicemen stationed abroad. Despite the steady increase of interracial couplings, with or without marriage licenses, mixed-race births still comprise only 3.2 percent of the annual births in the United States. Consequently, the decreasing proportion of whites and the increasing proportion of nonwhites, two demographic factors of vital importance, are much more the result of immigration than of racial mating.

Interracial socializing, while becoming more popular and acceptable, does not necessarily mean maternity wards overflowing with hybrid offspring. Negro-white dating, now a commonplace in entertainment, academic, and avant-garde circles, has not been accompanied by an exponential rise in Negro-white mating. Modern education is apodictically color-blind, yet classroom violence and rowdiness engender the separation rather than the integration of races. Rock concerts, the rallying points of the nation’s supposedly unbigoted youth, are often as segregated as Metropolitan Opera performances.

In direct contradiction to the Melting Pot concept, the children of interracial couples do not become any generalized American type or the progenitors of a new race. They remain Negroes or Indians or Orientals. Since in some Hispanic marriages both spouses are white, their offspring “pass” into the ranks of assimilated whites after a generation or two.

In the slavery era, when huge social and psychological barriers separated whites from Negroes, a wave of miscegenation in the South introduced white genes into a large segment of the Negro population. Today, when many of these barriers have been lowered, there is probably less Negro-white mating than there was then. In spite of the hold that race leveling has on education and the media, the races of America, instead of disappearing in some theoretical solvent, are more often than not precipitating out.[5]In 1930, 51 percent of all Detroit Negroes lived in predominantly white areas. In 1960, 15 percent lived in white areas. Time, Nov. 9, 1962, p. 62. Rural blacks in the South, whose shanties were scattered among white homes, have fled by the hundreds of thousands to segregated metropolitan ghettos in the North and South. On the other hand, a sprinkling of middle-class Negroes has moved to white suburbs, or created a few black suburbs of their own.

With the passing of the Melting Pot fantasy has come something just as unreal — the American Mosaic. The intellectual mise-en-scene has suddenly been rearranged to accommodate a new sociological fad, the pluralistic society, in which all races and nationality groups live peacefully cheek by jowl, each maintaining and strengthening its racial and cultural identity, each making its own contribution to the overall fabric of American life.

Like the promoters of the Melting Pot, the salesmen of pluralism have misread history, which teaches that pluralistic societies are decadent, caste-ridden and a standing invitation to disorder and disaster. Historically disoriented, the voices of pluralism make contradictory noises. The proponents of the Mosaic concept are opposed to racism in theory, but support minority racism in practice. They uphold group identity, but demand integration at the workplace, in the schoolroom, on the playing field, in the neighborhood, even in the private club. They approve of racial quotas but are against racial discrimination. Negro leaders are divided on these issues. Some advocate more participation in white society; others demand partial or full withdrawal.

Meanwhile, the American social order totters along in the grip of rising racial tension, which is both a cause and an effect of pluralism. The Mosaic concept has turned out to be as great a failure, as great a misfiring of the imagination, as the Melting Pot. Mosaics are bits and pieces of inorganic matter which once put in place stay in place. Races are pulsating, organic continuities altering in size and status, now dynamic, now static, as the age dictates and as they dictate to the age. The Darkening Immigrant is not evidence that America is entering an age of equalitarian pluralism. He is a harbinger of changing racial hierarchies.[6]The best hope for the survival of the white race in America is the peaceful fragmentation of the nation into ethnostates, separate and independent states based on geography and on the racial and cultural homogeneity of the various population groups. The Melting Pot failed because the ingredients refused to dissolve. A mosaic, defined in Webster’s Third International Dictionary as “an artificial patchwork,” has not succeeded because the individual pieces were seldom defined geographically, and their political and cultural autonomy was undercut by the integrationist tendencies of big government, the pernicious influence of the national media, particularly network television, and the rabid antiwhite racial leveling preached in the Halls of Academe. For more on this subject, see Chapter 39 and the author’s book, The Ethnostate, Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc., Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920.

Footnotes

[1] Israel Zangwill wrote a book entitled The Melting Pot (Macmillan, New York, 1909), in which he defined America “as a crucible in which divers races and nationalities are being fused into a new and greater race with a superior culture.” If Zangwill was the high priest of the Melting Pot, Emma Lazarus was the high priestess. Never much of a poet, Miss Lazarus was even less of a prophet. She may have invited the “teeming refuse” of Europe to American shores, but when the New Immigrants, as they were called, arrived in Ellis Island she was not there to greet them. In later life, she turned out to be something of a racist, with her uncharitable remarks about Russians and ancient Greeks and her glowing Semitism. See The Poems of Emma Lazarus, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1889, particularly “The Crowing of the Red Cock,” “The Banner of the Jew,” and “Gifts.” Also see her ethnocentric communication to Rabbi Gottheil in H. E. Jacob’s The World of Emma Lazarus, Schocken Books, New York, 1949, p. 78.

[2] The Life of Reason, Scribner’s, New York, 1951, Vol. 2, p. 166.

[3] New York Times, Feb. 11, 1985. Dr. Alba did not address the question of Jewish-Gentile intermarriage, which can be answered by saying Jews are marrying Gentiles in the upper reaches of the economy and “society,” in the professional and show business world, and in the smaller cities, where marital opportunities within the Jewish community are limited. Some surveys claim, perhaps exaggeratedly, that 50 percent or more of Jewish marriages now involve a nonjewish spouse. Occasionally in such cases, the spouse, usually the wife, converts, and the children are brought up as Jews.

[4] Other mixed-race births in 1989: Asian/white 38,896; Asian/black 3,435; Amerindian/white 21,088; Amerindian/black 1,308; Amerindian/Asian 711. Population Reference Bureau, USA Today, Dec. 11, 1992, p. 7A, and the Bureau of the Census.

[5] In 1930, 51 percent of all Detroit Negroes lived in predominantly white areas. In 1960, 15 percent lived in white areas. Time, Nov. 9, 1962, p. 62. Rural blacks in the South, whose shanties were scattered among white homes, have fled by the hundreds of thousands to segregated metropolitan ghettos in the North and South. On the other hand, a sprinkling of middle-class Negroes has moved to white suburbs, or created a few black suburbs of their own.

[6] The best hope for the survival of the white race in America is the peaceful fragmentation of the nation into ethnostates, separate and independent states based on geography and on the racial and cultural homogeneity of the various population groups. The Melting Pot failed because the ingredients refused to dissolve. A mosaic, defined in Webster’s Third International Dictionary as “an artificial patchwork,” has not succeeded because the individual pieces were seldom defined geographically, and their political and cultural autonomy was undercut by the integrationist tendencies of big government, the pernicious influence of the national media, particularly network television, and the rabid antiwhite racial leveling preached in the Halls of Academe. For more on this subject, see Chapter 39 and the author’s book, The Ethnostate, Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc., Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920.

Chapter 8 • A Racial Census of the United States • 2,600 Words

A racial census of the United States must begin with whatever applicable statistics are available from the Census Bureau. Table I contains a summary of the 1990 Census followed by the author’s “Revised Census.” The latter is designed to provide a more realistic overview of the nation’s racial divisions.

Table I
1990 CensusRevised Census
White199,686,070188,136,858
Negro29,986,06029,986,060
Amerindian, Eskimo, Aleut1,959,2341,959,234
Asian & Pacific Islanders7,273,6627,273,662
Other Race9,804,8471,000,000
Hispanic 20,354,059
Total248,709,873248,709,873

The Federal 1990 Census, based on self-identification, classified Hispanics as whites, unless they specifically wrote in such words as “Mexican race,” “Cuban national,” and similarly loose definitions, whereupon they were assigned to the “Other Race” category. Since only a small percentage of Hispanics is white (most are Mediterranean/Indian hybrids), the Census to be more accurate and meaningful must have an Hispanic category. The Census, having counted 22,354,059 Hispanics in a separate, nonracial entry, all but 2 million of this number have been subtracted from the White and Other Race categories. Since as explained above the Other Race category was composed overwhelmingly of Hispanics, only 1 million have been left to account for persons who would not or could not give themselves a credible racial identity. As for the number of Hi&panics deducted from the White entry, it consists of the Hispanics remaining after being subtracted from the Other Race category. To be more specific, the Hispanic total (22,354,059) minus the number of Hispanics removed from the Other Race category (8,804,847) equals 13,549,212. The latter figure should then be subtracted from the White entry. But what about the 5 to 10 percent of Hispanics who are white? To account for them, the figure of 13,549,212 has been reduced by 2 million to 11,549,212, which has then been subtracted from the White entry. The result of all this numerical juggling appears in the Revised Census on the previous page. Whatever can be said about this unofficial Census, it does give a more accurate picture of the racial composition of the United States than the official 1990 Census that assigned Hispanics to the White and Other Race categories.

A quick reading of Table I might indicate that most of the work of a racial census has already been done.[1]Most demographers agree there was a definite undercount in the 1990 Census, one commonly mentioned figure being 1.8%. If added to the total population, this undercount would disproportionately increase the number of nonwhites, who crowd the urban centers and are more difficult to locate. To distribute the uncounted among the various races and population groups would only add to the inaccuracies built into most population surveys and projections. Consequendy, the undercount will be ignored in this study. The American population has been divided into one white and several nonwhite categories. A second look, however, discloses that only two of the categories, White and Negro, would be considered acceptable racial designations by professional anthropologists, who would prefer that Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics be grouped under more authentic racial designations, such as Mongoloid and Polynesian. Amateur anthropologists, with the backing of a few professionals, might also insist on a breakdown of the White classification. They would insist in vain. The Census Bureau does not publish statistics on the various white races or subraces in the United States, though it has released a study allocating the population according to “ancestral groups” (see Appendix B).

In the search for accurate racial statistics among the white population, some help is furnished by those minority groups which try to keep a fairly accurate count of their own numbers. Further assistance is provided by the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, generally conceded to be the best source of data for minorities and nationality demographics.[2]Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, ed. Stephan Thernstrom, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1980. An older text is One America, eds. Francis J. Brown and Joseph S. Roucek, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962. But the most satisfactory results are obtained by the method described in Appendix A. The total white population is multiplied by the percentage of whites contributed by foreign nations or homelands, as estimated by a Census study of immigrant origins. This figure is then further multiplied by the percentage of Alpines or Mediterraneans in these countries, as determined by the estimates of Carl Brigham in A Study of American Intelligence. In cases where Brigham’s racial percentages are not given, they can be gleaned from other authoritative demographic sources mentioned in Appendix A.

The number and racial affiliation of the rest of the white population can be obtained by subtracting the Mediterranean and Alpine totals from the revised White entry in Table I. This remainder represents a broadly approximate headcount of Americans of Northern European descent — the very few pure and many impure Nordics from preponderantly Nordic Britain and Scandinavia, partially Nordic Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and Belgium, and fractionally Nordic France, Austria, and Eastern Europe. Those who wish to see a calculation of the Northern European element by the national origins method may consult Appendix A, which also contains a statistical interpretation of America’s white racial history and tabulated racial allocations of all nationality groups.

In line with the procedures, modifications and corrections proposed so far, the Revised Census (Table I) has now been further revised and appears as Table II on the next page.

In Table II racial percentages have been introduced. Hispanic and Other Race categories have been placed in a Nonwhite entry, together with Negroes, Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Asians and Pacific Islanders (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Hawaiians, Asian Indians, Pakistanis, etc.). The White category has been subdivided into Ripley’s white racial divisions (see pages 26-27). Population and racial studies to support the various racial listings will be found in Part IV (Chapters 13-17) and in Appendix A.

Table II
(*) Though some portion of the Other Race members should be included in the White category, it would be pure guesswork to determine how many. For the sake of simplicity and because classifying one-half or one-quarter of Other Race members as whites would not greatly change racial numbers or percentages, the Other Race will remain as a separate entry in the Nonwhite column. [/tcl]
RaceNumber% of White Population% of Total Population
White
Nordic115,651,20661.4746.50
Alpine59,137,00131.4323.78
Mediterranean13,348,6517.105.37
Subtotal188,136,858100.0075.65
Nonwhite
Negro29,986,060 12.06
Amerindian, Eskimo, Aleut1,959,234 0.79
Asian & Pacific Islanders7,273,662 2.92
Hispanic20,354,059 8.18
Other Race1,000,000* 0.40
Subtotal60,573,015 24.35
Total248,709,873 100.00

There is no point in denying that, mathematically speaking, Table II leaves much to be desired. White racial allocations have been arrived at by a combination of educated guesswork, arbitrary anthropological definitions, and wide-ranging projections. In some cases, whole population groups have been assigned to a Nordic, Alpine or Mediterranean category on the basis of their national origin, although no European country contains such an unadulterated population.

But even if it should contain errors as great as 10-20 percent, Table II serves a purpose. It attempts to quantify the Pigmentation Spectrum in Chapter 4 by attaching numbers to population groups of different skin color, the chief criterion of popular racial classification. Table II also demonstrates, in a rough way, how many Americans are black, brown, red, yellow and different shades of white.

As a partial confirmation of the white allocations in Table II, reference is again made to E.A. Hooton’s racial classification of the white population of the United States (see pp. 27-28). Hooton’s racial divisions, it will be recalled, were not based on national origins data or population group statistics, but on a Harvard-sponsored anthropological study of 29,000 adult American males. In addition to dividing whites into nine separate races, Hooton estimated the proportion of each race to the total white population. These percentages, previously omitted, are now given in Table III. In columns 3, 4, and 5, they are distributed, somewhat arbitrarily, among the racial categories of the Pigmentation Spectrum and the percentage totals compared to Table II percentages.

Table III
XXX

One discrepancy in the Table III percentages can be explained by the fact that, since Hooton’s time, the Mediterranean contribution to the U.S. population has increased disproportionately owing to higher birthrates and a higher rate of immigration. The discrepancy between the Alpine percentages, can be explained by pointing out that the Keltic component should probably be divided between the Light White and White columns.

Otherwise, the close correlation of the racial percentages in Tables II and III can hardly be described as a coincidence. But as always in the case of racial allocations, accuracy has been sacrificed on the altar of generalization. Many of Hooton’s East Baltics, in spite of their Alpine physique and circular crania, are blonder and fairer than many Nordic-Mediterraneans, who were assigned to the Light White column principally because they represent a British racial type (see page 27).

Given greater authority and credibility by the Hooton estimates, Table III will now undergo a further revision to bring it in closer agreement with the American racial picture as seen by the roving anthropological eye of the man in the street. Since the public generally does not distinguish or does not care to distinguish between Nordics and Alpines and various Nordic-Alpine shadings, these two white categories have been combined and designated NordicAlpine in Table IV below. Also in keeping with the dictates of popular anthropology, that many if not most Mediterraneans are only dubiously white, they have been subtracted from the White total of Table I and given a separate entry of their own.

Table IV
174,788,20792.9070.2813,348,6517.105.3729,986,060 12.061,959,234 0.797,273,662 2.9220,354,059 8.181,000,000 0.40
RaceNumber% White Population% Total Population
Nordic/Alpine
Mediterranean
Negro
Amerindian, Eskimo, Aleut
Asian & Pacific Islanders
Hispanic
Other Race
Total248,709,873100.00100.00

However offensive it may be to the political sensibilities of the Census Bureau and to the professional sensibilities of physical anthropologists, Table IV provides a more accurate racial survey of the American population than Table I. It portrays the United States as a moderately heterogeneous nation, with slightly more than 24 percent of its population nonwhite and slightly more than 5 percent of its whites on the dark side of white. Looking at Table IV, an atomic physicist might compare the country’s racial composition to a white nucleus surrounded by electrons whose orbital radius increases linearly with skin coloration.

But Table IV, unfortunately, is still not the end of the search for racial statistics. As stated earlier in this study, race has its cultural and psychological side. In the words of one controversial American ethnologist, there is a “blood-race” and a “thought-race”[3]Lothrop Stoddard, The New World of Islam, Scribner’s, New York, 1921, p. 160. It is the “thought-race” which made it possible for onetime Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who genetically could hardly be distinguished from a Mediterranean, to call himself a Negro. It is the same “thought-race” which permits Israeli Premier Yitzhak Rabin, with his fair complexion, light eyes and other Northern European traits, to designate himself a Jew. When Stoddard wrote, “For his blood-race he will not stir; for his thought-race he will die,” he apparently believed that in a test of strength between the physical and the psychological sides of race, the latter would often prevail.—that is, a population group which acts as a race should be defined and treated as such, even if it does not qualify as a race in the accepted anthropological, biological, and genetic meaning of the word. Just as too dark a skin excludes some whites from the White racial category in Table IV, certain cultural “colorations” exclude others.

So one more table is necessary, one that takes into account the psychological stratum of race. To satisfy this requirement, Table V (see next page) is offered as a “culturally corrected” version of Table IV. The physical basis of race has been retained by listing, where possible, the various categories and numerical totals in the previous Tables. The cultural basis has been introduced by classifying population groups according to their degree of assimilation and non-assimilation. Mediterraneans and some nonwhite groups have been designated Unassimilable Minorities. All other whites have been defined as Assimilated or Assimilable except for Jews, who have been classified as an Unassimilable Minority because of their long history of non-assimilation in almost every country but Israel.[4]Only China has ever succeeded in assimilating its Jewish population. Nathaniel Peffer, The Far East, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1958, p. 43. For some reason Peffer didn’t make an exception for ancient or modern Israel.

The thinking that went into the construction of Table V will be explained more fully in Part IV. Here it might be pointed out that assimilation, although it is generally taken to mean the merging of cultural rather than biological traits, has physical as well as psychological overtones and is a decisive and ever present factor in American race relations.

Table V – Racial Composition of the United States (1990)
xxx

Psychologically defined, the Majority is the only fully assimilated population group. Until recently, every minority has gravitated towards it and around it. The cultural definition of the Majority is given by its central position in American society, by its once dominant part in the shaping of the American nation and by the historic role it played as the New World propagator of the at first Anglo-Saxon, then Northern European,[5]Northern European, although a geographical term, is perhaps the best racial description for the American Majority. It is broad enough to include the various Nordic and Alpine crosses, yet narrow enough to exclude the darker Southern Europeans and the nonwhite population groups. now Americanized version of Western civilization.

Table V, it should be noted, carries a 1990 dateline. The question is, in view of the significant shifts in the population in recent decades, will the minorities continue to increase and the white proportion of the population continue to diminish? If the latest Census Bureau projections are right,[6]Census Bureau Projections, Washington Post, December 4, 1992. the American Majority will become just another minority by the year 2050. A population of 383 million is projected for the halfway point of the next century. The nonwhite component will include 81 million Hispanics, 62 million Negroes, 41 million Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 5 million American Indians — a total of 189 million. If the dark Mediterraneans and Jews are subtracted from the white total, the American Majority will be less than 50 percent of the population.[7]Blacks outnumber whites in Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, and Washington D.C., and may soon outnumber them in Cleveland, Memphis, and St Louis. Hispanics outnumber whites in San Antonio and El Paso. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, added together, outnumber whites in Chicago, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and may soon outnumber them in New York City.

Within the somewhat arbitrary confines of Table V, the demography of the United States is finally presented in a form which both identifies and numbers the principal participants in the present-day racial confrontation. The American Majority, briefly mentioned in Chapter 4, now takes its place as the protagonist of this study and of the American racial drama. A huge, unwieldy, ungainly population mass, more than five times larger than the largest minority and comprising nearly 68 percent of all Americans, the Majority is physically defined by its Nordic and Alpine racial affiliations, the former strain being predominant. Whatever Mediterranean racial components are present must be well diluted.

In summarizing this attempt to nail down some meaningful racial statistics for the U.S. population, it should be emphasized that the power and durability of a race do not depend on numbers. A healthy morale, a healthy biology, and a consciousness of kind are more important factors than size. The multitude of its members, aggravated by their wide dispersal, religious diversity, and the steady addition of less compatible genetic elements, make the American Majority extremely susceptible to various forms of deracination, particularly that form known as proletarianization (see Chapter 26). To put it bluntly, American racial dynamics has now entered a phase where most of the spirit, most of the drive, most of the competitiveness, and most of the will to power are on the side of the smaller battalions, the dynamic minority battalions that have seized the racial initiative.

Footnotes

[1] Most demographers agree there was a definite undercount in the 1990 Census, one commonly mentioned figure being 1.8%. If added to the total population, this undercount would disproportionately increase the number of nonwhites, who crowd the urban centers and are more difficult to locate. To distribute the uncounted among the various races and population groups would only add to the inaccuracies built into most population surveys and projections. Consequendy, the undercount will be ignored in this study.

[2] Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, ed. Stephan Thernstrom, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1980. An older text is One America, eds. Francis J. Brown and Joseph S. Roucek, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962.

[3] Lothrop Stoddard, The New World of Islam, Scribner’s, New York, 1921, p. 160. It is the “thought-race” which made it possible for onetime Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who genetically could hardly be distinguished from a Mediterranean, to call himself a Negro. It is the same “thought-race” which permits Israeli Premier Yitzhak Rabin, with his fair complexion, light eyes and other Northern European traits, to designate himself a Jew. When Stoddard wrote, “For his blood-race he will not stir; for his thought-race he will die,” he apparently believed that in a test of strength between the physical and the psychological sides of race, the latter would often prevail.

[4] Only China has ever succeeded in assimilating its Jewish population. Nathaniel Peffer, The Far East, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1958, p. 43. For some reason Peffer didn’t make an exception for ancient or modern Israel.

[5] Northern European, although a geographical term, is perhaps the best racial description for the American Majority. It is broad enough to include the various Nordic and Alpine crosses, yet narrow enough to exclude the darker Southern Europeans and the nonwhite population groups.

[6] Census Bureau Projections, Washington Post, December 4, 1992.

[7] Blacks outnumber whites in Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, and Washington D.C., and may soon outnumber them in Cleveland, Memphis, and St Louis. Hispanics outnumber whites in San Antonio and El Paso. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, added together, outnumber whites in Chicago, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and may soon outnumber them in New York City.

Part III • The Majority at Bay

Chapter 9 • Majority Origins • 4,100 Words

AN unmistakable sign of racelessness, a synonym for powerlessness in a multiracial state, is a generalized apathy towards the subject of racial origins. As Macaulay put it, “A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors will never achieve anything worthy to be remembered by noble descendants.”[1]Thomas Macaulay, History of England from the Accession of James II, Macmillan, London, 1914, Vol. 3, p. 1526. Until quite recently the American Majority has been litde inclined to examine its racial history or prehistory. It has been even less inclined to compose, embroider and propagate the myths that are the taproots and symbols of race consciousness.

Majority members have usually satisfied their search for ethnic identity by tracing their ancestry to a European mother country. It was this emphasis on national origins which led to the assumption that the United States was an Anglo-Saxon nation, a term still used by many foreign and a few American journalists and historians when they refer, anachronistically, to America as an “Anglo-Saxon power.” In the first century of American independence, the AngloSaxon component[2]Included in this component were many Americans of Welsh, Scotch, and Scotch-Irish descent who had the right to object to an Anglo-Saxon pedigree. of the population was numerically and politically predominant, so that the claim was well founded. But today, although the language has come through without overmuch damage and although other cultural vestiges are still recognizable, the British-American plurality, the root of the Anglo-Saxon connection, no longer exists.

Taken in the broadest sense, the Anglo-Saxon element of the American white population (77 percent in 1790) is today considerably less.[3]In 1920 the British percentage of the U.S. white population was estimated to be 41.4. Also denoted as British, it now comprises about 26 percent of the Majority and has shrunk to less than 18 percent of the population as a whole.[4]The author’s extrapolation of a Census Bureau study of “America’s Ancestry” Groups released in April 1983 puts the number of British-descended Americans at 43,666,413. See Appendix B. It has also become racially unidentifiable. Other groups of Northern European origin are now so undifferentiated, so thoroughly a part of the Majority racial colloid, that Americans of Scandinavian, German, Belgian, and Dutch descent, as well as assimilated and assimilable Irish, French, Italians, Central Europeans and Slavs, can scarcely be distinguished from WASPs, the acronym for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. (Why white? Are not all Anglo-Saxon Protestants white? ASP, as mentioned previously in this study, would be less redundant and more apt.) Even the American aristocracy or what passes for it is by no means an Anglo-Saxon monopoly. Any American Almanack de Gotha or Debrett’s would have to include Du Ponts, Vanderbilts, Astors, Rockefellers, and Roosevelts, as the Social Register currently does. The founders of these enterprising families could hardly be described as AngloSaxons,[5]Rudyard Kipling once heard Theodore Roosevelt, who would have been a prince if there had been an American nobility, “thank God in a loud voice that he had not one drop of British blood in him.” Kipling, Something of Myself, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1937, p. 131. although neither they nor their descendants wasted any time marrying into Anglo-Saxon families.

To find more solid and more cohesive ancestral moorings, the Majority, including its British component, must delve deeper in time and space. The dwarfed perspectives of British and other Northern European “national histories” will have to be expanded into an overall racial history. Granted that the genetic and cultural contribution of the British to American civilization was undeniably much more significant than that of any other single nation or group of nations, the British nevertheless are only one offshoot of a larger racial division to which tens of millions of other Majority members can claim kinship. Since Majority unity can never rest on national origins, which are inherently divisive, it might be appropriate for historians to stop treating the Majority past as a chronological patchwork of petty Old World rivalries, interlarded with tendentious sociological dogmas, and start treating it as a discrete genetic and cultural continuum.

One of the great difficulties of this approach is not the unearthing of the anthropological evidence. Enough of it is already at hand. The principal deterrent is the formidable opposition of the intellectuals who dictate the shape and content of contemporary historical interpretation. A single step in the direction of establishing common Majority racial roots would be, in their eyes, a direct challenge to one or more of the currently accepted fashions in historicism — the materialistic fixations of Marx, the religious ecstasies of Toynbee, the morphological prophecies of Spengler, the liberal platitudinizing of the American Historical Association, and the anti-history of Karl Popper.

On the other hand, the curious double standards of the intellectual community actually encourage a certain amount of minority dabbling in racial history. There is no outcry when American Jews, bypassing the European countries from which most of them came to America, claim descent from a Semitic race of Hebrews in ancient Palestine.[6]Ludwig Lewisohn’s This People (Harper, New York, 1933) is perhaps the classic example of modern Jewish racial mysticism. This is a large concession since contemporary social science is dead set against the derivation of bloodlines from cultural and religious similarities. Nor are there loud objections from academicians when blacks write volumes about the ethnic ties of American Negroes, not only to the West African tribes from which they sprang, but to negritude and to the “African soul.” The same historical license is freely granted to romantic Irish and Welsh Americans who dream of the departed glories of the Kelts (despite glaring evidence of their Nordicism),[7]Coon, The Races of Europe, pp. 378, 397. and to American Indians and Mexican Americans who speculate about noble forebears in a pre-Columbian golden age.

But all such flights of racial fancy, all such imaginative attempts to establish racial identity, seem to be forbidden to the Majority. From a minority standpoint this taboo is quite understandable. The further back Majority racial history is pursued, the more inevitable is its collision with the Aryan theory.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Aryan theory deserves some credibility, it then follows that an Indo-European or Nordic protorace was the primary source of many of the world’s principal civilizations — Aryan (India), Kassite, Hittite, Persian, Mycenaean, Greek, Roman, Keltic, Teutonic, Slavic, and the latter-day Western European.[8]Some of the more vigorous advocates of the Aryan theory have already been mentioned in Chapter 3, along with the surprising similarity of certain IndoEuropean root words. Hitler’s espousal of the Aryan theory, it is unnecessary to add, did nothing to improve its already low standing in the eyes of the Western intellectual community. Moreover, if a racial as well as a linguistic connection is admitted between the ancient Indo-European peoples and present-day Northern Europeans and their racial cousins overseas, then Majority members can claim as their ancestors the authors of the Vedas, Homer, Darius, Plato, Alexander, and Caesar, as well as many of the greatest figures in medieval and modern history. They can also claim an art as old as the Egyptian and Sumerian (perhaps even older), and a literature that antedates that of the Hebrews by more than a millennium.[9]The Vedic hymns go back to 2000 B.C., the oldest parts of the bible to 850 B.C. See p. 155.

With somewhat more anthropological license the Aryan theory can be pushed back to the Cro-Magnons, the magnificent artists of the cave paintings in southern France and northern Spain, the best of which go back to 18,000 B.C. Cro-Magnon skeletons, a few as tall as six feet, five inches, have dolichocephalic crania (with an average volume of 1650 cc, compared to the average of 1350 cc of the modern European).[10]Ency. Brit., 14th edition, 1963, Vol. 6, p. 792. Such skeletal dimensions offer some indication of a partial Cro-Magnon ancestry for present-day Nordics. In addition there are the recent discoveries of beautifully wrought goldwork in Eastern Europe that predate the best gold jewelry of the Egyptians by 1,600 years. Moreover, revised radiocarbon dating demonstrates that the splendid megalithic chamber tombs of Western Europe are 6,000 years old — 1,300 years older than the Pyramids. Stonehenge, it appears, was operating as an astronomical laboratory a thousand years or so before Homer had composed a line of poetry.[11]Colin Renfrew, Before Civilization, Knopf, New York, 1973, pp. 16, 66, 123. Renfrew, professor of archaeology at the University of Southampton (England) and Marija Gimbutas of the University of California at Los Angeles have been in the forefront of the archaeological revisionists who have dealt crippling blows to the diffusion theory of civilization growth. Previously the advances in European culture were credited to Egyptian and Near Eastern influences. All the light was supposed to have come from the East (ex oriente lux). Radiocarbon dating now proves that many lights were first shining independendy in Western Europe. A reverse diffusionist theory was put forward by Gustav Kossinna long before carbon14 was heard of. In Die deutsche Vorgeschichle, eine hervorragend nationals Wissenschaft (1912), Kossinna declared European civilization was started by waves of “IndoGermans” who carried their inventions of writings and metallurgy southward in the great “folk movements” of the third millennium b.c. To all this might be appended legends of Vikings in preColumbian Central and South America,[12]See various works of the late Jacques de Mahieu, a French anthropologist who lived in Argentina, particularly Drakkars sur l’Amazone, Copernic, Paris, 1977. The remote ancestors of these Vikings may have gone as far afield as China. In 1980 the well-preserved body of a tall, “extremely beautiful” woman with long blond hair, big eyes, high nose, and “tiny, thin lips” was found in northwest China. Radiocarbon dating estimated that she died 6,470 years ago. Atlanta Constitution, Feb. 19,1981. and seafarers of a highly developed Nordic culture in Helgoland, whose navy purportedly overcame the fleet of Ramses III in an Egyptian sea battle in the twelfth century B.C.[13]Jurgen Spanuth, Atlantis, Grabert, Tubingen, 1965.

Although it is not generally known, several highly respected historians and scholars have lent their support to the Aryan theory. Gordon Childe, described by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as “easily the greatest prehistorian in Britain of his generation, and probably in the world,”[14]Ency. Brit., Vol. 5, p. 502. wrote that Aryans “appear everywhere as promoters of true progress and in Europe their expansion marked the moment when the prehistory of our continent begins to diverge from that of Africa or the Pacific.”[15]As quoted by Darlington, The Evolution of Man in Society, p. 146. A prominent French academician, Georges Dumezil, went well beyond the Indo-European language relationship and posited a common mythology and even a common structure mentale specifique, which induced a distinct Indo-European world view.[16]Georges Dumezil, L’ideologie tripartite des Indo-Europeens, Latomus, Brussels, 1978. Arnold Toynbee did the Aryan cause no harm with some flattering remarks about the historical acumen of Gobineau,[17]A Study of History, Vol. VI, pp. 216-17. one of the founding fathers of Aryanism.

More recently, Oxford Professor C. D. Darlington stated of the Aryans: “Although they are stretched across two continents we attribute to them a common ancestry and a common origin, somewhere between the Danube and the Don and at some time before the end of the third millennium, B.C.”[18]Darlington, op. cit., p. 140.

Firmer evidence in support of the Aryan theory includes the genetic imprint of properly dated skulls with the proper cephalic index in areas where Indo-European languages were spoken, and a wealth of literary and artistic allusions attributing fair coloration and blondness to the gods and heroes of the early Indo-European cultures.[19]Coon, The Races of Europe, Chapters V and VI. Also see Chapter 12 of this study. The sensitivity of the Aryan invaders of India to skin color — the basis of their caste system — might have been a genetic rather than an acquired trait since it is still prevalent among Northern Europeans and Majority Americans.

Finally, to the dismay and extreme discomfort of orthodox racial equalitarians, anthropologist Carleton Coon reawakened and gave new life to the Indo-European speech/ race correlation by stating, “Indo-European languages were, at one time, associated with a single, if composite, racial type, and that that racial type was an ancestral Nordic.”[20]Coon, op. cit., p. 221. Coon, who went on to say that the patricians of the Roman Republic were mostly Nordic in race,[21]Ibid., pp. 554, 651. So perhaps were some of the early emperors. Suetonius speaks of Augustus’s hair as “inclining to golden,” of Nero’s light blond hair,” and Galba’s “blue eyes.” De Vita Caesarum, 2.79.
(Coon, op. cit., p. 221.)
brought the genetic connection up to date by describing North America as the world’s “greatest Nordic reservoir.”

From any scholarly standpoint the Aryan theory is an oversimplification. A few oblong skulls, a few Nordic profiles on crumbling statuary, a few literary references to blondism do not prove the existence of a great culture-bearing Indo-European race. But neither do they disprove it. At any event, if the Majority intelligentsia is too cautious or too intimidated to subscribe to a remote and far-off Indo-European lineage, it can hardly ignore the Majority’s more readily traceable descent from the Indo-European-speaking Germanic peoples, who began to play a commanding role in world history during and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries A.D., Volkerwanderungen from the German forests released a torrent of Northern European genes over much of the continent, some even spilling over to Africa. For Majority members of British descent in particular, and for American history in general, the most eventful part of this migration was the Teutonization, Germanization or “Notification” of a large section of England by the Angles and Saxons. Additional genetic influences of this type were introduced into the British Isles over the next four or five centuries by the incursions of Danes and other Northmen.

Even as the wave of Germanic expansion was contracting and the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Vandals[22]Eighty thousand Vandals, according to King Genseric, disappeared after three generations, presumably by indiscriminate mating. Darlington, op. cit., p. 317. were losing their kingdoms in Italy, Spain, and North Africa, a new Northern European migration was in the making. In the next 600 years the Scandinavian Vikings and Normans conquered Normandy, Sicily, Southern Italy, England, and parts of Ireland, and settled in Iceland, the coast of Greenland and, briefly, Newfoundland.[23]The Northmen almost, but not quite, captured London (895), Paris (885886) and Constantinople (860). In A Study of History (Vol. II, pp. 438-43), Toynbee has inserted an entrancing piece of historical speculation in which he envisions what might have happened if the pagan Scandinavians had captured these European capitals, gone on from Iceland to permanendy setde America and, instead of converting to Christianity, had oudawed it. In the east, in approximately the same time frame, bands of roving Swedish warriors and merchants known as Rus and Varangians became lords of the Russian riverways. Apart from giving the country their name, they set up one of their own leaders, Rurik, as the first Russian Czar. In 1042, Varangians sailing south through the Aegean and Normans sailing east from Sicily marked the Scandinavian encirclement of Europe by engaging each other in a Mediterranean sea battle.[24]For centuries the Varangians formed the personal bodyguard of the Byzantine emperors. After the battle of Hastings, they were replaced by Englishmen fleeing the Norman conquest of Britain. Eric Oxenstierna, The Norsemen, trans. Catherine Hutter, New York Graphic Society Publishers, Greenwich, Conn., 1965, p. 279.

The racial drive of the Northmen, before it was enervated in douce France and in warmer, lemon-scented lands farther south, catalyzed the Crusades, an ill-fated, Herculean effort to found a vast domain of Teutonic fiefs in the Near East. Although the ostensible purpose of the Crusaders, under such Norman leaders as Tancred, Bohemund, and Richard I of England, was to make the Holy Land safe for Christianity, they were equally, if not more intensely, motivated by an itch for glory and riches.

In other crusading movements taking place in Europe in these years, the goals were more specifically racial. In the east and northeast the Teutonic Knights were pushing back the Baits and Slavs. In Spain the Visigothic aristocracy had reemerged after centuries of hiding in the mountain fastnesses of Galicia and Asturias and was mounting a counterattack to drive the Arabs from the Iberian peninsula — a military operation which culminated in the founding of the Spanish Empire and the colonization of the New World.[25]The Visigoths and their identifiable progeny are all but gone from the racial map of Spain. But if they have vanished into Spain’s overwhelmingly Mediterranean ethnic solvent, some racial memories still stirred in one of the finest minds of modern Spain. Ortega y Gasset in Meditacion Preliminar has written, “Quien ha puesto en mi pecho estas reminiscencias sonoras, donde— como en un caracol los alientos oceanicos — perviven las voces intimas que da el viento en los senos de las selvas germanicas?” Obras Completes, Madrid, 1963, Vol. 1, p. 356. Needless to say, none of these crusades was conducted according to the teachings of the New Testament. Whatever moral restraints and humane acts were exhibited could as well be ascribed to chivalry as to Christianity.[26]Chivalry is a refined mixture of stylized military courtesy, honor, and courtly love, which is still faintly recognizable in the unwritten rules of what in England and among some American Majority members are known as fair play. Tacitus detected one chivalric rite in pagan German society: ‘Turn in ipso concilio vel principum aliquis vel pater vel propinquus scuto frameaque juvenem ornant” De Germania, 13. 5-6. Swan Sonnenschein, London, 1901. A less reverent and somewhat hilarious view of the same subject is provided by Robert BrifFault’s The Mothers, Macmillan, New York, 1927, Vol. 3, pp. 382-423.

Before the Middle Ages had ended,[27]Historian Will Durant had some interesting apperceptions about the racial composition of Europe at the high point of the Middle Ages. The Germans, by a millennium of migrations and conquests, had made their type prevail in the upper classes of all Western Europe except central and southern Italy, and Spain. The blond type was so definitely admired in hair and eyes that St Bernard struggled through an entire sermon to reconcile with this preference the ‘I am black but beautiful’ of the Song of Songs. The ideal knight was to be tall and blond and bearded; the ideal woman in epic and romance was slender and graceful, with blue eyes and long blond or golden hair.” The Age of Faith, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950, p. 832. the Holy Land was lost. The Turks began their march to Constantinople, Budapest and the outskirts of Vienna. The popes, largely of Lombard (Germanic) origin,[28]Hildebrand, who became Gregory VII and the most temporal of all popes, was a Lombard from Tuscany. Before Germans in the papal office put their religious preferences above their racial ties, their pro-Teutonic sentiments often approached those of Hitler. See particularly Bishop Liutprands’s tenth-century polemic on the “baseness and cowardice and avarice and effeminacy and mendacity” of the Romans in Toynbee’s A Study of History, Vol. IV, pp. 522-23. placed themselves at the head of the populations of Southern Europe and humiliated the German emperors. Meanwhile, the Teutonic and Norman aristocracy, having developed national loyalties, began to marry into rich mercantile families. In the east, the Nordic Slavs were being “AlpinizecT as the Nordic nobility and soldiery died out in interminable wars against Asiatic invaders and as the more docile Nordic remnants mixed with neighboring peoples and the Mongoloid enemy.[29]The Slavs, like all the other Indo-European-speaking peoples whom we have been able to trace, were originally Nordic, and there is no suggestion in their early remains, in the regions studied, of the numerically predominant brachycephalic racial increments which today are considered typically Slavic.” Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 220.

The large-scale colonial undertakings of Spain and Portugal beginning in the 16th century could hardly be called manifestations of Northern European racial momentum, although more than a few conquistadores displayed an unusual disproportion of non-Mediterranean traits.[30]Vasco da Gama’s great grandmother was a Hereford, a member of the highest echelon of English nobility. Henry Hart, Sea Road to the Indies, Macmillan, New York, 1950, p. 97. Columbus, a North Italian, was tall with long head, blue eyes and auburn hair. Samuel Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Little, Brown, Boston, 1942, p. 47. Cortes traced his lineage back to the Lombard kings of Italy and Pedro de Alvarado, his bravest lieutenant, was so blond that the Aztecs called him Tonatiuh, the Sun. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, Modern Library, New York, pp. 128, 258. Prescott described King Ferdinand as Queen Isabella’s “red-haired Goth.” Balboa, the discoverer of the Pacific, was fair with reddish-golden hair and beard. Kathleen Romoli, Balboa of Darien, Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y, 1953, p. 31. The racial lineaments of the Reformation, however, were unmistakable. In the words of Thomas Macaulay: “The Reformation had been a national as well as a moral revolt. It had been, not only an insurrection of the laity against the clergy, but also an insurrection of all the branches of the great German race against an alien domination. “[31]The History of England from the Accession of James II, Vol. 1 , p. 58. Macaulay might better have said Northern European race instead of German, because Southern and Austrian Germans remained solidly Catholic.

Protestantism, the religious emancipation of the North, helped inspire and accelerate the greatest Northern European expansion of all time. In a succession of great, seafaring “Folkwanderings,” which lasted from the 17th to the end of the 19th century, British, Germans, Scandinavians, French, Dutch, and Irish shipped out by the millions to North America, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, and by the tens of thousands to the outposts of empire in black Africa, South America, Asia, and the Pacific Islands.

At the start of the twentieth century, despite the French Revolution which had all but demolished the old Teutonic ruling class in most of Latin Europe, Northern European power and influence were never greater. The British and German Empires with their invincible land and sea forces, their near monopoly of world commerce, their technical efficiency, and the boundless energy of their industrious citizenry constituted a concentration of military and economic strength that no other nation or group of nations could even approach.

This immense power, it might be noted, rested on more than guns and butter. It was the end product of a set of unique institutions, among which was representative government, whose origins Montesquieu had detected in the behavior and practices of ancient German tribal assemblies.[32]De l’esprit des lois, 11,6-8. Iceland had a parliament, the Althing, as early as the 10th century. A fondness for personal freedom, an independence of spirit, the unusually high status accorded women, and a deep affection for the land were considered typical characteristics of Teutonic-speaking peoples by Tacitus in his essay, De Germania. Such attitudes and habits were probably the seeds of the Magna Carta and of the subsequent British emphasis on individual rights and liberties. Perhaps the greatest institutional achievement of all was the legal system — including that Scandinavian or Teutonic invention known as trial by a jury of one’s peers, a rudimentary form of which was transported to England by the Normans.[33]See Chapter 28.

All these milestones of political and social evolution apparently have sprung from an almost instinctive recognition that a the basis of…society was the free man.”[34]J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People, Harper, New York, 1892, Vol. 1, p. 2. The highest refinement and expression of this political reflex was embodied in the activity and legislation of the British Parliament, which fostered a climate of political and economic stability unparalleled in history. The comparatively stable social environment produced by such institutions was the basic precondition for Northern European leadership in government, art, science, industry, agriculture, and almost every other aspect of human endeavor.

It was only natural that these institutions were carried across the Atlantic and further refined and developed by the English and by the other Northern Europeans who colonized North America. If a special biological inheritance had accounted for the progress and prosperity of the Northern European states in the Old World, it would have been reasonable to expect that a New World country with an overabundance of the same genetic resources would become an even greater nation, perhaps the greatest nation of all.

It took less than two centuries of national independence and two World Wars for this prophecy to come true. The irony was that by the time the United States had become the dominant force in world affairs, the American Majority, the principal agent of American greatness, was no longer the dominant force in America.

Footnotes

[1] Thomas Macaulay, History of England from the Accession of James II, Macmillan, London, 1914, Vol. 3, p. 1526.

[2] Included in this component were many Americans of Welsh, Scotch, and Scotch-Irish descent who had the right to object to an Anglo-Saxon pedigree.

[3] In 1920 the British percentage of the U.S. white population was estimated to be 41.4.

[4] The author’s extrapolation of a Census Bureau study of “America’s Ancestry” Groups released in April 1983 puts the number of British-descended Americans at 43,666,413. See Appendix B.

[5] Rudyard Kipling once heard Theodore Roosevelt, who would have been a prince if there had been an American nobility, “thank God in a loud voice that he had not one drop of British blood in him.” Kipling, Something of Myself, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1937, p. 131.

[6] Ludwig Lewisohn’s This People (Harper, New York, 1933) is perhaps the classic example of modern Jewish racial mysticism.

[7] Coon, The Races of Europe, pp. 378, 397.

[8] Some of the more vigorous advocates of the Aryan theory have already been mentioned in Chapter 3, along with the surprising similarity of certain IndoEuropean root words. Hitler’s espousal of the Aryan theory, it is unnecessary to add, did nothing to improve its already low standing in the eyes of the Western intellectual community.

[9] The Vedic hymns go back to 2000 B.C., the oldest parts of the bible to 850 B.C. See p. 155.

[10] Ency. Brit., 14th edition, 1963, Vol. 6, p. 792.

[11] Colin Renfrew, Before Civilization, Knopf, New York, 1973, pp. 16, 66, 123. Renfrew, professor of archaeology at the University of Southampton (England) and Marija Gimbutas of the University of California at Los Angeles have been in the forefront of the archaeological revisionists who have dealt crippling blows to the diffusion theory of civilization growth. Previously the advances in European culture were credited to Egyptian and Near Eastern influences. All the light was supposed to have come from the East (ex oriente lux). Radiocarbon dating now proves that many lights were first shining independendy in Western Europe. A reverse diffusionist theory was put forward by Gustav Kossinna long before carbon14 was heard of. In Die deutsche Vorgeschichle, eine hervorragend nationals Wissenschaft (1912), Kossinna declared European civilization was started by waves of “IndoGermans” who carried their inventions of writings and metallurgy southward in the great “folk movements” of the third millennium b.c.

[12] See various works of the late Jacques de Mahieu, a French anthropologist who lived in Argentina, particularly Drakkars sur l’Amazone, Copernic, Paris, 1977. The remote ancestors of these Vikings may have gone as far afield as China. In 1980 the well-preserved body of a tall, “extremely beautiful” woman with long blond hair, big eyes, high nose, and “tiny, thin lips” was found in northwest China. Radiocarbon dating estimated that she died 6,470 years ago. Atlanta Constitution, Feb. 19,1981.

[13] Jurgen Spanuth, Atlantis, Grabert, Tubingen, 1965.

[14] Ency. Brit., Vol. 5, p. 502.

[15] As quoted by Darlington, The Evolution of Man in Society, p. 146.

[16] Georges Dumezil, L’ideologie tripartite des Indo-Europeens, Latomus, Brussels, 1978.

[17] A Study of History, Vol. VI, pp. 216-17.

[18] Darlington, op. cit., p. 140.

[19] Coon, The Races of Europe, Chapters V and VI. Also see Chapter 12 of this study.

[20] Coon, op. cit., p. 221.

[21] Ibid., pp. 554, 651. So perhaps were some of the early emperors. Suetonius speaks of Augustus’s hair as “inclining to golden,” of Nero’s light blond hair,” and Galba’s “blue eyes.” De Vita Caesarum, 2.79.

[22] Eighty thousand Vandals, according to King Genseric, disappeared after three generations, presumably by indiscriminate mating. Darlington, op. cit., p. 317.

[23] The Northmen almost, but not quite, captured London (895), Paris (885886) and Constantinople (860). In A Study of History (Vol. II, pp. 438-43), Toynbee has inserted an entrancing piece of historical speculation in which he envisions what might have happened if the pagan Scandinavians had captured these European capitals, gone on from Iceland to permanendy setde America and, instead of converting to Christianity, had oudawed it.

[24] For centuries the Varangians formed the personal bodyguard of the Byzantine emperors. After the battle of Hastings, they were replaced by Englishmen fleeing the Norman conquest of Britain. Eric Oxenstierna, The Norsemen, trans. Catherine Hutter, New York Graphic Society Publishers, Greenwich, Conn., 1965, p. 279.

[25] The Visigoths and their identifiable progeny are all but gone from the racial map of Spain. But if they have vanished into Spain’s overwhelmingly Mediterranean ethnic solvent, some racial memories still stirred in one of the finest minds of modern Spain. Ortega y Gasset in Meditacion Preliminar has written, “Quien ha puesto en mi pecho estas reminiscencias sonoras, donde— como en un caracol los alientos oceanicos — perviven las voces intimas que da el viento en los senos de las selvas germanicas?” Obras Completes, Madrid, 1963, Vol. 1, p. 356.

[26] Chivalry is a refined mixture of stylized military courtesy, honor, and courtly love, which is still faintly recognizable in the unwritten rules of what in England and among some American Majority members are known as fair play. Tacitus detected one chivalric rite in pagan German society: ‘Turn in ipso concilio vel principum aliquis vel pater vel propinquus scuto frameaque juvenem ornant” De Germania, 13. 5-6. Swan Sonnenschein, London, 1901. A less reverent and somewhat hilarious view of the same subject is provided by Robert BrifFault’s The Mothers, Macmillan, New York, 1927, Vol. 3, pp. 382-423.

[27] Historian Will Durant had some interesting apperceptions about the racial composition of Europe at the high point of the Middle Ages. The Germans, by a millennium of migrations and conquests, had made their type prevail in the upper classes of all Western Europe except central and southern Italy, and Spain. The blond type was so definitely admired in hair and eyes that St Bernard struggled through an entire sermon to reconcile with this preference the ‘I am black but beautiful’ of the Song of Songs. The ideal knight was to be tall and blond and bearded; the ideal woman in epic and romance was slender and graceful, with blue eyes and long blond or golden hair.” The Age of Faith, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950, p. 832.

[28] Hildebrand, who became Gregory VII and the most temporal of all popes, was a Lombard from Tuscany. Before Germans in the papal office put their religious preferences above their racial ties, their pro-Teutonic sentiments often approached those of Hitler. See particularly Bishop Liutprands’s tenth-century polemic on the “baseness and cowardice and avarice and effeminacy and mendacity” of the Romans in Toynbee’s A Study of History, Vol. IV, pp. 522-23.

[29] The Slavs, like all the other Indo-European-speaking peoples whom we have been able to trace, were originally Nordic, and there is no suggestion in their early remains, in the regions studied, of the numerically predominant brachycephalic racial increments which today are considered typically Slavic.” Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 220.

[30] Vasco da Gama’s great grandmother was a Hereford, a member of the highest echelon of English nobility. Henry Hart, Sea Road to the Indies, Macmillan, New York, 1950, p. 97. Columbus, a North Italian, was tall with long head, blue eyes and auburn hair. Samuel Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Little, Brown, Boston, 1942, p. 47. Cortes traced his lineage back to the Lombard kings of Italy and Pedro de Alvarado, his bravest lieutenant, was so blond that the Aztecs called him Tonatiuh, the Sun. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, Modern Library, New York, pp. 128, 258. Prescott described King Ferdinand as Queen Isabella’s “red-haired Goth.” Balboa, the discoverer of the Pacific, was fair with reddish-golden hair and beard. Kathleen Romoli, Balboa of Darien, Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y, 1953, p. 31.

[31] The History of England from the Accession of James II, Vol. 1 , p. 58.

[32] De l’esprit des lois, 11,6-8. Iceland had a parliament, the Althing, as early as the 10th century.

[33] See Chapter 28.

[34] J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People, Harper, New York, 1892, Vol. 1, p. 2.

Chapter 10 • The Decline of the Majority • 7,500 Words

The decline of the American Majority began with the political and military struggle between the North and South.

In addition to nationalistic and cultural differences, Northern Europeans in Europe were divided by geography, principally by the Baltic and North Seas and the English Channel. In the United States, the great divider was weather. The mean July temperatures of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are 73.5°F and 75.5°F, respectively. The mean July temperatures of Virginia and Mississippi, 79°F and 80°F. These few extra degrees of summer heat made it impossible for Southern plantation owners to recruit a white labor force. In hot climates the Northern European is worthless as a field hand. The South would never have obtained anything like its flourishing antebellum prosperity without a large supply of Negroes.

To meet the requirements of their environment, Southerners created their own unique modus vivendi — a highly romanticized and heavily scented version of which still haunts American history. Northerners, prompted in part by what has been described as the Anglo-Saxon’s “sentimental flaw,”[1]Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race, Scribner’s, N.Y, 1916, pp. 14, 77. the altruistic desire to extend civil liberties to the non-English, first tried to alleviate slavery, then to end it. Southerners reacted to Northern meddling much as both they and the Northern colonists had reacted to King George’s meddling a century earlier. They seceded.

If the North had been more patient and had been willing to “wait out” slavery a little longer — it was already threatened by the mechanization of cotton harvesting, foreign competition, and other causes — the Civil War might never have been fought In that event, the American Majority today would be substantially more numerous. The death toll in the war was 610,000 — compared to 4,435 in the War of Independence — and almost all the dead were of Northern European descent. In spite of the greater number of Northern casualties,[2]There were 360,000 deaths on the Northern side; 250,000 on the Southern. The war costs amounted to about $5 billion, with an additional $3 billion for postwar rehabilitation. Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, Vol. 2, pp. 98-99. the war’s dysgenic effects fell much more heavily on the South. The North had a population of 22 million, nearly all white, as against 12 million in the South, one-third of whom were slaves.[3]John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom, Knopf, New York, 1967, p. 386. The Southern officer class, overbrimming with bellicosity and bravado, was decimated, while in the North the purchase of substitutes was a thriving business. Seventeen percent of the Confederate generals were killed, compared to 2.5 percent of the Union generals.[4]Nathaniel Weyl, The Creative Elite in America, Public Affairs Press, Washington, D.C., 1966, p. 57. The cost in blood to the Union,” Weyl added, **was paid chiefly by the poorer classes and by those without much education and influence. The confederacy, by contrast, enacted draft laws which bore on rich and poor equally….”

After the carnage had ended, the Southern branch of the Majority became an oppressed minority. Northern carpetbaggers and Southern scalawags, using confused and unknowing Negroes as tools, made a successful, though short-lived, bid for political and economic control. Historians called it Reconstruction. The South, embittered by defeat, had to endure a vengeful military occupation. The passage of time and surges of national unity during World Wars I and II served to cool Southern resentment, until it was rekindled in the 1950s by the North’s reopening of the Negro question. The use of paratroopers and federal marshals to enforce Supreme Court rulings on the South was hardly calculated to let sleeping animosities lie.

Second only to the tragic polarization of North and South as a cause of Majority decline was the tremendous development of the national economy. If too much money is the seedbed of corruption, it is also the hotbed of racial amnesia. The great wealth generated before the Civil War by Majority plantation owners and shipping tycoons, and after the war by industrial and financial magnates, tended to concentrate their minds and energies on such mundane matters as money-making, profit-taking and business organization. Majority plutocrats gave little thought to the effect their demands for an ever larger labor force would have on America’s racial makeup.

“As the Nordic planter of the South, n historian Charles Beard explained, “in his passionate quest for wealth, was willing to sabotage his own kind in a flood of Negroes from the wilds of Africa, so the Nordic mill owner of New England, with his mind on dividends, took little thought about the nationality or color of those who stood patiently at his spindles and looms or huddled into the tenements of his cities.”[5]Beard, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 640.

The political consequences of this indiscriminate call for manpower were not long in coming. Even before the Civil War, the Irish presence began to make itself felt in a few of the biggest cities, where the Majority first tasted defeat at the polls. The defeat became national many decades later when white minorities in the North combined with Yankee-hating southerners to win presidential elections.

It was the Majority’s obsessive materialism, its habit of putting the tangibles before the intangibles of civilization, which made possible and perhaps made certain the Great Depression. Rugged individualism, laissez-faire, the separation of powers, and many other cherished possessions in the Majority hope chest went up in the smoke of emergency legislation to save the national economy. The New Deal, the first administration to inject a significant amount of non-Majority personnel and non-Majority ideology into the federal government, signified the coming of age of the liberal-minority coalition.

Minority participation in politics and all other aspects of American life has now increased to where it can be said that the Majority is no longer the racial establishment of the United States.[6]This decline has been misinterpreted by liberal sociologists as an exclusively WASP phenomenon. “[There] is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment which…has been gradually losing its power and authority in the course of the twentieth century.” E. Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment, Random House, New York, 1964, p. ix. Some minority writers have not only lovingly described but exulted over the Majority’s fall from power. See Peter Schrag, The Decline of the Wasp, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1972.

The Majority image — that of Western man as derived from Northern European (principally Anglo-Saxon) antecedents and as modified by the frontier and other peculiarities of the American environment — is being effaced by other racial and cultural imprints. And as Majority power and influence continue to decline, American civilization, as it is daily becoming more apparent, is losing much of its cultural glue. The old forms remain, but the content is either going or gone.

Because the forms remain, the American Majority is but vaguely aware of its dispossession. It still votes, but no longer chooses. It is still free to speak, but not to speak freely. It still patronizes the arts, but the arts have become a minority wasteland. It still has some economic clout, but it no longer directs the economy. Still a major influence in determining local policy, it exercises only a minor influence in determining vital areas of national and foreign policy. Many Majority members still lead private lives that are the envy of the world. In public, however, they are circumspect to the point of pusillanimity.

Those inclined to deny the Majority’s dispossession can be forgiven for adopting the following line of questioning. How, they may ask, can the Majority be dispossessed when the country is full of many rich Americans of impeccable Majority lineage…when there are so many Majority politicians, writers, artists, lawyers, doctors, scientists and FBI agents…when the president, most congressmen and most state governors belong to the Majority…when the armed forces are still commanded by a largely Majority officer corps…when the Majority, still the largest population group, can easily swing the vote?

The answers to these and similar questions will constitute much of the remaining subject matter of this book. Here they will merely be summarized.

One of the principal proofs of the Majority’s dispossession is that there is no Majority political party as such. For most of the 20th century the dynamic force in American politics has been the Democratic party, largely financed by minorities,[7]See Chapter 15. the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who “headed a government of minorities. “[8]“Archbishop Spellman” by Robert I. Gannon, Look, Aug. 1962, p. 103. Reconstructed and unreconstructed Southern Majority members (the so-called Yellow Dog Democrats) still support the Democratic party, though in diminishing numbers. Because of the spiralling Negro crime rate, many of those who live below the Mason-Dixon line are reverting to the white supremacist notions of their forebears in slavery days. Ironically these latter-day white supremacists, some of whom prefer to be called white separatists, now include Northern whites, who until fairly recently had been known to look askance at Southern “rednecks. ”

The Republican party or at least Republican candidates are currently favored by northern Majority members, though many in the low-income and union ranks still vote the Democratic ticket. In general, eastern Majority liberals are in much closer intellectual harmony with minority liberals than they are with Majority conservatives. The latter dilute their political effectiveness by splitting the conservative vote in the South and by a long history of compromise with northern and eastern liberaldom. As for the loudly and perennially touted Silent Majority, it is more accurately defined by its soft-hearted, tiptoed approach to the political process than by any special voting habits or racial urges. White or colored, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or nonbeliever, anyone who keeps his voice down and, on the rare occasion he votes, votes Republican, qualifies for membership.

There are, however, some genuine racial implications in the Republican “Southern Strategy” — a move to gather into the Republican fold white Southerners who dislike the pro-Negro stance of the “New South” politicians and the increasing clout of Negroes in Democratic politics nationwide. But the Southern Strategy, though it has done well in some presidential elections, has not yet produced a majority of Republican congressmen in states below the Mason-Dixon line.

Even that inner sanctum of Anglo-Saxon Protestant privilege, the presidency, has come under attack. Al Smith lost the 1928 presidential election,[9]Smith worked his way up the political ladder as a pure, unadulterated Irish Catholic, although his paternal grandfather was almost certainly an Italian and his paternal grandmother quite possibly a German. Matthew and Hannah Josephson, Al Smith, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1969, pp. 13-15. Smith, like so many big-city politicians, was “on the take.” Thomas Chadbourne, a millionaire Democrat, gave him $400,000 in cash and stock options when he was governor of New York. New York Times, May 22, 1985. If Herbert Hoover had died in office, the United States would have had a one-quarter Indian chief executive in the person of Charles Curtis, the vice-president. Globe and Mail (Toronto), July 13, 1984. but a more charismatic Irish Catholic, John F. Kennedy, won the 1960 election. Barry Goldwater, fractionally Jewish, was the unsuccessful Republican standard-bearer in the 1964 presidential contest. Lyndon Johnson, the winner, was a bona fide Majority member who, as a senator from Texas, had fought tooth and claw against civil rights legislation.[10]In 1948, Senator Johnson said: “The civil rights program is a farce and a sham — an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. ” Clarke Newton, LBJ, The Man From Johnson City, Dodd, Mead, New York, 1964, p. 112. When president, however, he completely reversed himself, once solemnly intoning the minority rallying cry, “We shall overcome,” on a national television hookup

.

Richard Nixon, who succeeded Johnson in the White House, although regarded by some as a super-WASP, was Irish on both sides of his family tree.[11]The Nixons, who were not Catholics, came from County Cork; the Milhous family from County Kildare. Phillips, op. cit., pp. 174-75. His first vice-president, Spiro Agnew, had a father from Greece and a mother from Virginia. Ronald Reagan, the victor in 1980 and 1984, announced he was “Irish” several times in both campaigns, since he had an Irish-Catholic father. He spoke little or not at all of his British-descended mother. American politics had reached the point where a presidential candidate considered it impolitic to speak of his British origins.

George Bush slid into the White House on Reagan’s coattails. When the economy faltered and he was perceived to be more of a wimpish Eastern Republican liberal than a Reaganite, he lasted only one term, in spite of his easy win in the Gulf War.

The presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton could be ascribed to the Democrats’ “Southern Strategy,” which consists of running a Southerner for president in order to lure some Southern states back into the no longer Solid South. Though Carter and Clinton are Majority members, both made a huge play not only for Southern white support but also for minority votes. Clinton went out of his way to stack his administration with blacks, Hispanics and Jews, not to mention Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the first Jewish lawyer on the Supreme Court since the somewhat inglorious exit of Johnson crony Abe Fortas in 1969.

When a man like Lyndon Johnson, with all the power of the presidency behind him, feels compelled to change his beliefs so radically and to proclaim his minority sympathies so publicly and shrilly, the lower-level Majority politician, in sharp contrast to the priorities of most minority politicians, can hardly be blamed for placing party above race. Obviously, if he represents an overwhelmingly Majority district, the Majority congressman will support the aims and aspirations of those who voted for him in regard to local and some of the less controversial national issues. But the moment he is compelled to take a stand on the wider questions that may crucially affect the nation as a whole, he usually bends and sways to the will and whim of lavishly financed, minority-oriented organizations and lobbies which seem dedicated to every interest but those of his constituents.

Turning to foreign affairs, the emotional ties of some minorities to their old or sometimes new homelands overseas — kept in the warming oven by the mechanics of racism — have produced a totally disproportionate minority influence. The recent history of American foreign policy reveals example after example of diplomatic, economic, and military commitments which were the direct outcome of White House and Congressional sensitivity to minority pressure.

The unconditional surrender of Germany, which handed eastern Europe over to Russia at the end of World War II and may have caused a million unnecessary casualties, is one such example. American support of Israel, which cost the United States the friendship and goodwill of over 100 million Arabs and smoothed the way for Russia’s entrance into Middle Eastern politics, is one such example. Another is America’s military and financial assistance to African nations, at the very moment the media and headline-seeking politicians were stepping up economic sanctions against South Africa, the only stable political entity on the continent. Independent Rhodesia was forced to surrender to black Marxists partly as a result of the United Nations economic sanctions in which the United States was a willing participant.

Whether minority interests coincided with the national interest in these major foreign policy actions is a matter for serious debate. What is not debatable was the racial motivations inherent in such decisions. The Majority, having no longer any motherland but the United States, tends to view foreign affairs from a purely American standpoint. Other population groups often look at the international scene from an entirely different perspective. This schizoid approach to foreign policy was certainly a compelling reason for America’s backing out of the war in Vietnam, where minority interests were inconsequential, at the very moment the White House and Congress were busy emphasizing and reemphasizing American commitments in the Middle East, where Jewish interests are considered more important than the supply and availability of Arab oil. In Cuba, for which the more influential minorities have little concern but where the threat to America’s defenses was real until the break-up of the Soviet Union, the stationing of Russian armed forces was considered a fait accompli by the White House.

The two principal achievements of Majority foreign policy — the Monroe Doctrine and non-entanglement in Old World power politics — have now been scrapped and replaced by a foreign policy without a center of gravity, a jumble of diplomatic non sequiturs which flies off on one tangent to satisfy minority emotionalism, on another to placate the liberal’s impassioned anti-totalitarianism, on another to soothe the conservative’s phobia of socialism.

For better or worse, Majority control of foreign affairs was the only means of developing and pursuing a coherent foreign policy. Once American diplomacy, driven by minority racism became pluralistic, the succession of disasters which took place in the second half of this century was inevitable. Until the reign of Henry Kissinger there was no branch of government where the Majority had a greater per capita representation than in the State Department. Yet it was precisely in the area of foreign policy that the Majority interest was and is most studiously ignored.

One great objection to the thesis of the Majority’s dispossession is bound to arise from the undeniable fact that many of the nation’s largest fortunes and many of the leading corporations are still in Majority hands. Here it is sufficient to say, along with Harvard professor and economist John K. Galbraith,[12]One of the nation’s leading liberals, Professor Galbraith exposed himself to a charge of caste disloyalty when he attempted to dig up the old chestnut of a conspiritorial Majority tying up American politics and the American economy in its purse strings. John K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1958, pp. 88-90. that wealth is no longer equivalent to power, and that the average Majority member is considerably less opulent than the average member of a few minorities, particularly the Jewish minority,[13]A survey of Jewish wealth will be found in Chapter 15. Data on the economic status of the Armenian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean minorities are not readily available, but the indications are that the average member of these minorities has a greater net worth than the average Majority member. The incalculable wealth of the Mafia possibly raises the per capita income and wealth of the Southern Italian minority above the national mean. which has now begun to challenge the Majority’s hold on the big corporations.[14]It is noteworthy that Federal Judge Harold Greene, a German-Jewish refugee, supervised the breakup of AT&T, once the world’s largest corporation. That these same corporations, the principal sources of Majority wealth, were forbidden by law to contribute money to political parties, while labor unions, many under direct minority control, were able to funnel millions of dollars to their favorite candidates through political action committee (PAGs), was merely one more indication of the downward curve of Majority influence. In the late 1970s, however, a Supreme Court decision made it possible for both labor and business to sponsor PAGs.

Ironically, many of the largest Majority fortunes have now passed into the possession of vast trusts and foundations, which expend much of their income and capital on minority causes. Also, some of the richest Majority members, when it is a question of helping their own, have made a fetish of noninvolvement and invisibility Of the three authentic Majority billionaires in the 1970s, one, J. Paul Getty, who occasionally wrote economic homilies for a sex magazine, died in splendid isolation in a baronial English mansion and had not been in his own country for decades. Another, aviation pioneer Howard Hughes, led a cloistered life in foreign hotels after erecting the world’s largest gambling empire in Las Vegas. The third, tanker tycoon Daniel Ludwig, spent most of his later years building a vast, unprofitable industrial and agricultural complex in Brazil. In 1993, according to Forbes magazine, the richest Majority member was Warren Buffet, who has a substantial investment in the Washington Post Co., publisher of the liberaloid, minority-controlled Washington Post. It goes without saying that the minority super-rich are far less inclined to dissociate themselves from what they conceive to be their ethnic obligations.

Not surprisingly, the dispossession of the Majority becomes most apparent in the field of public opinion. If Ortega y Gasset is right in saying, “Never has anyone ruled on this earth by basing his rule essentially on any other thing than public opinion,”[15]La rebelion de las masas, Espasa-Calpe, Madrid, 1966, p. 116. then minority domination of the present-day United States is incontestable. Minority members are found in the top echelons of the three major commercial television and radio networks, the public television and radio network, every large motion picture company (including the Disney studios), the nation’s two most influential newspapers, one of the largest newspaper chains, at least half of the important publishing houses, the three newsmagazines, and most leading journals of opinion (see Chapter 15 for specifics).

But this remarkable concentration of power does not stop here. Aggressively censorious minority organizations, principal among them the B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League, monitor the printed and the spoken word for the most subtle anti-minority allusions. If any are found, the owner, editor, or producer of the offending media are so advised and admonished. Such pressure cannot avoid frequently playing down, omitting, or twisting news and information vital to the public interest. 16 The Majority, to its great loss, has no similar watchdog organizations.

Being a compound of what people read, see, feel, and think, public opinion is only partly the creation of the minority-oriented channels of information. No reporter, commentator, author, philosopher, or prophet can make a normally intelligent adult accept as true what he knows to be false. But as public opinion moves from local to state and national issues, it becomes less informed. A fool knows more at home than a wise man at his neighbor’s, runs the Spanish proverb. Firsthand knowledge is supplanted by secondhand information and even third-hand gossip. Finally, in the realm of foreign affairs, public opinion rests largely on “organized” opinion, which represents the agenda of those who have a direct or indirect interest in conditioning public attitudes towards the events being reported and the policies under discussion.

As for public opinion polls, they are often more effective in influencing public opinion than measuring it, more revealing of the pollster’s state of mind than the public’s. The newspapers that subscribe to the polls have an important influence on what kinds of questions are asked, and the size and composition of the sample. On the occasion of national and state elections, polls have frequently served the purpose of bandwagon electioneering, in which statistics favorable to the preferred candidate are played up, while unfavorable statistics are played down or buried.[17]The Louis Harris Poll predicted Hubert Humphrey would win the 1968 presidential election. Without a single exception, every major American newspaper and periodical predicted a sweeping Labour victory in the 1970 British general election, which swept the Conservative party into office. The predictive abilities of the pollsters in Reagan’s 1980 presidential victory were ludicrous.

In the event the control of the news media is regained by the Majority, public opinion will not undergo any overnight transformation. News treatment shapes people’s minds, but the ideology that defines and circumscribes the way news is handled flows from the domain of culture, of which public opinion is often but a servile adjunct. At the bottom strata of the American cultural domain- — comic strips, Hollywood films, and television shows — minority dominance is scarcely challenged. At the higher reaches — poetry, serious novels, literary criticism, off-Broadway theater, modern music, painting, and sculpture — the minorities have also assumed a commanding position (see Chapter 18).

It has often been remarked, maliciously rather than accurately, that America’s only original contribution to art was a minority contribution — Negro jazz. Now, we are told, the minorities have taken over all American culture, and books have been written to document this theme. According to Leslie Fiedler, the basic tone of the creative intellectual life of the United States has become Jewish.[18]Time, Aug. 19, 1966, p. 80. Nathaniel Weyl not only proclaims the supremacy of Jews in modern American culture, but gives biological reasons for this supremacy.[19]The Creative Elite in America, Chapter XVIII. Expanding on Weyl’s genetic approach, Ernest van den Haag, professor of social philosophy at New York University, asserts that “American sensibility itself has become in part Jewish.”[20]The Jewish Mystique, p. 98. Van den Haag acknowledges the domination of the news media by “Jewish liberals,” the cultural domination exercised by the “Jewish cultural establishment” and, in a paroxysm of ethnic flattery which conveniently bypasses both Greek and Roman civilization, the Renaissance, and the masterworks of Western art and science, declares that Jews “have given the essential meaning to the last two thousand years of Western history.”[21]Ibid., pp. 14,41,129-33.
(The Jewish Mystique, p. 98.)

As if blinded by their concentration on one cultural phenomenon, the intellectuals mentioned above seem to have downgraded the significance of artistic stirrings from another minority quarter. Jews may have Majority culture on the run, but Negroes have it cornered. The recent surge of Negro drama and semibiographical racist tracts in the form of novels and TV documentaries is not merely remolding and redirecting Majority culture, but is coming close to wounding it mortally. The new Negro literary celebrities have one-track minds and constantly recurring themes (see Chapter 18). White women are fair game for rape. White males have serious sexual defects.[22]This assertion seems especially inappropriate considering that the physiological state known as “feminization” is far more prevalent among Negroes than whites. Atrophy of the testicles and gynaecomastia (enlargement of the male breasts) are a fairly common Negro affliction. J. C. Carothers, The African Mind in Health and Disease, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1953, p.64. The myth of white unmanliness has now been picked up by a few white publications, The following was printed in Playboy, Oct., 1967, p. 64. “Question — What do you call it when a prostitute services a white client? Answer — The Naked and the Dead.” Looting, arson, mayhem, murder, and even massacre are often worthy and understandable goals. The language employed relies heavily on racial slurs and repetitive incantations of profanity.

In spite of such artistic limitations, the Negro literary and dramatic naissance is actively promoted by leading publishers and producers, and often seen on educational television.[23]Perhaps the most violently racist drama ever to reach any stage was Slave Ship, presented in Brooklyn in the fall of 1969. Its author was LeRoi Jones (Imri Baraka), a Negro who married and then divorced a Jewish lady because she was a living reproach “to the things in myself I cared about ” Village Voice, Dec. 17-23, [1980] Antiwhite libels and “literary” appeals to racial violence are a frequent theme of black television talk shows. Majority writers cannot reply in kind since any public exhibition of Majority racism, cultural or otherwise, falls under an automatic, all-pervasive ban.[24]The selective ban on the use of racial expletives is not limited to literary endeavors and what appears in the communications media. In Washington, D.C., the police have received formal orders to avoid the following expressions: boy, wop, kike, chink, dago, polack, bohunk, limey, frog, kraut, nigger, burrhead and spic. San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, This World, May 5, 1968, p. 12. No effective or meaningful counterattack or rebuttal being permitted, the cultural putsch is moving relentlessly towards establishing the thesis that “the white race is the cancer of human history.”[25]This statement by the Jewish literatus, Susan Sontag, appeared in Partisan Review, Winter, 1967.

With respect to religion, one of the most important manifestations of culture, it is not so much that the Majority is losing its church as that the church, some fundamentalist denominations excepted, is losing the Majority. A great number of Majority Protestants cannot feel too enthusiastic at the spectacle of their ministers devoting much of their time and a lot of their congregations’ money to the shelter and feeding of revolutionary street gangs at home and antiwhite guerrillas in Africa — and to spiriting in aliens from Central America, Haiti and the erstwhile Soviet Union. Majority Catholics have experienced the same disillusionment as they watched their left-leaning priests and nuns promote disaffection among American troops in Vietnam and foment anti-gringoism in Latin America.

Predictably, the Catholic and Protestant clergy has furnished many of the more active minority Pied Pipers — the late Father Groppi, Adam Clayton Powell, Martin Luther King, Jr. — all of whom developed the habit of feeding their followers a heady mixture of social Christianity and minority racism. In contrast, no great defender of the Majority has arisen from any religious body, or is likely to as long as reverse-collar characters like the twice-divorced Reverend William Sloane Coffin, Jr., who preached civil disobedience at home and disengagement in the Far East, while keeping silent about the Mideast, hold forth in the Rockefeller-endowed Riverside Church in New York City, and while Billy Graham and other evangelists, some of whom ended up in jail for sexual or financial offenses, bemuse their audiences with their own special brands of religious fossilism, and while the Reverend Jerry Falwell preaches a “moral revival” that is tightly linked to Israel uber Alles.

An assault on a people’s culture necessarily includes an assault on a people’s history, which is both the storehouse and arsenal of culture. Minority muckrakers[26]One of the foremost was Gustavus Myers, who went to great lengths in his celebrated study, The History of the Great American Fortunes, to detail the fabulous wealth of the richest Majority families, while practically ignoring minority millionaires like August Belmont, who was the American representative of the Rothschilds and probably had more hard money at his disposal than any of his nativeborn competitors. Nor did Myers balance his roster of Majority financial coups by calling attention to Jesse Seligman, who helped persuade Americans and others to put $400 million into an abortive French venture to build a canal across Panama. No one got a cent back, but Seligman kept his $300,000 advance and the additional huge profits he made as an underwriter. Stephen Birmingham, Our Crowd, Dell, New York, 1967, pp. 273-75. Myers failed to mention the possible minority ancestry of his principal villain, Jay Gould, who was descended from Nathan Gold of Fairfax, Connecticut, the “u” being added in 1806. Birmingham, op. cit, p. 132. Matthew Josephson presents the same dreary catalog of grand-scale Majority peculations in his book, The Robber Barons, and almost totally omits the financial juggling of the minority tycoons. Another work of this genre is Ferdinand Lundberg’s The Rich and the Super-Rich. Pages, sometimes whole chapters, are devoted to Rockefellers, Mellons, Fords, Du Ponts, Hunts, and Vanderbilts, but only a few words are allocated to the Rosenwalds, Blausteins, Zellerbachs, Loebs, Seligmans, and Warburgs. The index does not even mention the Guggenheims, Zemurrays, Baruchs, Schiffs, Sarnoffs, Annenbergs, Sulzbergers, and Hirshhorns. began rewriting the Majority past many years ago, but only recently have school texts, ably assisted by television “Westerns” and documetaries, deliberately made it a point to discredit the Majority’s starring role in the American chronicle. Majority children are still permitted to learn that their ancestors, more often than not with the help of minority groups, opened up the wilderness and settled the land, but it is drilled into them that these same ancestors burned witches and committed unspeakable atrocities against defenseless Indians. While characterizing them as lawless moneygrubbers and brutal exploiters of labor, it is still admitted, albeit somewhat grudgingly, that Majority industrial giants built the railroads and steel mills, and unearthed the petroleum that gave mankind the combustion engine.[27]Dr. Lucy Rockefeller Hamlin, daughter of Laurance Rockefeller, said: “I never studied American history because I didn’t want to sit in a class and risk hearing my great-grandfather described as a robber baron.” San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, March 2, 1969, Section A, p. 21. The South, it is taught, produced most of the world’s cotton and a gracious civilization — at the price of mass lynching bees, night riders, slave gangs and genocide in the hot sun. Little the Majority did was right; even less was decent.

Conceding that the Majority has no effective political representation, that its part in the shaping of domestic and foreign policy is less than decisive, that its economic influence is in eclipse, that its religious leaders have abandoned or turned against it, that its culture has been shredded, and its history demeaned — conceding all this, it may nevertheless be argued that the Majority cannot really be dispossessed until it loses command of the ultimate source of power, the armed forces. The rebuttal is that the United States is not nineteenth-century Prussia. It has no military tradition which encourages its officer corps to hold a Damoclean sword over politics. Owing largely to the endurance of Majority institutions, the American military is still firmly under the civilian thumb.

If there are doubts about this, the verbal lashing accorded highranking officers by the news media in the last several decades should dispel them. President Truman’s curt dismissal of General MacArthur, General Curtis LeMay’s “bad press” in the 1968 presidential contest, the ups and downs of General Edwin Walker,[28]Walker was a popular figure, at least in the North, when he commanded the troops which enforced the desegregation of a Little Rock high school in 1957. Later when he resigned from the army and began to criticize the laws he had previously been called upon to execute, he was temporarily committed to an insane asylum, shot at by Lee Harvey Oswald and effortlessly transformed into a crackpot by the opinion makers. Walker bounced back in the headlines in 1976 when he was arrested and charged with homosexual solicitation. the posthumous attacks on General George Patton, and the uproar over General George Brown’s criticism of the Israel lobby are proof that, as always in modern America, the pen is mightier and sharper than the sword.

The armed forces, moreover, are not as Majority-ridden as they might appear. The Carter administration had a Jewish secretary of defense, Harold Brown, and a Negro secretary of the army, Clifford Alexander. President Reagan’s top-ranking arms control negotiators were Jewish. There were Jewish admirals in the navy,[29]The late Hyman Rickover, the “father of the nuclear submarine,” received $67,628 in illegal gifts from General Dynamics. Negro generals in the air force, and Negro revolutionary cadres in the army.[30]“But now there is another war being fought in Vietnam — between black and white Americans….’Ju Ju’ and ‘Mau Mau’ groups have been organized…tanks fly black flags…elaborate training in guerrilla warfare has not been lost upon them, and many officers, black and white, believe that Vietnam may prove a training ground for the black urban commando of the future.” Time, Sept 19, 1969, p. 22. Some young radicals and old-line Marxists look upon this army within the army as the vanguard of revolution. In the not too distant future blacks and Hispanics may soon outnumber Majority members. The liberal-minority coalition, not the Pentagon, presided over the Korean stalemate and the disaster in Vietnam, where an installment-plan defeat had already been set in motion, and where victory, thanks to the television coverage, had been ruled out in advance.[31]The My Lai massacre trial, initiated by the lurid reporting of minority newspaper correspondent Seymour Hersh, was staged in such a way as to allow the miltary to preside over its own hara-kiri. When minority military planner Daniel Ellsberg stole the top-secret “Pentagon Papers” he was treated more like a hero than a criminal. Later all charges against him were dropped, and he was practically canonized by the media, after it was learned that White House investigators had broken into his psychiatrist’s office in search of damaging information. The spy went free. The counterspies were indicted. Ellsberg was last heard of as a leading agitator against nuclear power and as a member of a Los Angeles sex club. Previously he had served on a defense committee for Abbie Hoffman, who jumped bail in 1973 after his arrest as a cocaine peddler and whose triumphant surfacing. in 1980 was described by the media as a sort of Second Coming. Miami Herald, Aug. 30, 1973, p. 16A.

General Norman Schwarzkopf got a good press for his almost effortless and casualty-less win over the Iraqis, but lost it when he criticized his president for Clinton’s attempt to make homosexuals a protected military minority. His superior, General Colin Powell, the first Negro chairman of the joint chiefs, was given a lot of credit for the victory, not because he deserved it — his contribution was trivial — but because of his skin color.

In the early 1990s, as violence and crime reached astronomical levels far beyond the control of the police and the sporadic appearances of the National Guard, there was talk of turning the armed forces into a massive law enforcement agency, something on the order of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, another organization with the hopeless mission of trying to force a diseased society to function as an orderly society. Rather than serving as an instrument to stop the Majority’s dispossession, the military, as meek, permissive and acquiescent as any other branch of government, is mainly interested in promotions and staying as far away as possible from any battlefield, foreign or domestic. The political generals, who head up the armed forces, are quite aware that the safest and surest way to get their second or third star is to make absolutely no waves, give vent to absolutely no controversial opinions, and smile sweetly at the draft dodger in the White House.

Of all the proofs of Majority decline, none was more conclusive than the compendious anthology of media postmortems on the moon landing. Here was the great Majority enterprise of the century, perhaps the most memorable moment of mankind, yet after it was over, after the television coverage had ended, after the confetti parades, the event was often treated with veiled hostility and even described as a deliberate trick to divert attention from the plight and needs of the poor and underprivileged.

The definitive liberal-minority line on the Apollo 11 mission was laid down in a rambling, three-part dissertation in a masscirculation magazine by the Jewish writer, Norman Mailer. 32 The author’s insinuation was that Neil Armstrong’s epic voyage was a wacky, unjustifiable, wasteful, semi-Nazi adventure insulting to the aspirations of Negroes. The Nazi taint, presumably, was due to the participation of German-born scientists in the space program. The whole affair, in Mailer’s jaundiced view, was a lugubrious foretaste of the cold, computerized age to come, an age whose only salvation would be the drugs, drums, and dharma of a different and better breed of men than the astronauts. The choice of Mailer, whose clownish forays into politics had earned him bigger headlines than his literary affectations, to appraise an almost unappraisable Majority exploit was in itself one more sad indication of the Majority’s disestablishment.[33]Mailer later called WASPs “the most Faustian, barbaric, draconian, progressoriented and root-destroying people on earth” — a racial slur that earned him high marks with the intelligentsia. His final word on Apollo 11 was that WASP “nihilism found its perfect expression in the odyssey to the moon….” Time, Feb. 8, 1971.

With the downgrading of the astronauts and the upgrading of repentant rapists like Eldridge Cleaver, puerile terrorists like Tom Hayden, and cultural throwbacks like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, the descending slope of Majority history became ever steeper downward. The Northern European element of the American population, dominant from earliest colonial times until after the turn of the century, was now demoted to a secondary place in the American scheme of things. The Majority’s institutions and its loyalties to these institutions, its work habits, and its physical presence still bind the country together, but with diminishing effect as each year passes.

The overall process of the Majority’s dispossession is not too difficult to summarize. Fragmented by the Civil War, then softened into a humanitarian mood by a long era of peace and plenty, and driven by an overpowering desire for cheap labor, the nation builders from Britain and other parts of Northern Europe decided to share the benefits of their laboriously developed political institutions with newcomers of different races and cultures. Since these new Americans were almost totally unpracticed and unskilled in the mysteries of self-government and in their own historical experience quite unfamiliar with such ideas as self-reliance and individual rights, they were all the more eager to gorge themselves on the rich libertarian feast, although more for their own private and collective appetites than for the public good.

Full social equality, however, was held back by residual feelings of Majority racial superiority. To help do away with this final impediment, minority anthropologists introduced and publicized “scientific evidence” to the effect that all races were inherently equal. The theories developed from such evidence (or preceding it) were promoted widely and relentlessly by an alliance of liberal and minority intellectuals, and public opinion merchants. It was not long before racial equalitarianism became established dogma that was taken up with a vengeance by nonwhites, whose historical experience was even more alien to Majority social organization than that of New Immigration whites.

In its zeal for racial leveling, the equalitarian school lost sight of the fact that the very dynamism which spurs a race to obtain equality forces it to go beyond equality. After decades of struggle, the vested interests in racial climbing become too great to be shut off arbitrarily by resolutions of the American Civil Liberties Union or the Americans for Democratic Action. Inevitably, equality edges towards superequality, and superequality laps over into superiority.

Today, under the rubric of Affirmative Action, minority racism has been given the stamp of approval by the three branches of government and institutionalized in America. Black or brown skin, a Hispanic background, an epicanthic fold now provide its fortunate possessor special privileges in jobs, education, even in the courts of justice.

Meanwhile, theories proposing the racial superiority of certain minorities are being published by leading book firms, featured in the news media and discussed seriously in the highest circles of the liberal-minority cognoscenti.[34]Three cases for Jewish racial superiority, as well as one for Jewish inferiority, will be examined in Chapter 15. Marshall McLuhan’s allegations of Negro racial superiority will be briefly discussed in Chapter 17. An article in Sepia magazine (May 1980) was entitled “Black Genetic Superiority. n Dr. Asa Hilliard III, the black dean of the School of Education at San Francisco State, a university with some standing in academia, attempted to shore up this claim to superiority by asserting that Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were “Afro-Europeans. n Address at the U.S. Air Force Academy, March 1980. It should come as no surprise to those who understand the real motivations of the racial integrationists that the very same anthropologists who have been preaching equalitarianism most vigorously seem the least disturbed by this trend. Montague Francis Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg), for many years the leading advocate of the equalitarian school of anthropology, has publicly praised and endorsed a literary tour de force that describes Jews as a master race innately equipped with an intellectual apparatus that makes them superior to all other population groups on the planet

And so it has transpired that the once dominant Majority has been given the status — and stigma — of inferiority, not only by the radical rearrangement of the American social order, not only by minority racial dynamism, but by the ex cathedra pronouncements of the most influential social scientists. There is hardly a greater form of dispossession than becoming a servant in one’s own house.

Footnotes

[1] Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race, Scribner’s, N.Y, 1916, pp. 14, 77.

[2] There were 360,000 deaths on the Northern side; 250,000 on the Southern. The war costs amounted to about $5 billion, with an additional $3 billion for postwar rehabilitation. Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, Vol. 2, pp. 98-99.

[3] John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom, Knopf, New York, 1967, p. 386.

[4] Nathaniel Weyl, The Creative Elite in America, Public Affairs Press, Washington, D.C., 1966, p. 57. The cost in blood to the Union,” Weyl added, **was paid chiefly by the poorer classes and by those without much education and influence. The confederacy, by contrast, enacted draft laws which bore on rich and poor equally….”

[5] Beard, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 640.

[6] This decline has been misinterpreted by liberal sociologists as an exclusively WASP phenomenon. “[There] is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment which…has been gradually losing its power and authority in the course of the twentieth century.” E. Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment, Random House, New York, 1964, p. ix. Some minority writers have not only lovingly described but exulted over the Majority’s fall from power. See Peter Schrag, The Decline of the Wasp, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1972.

[7] See Chapter 15.

[8] “Archbishop Spellman” by Robert I. Gannon, Look, Aug. 1962, p. 103.

[9] Smith worked his way up the political ladder as a pure, unadulterated Irish Catholic, although his paternal grandfather was almost certainly an Italian and his paternal grandmother quite possibly a German. Matthew and Hannah Josephson, Al Smith, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1969, pp. 13-15. Smith, like so many big-city politicians, was “on the take.” Thomas Chadbourne, a millionaire Democrat, gave him $400,000 in cash and stock options when he was governor of New York. New York Times, May 22, 1985. If Herbert Hoover had died in office, the United States would have had a one-quarter Indian chief executive in the person of Charles Curtis, the vice-president. Globe and Mail (Toronto), July 13, 1984.

[10] In 1948, Senator Johnson said: “The civil rights program is a farce and a sham — an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. ” Clarke Newton, LBJ, The Man From Johnson City, Dodd, Mead, New York, 1964, p. 112.

[11] The Nixons, who were not Catholics, came from County Cork; the Milhous family from County Kildare. Phillips, op. cit., pp. 174-75.

[12] One of the nation’s leading liberals, Professor Galbraith exposed himself to a charge of caste disloyalty when he attempted to dig up the old chestnut of a conspiritorial Majority tying up American politics and the American economy in its purse strings. John K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1958, pp. 88-90.

[13] A survey of Jewish wealth will be found in Chapter 15. Data on the economic status of the Armenian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean minorities are not readily available, but the indications are that the average member of these minorities has a greater net worth than the average Majority member. The incalculable wealth of the Mafia possibly raises the per capita income and wealth of the Southern Italian minority above the national mean.

[14] It is noteworthy that Federal Judge Harold Greene, a German-Jewish refugee, supervised the breakup of AT&T, once the world’s largest corporation.

[15] La rebelion de las masas, Espasa-Calpe, Madrid, 1966, p. 116.

[16] New York Times reporter Gay Talese has written, “The media manufactured dramatic events and colossal characters out of many small incidents and minor men.” The Kingdom and the Power, World, New York, 1969, p. 194. Glaring examples of media distortion in recent decades: the diabolization of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the apotheosis of the assassinated Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr.; the sniggering affection for posturing white and black revolutionaries, draft dodgers, riot leaders, and murder gangs; the whitewash of Chappaquiddick. “Has one ever heard a balanced discussion of the situation in South Africa? Or a reasonable presentation of the ‘hawk’ view on Vietnam? Or of the actions of a police force confronted with unruly crowds?” asks Ernest van den Haag in The Jewish Mystique, Stein and Day, New York, 1969, p. 142. The tendentiousness of the media is most obvious in the technique of editorializing by headline. “Let me control the headlines and I shall not care who controls the editorials,” said Frederick Birchall, onetime New York Times managing editor. Talese, op. cit, p. 168. In the 1950s, when any loud objection to communism evoked the Pavlovian response of “McCarthyism,” President Truman accused presidential candidate Eisenhower of “being willing to accept the principles that identify the so-called master race.” New York Times, Oct. 18, 1952, p. 1. In the 1972 presidential race George McGovern twice associated President Nixon with Hitler.

[17] The Louis Harris Poll predicted Hubert Humphrey would win the 1968 presidential election. Without a single exception, every major American newspaper and periodical predicted a sweeping Labour victory in the 1970 British general election, which swept the Conservative party into office. The predictive abilities of the pollsters in Reagan’s 1980 presidential victory were ludicrous.

[18] Time, Aug. 19, 1966, p. 80.

[19] The Creative Elite in America, Chapter XVIII.

[20] The Jewish Mystique, p. 98.

[21] Ibid., pp. 14,41,129-33.

[22] This assertion seems especially inappropriate considering that the physiological state known as “feminization” is far more prevalent among Negroes than whites. Atrophy of the testicles and gynaecomastia (enlargement of the male breasts) are a fairly common Negro affliction. J. C. Carothers, The African Mind in Health and Disease, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1953, p.64. The myth of white unmanliness has now been picked up by a few white publications, The following was printed in Playboy, Oct., 1967, p. 64. “Question — What do you call it when a prostitute services a white client? Answer — The Naked and the Dead.”

[23] Perhaps the most violently racist drama ever to reach any stage was Slave Ship, presented in Brooklyn in the fall of 1969. Its author was LeRoi Jones (Imri Baraka), a Negro who married and then divorced a Jewish lady because she was a living reproach “to the things in myself I cared about ” Village Voice, Dec. 17-23, [1980] Antiwhite libels and “literary” appeals to racial violence are a frequent theme of black television talk shows.

[24] The selective ban on the use of racial expletives is not limited to literary endeavors and what appears in the communications media. In Washington, D.C., the police have received formal orders to avoid the following expressions: boy, wop, kike, chink, dago, polack, bohunk, limey, frog, kraut, nigger, burrhead and spic. San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, This World, May 5, 1968, p. 12.

[25] This statement by the Jewish literatus, Susan Sontag, appeared in Partisan Review, Winter, 1967.

[26] One of the foremost was Gustavus Myers, who went to great lengths in his celebrated study, The History of the Great American Fortunes, to detail the fabulous wealth of the richest Majority families, while practically ignoring minority millionaires like August Belmont, who was the American representative of the Rothschilds and probably had more hard money at his disposal than any of his nativeborn competitors. Nor did Myers balance his roster of Majority financial coups by calling attention to Jesse Seligman, who helped persuade Americans and others to put $400 million into an abortive French venture to build a canal across Panama. No one got a cent back, but Seligman kept his $300,000 advance and the additional huge profits he made as an underwriter. Stephen Birmingham, Our Crowd, Dell, New York, 1967, pp. 273-75. Myers failed to mention the possible minority ancestry of his principal villain, Jay Gould, who was descended from Nathan Gold of Fairfax, Connecticut, the “u” being added in 1806. Birmingham, op. cit, p. 132. Matthew Josephson presents the same dreary catalog of grand-scale Majority peculations in his book, The Robber Barons, and almost totally omits the financial juggling of the minority tycoons. Another work of this genre is Ferdinand Lundberg’s The Rich and the Super-Rich. Pages, sometimes whole chapters, are devoted to Rockefellers, Mellons, Fords, Du Ponts, Hunts, and Vanderbilts, but only a few words are allocated to the Rosenwalds, Blausteins, Zellerbachs, Loebs, Seligmans, and Warburgs. The index does not even mention the Guggenheims, Zemurrays, Baruchs, Schiffs, Sarnoffs, Annenbergs, Sulzbergers, and Hirshhorns.

[27] Dr. Lucy Rockefeller Hamlin, daughter of Laurance Rockefeller, said: “I never studied American history because I didn’t want to sit in a class and risk hearing my great-grandfather described as a robber baron.” San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, March 2, 1969, Section A, p. 21.

[28] Walker was a popular figure, at least in the North, when he commanded the troops which enforced the desegregation of a Little Rock high school in 1957. Later when he resigned from the army and began to criticize the laws he had previously been called upon to execute, he was temporarily committed to an insane asylum, shot at by Lee Harvey Oswald and effortlessly transformed into a crackpot by the opinion makers. Walker bounced back in the headlines in 1976 when he was arrested and charged with homosexual solicitation.

[29] The late Hyman Rickover, the “father of the nuclear submarine,” received $67,628 in illegal gifts from General Dynamics.

[30] “But now there is another war being fought in Vietnam — between black and white Americans….’Ju Ju’ and ‘Mau Mau’ groups have been organized…tanks fly black flags…elaborate training in guerrilla warfare has not been lost upon them, and many officers, black and white, believe that Vietnam may prove a training ground for the black urban commando of the future.” Time, Sept 19, 1969, p. 22. Some young radicals and old-line Marxists look upon this army within the army as the vanguard of revolution.

[31] The My Lai massacre trial, initiated by the lurid reporting of minority newspaper correspondent Seymour Hersh, was staged in such a way as to allow the miltary to preside over its own hara-kiri. When minority military planner Daniel Ellsberg stole the top-secret “Pentagon Papers” he was treated more like a hero than a criminal. Later all charges against him were dropped, and he was practically canonized by the media, after it was learned that White House investigators had broken into his psychiatrist’s office in search of damaging information. The spy went free. The counterspies were indicted. Ellsberg was last heard of as a leading agitator against nuclear power and as a member of a Los Angeles sex club. Previously he had served on a defense committee for Abbie Hoffman, who jumped bail in 1973 after his arrest as a cocaine peddler and whose triumphant surfacing. in 1980 was described by the media as a sort of Second Coming. Miami Herald, Aug. 30, 1973, p. 16A.

[32] Life, Aug. 29, 1969, Nov. 14, 1969, and Jan. 9, 1970. The writers magazine articles were later expanded into Of a Fire on the Moon, Little Brown, Boston, 1970.

[33] Mailer later called WASPs “the most Faustian, barbaric, draconian, progressoriented and root-destroying people on earth” — a racial slur that earned him high marks with the intelligentsia. His final word on Apollo 11 was that WASP “nihilism found its perfect expression in the odyssey to the moon….” Time, Feb. 8, 1971.

[34] Three cases for Jewish racial superiority, as well as one for Jewish inferiority, will be examined in Chapter 15. Marshall McLuhan’s allegations of Negro racial superiority will be briefly discussed in Chapter 17. An article in Sepia magazine (May 1980) was entitled “Black Genetic Superiority. n Dr. Asa Hilliard III, the black dean of the School of Education at San Francisco State, a university with some standing in academia, attempted to shore up this claim to superiority by asserting that Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were “Afro-Europeans. n Address at the U.S. Air Force Academy, March 1980.

Chapter 11 • The Split in the Ranks • 6,500 Words

Is it not incredible that the largest American population group, the group with the deepest roots, the most orderly and most technically proficient group, the nuclear population group of American culture and of the American gene pool, should have lost its preeminence to weaker, less established, less numerous, culturally heterogeneous, and often mutually hostile minorities?

With all due allowance for minority dynamism and for the variety of causes reviewed in earlier chapters, this miraculous shift of power could never have taken place without a Majority “split in the ranks” — without the active assistance and participation of Majority members themselves. It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind’s greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.

Strictly speaking, as has already been suggested, no one can change or trade his race. This is precluded by race’s all-important physical stratum. But one can lose or give up his race-mindedness, his racial pride, his racism. One can acquire the cultural trappings, the language, and the religion of another race. One can marry a person of a different race and have hybrid children. By taking one or more of these steps, the Majority member withdraws for all practical purposes from his own group and becomes, if not a bona fide, at least an ad hoc member of a minority.

Majority members split their ranks for a multitude of reasons, the chief one probably being ignorance — ignorance of the modern world about them and the ancient world behind them, ignorance derived from an unwillingness or inability to recognize the osmotic influence of race on matters that touch their day-to-day existence. Paradoxically, this ignorance is widespread among the more educated elements of the Majority, for the literate man who reads nothing but nonsense is more ignorant that the illiterate who reads nothing. Prosperity, which increases social mobility while diluting race consciousness, is also an important factor in dividing the Majority from within. Overconcern for the material comforts and conveniences of modern technology serves to dull both the reason and instincts. But no matter what the circumstances, those who leave the racial fold weaken the racial fold. It is not so much that there is strength in numbers, as there is weakness in defection. Who exactly are the Majority Splitters of the Ranks? Generally speaking, they can be broken down into five categories.

 

1. GRACCHITES. The name is derived from the Gracchi, two brothers who, although belonging to one of the great patrician families of Rome, could not feed their soaring ambition sufficiently by remaining in the orbit of their own aristocratic caste. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus found that in times of stress in a relatively tolerant republic a descent of one or two steps in the social ladder was equivalent to an ascent of several steps in the political ladder. Accordingly, they became the standard bearers of revolution and agrarian revolt and were adulated by the plebeians. The Gracchi’s political strategy was by no means limited to stirring up class against class, peasant against landlord,[1]There were more than a few traces of populism in the Gracchi’s revolutionary program. Driven by its own peculiar racial dynamics, populism can be unifying as well as divisive. There is a distinct difference between the reformer appealing to the farmers and yeomanry of his own race, and the political extremist whose proposals for land reform are only one item in a large package of revolutionary change and racial and class agitation. exploited against exploiter. The patricians, the descendants of the Italic invaders, differed racially from the plebs, the offspring of earlier and later immigrants. The Gracchi’s appeal, consequently, was directed to oppressed races as well as to oppressed classes.

In a multiracial state the well-born, ambitious member of a dominant race is constantly tempted to take the Gracchite path to power. It is harder for the patrician to win the respect of the patrician than to win the respect of the plebeian. It is also much easier to give money away than to earn it; to relax discipline than to enforce it; to be a hero to one’s valet than to one’s mirror.

History is full of Gracchites. The list includes famous popes, monarchs and princes. Philippe d’Orleans, who voted for the death of Louis XVI, his own cousin, to curry favor with the revolutionary mob, is perhaps the most notorious case. Teutonic aristocrats like Leo IX, who as pope stirred up the Italian masses against the Holy Roman Emperor, certainly fit the description. So do those kings and reigning dukes who in late feudal times established absolute rule by crushing their fellow noblemen with the help of the bourgeoisie and the urban rabble. A noted 20th-century Gracchite was Prince Valerian Obolensky, who switched his allegiance from the czar to the Bolsheviks and served as a high Soviet official until he was purged by Stalin.[2]Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union, p. 403.

Gracchites have been particularly numerous in the United States since the 1930s. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Averell Harriman, and Adlai Stevenson are three who come immediately to mind. All were born millionaires. All were the scions of well-entrenched Majority families. None was particularly successful in any realm of private endeavor.[3]The long, ludicrous string of FDR’s financial speculations in the early 1920s in New York included a $26,000 loss with Louis Howe in a scheme to fatten lobsters! Alfred B. Rollins, Jr., Roosevelt and Howe, Knopf, N. Y., 1962, pp. 196-97. In their public careers they specialized in catering to minorities, surrounding themselves with minority advisers, consultants and ghostwriters.[4]A Gracchite still in the wings is John D. Rockefeller IV, who in 1980 spent $1 million, or about $25.80 a vote, getting himself reelected governor of West Virginia. Jay, as he is called, may have chosen the Democratic party after watching Uncle Nelson’s consistent failure to win the Republican presidential nomination. A Gracchite whose star has set is John Lindsay, who ran under the Republican banner until repudiated by his party in the 1969 New York City mayoral race, which he won as an independent In 1970, Lindsay told a gathering of University of Pennsylvania students, “The ones I have unending admiration for are the guys who say, 4 I simply will not serve in the Army of the U.S. in Vietnam and I am willing to take the consequences for it’ These are the guys who are heroes.” Human Events, May 16, 1970, p. 374. His father a British-born banker, his mother a member of one of the nation’s oldest families, Lindsay gave his daughter in marriage to a Jewish graduate student New York Times, June 7, 1970, p. 80. In spite of an expensive television campaign advertising his Nordic physical traits, Lindsay finished out of the running in the 1972 Democratic presidential primary. Their natural stamping ground was the Democratic party, previously described as the party of the minorities. But there are also Republicans who come very close to being Gracchites. Nelson Rockefeller could match his Democratic counterparts in birth, wealth and all the other accouterments of what passes in America for aristocracy, having based his career on a reputation for liberalism, tolerance, friendship for labor and a highly publicized concern for the downtrodden. But since the voter base of the Republican party consists of Majority rather than minority members, the comparison with Democratic Gracchites is only valid when restricted to the Republican Gracchites’ state or city fiefs. In New York, for example, Governor Rockefeller operated almost exactly as President Roosevelt did on the national level, that is, he was dutifully responsive to the will of the liberal-minority coalition.[5]Nelson Rockefeller became a middle-of-the-road mainstreamer in the 1970 New York gubernatorial contest in order to capitalize on a conservative ground swell in the ranks of the Irish and Italians. In the field of foreign relations, however, Republican Gracchites are likely to give slightly more consideration to Majority interests.

The Gracchite makes considerable use of the family fortune to attack or undermine the system in which his family prospered. He capitalizes on his aristocratic mien, cultivated voice, and fine manners to charm and win over the proles, much as the polished English actor, who is just another actor in London, “lays them out in the aisles” in the Iowa hustings. Cringing adulation from the lower depths is heady wine to the Gracchite. All this is not to say that Gracchite politics is necessarily or always bad. There may come a time in the life span of every nation when certain issues become so critical they must be resolved even at the risk of revolution or racial conflagration. If no genuine leader can be found in a moment of crisis, as is often the case in a demoralized and decadent society, the Gracchite is sometimes a happier solution than the psychotic nihilist or head-rolling revolutionary. There usually remains at least a spark of feeling in the Gracchite heart for the people on whom he has turned his back.

Gracchites, of course, are to be found in areas other than politics. Marshall Field III, the grandson of the Chicago merchant prince and subsidizer of PM, the defunct minority-oriented New York City daily, was a dyed-in-the-wool Gracchite. So is Michael Straight, son of a Morgan partner, onetime editor and publisher of the New Republic and boon companion of Soviet spies. So is the son of another Morgan partner, Corliss Lamont, the well-heeled apologist and philosopher of Marxism. So is Hamilton Fish III, the onetime publisher of the ultraleft The Nation. There are Gracchite lawyers, doctors, and philanthropists. There are stage and screen Gracchites. There is a surprisingly large agglomeration of Gracchite diplomats. There are numerous female Gracchites, the most notable being the late Eleanor Roosevelt. There are also matrimonial Gracchites — men and women of established Majority families who marry minority members for money, for a racial lark, or for the flattery and attention that social climbers extend to those with taller and leafier family trees.

The Gracchite usually pays a high price for his measure of glory. The adulation and fawning of the mob never quite compensate for the implacable hatred every group reserves for the defector.[6]It was this brand of hatred which prevented Nelson Rockefeller, potentially the strongest candidate, from securing the Republican nomination in 1964. It also gave rise to the stentorian booing of Rockefeller at the Republican convention in San Francisco by conservative activists, who for years had felt outraged by his Eastern habit of working harder for minority than for Majority votes. The memory of these boos probably induced Rockefeller to present a somewhat “deliberalized” image to the American people in 1974, when he was appointed vice-president of the United States in the Ford administration. In war the desertion of a general causes a much greater stir than the desertion of a private. In times of racial troubles the desertion of an aristocrat, the guardian of the race, raises emotions to a much higher pitch than the desertion of a commoner. Not only were both Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus assassinated, so were two later Roman aristocrats in the Gracchite mold, Catiline and Clodius.[7]It is not quite accurate to call Clodius and Catiline Gracchites since they were both cut down in the middle of their conspiracies and rebellions, with the result that historians have had great difficulty plumbing their real intentions. They might have been imitating Julius Caesar, who practiced a far more sophisticated form of politics. Caesarism is the use of the mob to obtain the power to destroy the mob.

The Gracchite, even more than most liberals, has the peculiar habit of fomenting wars, but seldom fighting in them.[8]In World War I, Franklin Roosevelt, then in good health and of military age, was assistant secretary of the navy. Harriman and Stevenson sat out World War II as Washington bureaucrats, though both were extremely active interventionists. Thomas Jefferson, who lived at a time when Gracchites were few and far between, nevertheless had some noticeable Gracchite tendencies. His father was a self-made man of uncertain lineage, but his mother was a Randolph, a member of one of Virginia’s leading families. No one was more responsible for the War of Independence than Jefferson, yet he never once heard a gun go off in anger. His single military exploit was an ignoble and hasty retreat into the Virginia mountains when the British made a sudden descent on Monticello. “Where is Jefferson?” wrote Washington bitterly while at Valley Forge. It was this same Jefferson, so heedful of his own life, who was inspired by Shay’s Rebellion to write: “God forbid! we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion….What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!…What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. …” See Jefferson’s letter to Smith, Nov. 13, 1787. Also see Nathan Schachner, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Yoseloff, New York, 1957, p. 216, and Albert Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1916, Vol. 1, pp. 126, 303. He loudly denounces the wealth of others, but keeps his own. He sneers at the upper classes, but cannot escape identification with them. He is publicly in favor of integrated schools, but sends his own children to segregated schools. It is probably asking too much of any man, particularly a Gracchite, to practice what he preaches. Giovanni Francesco Bernardone, who became St. Francis after a brief, playboyish stint as the richest young man in Assisi, and Gautama Siddhartha, who evolved from princeling into Buddha, were the rarest of mortals, and certainly no Gracchites. They were humanitarians in the fullest and best sense of the word. The Gracchite’s humanitarianism, however, always seems to be accompanied by an accumulation of power and by a torrential outpouring of hatred upon all and sundry who dare to challenge this power.

What precisely are the Gracchite’s true motives? Is he merely a man whose ambition outweighs his character — one who, in spite of the immense advantages of his birthright, fails to make the first team, and consequently decides to abandon his teammates, go over to the opposite side, change the rules of the game, and try to win anyway? Could it be that fear of competition with his peers is always his greatest concern? Is he not, in the long run, taking out his own failings on his own kind?

 

2. TRUCKLERS. These are the Majority members who are not born rich like the Gracchites and do not exude any of the aristocratic aroma that delights the olfactory organs of hoi poUoi They come from the middle and lower layers of the Majority. If they are men of wealth — and many are — they made their money themselves, either in business, the professions or, in the not unusual case of Lyndon Johnson, in politics.

Trucklers play an active role in public life and in the formation of public opinion, while at the same time almost formally abjuring their own racial niche in society. The only racism they will abide is minority racism, which they help to cultivate by their zealous interest and meddling in minority matters. But their reasons for playing the minority game are more opportunistic than idealistic. They know from long experience that minority coddling will boost their prestige and respectability, give them a more favorable image in the press and, if they are politicians, bring them more financial support and more votes. They are also well aware of what would happen if they ever associated themselves in the slightest way with Majority racism.

A typical Truckler is the young, naive Majority journalist who, after writing his first important newspaper report or magazine story about some international or domestic event from a purely Majority viewpoint, is one day called into the front office and handed a sheaf of indignant and even threatening letters with fancy letterheads and illustrious signatures. At that moment he can: (1) refuse to be pressured and be discharged on the spot; (2) resign before he is discharged; (3) promise to be more “objective” in the future and keep his job. Having spent a great deal of time and money on becoming a journalist and not wishing to abandon his chosen career before it has hardly begun, he inevitably chooses course (3). He then acquires more “objectivity” by tailoring his writing in such a way as to eliminate further letters and further reprimands. Another Truckler is born.[9]The ne plus ultra Truckler in the news field was Turner Catledge, a native Mississippian and long-time managing editor of the New York Times. As another Timesman wrote, Catledge’s “home state had been denigrated regularly in the press for a decade…” Gay Talese, The Kingdom and the Power, p. 143. The Times, of course, had been the principal denigrator. Other noted journalistic Trucklers are Benjamin Bradlee, longtime editor of the Washington Post, and Osborne Elliott, longtime editor of Newsweek. Television anchormen fall into this category, though usually they simply read what is handed to them.

A second species of Truckler is the young Majority politician or bureaucrat who, during his first stay in Washington or in a state capital, inadvertently makes an off-the-cuff remark critical of some outlandish exhibition of minority racism. Vilified within the hour, he finds himself in danger of becoming a social outcast. He apologizes and never makes the same mistake again. Now he understands the score. Now he will engage the services of a minority adviser to keep him on his toes on minority issues, along with a minority ghostwriter to prepare his speeches. He will thereby avoid the possibility of letting slip any further embarrassing remarks, while at the same time improving his oratory. The dynamic language of minority racism shows up very well in audience reaction, in contrast to the listless, canned phrases of Majority speechwriters.[10]Judge Sam Rosenman, later chairman of the board of Twentieth Century Fox, wrote many of the Roosevelt and Truman speeches. Many famous Kennedy and Johnson addresses were ghosted by minority writers, Theodore Chaikin Sorensen and Richard Naradoff Goodwin. The chief speech writer for Carter in his unsuccessful 1980 reelection campaign was Hendrik Hertzberg, who welcomed the Communist victory in Vietnam. The dull and turgid Eisenhower speeches were generally written by Majority professorial types. As for phrase making, FDR’s “Happy Warrior” epithet for Al Smith was dreamed up by Justice Joseph Proskauer, and Kennedy’s “New Frontier” was the simultaneous brainchild of Walt Rostow and Max Freedman. Ernest K. Lindley, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bobbs-Merrill, New York, 1931, p. 223, and San Francisco Chronicle, This World, Aug. 17, 1965. Ken Khachigan was the man in charge of preparing President Reagan’s speeches.

One of the more curious aspects of political truckling is its dependence on geography. Harry Truman, a chipper haberdasher who fell on hard times and flirted with the Ku Klux Klan,[11]Truman paid $10 for his initiation fee into the Missouri Ku Klux Klan in [1922] He got his $10 back when he opposed the Klan’s anti-Catholic policies — certainly the loyal thing to do in view of Boss Pendergast’s religion. Alfred Steinberg, The Man from Missouri, Putnam, New York, 1962, p. 64. made his debut in politics as a gofer for Kansas City’s corrupt Pendergast political machine. By the time he moved into the White House he was a champion of civil rights. Finally, having retired from Washington and safely back in the Majority-dominated Kansas City suburbs, he heaped vitriolic remarks on the civil rights movement and its leader, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.[12]For Truman’s post-presidential attacks on civil rights, see New York Times, April 13, 1965, p. 24. While attorney general of California, Earl Warren found legal justification for his 1942 roundup and transportation to “relocation” camps of more than 110,000 West Coast Japanese, 64 percent of them American citizens. It was perhaps the greatest mass violation of the Bill of Rights in American history.[13]Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, p. 566. In Washington, Chief Justice Warren transformed himself into the guardian angel of the Bill of Rights.

Trucklers are not only found in the executive, judiciary and legislative branches of the government. They abound in every bright and dark corner of American life. There are the novelists who are careful to make their minority characters “inoffensive”; the playwrights and scenarists who methodically give their villains Majority pedigrees and physical traits; the businessmen who lend their companies’ names to any number of minority lobbies; the clergymen who preach the righteousness of minority causes and are not averse to making their points by leading violent street demonstrations and sit-ins.

Aware of the immense rewards passed out to the faithful, many Trucklers become full-time minority enthusiasts, for which they not only receive numerous academic kudos and a prefabricated market for their books and articles, but also ready cash. The organizers of minority fund-raisers pay thousands of dollars to prominent Majority speakers. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, Senators Henry Jackson and Robert Packwood, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and a host of lesser Majority notables made sizable grubstakes as the star attractions of Bonds for Israel and B’nai B’rith dinners.

Trucklers frequently render greater service to minority projects than minority leaders themselves. Many legislative Trucklers have been so well trained in racial matters they are often more sensitive to minority concerns than to those of their own constituents. In regard to voter appeal, a handsome, imposing Majority member is sometimes more of a political and social asset to minorities, providing he is properly “sensitized,” than a minority candidate. The latter may lack the clean-cut appearance so handy in attracting widespread support for minority-slanted legislation.

No Majority member is born a Truckler. Truckling is the result of an educational process — sometimes years in the making, some times an overnight conversion — in which the aspiring young politician or professional has drilled into him the contemporary American catechism of success. He learns that he must be tactful rather than truthful, that he may question the non-controversial but not the controversial, that he must sail before the winds of “public opinion” but not head into them. He is taught to fear all the current no-nos as thoroughly as primeval man was taught to fear the taboos of his day.

One can admire a person who, by changing his ideas and principles, risks death, disgrace, or severe financial loss. One reserves the right to adopt a certain skepticism towards those whose ideological skin-shedding, often conveniendy and beautifully timed, makes them rich, powerful, and famous. Perhaps Truckler is too strong a word for those political and moral trimmers who, at least superficially, are performing the age-old trick of sacrificing integrity to ambition. But the Truckler, as here defined, oversteps this common vice. He goes further than making a fetish of self-interest He transcends all the normal bounds of human behavior by putting the interests of other ethnic groups above the interests of his own.

 

3. PUSSYFOOTERS. These are the Majority members who take no positive action against their own group but seldom, if ever, defend it. They comprise the second and third echelons of Majority leadership — lawyers, doctors, scientists, small-town newspaper editors, professors, teachers, preachers, big and small businessmen, and local, state, and federal officials.

In contrast to Gracchites and Trucklers, who betray and violate Majority interests, Pussyfooters soft-pedal and subordinate them. Immersed in their own day-to-day problems, obsessed with the material aspects of existence, often isolated in areas where the Majority is overwhelmingly predominant, Pussyfooters have less direct contact with minority dynamism and are consequently less concerned about it. When and where they come face to face with minority racists, in social gatherings or in community affairs, instead of standing up for the Majority viewpoint, they simply keep quiet.

Pussyfooters know that something is wrong, but they don’t know what, and they do not have the time, the inclination, the courage or the intellectual initiative to find out. Some Pussyfooters tread softly because they dislike argument; others are fearful for their livelihood. Some are just temperamentally unsuited for the verbal buffeting and hysterical logic-chopping in which their liberal and minority neighbors seek to engage them. As long as they do well economically, as long as their stomachs are full, Pussyfooters may be expected to go on pussyfooting. Only a solar plexus variety of racism is ever likely to rouse them from their racelessness.

But every day countless little social clashes and countless little unattractive slices of American life eat away at the Pussyfooter’s noninvolvement. Every day the Majority assistant manager at the expensive resort hotel welcomes a greater and greater influx of noisy minority millionaires. Every day the Majority artist, poet, playwright, and novelist must cope with an ever growing minority dominance of art, literature, and drama. Every day Majority job seekers and Majority jobholders see their employment opportunities, promotions, or seniority endangered by larger racial quotas for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians and by the extra points spotted to nonwhites in job qualification tests. With crime, riots, reverse discrimination, and illegal immigration on the rise at home, with billions of dollars still being poured into the Middle East each year, minority racism is becoming so shrill even the deaf are beginning to hear.

Hearing, however, is a long way from understanding. Unlike members of the dynamic minorities who seethe and quiver as a single organism at the faintest hint of reducing welfare programs or restoring an America First foreign policy, Pussyfooters continue to drift supinely on the edge of the great social vortex, whirling clockwise or counterclockwise as public opinion dictates.

 

4. OLD BELIEVERS. The American political tradition is a rare and delicate blend of English whiggery, French egalitarianism, classic Stoicism and social Christianity. This complex doctrinal amalgam was once the exclusive ideology of the American Majority. Today, considerably altered in substance and accorded the name of liberalism, it has been eagerly adopted, if not taken over, by the minorities. Nevertheless, a great many Majority members still call themselves liberals. Those who honestly subscribe to liberalism, not in its perverted modern form, but in its original Lockean, Jeffersonian and Lincolnian version, are here designated as Old Believers. Gracchites and Trucklers are hypocritical, opportunistic, fearful or pseudo-liberals. Pussyfooters are reluctant or fitful liberals. Old Believers belong to the disappearing breed of honest liberals.

Old Believers seldom become particularly prominent or successful in present-day America, for the plain truth is that the liberal establishment cannot stand liberalism in its pure, unadulterated form. Old Believers not only pretend to believe in, but do believe in, the freedom of the printed and spoken word, an intolerable superstition to the mediacrats who have laid down certain critical boundaries for American thought Liberalism is equally intolerable to the politicians and opinion molders whose careers are built on a one-dimensional, one-sided, simplistic view of modern society.

Increasingly out of fashion, Old Believers are currently to be found in small universities, in libertarian circles, or among the non-fundamentalist, nonviolent, non-permissive clergy. The most vocal are often the descendants of families with roots in the New England town meeting or Populist tradition. In general, they are trying to transplant a faded, withered ideology, which functioned adequately under a special set of historical and genetic conditions, to a different age and to an often hostile and alien environment — a transplant that is being continuously rejected by the American body politic. All modern teaching to the contrary, liberalism is not independent of time and race.

Two of the most prominent Old Believers in recent times were Dorothy Thompson, the columnist, and Charles Beard, the historian. The former won nationwide acclaim when she was condemning Nazi persecution of the Jews with Old Testament vehemence. But when, after World War II, she used the same impassioned arguments to denounce the dispossession of the Palestinian Arabs, she lost her most important newspaper outlets and died in Portugal in relative obscurity. Charles Beard, in early New Deal days considered America’s greatest living historian and an exemplar of liberalism, was cast out of the American intellectual community after he had accused President Roosevelt of unconstitutional acts in the handling of American diplomacy and foreign policy prior to Pearl Harbor. The same treatment was extended to the distinguished historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, who committed the unforgivable crime of questioning the Holocaust and accusing Roosevelt of having engineered Pearl Harbor.[14]Charles Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1948. See Barnes’s R evisionism: A Key to Peace and Other Essays, Cato Institute, San Francisco, Calif., 1980.

Old Believers also come in groups, one of the more influential being the Society of Friends, or Quakers. Practicing almost total religious, political, and social tolerance, and driven by a compulsion for “good works,” the Friends pour their efforts and money (of which they have considerable) into projects which actively promote minority racism, notwithstanding that Quaker doctrine bristles at the very concept of race. The Quakers’ uncritical acceptance of old-line Anglo-Saxon liberalism, as applied to a modern, racially heterogeneous society, has given birth to some strange ideological hybrids within the Quaker community. Drew Pearson, the most vituperative of columnists; Alger Hiss, the most subtle of Communist conspirators; Klaus Fuchs, the most duplicitous of atomic spies, as well as a few of the more notorious Majority members of Marxist terror gangs, had Quaker backgrounds.[15]Pearson’s mother, however, was the daughter of a Jewish dentist. As huge newspaper headlines have frequently reminded us, the distance between the Old Believer and the True Believer is often but a short step.

Quakers and other Old Believers are to be commended for their unshakable faith in human nature. At the same time they must be sharply criticized for their meddlesome, misdirected charity, and warped compassion that have earned them the name of Bleeding Hearts. In some respects the Old Believer may be compared to the captain of a ship in distress, who, in another century and with another crew, might have counted on his stubborn courage to have piloted his vessel safely into port. Today the prisoner of his own outdated seamanship, he steers blindly from reef to reef.

 

5. PRODITORS.[16]The word, which means a particularly nasty form of traitor, is used here in the Shakespearean sense: “thou most usurping proditor, and not protector, of the king or realm.” I Henry VI, act 1, scene 3. The fifth and final category of those who have brought about the split in the Majority ranks is unique in that its members are tainted with outright disloyalty — not only to the Majority, their population group, but to America, their nation. The Gracchite or Truckler, while often going against the best interests of the American people, will not knowingly stray into the ignominious realm of high treason. Franklin D. Roosevelt would compromise with Communists, promote them to high office, give them far more than he received at Teheran and Yalta, but he was never one of them. Lesser politicians and public figures pampered them for years but finally denounced them.[17]Giving some of the best years of one’s life to supporting the Soviet Union was a form of disloyalty for any Majority member, whether it be outright spying, or wholesale lying in books, magazines, and speeches defending rapacious Communist regimes. For this reason, such Party members or fellow travelers as Max Eastman, Granville Hicks, John Chamberlain, William Henry Chamberlin and James Burnham came awfully close to qualifying for the Proditor category, even though all of them eventually saw the error of their ways and ended up preaching against instead of for the U.S.S.R., their onetime spiritual fatherland, and Marx, Engels and Lenin, their onetime Holy Trinity. The Prodi tor, on the other hand, takes a savage delight in severing all his roots, deliberately seeking out and joining his country’s enemies, foreign and domestic, and in the process enthusiastically upending and destroying everyone and everything once closest to his heart and mind.

The Proditor, in short, takes up permanent residence in that far country the Gracchite and Truckler dare not and will not penetrate. Though he may fancy himself a Robin Hood, though he may manufacture the most plausible and idealistic excuses for his great and small treacheries, the Proditor — why be euphemistic? — is a common or, more precisely, an uncommon criminal.

The circumstances which produce the Proditor do not defy analysis. As with the Gracchite, there is often the preliminary personal failure. The subsequent drift into exotic political philosophies is more of an indicator than a cause of the treason to come.

Thomas Paine deserted his wife, then filed for bankruptcy. Next he deserted his country, England, went to America, and after a few years returned to Europe, where he helped to stir up the revolutionary terror in France. In 1796 Paine accused Washington of treachery,[18]In retaliation, Theodore Roosevelt called Paine “a dirty little atheist.” a libel which has not shaken Paine from his lofty pedestal in the liberal pantheon, though more recent charges of treason by non-liberals were not received so warmly.[19]Namely, Senator Joseph McCarthy’s charges against General Marshall and Robert Welch* s against Eisenhower.

John Brown also went through bankruptcy before he found his true vocation: striving to ignite the Civil War. He first tasted blood during the Kansas land settlement disputes, when he and his four sons attacked five sleeping men in their tents and hacked them to death with swords.[20]Altogether there were eight members of Brown’s homicide team. One of them, Theodore Weiner, was a Jew. At Harpers Ferry he seemed as eager to incite the slaves to revolution and mayhem as he was to free them.

It is inherent in the renegade profession that betrayal is easier the second time around. With scarcely a qualm the defector becomes the redefector; the agent the double agent Almost ritualistically the Proditor makes a new career out of confessing his previous sins and informing against his previous associates.

Whittaker Chambers was perhaps the prime example of the redefector. A sad piece of flotsam as a young man, yet gifted with a certain tasteless intellectuality, he became, in succession, drifter, Marxist, Communist party courier, senior editor of Time, star witness against Alger Hiss, and, in the autumn of his years, author of an agonizing, best-selling confessional. If the theme of Witness had not been so banal, Chambers, a late-blooming Quaker, might have reached the autobiographical heights of a St. Augustine. With tortured introspection and in soap opera detail, he recounted how he first betrayed himself, then his people, then his country, then his adopted country (the U.S.S.R.), and finally his friends.

Oregon-born John Reed, another noteworthy Proditor, actually became a member of the Communist party Executive Committee in Moscow. He died, aged thirty-three, at the peak of the Bolshevik ferment and lies in a grave by the Kremlin wall — 8,000 miles from home, but only a stone’s throw from the bones of Stalin.

More recent Proditors are: Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark, both of whom openly trafficked with the enemy during the war in Vietnam; the Majority men and women who belonged to the mixedrace Symbionese Liberation Army that engaged in murder, mayhem, and kidnapping; the Majority students who belonged to the Students for a Democratic Society, another organization dedicated primarily, not to class war, but to a minority racial ascendancy.

Alger Hiss, who almost deserves a special category of his own, dwarfs all other Majority traitors, past and present, not only in the nature but in the extent of his treason. Benedict Arnold, whose forebears were English, who married a Loyalist, and who betrayed a country that was only a few years old, could not be accused of the higher treason of betraying his racial and cultural antecedents. Aaron Burr f s treason was not total, since it might possibly have resulted in the establishment of an American empire in Mexico.

Alger Hiss, on the other hand, directly served a foreign totalitarian colossus whose political, social, and economic philosophy and military strategy were unalterably anti-American. Although he moved in the highest circles and had received many of the important rewards and honors his country was able to bestow, he put his wide-ranging talents and valuable connections at the disposal of an international complot, whose aim was the destruction or mutation of everything that had made his own success possible. Hiss is the supreme case of the brilliant mind, cut loose from all racial moorings, turning against itself. In his Divine Comedy, Dante reserved the greatest torments for Judas, Cassius, and Brutus, the betrayers of their benefactors. He might have been hard put to conceive of a circle of hell adequate for the likes of Alger Hiss.[21]The treason of atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Harry Gold, Morton Sobell, and David Greenglass, even though it may have a deadlier impact on the American future (see Chapter 38), lacked the racial and cultural depravity and the self-abasement of the Majority traitors. The Rosenbergs et al. were members of an Unassimilable Minority. Since they started out with fewer real and sentimental attachments to their country of residence, the Gordian knot they had to cut was tied more loosely and made of weaker rope. Jonathan Pollard, the American Jew convicted in 1987 of spying for Israel, openly admitted his loyalty to Zionism. He said his crimes were his “racial obligation.”

 

All Splitters of the Ranks — Gracchites, Trucklers, Pussyfooters, Old Believers, and Proditors — wound and mortify the Majority less by their activity or passivity, their secret complicity or open collaboration with their adversaries than by the confusion with which they surround the Majority-minority confrontation. The mere presence of a Majority member in minority gatherings or street demonstrations, the mere appearance of a Majority name on the letterhead of minority lobbies or fund-raising organizations helps to disguise the essentially racial character of these groups. Also, by appealing to carefully chosen principles of liberal thought and civility, and to carefully selected tenets of religion and ethics, Majority Splitters of the Ranks are able to pose as the legitimate heirs to the great Western humanitarian tradition. In this guise they can more easily lend the gloss of moral respectability and a sense of Christian urgency to minority Realpolitik.

The number and influence of Splitters of the Ranks will not substantially decrease until the Majority member who encourages, defends, or excuses minority-oriented liberalism and minority racism can no longer make a successful career out of depreciating the Majority stake in American civilization. Until such time, the lower ranks of the Majority will have to carry the main burden of the Majority’s defense, relying chiefly on their instincts, on their unbrainwashed and unbrainwashable common sense, and on their inexpungible consciousness of kind — in other words, on their genetic resources.

Footnotes

[1] There were more than a few traces of populism in the Gracchi’s revolutionary program. Driven by its own peculiar racial dynamics, populism can be unifying as well as divisive. There is a distinct difference between the reformer appealing to the farmers and yeomanry of his own race, and the political extremist whose proposals for land reform are only one item in a large package of revolutionary change and racial and class agitation.

[2] Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union, p. 403.

[3] The long, ludicrous string of FDR’s financial speculations in the early 1920s in New York included a $26,000 loss with Louis Howe in a scheme to fatten lobsters! Alfred B. Rollins, Jr., Roosevelt and Howe, Knopf, N. Y., 1962, pp. 196-97.

[4] A Gracchite still in the wings is John D. Rockefeller IV, who in 1980 spent $1 million, or about $25.80 a vote, getting himself reelected governor of West Virginia. Jay, as he is called, may have chosen the Democratic party after watching Uncle Nelson’s consistent failure to win the Republican presidential nomination. A Gracchite whose star has set is John Lindsay, who ran under the Republican banner until repudiated by his party in the 1969 New York City mayoral race, which he won as an independent In 1970, Lindsay told a gathering of University of Pennsylvania students, “The ones I have unending admiration for are the guys who say, 4 I simply will not serve in the Army of the U.S. in Vietnam and I am willing to take the consequences for it’ These are the guys who are heroes.” Human Events, May 16, 1970, p. 374. His father a British-born banker, his mother a member of one of the nation’s oldest families, Lindsay gave his daughter in marriage to a Jewish graduate student New York Times, June 7, 1970, p. 80. In spite of an expensive television campaign advertising his Nordic physical traits, Lindsay finished out of the running in the 1972 Democratic presidential primary.

[5] Nelson Rockefeller became a middle-of-the-road mainstreamer in the 1970 New York gubernatorial contest in order to capitalize on a conservative ground swell in the ranks of the Irish and Italians.

[6] It was this brand of hatred which prevented Nelson Rockefeller, potentially the strongest candidate, from securing the Republican nomination in 1964. It also gave rise to the stentorian booing of Rockefeller at the Republican convention in San Francisco by conservative activists, who for years had felt outraged by his Eastern habit of working harder for minority than for Majority votes. The memory of these boos probably induced Rockefeller to present a somewhat “deliberalized” image to the American people in 1974, when he was appointed vice-president of the United States in the Ford administration.

[7] It is not quite accurate to call Clodius and Catiline Gracchites since they were both cut down in the middle of their conspiracies and rebellions, with the result that historians have had great difficulty plumbing their real intentions. They might have been imitating Julius Caesar, who practiced a far more sophisticated form of politics. Caesarism is the use of the mob to obtain the power to destroy the mob.

[8] In World War I, Franklin Roosevelt, then in good health and of military age, was assistant secretary of the navy. Harriman and Stevenson sat out World War II as Washington bureaucrats, though both were extremely active interventionists. Thomas Jefferson, who lived at a time when Gracchites were few and far between, nevertheless had some noticeable Gracchite tendencies. His father was a self-made man of uncertain lineage, but his mother was a Randolph, a member of one of Virginia’s leading families. No one was more responsible for the War of Independence than Jefferson, yet he never once heard a gun go off in anger. His single military exploit was an ignoble and hasty retreat into the Virginia mountains when the British made a sudden descent on Monticello. “Where is Jefferson?” wrote Washington bitterly while at Valley Forge. It was this same Jefferson, so heedful of his own life, who was inspired by Shay’s Rebellion to write: “God forbid! we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion….What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!…What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. …” See Jefferson’s letter to Smith, Nov. 13, 1787. Also see Nathan Schachner, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Yoseloff, New York, 1957, p. 216, and Albert Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1916, Vol. 1, pp. 126, 303.

[9] The ne plus ultra Truckler in the news field was Turner Catledge, a native Mississippian and long-time managing editor of the New York Times. As another Timesman wrote, Catledge’s “home state had been denigrated regularly in the press for a decade…” Gay Talese, The Kingdom and the Power, p. 143. The Times, of course, had been the principal denigrator. Other noted journalistic Trucklers are Benjamin Bradlee, longtime editor of the Washington Post, and Osborne Elliott, longtime editor of Newsweek. Television anchormen fall into this category, though usually they simply read what is handed to them.

[10] Judge Sam Rosenman, later chairman of the board of Twentieth Century Fox, wrote many of the Roosevelt and Truman speeches. Many famous Kennedy and Johnson addresses were ghosted by minority writers, Theodore Chaikin Sorensen and Richard Naradoff Goodwin. The chief speech writer for Carter in his unsuccessful 1980 reelection campaign was Hendrik Hertzberg, who welcomed the Communist victory in Vietnam. The dull and turgid Eisenhower speeches were generally written by Majority professorial types. As for phrase making, FDR’s “Happy Warrior” epithet for Al Smith was dreamed up by Justice Joseph Proskauer, and Kennedy’s “New Frontier” was the simultaneous brainchild of Walt Rostow and Max Freedman. Ernest K. Lindley, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bobbs-Merrill, New York, 1931, p. 223, and San Francisco Chronicle, This World, Aug. 17, 1965. Ken Khachigan was the man in charge of preparing President Reagan’s speeches.

[11] Truman paid $10 for his initiation fee into the Missouri Ku Klux Klan in [1922] He got his $10 back when he opposed the Klan’s anti-Catholic policies — certainly the loyal thing to do in view of Boss Pendergast’s religion. Alfred Steinberg, The Man from Missouri, Putnam, New York, 1962, p. 64.

[12] For Truman’s post-presidential attacks on civil rights, see New York Times, April 13, 1965, p. 24.

[13] Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, p. 566.

[14] Charles Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1948. See Barnes’s R evisionism: A Key to Peace and Other Essays, Cato Institute, San Francisco, Calif., 1980.

[15] Pearson’s mother, however, was the daughter of a Jewish dentist.

[16] The word, which means a particularly nasty form of traitor, is used here in the Shakespearean sense: “thou most usurping proditor, and not protector, of the king or realm.” I Henry VI, act 1, scene 3.

[17] Giving some of the best years of one’s life to supporting the Soviet Union was a form of disloyalty for any Majority member, whether it be outright spying, or wholesale lying in books, magazines, and speeches defending rapacious Communist regimes. For this reason, such Party members or fellow travelers as Max Eastman, Granville Hicks, John Chamberlain, William Henry Chamberlin and James Burnham came awfully close to qualifying for the Proditor category, even though all of them eventually saw the error of their ways and ended up preaching against instead of for the U.S.S.R., their onetime spiritual fatherland, and Marx, Engels and Lenin, their onetime Holy Trinity.

[18] In retaliation, Theodore Roosevelt called Paine “a dirty little atheist.”

[19] Namely, Senator Joseph McCarthy’s charges against General Marshall and Robert Welch* s against Eisenhower.

[20] Altogether there were eight members of Brown’s homicide team. One of them, Theodore Weiner, was a Jew.

[21] The treason of atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Harry Gold, Morton Sobell, and David Greenglass, even though it may have a deadlier impact on the American future (see Chapter 38), lacked the racial and cultural depravity and the self-abasement of the Majority traitors. The Rosenbergs et al. were members of an Unassimilable Minority. Since they started out with fewer real and sentimental attachments to their country of residence, the Gordian knot they had to cut was tied more loosely and made of weaker rope. Jonathan Pollard, the American Jew convicted in 1987 of spying for Israel, openly admitted his loyalty to Zionism. He said his crimes were his “racial obligation.”

Chapter 12 • The Aesthetic Prop • 2,400 Words

One such genetic resource might be defined as the Aesthetic Prop.

Even the most committed racial equalitarian can hardly deny that the physical traits of the idealized Nordic stereotype are deemed desirable by most whites and many nonwhites.[1]The stereotype has been described on p. 26. The current sociological line, partly derived from Marxism, is that these traits are not favored because of an inborn or universal aesthetic preference, but because they are typical of the dominant population group and ipso facto bestow higher social status upon their possessors.

It is not difficult to find holes in the materialistic theory of aesthetics. The first documented evidence of blondism is an Egyptian wall painting of a daughter of Cheops, Queen Hetep-Heres II.[2]Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 98. If one of the earliest and greatest Egyptian pharaohs had a blond daughter, both he and his wife must have had some blond genes.[3]Blondism is a recessive trait which must be present in both parents. It may be indicated by light brown as well as by blond hair, which even in the purest Nordic is likely to darken with advancing age. Blondness, consequently, must have been attractive or prestigious as far back as 3075 B.C. in a highly civilized land of brunet Mediterraneans and never ruled, as far as anyone knows, by a blond race.

In classical times there were constant references to the blondism of Roman gods and demigods.[4]Flavens, the Latin word for yellow, golden or auburn, was “the color universally ascribed to the hair of heroic persons by the ancients.” J. B. Greenough, Virgil and the Other Latin Poets, Ginn 8c Co., Boston, 1930, p. 133, note 590. The conventions of the Greek theater called for a black-wigged and black-haired tyrant, red hair for the dishonest slave, and fair curls for the youthful hero.[5]A. E. Haigh, Attic Theatre, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1907, pp. 221, 239. Ovid and Martial declared that light hair was preferred by Roman matrons for wigs, a preference which spread to America 1,900 years later.[6]“We’re paying $10 a pound for Oriental hair and as much as $350 a pound for the best blond European hair,” said Adolph Jacoby, an executive of a New York wig firm. Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17, 1962, p. 1 . Pope Gregory the Great called some Anglo-Saxon captives he happened to see in Rome not Angles but “angels” because they were “bright-beau tied” and of “gracious outward sheen.”[7]Will Durant, The Age of Faith, p. 522.

The Rigsthula, a cultural poem of the Vikings, describes early Scandinavian society as tripartite: a black-haired, wrinkled-skinned lower class, a yeoman class with sturdy bodies and ruddy faces, and a nobility with blond hair and skin whiter than driven snow.[8]Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 321 . Of the medieval Caliphate of Cordova it has been written, “Most of the Caliphs were fair or ginger-haired with blue eyes,”[9]Enrique Sordo, Moorish Spain, Crown, New York, 1962, p. 24. Also see Cities of Destiny, ed. Arnold Toynbee, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. Although it is not widely known, Arabs have always drawn a very distinct color line. In present-day Iraq a citizen can obtain a legal judgment against a person falsely accusing him of Negro ancestry. Carleton Coon, Caravan, Henry Holt, New York, 1951, p. 161. a coloration perhaps due to intermarriage with the earlier Visigothic nobility. The most noble families in Christian Spain, who claimed direct descent from the Visigoths, had skin so white that the blue network of their veins was highly visible. For this reason sangre azul (blue blood) became a synonym for members of the aristocracy. The veins of more lowly born Spaniards were obscured by their darker Mediterranean skin.[10]Don Quixote says of the fictitious, not the real, Dulcinea, “sus cabellos son oro…su blancura, nieve.” Cervantes, Don Quijote, E. Castilla, Madrid, 1966, p. 98.

More tenuous evidence of the aesthetic appeal of light coloration is offered by the legend of Quetzalcoatl, the Aztec god of the air, who allegedly instructed the copper-skinned Mexicans in the use of metals and in the arts of government. He was said to have white skin and a beard, the latter being practically unknown to the almost beardless natives. When he had incurred the wrath of another divinity, he left Mexico and sailed east across the Great Ocean, saying he would return. In Peru a somewhat similar myth has white, bearded men conquering the pre-Incan inhabitants and imparting to them the secrets of civilization.[11]William H. Prescott, The History of the Conquest of Mexico and the History of the Conquest of Peru, Modern Library, New York, pp. 39, 736. Other investigators of Mexico’s prehistory deny that Quetzalcoatl had white physical traits. Cesar A. Saenz, Quetzalcoatl, Institute) Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico, 1962. For a series of lively asides on the Mexican god, see D. H. Lawrence, The Plumed Serpent. Those inclined to wring history from myth can hardly escape feeling that Quetzalcoatl was a shipwrecked, homesick Viking. Today the Aesthetic Prop still persists in Latin America, especially in those areas where Negroes and Indians predominate. As remote a town as Ita on the upper Amazon has a simple rule of thumb for status: the lighter the skin, the higher the class. A light complexion is acknowledged by all and sundry as the hallmark of beauty.[12]Charles Wagley, Amazon Town, Macmillan, New York, 1953, pp. 12-40. Even in Japan pale complexions are favored. The Japanese expression for well-born is “deep window,” which refers to the lighter pigmentation of people shielded from the sun by thick-walled houses.[13]Life, Sept 5, 1969, p. 42.

The purely aesthetic appeal of Nordicism is undeniable throughout the contemporary United States. Light-haired, narrow-faced, long-headed males still dominate men’s fashion ads, while in the so-called counterculture, supposedly a complete rejection of contemporary tastes and styles, the girl with blond hair, whether long, straight or curled, frizzled or cornrowed, still remains the symbol of desirable femininity. Each year millions of American women spend tens of millions of dollars on hair bleaches. “Blondes have more fun” has practically become a proverb, as has “Gentlemen prefer blondes.”[14]Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was the tide of a novel by a brunette Hollywood film writer, Anita Loos, whose father was of French descent. Miss Loos later explained why she had written the book: “The satisfaction of getting even with Mae Davis for seducing the man I loved [H. L. Mencken] more than paid for the pains [of writing it] .” She continued her vendetta against blondes in another novel, But Gentlemen Marry Brunettes. In spite of the author’s best intentions, however, the “dumb,” gold-digging Lorelei has entered American folklore as the knowing young blonde who gets her way. Anita Loos, A Girl Like I, Viking Press, New York, 1966, p. 274.

The avalanche of artificial blondes unloosed by such publicity, accompanied by the incongruous and ugly contrast of platinum hair with dark eyes, dark eyebrows, and olive skin, should have been enough to destroy the blond ideal forever. That it did not verified an enduring, deeply ingrained aesthetic preference on the part of most Americans.[15]Blondism is most appealing when accompanied by other Nordic physical characteristics. If it were not for the color sensitivity of most Americans, Nordic pigmentation and skin shade might be less important than other Nordic traits as criteria of male handsomeness and female beauty. Certainly “tall, dark and handsome” Nordic Mediterraneans are more attractive physical specimens than horter, squatter, though blonder, types. Many other ways of tampering with nature: nose straightening and nose bobbing, electrolysis to raise the hair line and heighten the brow and forehead, elevator shoes to increase stature have been adopted by minority members striving to give themselves a “Majority look.”[16]Sun tan mania does not contradict the logic of the Aesthetic Prop. The ultraviolet rays of the sun may darken the skin, but they also lighten the hair and provide a pleasing contrast to light eyes and other manifestations of light coloration. Basically, a sun tan is a sign of health and wealth — both a temporary camouflage and an exotic masquerade.

The power of the Aesthetic Prop is also apparent in current American mating and dating habits. Although the Majority is in the descendant, the most up-and-coming minority males seem driven to marry or seek out the company of Majority females. For proof one has only to look at the couples who throng the most expensive nightclubs, restaurants, and resort hotels. Moreover the Nordic physical ideal has not only been the marriage ideal of the minority “New Rich” in America, but of European social climbers for at least a thousand years.

The relatively small number of Nordics in the world — an estimated 300 million in 1980 and fast declining — has doubtlessly enhanced their aesthetic appeal. Rarity per se exercises a special attraction, and what is beautiful generally contains an element of the uncommon. Just as the pure Nordic is quite a rarity among the part-Nordics who comprise most of the American Majority, so the American Majority represents a rare and esoteric type of the world population as a whole. To whites and nonwhites alike, Nordics are the personification of the white race because they are the “whitest” whites. Perhaps the best description of the physical attractiveness of the Majority has been given by Wyndham Lewis:

It is a common experience in talking to Americans to hear some magnificent human specimen (who is obviously the issue of say a first-class Swede and a magnificent Swissess, with a little Irish and a touch of Basque) refer to himself as a “mongrel.” It is inconceivable yet indeed that is how a “mixed” product is apt to look upon this superb marriage of Scandinavian, Goth, and Celt — all stocks as closely related in blood…as the Br ah manic caste in India….

All you have to do is look at this sterling type of “mixed” American to admire the purity of line and fine adjustment achieved by the conjunction of these sister stocks. Far from being a “mongrel,” of course, he is a sort of super-European; the best of several closely allied stocks have met in him, in exactly the same way as was constantly happening in the noble European families — where the issue of marriage between nobles, whether from England and Italy, or Spain and Russia, did not constitute a “half-breed,” but rather a more exalted feudal product…[17]Wyndham Lewis, Pale Face, Chatto and Windus, London, 1929, p. 278.

The possibility that the Aesthetic Prop goes beneath the skin, that there is a relationship between what Herbert Spencer called “beauty of character and beauty of aspect,” raises problems which are beyond the scope of this study.[18]Herbert Spencer, Essays, Appleton, New York, 1910, Vol. II, p. 387. Schopenhauer was another philosopher who believed in a connection between outward appearance and inner being. The mouth, he said, expresses the thought of man, while the face expresses the thought of nature and the species. “Vielmehr ist jedes Menschengesicht eine Hieroglyphe,” is how Schopenhauer summed up his opinion of the matter. Parerga und Paralipomena, F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1877, pp. 670-71. However, without becoming too entangled in psychobiological complexities, one must agree with Spencer’s suggestion that beauty is “idealization away from the ape.” Three principal sources of ugliness, according to Spencer, are recession of the forehead, the protuberance of the jaw, and large cheekbones. Consequently only those human beings are handsome whose jaws and cheekbones have been pulled back and nasal depressions filled in. Other qualifications are the absence of any forward opening of the nostrils and a small mouth.[19]Ibid., pp. 390-92.
(Herbert Spencer, Essays, Appleton, New York, 1910, Vol. II, p. 387. Schopenhauer was another philosopher who believed in a connection between outward appearance and inner being. The mouth, he said, expresses the thought of man, while the face expresses the thought of nature and the species. “Vielmehr ist jedes Menschengesicht eine Hieroglyphe,” is how Schopenhauer summed up his opinion of the matter. Parerga und Paralipomena, F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1877, pp. 670-71.)
Since the idealized Nordic meets these requirements more closely than other racial stereotypes, it follows that Nordics are the least “apelike” of mortals and hence most deserving of first prize in the ethnic beauty contest.[20]In a work that falls distressingly short of Moby Dick and Billy Buddy Melville carried this physical argument into the spiritual plane when he attempted to equate blondism with goodness. In Pierre, Melville has Isabel complain: a Oh, God! that I had been born with blue eyes, and fair hair! These make the livery of heaven! Heard ye ever yet of a good angel with dark eyes, Pierre? — no, no, no— all blue, blue, blue — heaven’s own blue….” Pierre, Hendrick’s House, New York, 1957, p. 370. In contrast, Melville’s novella, Benito Cereno, matched only by Conrad’s Heart of Darkness in plumbing the dark side of Negro mentality, seemed to propose a correlation between blackness and evil. Montesquieu and Mozart were also charter members of the “Black is not Beautiful” club. In the latter’s opera, Die Zauberflote, his black villain, Monostatos, sings, “Weiss ist schon, weil ein Schwarzer hasslich ist”

The Aesthetic Prop, moreover, has often been carried over into the realm of ethics and even politics. Plato was neither the first nor the last to equate beauty with the good. All else being equal, the handsome (i.e., Nordic-looking) politician or statesman has usually been able to evoke more deference than his less handsome (i.e., less Nordic-looking) rival, whose unprepossessing appearance may be a severe handicap in winning and keeping a following. Realizing the force these aesthetic standards still exert in the West, a perceptive intellectual like Marxist philosopher George Lukacs, who stands well outside the Northern European genetic and cultural locus, has reacted by having a “liberal fear of beauty, with [an] obsessive suspicion that beauty and, by inference, a good deal of art is a mask preventing a clear view of human evil and suffering.”[21]Times Literary Supplement, June 18, 1970, p. 660.

It was the Aesthetic Prop which prolonged the survival of the decadent Teutonic aristocracy in Central and Southern Europe centuries after it had been stripped of its preeminence. It is the same Aesthetic Prop which helps the American Majority to hold on to the trappings, but not the substance, of its former power.[22]After trying to persuade Negro girls to go back to natural, woolly hairdos and give up bleaching creams and Western dress styles, black militants search out white girls, preferring, when they vacation abroad, Scandinavia to Africa. Fletcher Knebel, “The Black Woman’s Burden,” Look, Sept 23, 1969, pp. 77-79. Only in the sector of aesthetics, through the pervasiveness of the idealized Nordic biological type and its continued acceptance as the national template of physical charm and attractiveness, has the Majority been able to mount a small but successful holding action in the present-day racial melee.

Footnotes

[1] The stereotype has been described on p. 26.

[2] Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 98.

[3] Blondism is a recessive trait which must be present in both parents. It may be indicated by light brown as well as by blond hair, which even in the purest Nordic is likely to darken with advancing age.

[4] Flavens, the Latin word for yellow, golden or auburn, was “the color universally ascribed to the hair of heroic persons by the ancients.” J. B. Greenough, Virgil and the Other Latin Poets, Ginn 8c Co., Boston, 1930, p. 133, note 590.

[5] A. E. Haigh, Attic Theatre, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1907, pp. 221, 239.

[6] “We’re paying $10 a pound for Oriental hair and as much as $350 a pound for the best blond European hair,” said Adolph Jacoby, an executive of a New York wig firm. Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17, 1962, p. 1 .

[7] Will Durant, The Age of Faith, p. 522.

[8] Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 321 .

[9] Enrique Sordo, Moorish Spain, Crown, New York, 1962, p. 24. Also see Cities of Destiny, ed. Arnold Toynbee, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. Although it is not widely known, Arabs have always drawn a very distinct color line. In present-day Iraq a citizen can obtain a legal judgment against a person falsely accusing him of Negro ancestry. Carleton Coon, Caravan, Henry Holt, New York, 1951, p. 161.

[10] Don Quixote says of the fictitious, not the real, Dulcinea, “sus cabellos son oro…su blancura, nieve.” Cervantes, Don Quijote, E. Castilla, Madrid, 1966, p. 98.

[11] William H. Prescott, The History of the Conquest of Mexico and the History of the Conquest of Peru, Modern Library, New York, pp. 39, 736. Other investigators of Mexico’s prehistory deny that Quetzalcoatl had white physical traits. Cesar A. Saenz, Quetzalcoatl, Institute) Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico, 1962. For a series of lively asides on the Mexican god, see D. H. Lawrence, The Plumed Serpent. Those inclined to wring history from myth can hardly escape feeling that Quetzalcoatl was a shipwrecked, homesick Viking.

[12] Charles Wagley, Amazon Town, Macmillan, New York, 1953, pp. 12-40.

[13] Life, Sept 5, 1969, p. 42.

[14] Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was the tide of a novel by a brunette Hollywood film writer, Anita Loos, whose father was of French descent. Miss Loos later explained why she had written the book: “The satisfaction of getting even with Mae Davis for seducing the man I loved [H. L. Mencken] more than paid for the pains [of writing it] .” She continued her vendetta against blondes in another novel, But Gentlemen Marry Brunettes. In spite of the author’s best intentions, however, the “dumb,” gold-digging Lorelei has entered American folklore as the knowing young blonde who gets her way. Anita Loos, A Girl Like I, Viking Press, New York, 1966, p. 274.

[15] Blondism is most appealing when accompanied by other Nordic physical characteristics. If it were not for the color sensitivity of most Americans, Nordic pigmentation and skin shade might be less important than other Nordic traits as criteria of male handsomeness and female beauty. Certainly “tall, dark and handsome” Nordic Mediterraneans are more attractive physical specimens than horter, squatter, though blonder, types.

[16] Sun tan mania does not contradict the logic of the Aesthetic Prop. The ultraviolet rays of the sun may darken the skin, but they also lighten the hair and provide a pleasing contrast to light eyes and other manifestations of light coloration. Basically, a sun tan is a sign of health and wealth — both a temporary camouflage and an exotic masquerade.

[17] Wyndham Lewis, Pale Face, Chatto and Windus, London, 1929, p. 278.

[18] Herbert Spencer, Essays, Appleton, New York, 1910, Vol. II, p. 387. Schopenhauer was another philosopher who believed in a connection between outward appearance and inner being. The mouth, he said, expresses the thought of man, while the face expresses the thought of nature and the species. “Vielmehr ist jedes Menschengesicht eine Hieroglyphe,” is how Schopenhauer summed up his opinion of the matter. Parerga und Paralipomena, F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1877, pp. 670-71.

[19] Ibid., pp. 390-92.

[20] In a work that falls distressingly short of Moby Dick and Billy Buddy Melville carried this physical argument into the spiritual plane when he attempted to equate blondism with goodness. In Pierre, Melville has Isabel complain: a Oh, God! that I had been born with blue eyes, and fair hair! These make the livery of heaven! Heard ye ever yet of a good angel with dark eyes, Pierre? — no, no, no— all blue, blue, blue — heaven’s own blue….” Pierre, Hendrick’s House, New York, 1957, p. 370. In contrast, Melville’s novella, Benito Cereno, matched only by Conrad’s Heart of Darkness in plumbing the dark side of Negro mentality, seemed to propose a correlation between blackness and evil. Montesquieu and Mozart were also charter members of the “Black is not Beautiful” club. In the latter’s opera, Die Zauberflote, his black villain, Monostatos, sings, “Weiss ist schon, weil ein Schwarzer hasslich ist”

[21] Times Literary Supplement, June 18, 1970, p. 660.

[22] After trying to persuade Negro girls to go back to natural, woolly hairdos and give up bleaching creams and Western dress styles, black militants search out white girls, preferring, when they vacation abroad, Scandinavia to Africa. Fletcher Knebel, “The Black Woman’s Burden,” Look, Sept 23, 1969, pp. 77-79.

Part IV • The Minorities: Assimilated and Unassimilable

Chapter 13 • The Assimilated Minorities • 6,900 Words

IT has been shown that 55,506,205 Americans — almost 30 percent of the nation’s population — belong to what have been described as Assimilated Minorities.[1]See Table II, p. 60 In the terminology of physical anthropology, these minorities are predominantly Alpine, a designation which in this study also encompasses the Dinaric and East Baltic races. Geographically speaking, their countries of origin have been Ireland, France, the Slavic lands, and various Central European and Balkan states. Mostly descended from those who arrived in the mid-19th century and in later immigrant waves, Assimilated Minority members, owing to their unremote racial and cultural affinities to the Northern European or Nordic elements of the population, have largely been absorbed into the Majority demographic matrix.

In the following sections, which list and briefly examine the Assimilated Minorities, no Northern European population group, except the Irish and the Finns, will be found. This may seem strange, since many of the Germans, Dutch, and Belgians, and more than a few of the Scandinavians and British who came to America were Alpines and part of the New Immigration. But Alpinism by itself is no serious impediment to the assimilation process. Neither is late arrival. What does retard or hinder assimilation is a combination of or, more precisely, a manifold of Alpinism, late arrival, religious and linguistic differences, a tradition of political absolutism and peonage and, in the case of the Slavic groups, an Eastern European rather than a Western cultural heritage.

Because Alpines of Northern European descent have not had this multiplicity of obstacles blocking their assimilation, most have been given automatic Majority status and considered assimilated. The same dispensation has been extended to Alpines of Swiss, Austrian, and Northern French origin. But this is not to say that all Americans of Northern European descent, Nordic or Alpine, are Majority members in good standing. Some Irish and other Americans of equally authentic Northern European lineage still retain a smattering of clannishness, vote en bloc[2]A nationwide but indecisive German vote was noted as late as World War II, when some German Americans turned against President Roosevelt because of his interventionist policies. Both German Protestants and German Catholics voted in large numbers for Eisenhower, but many of the latter switched back to the Democratic party when Catholic John Kennedy ran for the presidency. Kevin Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York, 1969, pp. 296, 314, 339. and cling halfheartedly to their Old World folkways. The Pennsylvania Dutch are another example of persistent clannishness. Some Eastern Europeans, especially those who have been minorities in their own homelands, brought with them a minority consciousness that has only been partly eradicated. Many French in Louisiana and New England still speak the patois of their European forebears. Certain religious sects teach their members the necessity of moral or physical secession from society at large. All these population groups, however, have lost part or most of their Old World affiliations and, if not yet completely assimilated, may well be so in a few more decades. Because of their declining numbers and their accelerating rate of Americanization, it is probably more accurate to classify them as tribes, clans or cults than as bona fide minorities. Increasing pressure and challenges from Unassimilable Minorities sometimes induce Assimilated Minority members to dust off some of their faded Old World ties, but in general they are closing ranks as whites, not as Poles, French or whatever.

An American of Northern European descent who cannot be described as fully assimilated is the first-generation and, less often, the second-generation American from Britain, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, or Canada. No matter how closely he or she approximates the Majority racial and cultural norm, the newcomer, as opposed to the latecomer, almost always retains some traces of minority consciousness — a consciousness which he often manages to pass on to his children and sometimes, depending on its intensity, to his grandchildren. The foreign birth of such contemporary left-leaning public figures as Gyrus Eaton, John Galbraith, and James Reston has probably had more influence than they would admit on their political and social attitudes. If Earl Warren’s father had been born in America instead of Norway and if he had not been such an intransigent socialist, it is possible that his son, when Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would have been more concerned with Majority than minority interests.[3]Reston was born in Scotland. Eaton and Galbraith in Canada. Like Warren, Senator Henry Jackson and 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson had Scandinavian immigrant fathers.

Since it is only a question of time until the progeny of the few Northern European holdouts will be part and parcel of the Majority, attention will now be focused on the Assimilated Minorities. These are the population groups who at one time or another in the past were reticent about assimilation — a process they regarded as a cultural leap into the unknown, if not a form of ethnic surrender.

 

IRISH:[4]For the distinction between the Catholic Irish and the Protestant Scotch Irish from Ulster, see footnote 9, p. 43. One of the major ironies of American history is that the population group that has wielded so much political power in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century had until its arrival in the New World a very limited experience with the democratic process.[5]“The importance of immigrant groups in the history of American politics can hardly be overestimated. In this history the Irish have played the principal role.” One America, Francis J. Brown, ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 61. Although this inexperience was not necessarily due to a personal failing or to an innate antipathy to democracy — their British masters handed out freedom sparingly — the Irish were never able to establish a permanent representative government in Ireland until comparatively recently. Only in 1948, when the great Irish overseas migrations to America had long since ended, did Ireland, after a few decades of commonwealth status, achieve complete independence.

Ireland or Eire may be a republic now, but the ancestors of present-day Irish Americans had for the most part never passed through the long, exasperating, but richly instructive cycle of political apprenticeship which evolved from feudal aristocracy through absolute monarchy to representative democracy.

In the detailed racial study of 10,000 Irish males in Ireland by E.A. Hooton, 28.9 percent were classified as Nordic-Mediterranean, 25.3 as Keltic, 18.6 Dinaric, 18.4 Nordic-Alpine, 6.8 predominantly Nordic, 1.1 East Baltic, 0.6 Pure Nordic, 0.3 Pure Mediterranean.[6]E. A. Hooton and C. W. Dupertuis, The Physical Anthropology of Ireland, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. XXX, Nos. 1-2, p. 143. Carleton Coon, whose racial terminology often differed from Dr. Hooton’s, found a relatively large Upper Palaeolithic streak in the Irish racial makeup.[7]Coon, The Races of Europe, pp. 37^84. Irish physical types consequently range from a Nordic-seasoned racial mix, scarcely distinguishable from that of most other Northern Europeans,[8]Wyndham Lewis, describing a mixed Anglo-Irish demonstration in London, wrote, “I was never able to discover which were Irish and which were English…they looked to me exactly the same.” Pale Face, pp. 284-85. to the heavy-boned, heavy-set, broad-faced, large-framed Upper Palaeolithic type, presumably the genetic remains of an older European race which fled to the outermost regions of Western Europe to escape the Kelts and other invaders. Another distinctive breed is the “Black Irish,” the inhabitants of the Emerald Isle with the most pronounced Mediterranean cast, the reputed descendants of prehistoric Atlantic-Mediterraneans who cruised up the Atlantic coast from Gibraltar and Portugal. According to legends that have circulated for centuries about the Ould Sod, the Black Irish are the distant offspring of shipwrecked sailors from the Spanish Armada.

The racial balance of Ireland has been reproduced fairly closely by the rank and file of Irish Americans, though possibly with less accent on the Nordic element The Irish exodus was composed chiefly of the poorer segments of the population — the tenant farmers and the bog-dwelling western Irish, who were most removed in time and place from the more Nordic Irish in the east, where Vikings, Normans, and English had been settled for centuries. One set of physical traits — pug nose, freckles, red hair, and the Vorld’s bluest eyes” — though not exclusively Irish, has come to be viewed, at least in America, as the basic ingredient of a common Irish stereotype.[9]Coon, op. cit., pp. 371, 381, 383. Bushy eyebrows, large heads, prominent chins, long and convex upper lips, and great malar breadth are other fairly common Irish traits.

If E. A. Hoo ton’s racial studies are on the mark, Nordic Alpines, Predominantly Nordics and Pure Nordics account for 25.8 percent of the Irish of Ireland. This might be reduced to 20 percent for the Irish immigration, to allow for the smaller proportion of Nordic elements. In all, nearly 22 million Americans of Irish descent are in the United States.[10]See Table 2, Appendix B.

The voting record of the Irish is a telling demonstration of their march from assimilable to assimilated. In the 1952 presidential race, it was estimated that about 38 percent of the Catholic vote went to Eisenhower. An even higher ratio of Catholics voted Republican in the 1956 election.[11]William Shannon, The American Irish, Macmillan, N. Y., 1963, pp. 410-1 1. In 1960, however, a Gallup Poll stated that three out of five Catholics who voted for Eisenhower switched to Kennedy.[12]Ibid.
(William Shannon, The American Irish, Macmillan, N. Y., 1963, pp. 410-1 1.)
Applying these percentages to the Irish segment of the Catholic population and to the Irish-American population as a whole, as well as to Irish voters, 6.8 million Irish (38 percent) were in the Republican ranks in 1952, perhaps as many as 7 million in [1956] Then in 1960, 60 percent of these temporary Republicans returned to the Democratic fold. This left 2.8 million Irish to vote for Nixon, the non-Catholic loser. A much larger number of Irish voted for Ronald Reagan, who had an Irish father, in his two successful runs for the presidency, which had the side effect of sweeping some big-city Irish political machines out of office. In 1992 the Irish recaptured Chicago’s mayoralty, but in 1993, ending a 68-year reign, lost Boston’s to an Italian. The Irish still vote as Irish in some large Northern cities, but they can no longer be described as a solid, nationwide voting bloc.[13]During the 1960 presidential election Nixon seldom talked about his Irish ancestors, who were not Catholics, while Kennedy with his unmistakable Keltic looks played his ethnic and religious background to the hilt in Northern urban areas. In the 1970 congressional election campaign, however, Nixon, who was planning a second go at the presidency, took a trip to Ireland, where much was made of his Irish forebears.

This does not mean that the Irish because they have changed their voting habits have changed their character, which Carl Wittke described as a

mixture of flaming ego, hot temper, stubbornness, great personal charm and warmth and a wit that shines through adversity. An irrepressible buoyancy, a vivacious spirit, a kindliness and tolerance of the common frailties of men…quick to anger and quick to forgive, frequently duped…generous, hospitable and loyal.

Wittke also asserted that the Irish, although demonstrating a talent for art and literature, have never been particularly outstanding in the fields of science and invention.[14]Carl Wittke, The Irish in America, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1956, p. 233.

It was the great potato famine of the 1840s that first brought the Irish to America in large numbers. They carried with them bitter memories of starvation, humiliation and suppression under the heel of the English. Once they had finished their pick-and-shovel apprenticeship on the Erie Canal and on the railroads, they gathered together in large cities and often renewed their feud with the British Empire by extending it to Americans of English extraction.

As Irish Americans began to control the Democratic political machines in the northern cities, they often used them as weapons of defense and revenge against the Republican party, which in many Irish-American eyes represented the interests of the Englishdescended establishment Chicago Mayor a Big Biir Thompson’s wellpublicized promise in 1927 to “make the King of England keep his snoot out of America” was a typical appeal to Gaelic Anglophobia.[15]Literary Digest, Nov. 5, 1927, p. 5. A later flare-up of this century-old hostility took place in the 1966 New York City subway strike, in which Michael Quill, head of the Transport Workers Union, attempted to turn the walkout into a personal vendetta against Mayor John Lindsay, who in spite of his Gracchi te ultraliberalism was viewed as being, if not as bad as an Orangeman, at least as bad as a WASP.[16]New York Times, Jan. 2, 1966, p. 1, and Jan. 4, 1966, pp. 14, 17. The whole atmosphere surrounding the strike talks, according to one Times reporter, was “Down the English Protestant! Up the Irish!”

It is almost impossible to write about the Irish in America without bringing in the Roman Catholic Church. Irish Catholicism, where men as well as women attend services, is vastly different from Catholicism in Spain, France and Italy, where the congregations consist almost entirely of women and where anti-clericalism is a traditional male prerogative. The cherished place in their hearts that Irish everywhere reserve for the Church is largely due to the latter’s participation in the long struggle for Irish independence. Irish priests often had as high a price on their heads as lay patriots, as the Church used all its resources to keep Irish morale from sagging in the darkest days of the Protestant occupation. Consequently, a secular as well as a religious link exists between the Catholic Church and most Irish Americans. In Latin countries where, during long spells of medieval and modern history, Catholic prelates allied themselves with aristocrats, monarchs and plutocrats, the secular connection is much weaker.

Having helped keep Ireland alive for so many centuries, the Catholic Church has fought a dogged, rearguard, but losing action to insulate its Irish-American flock against the enticements and pressures of assimilation. The Church feared that marrying into, even socializing, with members of the predominantly non-Irish, non-Catholic majority might be the first step in abandoning the faith — the faith that fills pews and collection boxes to overflowing. Although the Irish account for less than half of all American Catholics, they remain the dominant Catholic congregation, furnishing most of the money and most of the hierarchy. Apart from the cultural and financial implications, a decline in Irish ethnocentrism and an accompanying decline in Irish religious fervor might expose the American branch of the Church to a takeover by Italians, Poles, or Hispanics.

To preclude such a development the Church has endeavored to keep the fires of Irish ethnicity burning by a network of parochial schools, well-organized campaigns against birth control, restrictions against out-marriage, and the subsidizing and promotion of a multitude of Irish activities. For these reasons Catholicism must bear a large share of the responsibility for the lingering, hyphenated status of a dwindling number of Irish Americans. Despite priestly qualms, however, most Irish, when they entered the ranks of the Majority, managed to take their religion along with them.

For obvious reasons the Catholic Church is officially opposed to Marxism and communism. Atheism is not the hierarchy’s favorite ism. But it does not follow that all Irish Americans are raging capitalists. Inspired as much by time-worn national and racial antagonisms as by class antipathies, Irish leaders have been in and out of the American socialist and Communist movements almost from the first day they arrived on these shores. William Z. Foster, whose father was an “English-hating Irish immigrant,” was for many years the Grand Old Man of American communism and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, the Grand Old Lady. 17 Jim. Larkin, a prominent Communist rabble-rouser in the 1920s, served a term in Sing Sing before he was pardoned by Al Smith, the Catholic governor of New \fork. Vincent Sheean, who later became a devotee of Mahatma Gandhi, wrote a book, Personal History, which probably attracted more Americans to the Hammer and Sickle banner than any opus or tract by Engels, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin.[18]Sheean jumped off the Soviet express after the signing of the RussianGerman Nonaggression pact He once admitted to Granville Hicks that he had deliberately withheld facts damaging to the U.S.S.R. when writing of the glories of Stalinism. Granville Hicks, Part of the Truth, Harcourt, Brace, N.Y., 1965, p. 187.

As might be expected of an extremely verbal, two-fisted, hard working immigrant group, the Irish have been deeply involved in American unionism, ranging from the most radical labor organizations[19]For the most radical of all, the Molly Maguires, see footnote 1, Chapter 26. to the most conservative. John Mitchell was a founder of the United Mine Workers, and P. J. McGuire helped organize the American Federation of Labor. Other noted Irish-American labor leaders: Joseph Curran of the National Maritime Union, P. H. Morrissey of the Brotherhood of Railway Firemen, Teddy Gleason of the International Longshoremen’s Association, James O’Connell of the International Association of Machinists, Michael Quill of the Transport Workers Union and, neither last nor least, George Meany, who headed the AFL-CIO for a quarter of a century.

Irish brawn helped build industrial America and Irish blood helped defend it There have been great Americans of Irish descent in every era of America history and every sector of American activity. Although the size and extent of the Irish contribution is impossible to determine, historian Samuel Eliot Morison says that it has been less than the German.[20]Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History of the American People, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965, pp. 480-81 . In any case it has been both considerable and significant. Without it present-day America would be markedly different.

While Irish-American political passions have run high, Irish political standards have frequently been low. The scandals of such mayors as Jimmy Walker and William O’Dwyer of New York, James Curley of Boston, and John Houlihan of Oakland, California, attest to the success of the Irish in securing public office and their occasional failure to dignify it. For many years Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and several other large American cities were little more than Irish political fiefs, where the party bosses turned out huge pluralities for the candidates of their choice, regardless of the issues. Recently, however, the Irish have been forced to share their urban bailiwicks with other minorities. In many cities their once undisputed political control has come to an end.

Irish Catholics, as previously noted, left the Democratic party in large numbers in 1952, when they helped swing the election to Dwight Eisenhower. The Democratic allegiance of the party bosses remained unshaken, but the ivory-towered liberalism of presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, veering more and more towards appeasement of the Soviet Union, was too much for many of the faithful, who had achieved a degree of middle-class respectability and affluence in the postwar economic boom. It is this same respectability and affluence, when spread among other Assimilated Minorities, which so often gives birth to Republican voting habits.

As previously pointed out, most Irish closed ranks again in the 1960 presidential election when they had a chance to vote for one of their own, who was a war hero to boot. John F. Kennedy, with the aid of his father’s great wealth and his proliferating relatives, gave a shot in the ballot box to Irish-American politics. The emergence of the Kennedy dynasty, despite the assassination of its two stellar members within a six-year period, did not seem to dampen Irish and non-Irish affection for the lesser dynasts.

The nomination of George McGovern as the 1972 Democratic standard bearer, however, provoked another mass defection to the Republican ticket. More pragmatic than ideological, the typical Irish machine politician wants the people’s votes, not the people’s minds. Although liberalism is the accepted theology of the Democratic party, Irish bosses treated it largely as a vote-getting clevice; it being understood that in the privacy of their homes their own political beliefs are likely to have a markedly anti-liberal tone. When foreign policy is involved, these beliefs are often brought into the open. All in all, Irish Americans have exercised a steadying and conservative influence over American international relations in most of this century, first by helping to preserve American neutrality during the Spanish Civil War,[21]Joseph Kennedy, while ambassador to Britain, took the lead in defending the embargo, which banned the shipment of war materiel to both the Nationalist and Republican forces at a time most American officials were ready to lift it Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, Harper & Row, N.Y., 1961, pp. 536, 614. second by supporting Catholic anti-Communist parties in Western Europe after World War II. Without this support a much larger area of the European continent might have been Sovietized.

At home, fear and hatred of communism inspired some IrishAmerican mavericks to cross party lines and attack Marxism and Marxist apologists with the demagogic innuendo that had hitherto been the monopoly of Communists and vitriolic liberals. Two such individuals were Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest of the New Deal era, and Senator Joseph McCarthy, not to be confused with Eugene McCarthy, the erudite Irish-Scandinavian senator from Minnesota. A loftier intellectual tone was provided by William F. Buckley, Jr. — like President Kennedy the son of an Irish multimillionaire — whose acerbic wit and recondite posing recalled such French conservatives as Leon Daudet and Charles Maurras of the Action Francaise.[22]James Buckley, William’s brother, who served a term as senator from New York, is a prominent member of an Irish conservative clique within the Republican party that seeks to counterbalance the power of the so-called Irish Mafia or Kennedy faction in the Democratic party. True to the equalitarian preachments of their church, Buckley and many other leading Irish-American conservatives have staunchly supported racial integration. In speaking of the Irish component of conservatism, it must not be forgotten that President Nixon, of non-Catholic Irish provenance, “was elected to the presidency in a campaign substantially planned by New York Irish conservatives.”[23]Phillips, op. ciL, pp. 174-75. Nixon’s campaign manager in 1968 was John N. Mitchell, later attorney general, ultimately a chief villain of Watergate. A Presbyterian with an Irish mother, Mitchell had a deputy by the name of Peter Marcus Flanigan. Many former Nixon idea men, notably Patrick Buchanan, are also of Irish descent Nor should it be forgotten that Reagan had an Irish Catholic father and that President Clinton partially qualifies as having links to the Ould Sod on the basis that his mother’s maiden name was Kelley.

Because of their Northern European racial and cultural affinities, because they have become in so many ways so typically and so generically American, it is difficult to claim Irish Americans still belong to a minority. On and below the surface, the American of Irish descent is a made-to-order Majority prototype. He is patriotic. He is willing to live and let live. He is not as obtrusive or acquisitive as members of other population groups. He does not crowd the professions. His net worth is not above average. It is only when matters of faith, pride, machine politics, and Ireland come into play — matters about which the Irish are still quite sensitive — that a diminishing number of Irish Americans defiantly display what might be described as minority colors.

Almost all of the once compelling reasons for Irish-American separateness have now evaporated. Time, distance, and the decline and fall of the British Empire have mellowed the ancient grudge against England. Only Ulster remains a running sore and an all too frequent reminder of the ancient feud. The American Majority, in which the Irish used to find so many distasteful English characteristics and customs, is no longer uniquely Anglo-Saxon and has acquired a more evenly distributed Northern European population base. As for religious differences, much of the hard-line Protestantism of the frontier, resonant with anti-Catholic and anti-papal overtones of the Reformation, is dissolving into a live-and-let-live deism whose main concerns are tolerance and social justice. Liberalizing directives from Rome, questions about papal infallibility, demands to end priesthood celibacy, the increasing number of radical priests, the de-Latinized mass, the bitter controversy over birth control and abortion — all these bits and pieces of the ecumenical movement are undermining the age-old monolithic structure of Catholicism,[24]The link between the Irish people and Roman Catholicism is not congenital or unbreakable. Many of the greatest Irishmen, perhaps the very greatest, were Protestants or non-believers. The list includes Charles Parnell, the dedicated 19thcentury Irish freedom fighter, Douglas Hyde, Ireland’s first president, Swift, Goldsmith, Sheridan, Wilde, Shaw, Yeats, Joyce, Synge, and O’Casey. Paul Carroll, a modern Irish playwright, echoes in his White Steed the feelings of many of his countrymen when his heroine inveighs against the priests and the “litde men” for depriving Irishmen of their primeval pride and virility. and in the process lowering the Church’s prestige in the eyes and ears of those who prefer to take their religion with a large helping of dogma, dramaturgy, and ritual.

Before the Romans came to Britain, the Kelts (early Nordics) of Ireland and Britain were similar in culture, civilization and race. After the departure of the Romans and upon the arrival of the Christian missionaries, Ireland and Britain shared the same religion for more than a thousand years, although for at least half of that time Irish Catholicism was more Keltic than Roman. If the two peoples continue to have difficulties capitalizing on their similarities in the Old World, their descendants in the New have shown that the old hatreds and divisions no longer make much sense. What does it profit an Irish American to tie his well-being to the coattails of irresponsible ethnic dynasts, whose only remaining function is to serve as political stalking-horses for liberalism and minority racism?

It is in the deepest interest of the Irish, who are now bona fide members of the American Majority, to see that the Majority protects and guards its racial and cultural mold. If the mold is broken, Irish Americans stand to lose as much as every other American of Northern European descent.

 

FINNISH AND BALTIC MINORITIES: Some Finns were associated with the original Swedish immigration which took place when Americans were still British colonials. But appreciable numbers did not arrive in the United States until 1864. Many went to Michigan to become miners; others started farms in Minnesota. Russian political repression in the late nineteenth century drove more Finns to America. A Census Bureau study estimates there are 615,872 Americans of Finnish or partly Finnish descent.[25]Unless otherwise noted, all population figures in this chapter are taken from the 1980 Census Bureau study of ancestry groups. See Appendix B.

In spite of their difficult, agglutinative language and their sup posed Eurasian origin, most Finnish Americans are hardly to be distinguished from their Old World neighbors, the Swedes. They are nearly as Nordic and equally as Protestant (Lutheran) . After World War I, Finnish Americans were accorded a sort of honorary membership in the Majority when Finland was saluted as the only European nation to pay its war debt in full. The Protestant Ethic may have died in Boston, but it lived on in Helsinki.

Finland’s popularity in the U.S. gained some additional points when the Finns put up a gallant if somewhat hopeless resistance against the Russian invaders in 1939-40, one of the brutal aftermaths of the Hitler-Stalin pact. However, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 and the Finns became willy-nilly a German ally, American support of Finland quickly dried up. The subsequent surrender to Stalin of strategic Finnish territory at the end of World War II roused little feelings of sympathy among Americans. Today, Finland adheres to a strictly neutral foreign policy in order to avoid giving Russians an excuse to put any more pressure on the country, particularly now that some high-strung Muscovite nationalists are talking about “reincorporating” what was once the czars’ Grand Duchy of Finland into a reborn Russian Empire.

Less rhetorical and more specific are current Russian demands on the three Baltic states, which declared their independence following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Unlike Lithuania, which is Catholic and has cultural ties to Poland, Estonia and Latvia are Protestant and more culturally attuned to Scandinavia. All three Baltic countries, each having a large Russian minority, had a brief spell of independence between World Wars I and II. Whether their new attempt at nationhood succeeds will probably depend less on what the Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians do than on the foreign policy of Moscow, which has already threatened to end oil shipments to the Baltic states if the Russian minorities are targets of discrimination.

The estimated 25,994 Estonians, 92,141 Latvians and 742,776 Lithuanians in the U.S. are cheering for their newly liberated homelands. Not a few have returned to their ancestral countries to lend a hand at bringing them up to Western levels. Since the Baits are Nordic or Alpine or mixtures thereof, they are racially qualified for assimilated status. Blonds and light eyes abound in Estonians, Latvians and their descendants overseas, albeit Lithuanians in the main are somewhat darker. Over the centuries heavy-handed Russian and Soviet imperialism has kindled and rekindled Baltic irredentism. But here in the last decade of this century, it is safe to say that the Baltic immigrants who remained in the U.S., in spite of their relatively late arrival, have passed from the assimilable to the assimilated stage.

 

SLAVIC MINORITIES: The Russians were the only whites to migrate to America by an eastward route, arriving first in Alaska and then proceeding down the Washington, Oregon and California coastline. By the time of Seward’s Folly in 1867, however, the czarist expansion into North America had lost almost all its momentum and was recoiling to Siberia. Large-scale Russian migration, this time by the conventional Atlantic passage, did not begin until the highwater mark of the New Immigration. After World Wars I and II, tens of thousands of Russian anti-Communists sought entry into the United States, many of them unsuccessfully.

Because very many non-Slavic immigrants, especially Jews, listed Russia as their homeland, it is rather difficult to arrive at an accurate figure for Americans of authentic Russian descent. One fairly reliable estimate puts the number at 350,000.[26]The Census Bureau figure of 2,781,432 is considered to be grossly inflated. It must include Jews and non-Russians from many other parts of the former Soviet Union. Most Russian Americans are farmers and industrial workers, though there were a few highly proficient artists and scientists among the escapees from the 1917 revolution.

Ukrainian nationalism, intensified by a thousand years of Russian and other foreign domination, is often as ardent in America as it is — or was — in the Soviet Union before the Communist state foundered, and Ukraine finally obtained its long-sought independence. Even so, what has been said about the Russian minority in America applies generally to the Ukrainian, except that the latter with some 730,056 members is more numerous. Ukrainian Americans exult in their homeland’s newly acquired independence, but their hands and hearts are firmly planted, at least for the time being, on this side of the Atlantic.

The Poles came earlier and took a more active part in American history than other Slavic minorities. Some 10,000 Polish dissenters arrived in the U.S. from colonial times up to the Civil War. Two Polish officers, Thaddeus Kosciusko and Count Casimir Pulaski, fought bravely under Washington. The great Polish migration to America, however, did not take place until the first thirteen years of this century, when 1.5 million Poles passed through Ellis Island. Today the nation has an estimated 5.1 million people of Polish descent, a figure which does not include Polish Jews. This makes the Polish contingent the largest and most influential Slavic minority.

Like Ukrainians, Poles are anti-Russian by habit and instinct, as demonstrated by the Solidarity Movement’s attempt to break away from the Soviet orbit when the other Soviet satellites were still knuckling under in the 1980s. Unlike Ukrainians[27]Western Ukrainians in the U.S.S.R., mostly Uniats (Greek Catholics linked to Rome), were forcibly converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1945-46. and Russians, they are Roman Catholics. As it does in Poland, the Catholic Church in the U.S. strives to keep Polish ethnic feelings alive and officially encourages the preservation of the Polish language, “the tongue of the soul.” Although a small percentage of Polish Americans are farmers, most reside in large cities and are spread rather evenly through industry, commerce, and the professions. Fifty years ago Polish Americans voted the straight Democratic ticket But in recent decades many Poles, some cottoning to the Republicans’ anti-Soviet stance in the Cold War, others by Negro rioting, turned towards the G.O.P., though Gerald Ford’s incredible remark in the 1976 presidential race that Poland was an independent nation did not win him many votes from America’s Eastern European population groups.

Some Czechs, notably members of the Moravian Brotherhood, landed in America in colonial days. But the great rush of Czech and Slovak immigration did not get underway until the early 1900s, when nationalist ferment in the Austro-Hungarian Empire was at its strongest. Now numbering about 1.75 million, the Czech and Slovak minorities, which mix as little in the New World as they did in the now fissioned Czechoslovakia, are heavily concentrated in the big cities of the Midwest On average, Czechs and Slovaks, most of whom are Roman Catholics, have darker complexions than Poles and Russians.

The Southern Slavs consist mainly of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, once but no longer collectively known as Yugoslavs. At present the U.S. is home to some 500,000 Croats, 300,000 Slovenes and 200,000 Serbs, most of whose forebears arrived at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. The Croats and the Slovenes are Roman Catholic. The Serbs are Eastern Orthodox. Most of the breadwinners worked — and many still work — in heavy industry, mines, and quarries.

Some Slavs exhibit Northern European physical traits, particularly those with ancestral origins in northwest Russia and northern Poland. A fair proportion of Russian Americans have the blue eyes, blond hair, and long heads of the Swedish Varangians who founded Russia a millennium ago. But in general Slavic faces are usually broad, Slavic cheekbones high, Slavic heads round, and Slavic noses snub. Though some Mongolian traits, physical and mental, are occasionally present, Slavic population groups in America have met no insurmountable racial or cultural obstacles in the path of their assimilation. Even Polish Americans who a few decades ago had hundreds of literary, dramatic, singing, social, religious, and athletic societies in the U.S, are becoming slowly but thoroughly “Majority-ized.”

 

HUNGARIANS: Americans of Hungarian origin cover a wide racial spectrum. Originating long ago on the Asian steppes, the protoHungarians are now thought to have been members of the white rather than the yellow race. Today, with no further questions about their whiteness, they are designated Alpines. As to the number of Hungarian Americans, the racial potpourri of the old AustroHungarian Empire made it extremely difficult to obtain a reliable count of arrivals from Central Europe. Including the 35,000 who fled across the Atlantic after Hungary’s abortive 1956 uprising, it is estimated there are now 310,000 Americans of Hungarian origin.

French Canadians and the Louisiana French: The French are one of the most difficult of all American minorities to categorize. On the Majority side of the ledger are the Huguenots, Protestants of Calvinist persuasion who began their migration to the U.S. when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Paul Revere and John Jay are the two most celebrated Huguenots of revolutionary times. Although they composed a mere 0.5 percent of the original white colonial stock, there are now perhaps 2 million Americans of Huguenot descent, plus another 1.2 million descendants of Catholic French. The French in America tend to have fairer complexions than the French in France, so it is fitting to give them a small Nordic component. Most French, however should be assigned to the Alpine race with a sprinkling of Mediterranean genes. The most notable of the early 19th-century arrivals was Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, founder of the Du Pont industrial empire.

As for French Canadians, some 1.5 million are now in the U.S., most concentrated in the rural and industrial areas of New England. Not an economically aggressive people, not noted for attempting to dominate the thoughts or politics of others, French Canadians cling tenaciously to their French cultural heritage and their French dialect. Their proximity to their long-established homeland in French Canada acts as a brake on assimilation, but few would dispute their strong political, economic and social links to the U.S. Like the Mexicans, they present Americans with a minority problem on the European model: a frontier population group with emotional and historical links to the far side as well as to the near side of the national border.

In 1886, in Rutland, Vermont, delegates attempted to organize a French-Canadian “nationality” with its own flag and national anthem, which was to serve as an umbrella organization for all French-speaking people, both in Canada and the United States.[28]Wilfred Bovey, Canadien, J.M. Dent, Toronto, 1934, p. 100. The project never materialized, but it is symptomatic of why an American diplomat was quoted as saying that French Canadians are the “most difficult of all immigrant races to assimilate.”[29]Ibid,, p. 187.
(Wilfred Bovey, Canadien, J.M. Dent, Toronto, 1934, p. 100.)
But those words were spoken more than half a century ago. Although perhaps a shade or two darker than the American population norm, all but a diehard handful of French Canadians can be safely assigned to the assimilated category. This is not to say, however, that if racial disorder in the U.S. continues to increase, that considerable numbers will not return to their original jumping off point in Quebec, which by then may have become an independent country.

Of the 800,000 Louisianians of French descent, some 300,000 still speak a French patois inherited from their ancestors, the Acadian exiles from Nova Scotia memorialized by Longfellow.[29]Ibid,, p. 187.
(Wilfred Bovey, Canadien, J.M. Dent, Toronto, 1934, p. 100.)
Some of these “Cajuns” have countenances that exhibit a Mediterranean coloration,[30]Alexis Carrel, the late French biologist and Nobel Laureate, stated that the Mediterranean elements of France’s population are inferior to the Northern elements. He ascribed this to the fact that the acclimatization of whites to heat is accomplished at the expense of the development of the nervous system and the intellect L’homme, cet inconnu, p. 300. but not so dark as to define the owners of these faces as unassimilable. Working small farms and fishing in remote bayous, they led until recently an isolated existence that offered little possibility of assimilation. But the rapid economic changes now taking place in Louisiana are prying them out of their isolation and severely modifying their endogamic marriage habits and provincial customs. Many if not most have already qualified for assimilated status, and the remainder will probably tag along before the century winds down.

It is improper to end a discussion of the Assimilated Minorities without saying that in some ways they are more dynamically American than the Majority taken as a whole. Most Assimilated Minority members still believe in America with an old-fashioned intensity that has all but faded in the hearts of many with deeper roots in the American past. Many Assimilated Minority members, moreover, manage to hold on to this belief, even though as blue- and white-collar workers, they live and work in the tumult of the big cities, where they have learned much faster than rural and suburban Americans what is happening to their country.

Because the Assimilated Minorities have suffered much more from school desegregation, crime and neighborhood deterioration than other Majority elements it is quite possible that the leadership of a Majority resurgence will come from the ranks of the Assimilated Minorities, from the population groups whose lives and livelihoods have been more openly threatened than those of suburban and rural Americans. Face-to-face exposure to problems often creates a greater interest in solutions.

But it is also possible, if the present torpidity of most Majority members continues and the Assimilated Minorities are abandoned and left to their own devices, that in order to survive in the megapolitan jungle they may revive their old ethnic loyalties. Such a reaction could easily tip the scales in determining the irreversibility of the Majority’s dispossession.[31]In the spring of 1972, Michael Novak, in The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics (Macmillan, New York), urged a political alliance of blacks and Assimilable Minorities. He said (p. 20) the latter group comprised 70,000,000 Americans of Irish, Italian, Slavic, Spanish, Greek, and Armenian descent Jerome Rosow, a former assistant secretary of labor, was quoted as the source for this figure. Rosow, however, had merely said that 70,000,000 Americans were members of “lower-middleincome w families. Later, perhaps as a reward for the scholarly feat of changing an income group into an agglomerate of ethnic groups, Professor Novak surfaced as a speech writer for Sargent Shriver in the 1972 presidential campaign. Actually, there are at least 2,000,000 Negroes in the “lower-middle-income n bracket as well as tens of millions of Majority members. See Jerome Rosow, Overcoming Middle Class Rage, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1971, p. 87. After working for the Rockefeller Foundation, Novak became the editor of an ethnic newsletter and a nationally syndicated columnist whose writings and opinions have been exhibiting an increasingly conservative streak.

Footnotes

[1] See Table II, p. 60

[2] A nationwide but indecisive German vote was noted as late as World War II, when some German Americans turned against President Roosevelt because of his interventionist policies. Both German Protestants and German Catholics voted in large numbers for Eisenhower, but many of the latter switched back to the Democratic party when Catholic John Kennedy ran for the presidency. Kevin Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York, 1969, pp. 296, 314, 339.

[3] Reston was born in Scotland. Eaton and Galbraith in Canada. Like Warren, Senator Henry Jackson and 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson had Scandinavian immigrant fathers.

[4] For the distinction between the Catholic Irish and the Protestant Scotch Irish from Ulster, see footnote 9, p. 43.

[5] “The importance of immigrant groups in the history of American politics can hardly be overestimated. In this history the Irish have played the principal role.” One America, Francis J. Brown, ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 61.

[6] E. A. Hooton and C. W. Dupertuis, The Physical Anthropology of Ireland, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. XXX, Nos. 1-2, p. 143.

[7] Coon, The Races of Europe, pp. 37^84.

[8] Wyndham Lewis, describing a mixed Anglo-Irish demonstration in London, wrote, “I was never able to discover which were Irish and which were English…they looked to me exactly the same.” Pale Face, pp. 284-85.

[9] Coon, op. cit., pp. 371, 381, 383. Bushy eyebrows, large heads, prominent chins, long and convex upper lips, and great malar breadth are other fairly common Irish traits.

[10] See Table 2, Appendix B.

[11] William Shannon, The American Irish, Macmillan, N. Y., 1963, pp. 410-1 1.

[12] Ibid.

[13] During the 1960 presidential election Nixon seldom talked about his Irish ancestors, who were not Catholics, while Kennedy with his unmistakable Keltic looks played his ethnic and religious background to the hilt in Northern urban areas. In the 1970 congressional election campaign, however, Nixon, who was planning a second go at the presidency, took a trip to Ireland, where much was made of his Irish forebears.

[14] Carl Wittke, The Irish in America, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1956, p. 233.

[15] Literary Digest, Nov. 5, 1927, p. 5.

[16] New York Times, Jan. 2, 1966, p. 1, and Jan. 4, 1966, pp. 14, 17. The whole atmosphere surrounding the strike talks, according to one Times reporter, was “Down the English Protestant! Up the Irish!”

[17] Elizabeth Flynn once wrote: “The awareness of being Irish came to us as small children, through plaintive song and heroic story … we drew in a burning hatred of British rule with our mother’s milk.” Shannon, The American Irish, pp. 166-67. A more modern Irish-American lady radical and a “philosopher” of the Women’s Liberation Movement is Kate Millett, married to a Japanese. New York Times, Aug. 27, 1970, p. 30.

[18] Sheean jumped off the Soviet express after the signing of the RussianGerman Nonaggression pact He once admitted to Granville Hicks that he had deliberately withheld facts damaging to the U.S.S.R. when writing of the glories of Stalinism. Granville Hicks, Part of the Truth, Harcourt, Brace, N.Y., 1965, p. 187.

[19] For the most radical of all, the Molly Maguires, see footnote 1, Chapter 26.

[20] Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History of the American People, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965, pp. 480-81 .

[21] Joseph Kennedy, while ambassador to Britain, took the lead in defending the embargo, which banned the shipment of war materiel to both the Nationalist and Republican forces at a time most American officials were ready to lift it Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, Harper & Row, N.Y., 1961, pp. 536, 614.

[22] James Buckley, William’s brother, who served a term as senator from New York, is a prominent member of an Irish conservative clique within the Republican party that seeks to counterbalance the power of the so-called Irish Mafia or Kennedy faction in the Democratic party.

[23] Phillips, op. ciL, pp. 174-75. Nixon’s campaign manager in 1968 was John N. Mitchell, later attorney general, ultimately a chief villain of Watergate. A Presbyterian with an Irish mother, Mitchell had a deputy by the name of Peter Marcus Flanigan. Many former Nixon idea men, notably Patrick Buchanan, are also of Irish descent

[24] The link between the Irish people and Roman Catholicism is not congenital or unbreakable. Many of the greatest Irishmen, perhaps the very greatest, were Protestants or non-believers. The list includes Charles Parnell, the dedicated 19thcentury Irish freedom fighter, Douglas Hyde, Ireland’s first president, Swift, Goldsmith, Sheridan, Wilde, Shaw, Yeats, Joyce, Synge, and O’Casey. Paul Carroll, a modern Irish playwright, echoes in his White Steed the feelings of many of his countrymen when his heroine inveighs against the priests and the “litde men” for depriving Irishmen of their primeval pride and virility.

[25] Unless otherwise noted, all population figures in this chapter are taken from the 1980 Census Bureau study of ancestry groups. See Appendix B.

[26] The Census Bureau figure of 2,781,432 is considered to be grossly inflated. It must include Jews and non-Russians from many other parts of the former Soviet Union.

[27] Western Ukrainians in the U.S.S.R., mostly Uniats (Greek Catholics linked to Rome), were forcibly converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1945-46.

[28] Wilfred Bovey, Canadien, J.M. Dent, Toronto, 1934, p. 100.

[29] Ibid,, p. 187.

[29] Governor Edwin Edwards of Louisiana claims his mother had Cajun genes.

[30] Alexis Carrel, the late French biologist and Nobel Laureate, stated that the Mediterranean elements of France’s population are inferior to the Northern elements. He ascribed this to the fact that the acclimatization of whites to heat is accomplished at the expense of the development of the nervous system and the intellect L’homme, cet inconnu, p. 300.

[31] In the spring of 1972, Michael Novak, in The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics (Macmillan, New York), urged a political alliance of blacks and Assimilable Minorities. He said (p. 20) the latter group comprised 70,000,000 Americans of Irish, Italian, Slavic, Spanish, Greek, and Armenian descent Jerome Rosow, a former assistant secretary of labor, was quoted as the source for this figure. Rosow, however, had merely said that 70,000,000 Americans were members of “lower-middleincome w families. Later, perhaps as a reward for the scholarly feat of changing an income group into an agglomerate of ethnic groups, Professor Novak surfaced as a speech writer for Sargent Shriver in the 1972 presidential campaign. Actually, there are at least 2,000,000 Negroes in the “lower-middle-income n bracket as well as tens of millions of Majority members. See Jerome Rosow, Overcoming Middle Class Rage, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1971, p. 87. After working for the Rockefeller Foundation, Novak became the editor of an ethnic newsletter and a nationally syndicated columnist whose writings and opinions have been exhibiting an increasingly conservative streak.

Chapter 14 • Unassimilable White Minorities • 2,900 Words

In contrast to the Assimilated Minorities, whose racial and cultural differences were not great enough to preclude assimilation, the Unassimilable Minorities are permanently excluded from Majority status. The color line, in the case of nonwhites, is in itself an insurmountable obstacle. With respect to the Unassimilable White Minorities, the causes that prevent assimilation may be either cultural or biological, or both.

This does not mean that the Unassimilable Minorities are bound together by similar racial or cultural backgrounds or by a common economic or social status. On the contrary, some Unassimilable Minorities, white and nonwhite, are likely to differ more from one another than they differ from some Assimilated Minorities. Among the Unassimilable Minorities are found the most affluent and the most impoverished American population groups, the most verbal and the most taciturn, the most religious and the most irreligious. In fact, the divisions that bedevil the Unassimilable Minorities are great enough to give rise to internecine racial confrontations. One such case was the 1992 Crown Heights murder of an Hasidicjew by a black mob in retaliation for a rabbi losing control of his car and running down and killing a young Negro. Earlier causes of the racial rift were New York City’s 1968 teachers’ strike, largely supported by blacks, for more pay, and the dismissal of Andrew Young, ambassador to the United Nations, for talking to a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Despite their marked divergences, however, the Unassimilable Minorities have pieced together a political, economic, and cultural alliance which, with the active assistance of Majority Splitters of the Ranks, has steered the march of American events for the greater part of the century. In addition to combining their votes for carefully selected political candidates, the more dynamic of these minorities have overcome their polar differences to forge the ideological front that is overthrowing one by one the most sacrosanct American institutions.

What then is the unifying force strong enough to prevail against all this diversity, the centripetal force mighty enough to turn off the racial centrifuge in which these minorities should logically be spinning apart? To paraphrase Nietzsche, it probably has to do with both the will to power and the will to powerlessness — the desire for power by those Unassimilable Minorities who have little, the desire for more power by those who have much, and the desire to give away power by deracinated Majority members. Feeding these desires are such old psychological imponderables and intangibles as envy, insecurity, fear, hate, and even self-hate. These desires have also received considerable economic nourishment. In recent years in the ghettos of the big cities, although one minority has been looting, robbing, and burning the assets of another, the latter continues to put a significant amount of its brainpower and money at the disposal of the former.

The only safe assumption to make about the force that unifies and galvanizes the Unassimilable Minorities is that it is most apparent and most forceful when directed against the Majority. Accordingly, it may be said that the chief source of minority unity and coordination is that great, sick, floundering demographic whale, which can be attacked, slashed, bitten, and nipped at with impunity. Above all else, it is opposition to the Majority which has built the effective but uneasy alliance between the Unassimilable Minorities and Majority Gracchites, Trucklers, Pussyfooters, Old Believers, and Proditors — an alliance that still enjoys the partial but not always enthusiastic support of considerable segments of the Assimilable Minorities.[1]This alliance, in its purely minority aspects, has been defined by a prominent political analyst as consisting of “large, cohesive ethnic communities still halfrooted in Cork, Calabria and Cracow.” Kevin Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 438. Phillips was exaggerating a bit in regard to Cork and was close to correct in regard to Calabria, the home base of Southern Italians, but was wrong if he was referring to Poles when he mentioned Cracow, right if referring to Jews.

Before presenting the Unassimilable Minority order of battle, it might be wise to caution that there are always countless exceptions to all generalizations about masses of anything, particularly masses of human beings. Obviously, there are unassimilable members of every Assimilated Minority and assimilable members of every Unassimilable White Minority. But in what follows the emphasis is on frequencies not individuals, on statistical averages not one-point curves.

 

SOUTHERN ITALIANS: By and large, Italy is a biracial nation. Alpines predominate in the north and center, while Mediterraneans are concentrated in the lower boot (Campania and Calabria) and Sicily. It was these regions which gave birth to 80 percent of the Italian immigration.[2]L. F. Pisani, The Italian in America, Exposition Press, New \brk, 1957, p. 143. There being an estimated 8,764,000 Italian Americans,[3]Bureau of the Census report, 1973. Also see Tables A and B, Appendix A. Some wild, politically inspired estimates go as high as 21 million. simple mathematics and the rules for assimilation defined previously in this study would indicate that at least half are too dark to qualify for assimilation.

Of all the New Immigrants, Italians were the most numerous. Although most were peasants in the old country, when they arrived in America they clustered in urban “Little Italies,” where Italian speech, Italian cooking, Italian song, Italian custom, and Italian exuberance still project an Italian flavor strongly resistant to being dissolved in any melting pot. The Catholic Church does its part in preserving this flavor, but Southern Italians are not Catholic in the Irish-American or French-Canadian sense. One author explains, Terhaps the average Italian [is] too close to Rome … to be awed by it.”[4]Pisani, op. cit., p. 54. Many Italian Americans look askance at the Church because of its long association with Italy’s rich, landed interests.

New York City has 1.3 million Italian Americans,[5]New York Times Magazine, Aug. 10, 1969, p. 56. many of them in the needle trades. It is the third largest Italian city on earth, surpassed only by Rome and Milan. Unlike Southern Italians, most of whom preferred to remain in the urban east, the more adventurous types from Northern and Central Italy went west, quite a few to California, where they became farmers and vintners, and where one of them, A. P. Giannini of Genoese descent, founded what was once the world’s largest and most dynamited bank.[6]Other rich Italian Americans, in addition to the late Giannini, mosdy belong to the assimilated category: the DiGiorgio family (California fruit dynasty) , Angelo Petri and the Gallo family (wine), John Cuneo (owner of one of the world’s largest printing firms), Pio Crespi (Texas cotton king), Antonio Giaccione (paper), Louis Pagnotti (coal), Joseph Martino (lead), Salvatore Giordano (air conditioning), Vincent Riggio (former president of the American Tobacco Co.), Lee Iacocca (Chrysler Corp.), the Pope family (newspapers), Bernard Castro (furniture), Jeno Paolucci (food processor). See Michael Musmanno, The Story of the Italians in America, Doubleday, New York, 1965, pp. 247-49. Their dispersal around the country, their industriousness, and their Alpine instead of Mediterranean racial traits have made most Northern and Central Italians easy candidates for assimilation.

The Southern Italian minority contains within its ranks a criminal organization, in which ethnicity is the prime requirement for membership.[7]The record of the Mafia or Cosa Nostra will be reviewed in Chapter 30. The run-of-the-mill Italian American, however, has no connection with the 5,000 Southern Italians, mostly Sicilians, who dominate organized crime. To get this message across to the public, Italian lobbyists have tried, not always successfully, to persuade television and film producers to “lighten up” their gangster characters and give them non-Italian names.[8]Italian ethnic sensitivities have also been aroused by the discovery of a “Viking” map which showed “Vinland” as a part of North America. Professional Italian Americans described the map as a fraud and a slur on the good name of Columbus. Ency. Brit. Book of the Year, 1967, p. 102. The map may or may not be bogus, but Vikings did land in the New World long before Columbus’s three vessels dropped anchor off San Salvador. In the process, Sacco and Vanzetti, the radical villains of the 1920s, have been partially rehabilitated.

Historically, Italian Americans have voted the straight Democratic ticket,[9]Notable Italian-American politicians, in or out of office, include Governor Mario Cuomo of New \brk, Senator Peter Domenici of New Mexico, John Volpe, former secretary of transportation, Anthony Celebrezze, ex-secretary of HEW, Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, Congressman George Miller of California, Mayors Hugh Addonizio of Newark and Joseph Alioto of San Francisco. Frank Carlucci was secretary of defense in the closing days of the Reagan presidency. Italian Americans in the arts and show business include: composer Gian Carlo Menotti, poet John Ciardi, film directors Frank Capra and Francis F. Coppola, popular singers Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett although when a crypto-Communist like Vito Marcantonio or a crypto-Republican like Fiorello La Guardia appeared on the ballot, racial loyalties took precedence over politics.[10]Vito Marcantonio was sent to Congress by the American Labor party and his voting record revealed the often close alliance between communism and the racial antipathies of Unassimilable Minorities. He provided the sole opposition when the House of Representatives voted 350 to 1 for the 1941 War Department Appropriations Act to build up American defenses in a world heading for total war. Lately, reacting to the radicalization of other, more power-hungry Unassimilable Minorities, Italian Americans have been leaving the Democratic party in ever greater numbers. In 1970, the Italian vote helped bring about the surprising upset that made James Buckley, the Conservative party’s nominee, the junior senator from New York. An equally surprising victory was the election of Republican Alphonse D’Amato in 1980 to the senate seat long held by Jacob Javits, a Jewish fixture in state politics. Former Governor Mario Cuomo of New York has often been considered presidential timber. Democrat Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman vice-presidential nominee of a major party.

In general, Italian Americans exert relatively little political and social influence, except in a few big cities and in areas where the Mafia is concentrated. They are content to live in a kind of selfimposed ethnic quarantine and have no great desire to impose their way of life on others. The women have more children than most other white minority mothers, assimilated or unassimilated. Like other Southern Europeans, they display a warm attachment to family and to the Roman Catholic Church.

Carleton Coon proposed that Southern Italians in the United States are composed of two readily identifiable subraces: “coarse” Mediterranean and Armenoid.[11]Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 558. The average Majority member, unaware of these racial subtleties, only knows that Southern Italian pigmentation is darker than his own, that most Americans from Southern Italy and Sicily are “foreign-looking,” and therefore predestined to an enduring racial and cultural separateness.[12]Judge Michael Musmanno writes touchingly — and accurately — of the predicament faced by almost all Southern Italians in regard to assimilation. As a boy, he proposed marriage to a young girl recendy arrived from England. He was only twelve at the time, but she did not turn him down on account of his age. She said she could never marry a “foreigner.” Musmanno had been born in America. The English girl had only been in the U.S. seven months. Musmanno, op. cit, p. 7.

White Spanish-speaking Minorities: The Spanish arrived in Florida, Louisiana, the Southwest, and California long before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts. But Spanish colonization was so thin that probably not more than a 100,000 Old World Spaniards or Mexicans of preponderantly Spanish origin ever settled permanently within the limits of the present-day United States. Time and interbreeding have assimilated their descendants, except for those who, like the Hispanos of New Mexico, married local Indians. Most of them too dark to fit the Majority or Assimilated Minority mold, the 100,000 to 125,000 Spaniards who came over in the New Immigration have remained largely unassimilated.

The Cuban minority in the United States has multiplied exponentially since the establishment of the Western Hemisphere’s first — and perhaps last — Communist state by Fidel Castro in 1959. Although the Pearl of the Antilles has a sizable Negro population, the first wave of refugees from Castro’s totalitarian island was largely white (Mediterranean) and belonged to the more affluent segments of Cuban society. Later waves of Cuban immigrants were noticeably darker and contained a large criminal and homosexual component. Today there are an estimated 800,000 Cubans in the United States, most of them concentrated in South Florida, which they are turning into a little Latin America. About one-third of them are Negroes or mulattoes.

Another minority with roots in Spain, but one that boasts a more ancient language than Spanish, is composed of 10,000 Basques, who are concentrated largely in Nevada, where they have become the American sheepherding caste. In 1966 they helped elect a fellow Basque, Paul Laxalt, governor. Laxalt later went to the Senate and, despite charges of links to organized crime, played an important part in the 1980 and 1984 election victories of President Reagan. Basques are on the borderline between Dark White and White. Although there are always exceptions like Paul Laxalt, they have been designated unassimilated if only because they were never successfully assimilated by the Spanish. It is doubtful if America will have better luck.

Miscellaneous Mediterranean and Balkan Minorities: The estimated 435,000 Americans of Portuguese background — most of them fishermen, farmers, cattle ranchers, and textile workers — are typically Mediterranean in appearance and consequently too far on the brunet side of the Pigmentation Spectrum for assimilation.[13]The blond or red-haired Azoreans of Gloucester, Mass., are an exception to this rule. They are descended from Flemish colonists who settled in the Portuguese-owned Azores many centuries ago. Mediterranean racial influence is also evident among the 70,000 Albanians,[14]There were once 100,000 Albanians in the United States, but about onethird of them returned home. 90,000 Romanians, 70,000 Bulgars, nearly 100,000 Turks, and 1.4 million Greeks,[15]Spiro Agnew is half Greek, his mother having been a Virginian. Had he been a dark, small Mediterranean like Aristotle Onassis, he might have wed Jacqueline Kennedy, but he never would have been the 39th vice-president of the United States. Agnew’s minority side came out in his warm friendship with Frank Sinatra and his association with the minority influence peddlers who turned against him and destroyed him politically. Peter Peterson, former secretary of commerce is also a Greek American, as is Michael Thevis, the pornography magnate who has a $1,200,000 spread in Atlanta and has spent some time in jail. Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, a Greek American married to a Jewish American, was the Democratic party’s candidate for president in 1988. the last-named being particularly active in the tobacco, candy, sponge, and shipping industries. Olive skin, black hair, and dark brown eyes offer little chance of assimilation to the 1.5 million Arabs, 75,000 Iranians, 2,500 Afghans, and undetermined numbers of other Middle Eastern and North African population groups.[16]Danny Thomas, the television showman, Ralph Nader, the consumerist gadfly of the large corporations, and Judge Robert Merhige, who issued the order integrating urban and suburban schools in Richmond, Virginia, are among the more prominent Lebanese Americans. Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated Robert Kennedy, is the most publicized Palestinian American. The 400,000 Armenian Americans, who have their own Armenian Apostolic Church, derive from one of the world’s oldest peoples. For cultural as well as racial and pigmentation reasons less than half can be considered assimilable.[17]Charles Garry, the Armenian-descended lawyer of the Black Panthers and Rev. Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple, said he never forgot he was called a “goddamned Armenian” in school. Time, Jan. 12, 1970, p. 30. Richest Armenian American is probably Kirk Kerkorian, a movie magnate, who admitted paying $21,300 to the Cosa Nostra. New York Times, Jan. 17, 1970, p. 1. George Deukmejian, former governor of California, was probably the most powerful Armenian politician of his time. The number of Armenians entering the United States is increasing because the citizens of the newly independent state of Armenia are being granted more exit visas, and America is accepting many of them as refugees.

While Assimilable Minorities generally have culture working against them but race working for them in the assimilation process, the Mediterranean minorities have both culture and race working against them. In Europe, Latin populations usually solved their differences with their Northern conquerors by intermarriage, by swallowing them up genetically. In the United States, where Northern Europeans greatly outnumber Mediterraneans, this process is not so easy. Neither is its opposite: the absorption of Mediterraneans by Northern Europeans. The color sensitivity of the latter, sharpened by the presence of Negroes, Indians, Mexicans, and other nonwhites, is much greater than that of Northern Europeans in Europe and more like that of Northern Europeans in South Africa.

It would take only a few generations of intermarriage with Majority members for most Mediterraneans to obtain the proper physical credentials for assimilation. But Southern Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks, and other dark-skinned whites are shut off from the American genetic drift by their own choosing as well as by Majority taboos. Under such conditions, it will be quite some time before any appreciable number of Majority members — the Nordics among them being “bleached-out” Mediterraneans according to Carleton Coon[18]“The Nordic race in the strict sense is merely a pigment phase of the Mediterranean.” The Races of Europe, p. 83. — recombine with the smaller, darker, but otherwise somewhat similar race from which their ancestors supposedly split off a hundred centuries ago.

Footnotes

[1] This alliance, in its purely minority aspects, has been defined by a prominent political analyst as consisting of “large, cohesive ethnic communities still halfrooted in Cork, Calabria and Cracow.” Kevin Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 438. Phillips was exaggerating a bit in regard to Cork and was close to correct in regard to Calabria, the home base of Southern Italians, but was wrong if he was referring to Poles when he mentioned Cracow, right if referring to Jews.

[2] L. F. Pisani, The Italian in America, Exposition Press, New \brk, 1957, p. 143.

[3] Bureau of the Census report, 1973. Also see Tables A and B, Appendix A. Some wild, politically inspired estimates go as high as 21 million.

[4] Pisani, op. cit., p. 54.

[5] New York Times Magazine, Aug. 10, 1969, p. 56.

[6] Other rich Italian Americans, in addition to the late Giannini, mosdy belong to the assimilated category: the DiGiorgio family (California fruit dynasty) , Angelo Petri and the Gallo family (wine), John Cuneo (owner of one of the world’s largest printing firms), Pio Crespi (Texas cotton king), Antonio Giaccione (paper), Louis Pagnotti (coal), Joseph Martino (lead), Salvatore Giordano (air conditioning), Vincent Riggio (former president of the American Tobacco Co.), Lee Iacocca (Chrysler Corp.), the Pope family (newspapers), Bernard Castro (furniture), Jeno Paolucci (food processor). See Michael Musmanno, The Story of the Italians in America, Doubleday, New York, 1965, pp. 247-49.

[7] The record of the Mafia or Cosa Nostra will be reviewed in Chapter 30.

[8] Italian ethnic sensitivities have also been aroused by the discovery of a “Viking” map which showed “Vinland” as a part of North America. Professional Italian Americans described the map as a fraud and a slur on the good name of Columbus. Ency. Brit. Book of the Year, 1967, p. 102. The map may or may not be bogus, but Vikings did land in the New World long before Columbus’s three vessels dropped anchor off San Salvador.

[9] Notable Italian-American politicians, in or out of office, include Governor Mario Cuomo of New \brk, Senator Peter Domenici of New Mexico, John Volpe, former secretary of transportation, Anthony Celebrezze, ex-secretary of HEW, Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, Congressman George Miller of California, Mayors Hugh Addonizio of Newark and Joseph Alioto of San Francisco. Frank Carlucci was secretary of defense in the closing days of the Reagan presidency. Italian Americans in the arts and show business include: composer Gian Carlo Menotti, poet John Ciardi, film directors Frank Capra and Francis F. Coppola, popular singers Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett

[10] Vito Marcantonio was sent to Congress by the American Labor party and his voting record revealed the often close alliance between communism and the racial antipathies of Unassimilable Minorities. He provided the sole opposition when the House of Representatives voted 350 to 1 for the 1941 War Department Appropriations Act to build up American defenses in a world heading for total war.

[11] Coon, The Races of Europe, p. 558.

[12] Judge Michael Musmanno writes touchingly — and accurately — of the predicament faced by almost all Southern Italians in regard to assimilation. As a boy, he proposed marriage to a young girl recendy arrived from England. He was only twelve at the time, but she did not turn him down on account of his age. She said she could never marry a “foreigner.” Musmanno had been born in America. The English girl had only been in the U.S. seven months. Musmanno, op. cit, p. 7.

[13] The blond or red-haired Azoreans of Gloucester, Mass., are an exception to this rule. They are descended from Flemish colonists who settled in the Portuguese-owned Azores many centuries ago.

[14] There were once 100,000 Albanians in the United States, but about onethird of them returned home.

[15] Spiro Agnew is half Greek, his mother having been a Virginian. Had he been a dark, small Mediterranean like Aristotle Onassis, he might have wed Jacqueline Kennedy, but he never would have been the 39th vice-president of the United States. Agnew’s minority side came out in his warm friendship with Frank Sinatra and his association with the minority influence peddlers who turned against him and destroyed him politically. Peter Peterson, former secretary of commerce is also a Greek American, as is Michael Thevis, the pornography magnate who has a $1,200,000 spread in Atlanta and has spent some time in jail. Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, a Greek American married to a Jewish American, was the Democratic party’s candidate for president in 1988.

[16] Danny Thomas, the television showman, Ralph Nader, the consumerist gadfly of the large corporations, and Judge Robert Merhige, who issued the order integrating urban and suburban schools in Richmond, Virginia, are among the more prominent Lebanese Americans. Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated Robert Kennedy, is the most publicized Palestinian American.

[17] Charles Garry, the Armenian-descended lawyer of the Black Panthers and Rev. Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple, said he never forgot he was called a “goddamned Armenian” in school. Time, Jan. 12, 1970, p. 30. Richest Armenian American is probably Kirk Kerkorian, a movie magnate, who admitted paying $21,300 to the Cosa Nostra. New York Times, Jan. 17, 1970, p. 1. George Deukmejian, former governor of California, was probably the most powerful Armenian politician of his time. The number of Armenians entering the United States is increasing because the citizens of the newly independent state of Armenia are being granted more exit visas, and America is accepting many of them as refugees.

[18] “The Nordic race in the strict sense is merely a pigment phase of the Mediterranean.” The Races of Europe, p. 83.

Chapter 15 • The Jews • 19,000 Words

By rights the Jewish minority should have been included in the previous chapter. It is white and unassimilable. But it is also the most influential, most organized, and most dynamic minority. As such, it deserves a chapter of its own.

Everywhere in the public eye, solidly ensconced at the apex of the American pyramid, Jews represent an astonishingly minute 2.34 percent of the total population— 5,828,000 out of 248,709,87s.[1]U.S. population from 1990 Census. Jewish population from 1992 American Jewish Yearbook. Like all statistics compiled by private groups whose methods of tabulation are not open to public scrutiny, these numbers must be accepted with some reservations, all the more so because organized Jewry has successfully opposed Census Bureau efforts to count Jews. New York Times, Dec. 13, 1957, p. 30. These figures point up a rather extraordinary disproportion between the size of American Jewry and its influence, a disparity not new to history, not restricted to the United States, and not well understood by nonjews. Indeed many Americans, awed by the ubiquity of the Jewish presence, are convinced that Jews are considerably more numerous than they really are. A B’nai B’rith survey of 2,000 high-school students in twenty-one cities, excluding New York, revealed that 82 percent overestimated the Jewish population — some students by as much as 70 million![2]New York Post, March 20, 1962, p. 12. To account for this widespread popular delusion and for many other strange sociological phenomena associated with Jews, it is both helpful and necessary to make a brief excursion into Jewish history.

Jews were a tribe of Semitic shepherds who coalesced into something like a nation in the second millennium B.C. Once they had setded in Canaan, many went as desert raiders, settlers, captives, or refugees to Egypt. There, as written in Exodus 1:7, “the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.” It was in Egypt that Jews acquired Moses, who gave them their law and instructed them in monotheism. By no means a Jewish or a Mosaic invention, the belief in one god had been briefly forced on Egypt as early as the fourteenth century B.C. by Pharaoh Ikhnaton.

It is barely possible that Moses (an Egyptian name) was one of Ikhnaton’s high priests and a member of the royal family. After the pharaoh’s death and the reestablishment of polytheism, Moses may have become a prophet without honor among his own countrymen. In the search for a new following, he may have preached Ikhnaton’s “lost cause” to the Jews, whose status as bond servants could have made them quite susceptible to a new and revolutionary form of spiritual solace. This theory, proposed by the celebrated modern Jew, Sigmund Freud, is supported by Moses’s mysterious birth, his royal upbringing, and his use of Aaron as an interpreter.[3]Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, trans. Katherine Jones, Hogarth Press, London, 1951. Concerning his Egyptification of Moses, Freud wrote (p. 11), ‘To deny a people the man whom it praises as the greatest of its sons is not a deed to be undertaken light-heartedly — especially by one belonging to that people.” Freud did not dwell on Moses’s murder of an Egyptian, his marriage to a Midianite woman, and his gory instructions to his Jewish followers on what to do with the Midianites (Numbers: 31,17-18): “Now therefore kill every male among the litde ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

It was during their sojourn in Egypt, we are told, that Jews survived the first of their countless persecutions, though in this case the Egyptians were paid back in kind. Before the Exodus began, Jehovah did away with the firstborn of every Egyptian family. Today, more than three millennia after the first Passover,[4]Jehovah spared the Jews by “passing over” their houses, which they had marked with lamb’s blood. As for the Egyptians, “there was not a house where there was not one dead.” Passover is celebrated each year as a high Jewish holy day, though it is difficult to find much religious content in an act of mass filicide. Exodus 12:35 also tells how the Jews, before leaving, “borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment.” Jews in their reincarnation as Israelis have again been chastising the Egyptians (in the 1967 and 1973 wars) — this time not with lice, boils, swarms of locusts, and other assorted plagues and afflictions, but with American Phantom jets.

Some centuries after they had reached and organized the Promised Land, Jews decided they were the Chosen People and history’s most enduring ethnocentrism was in full flower. Although the Bible is filled with stirring battles, priestly fortitude, Solomonic glory, and Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, the Jewish imprint on the world’s conscience and consciousness did not develop overnight Herodotus, the Greek historian, who made an extended tour of the Middle East in the fifth century B.C. and described in detail almost all the nations and peoples in the area, made no mention of the Jews, whom he either could not locate or thought too insignificant to write about

The Jewish state was overrun by the Persians under Cyrus in the sixth century B.C. and by Greeks and Macedonians under Alexander the Great two centuries later. Alexander’s successor generals and their dynastic heirs maintained their occupation of Jewish territory, in spite of sporadic Jewish revolts, until the Romans arrived under Pompey. Fierce rebellions against Roman rule flared up from time to time, culminating in the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70, and the dispersal and expulsion by Hadrian sixty-five years later[5]It was the Jews’ intransigence towards Rome, and their rejection of the Pax Romana that led Gibbon to blame them for “their irreconcilable hatred of mankind” and to call them a “race of fanatics.” Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1878, Vol. 2, p. 4. of those Jews who had not already fled.

By the first century B.C. Jews had given up Hebrew and were speaking Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The earliest extant version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, is not in Hebrew, Aramaic or any Semitic tongue, but in Greek. Its translation was accomplished in Alexandria during the rule of the Ptolemies, traditionally by seventy rabbis, who were isolated in separate huts, but nonetheless came up with seventy identical versions, exactly alike even in punctuation. The religious writings of the Jews were their only lasting contribution to ancient civilization, unless one insists on adding the chauvinistic philosophy of Philo and the allegorical histories of Josephus.[6]Philo tried unsuccessfully to prove that Greek philosophers had plagiarized Jewish prophets. Although Josephus sided with Titus against his compatriots, he later tried to make up for his betrayal by writing phiknSemitic histories. Almost no Jewish painting or sculpture, against which there were Biblical injunctions, and only the barest traces of Jewish music, architecture, and science have survived from classical times.[7]In the Ency. Brit. (1 4th edition) there are separate articles on Greek Architecture, Art, Literature and Music. There are also separate articles on Roman Architecture, Roman Art and Latin Literature. The artistic activities of the Jews have been limited to one article, Hebrew Literature.

In the matter of the Old Testament, the first five books, the Pentateuch, are a collection of stories and legends, many of them long established in Middle Eastern folklore. The Mosaic Law, the flood, the woman-from-the-rib, the Garden of Eden, the story of David, all derive from specifically nonjewish sources.[8]P. E. Cleator, Lost Languages, Mentor Books, New York, 1962, pp. 109, 112. The remaining thirtyfour books consist of genealogies and laws, racial history, the fulminations and transcendental wisdom of the prophets, miraculous occurrences, gross libels, and soulful poetry. When its leading character, Jehovah, is putting all his enemies to the sword, the Old Testament is literature and religion at their crudest. At other times, notably in Isaiah, Ecclesiastes, Job, and the Psalms, it resonates with the highest expressions of human genius. The Old Testament has a special appeal to the English-speaking world due to the resplendent and evocative language of the King James version.

The oldest books of the Old Testament go back no further than the ninth century B.C. and some were written less than 200 years before the birth of Christ — well after Greek literary influence had become predominant in the Eastern Mediterranean.[9]“[L]ittle in the Old Testament is more than a century or two earlier than the Homeric poems….Herodotus was contemporary with Malachi and Obadiah….Theocritus was singing in Sicily while the Song of Songs was being compiled in Palestine.” T. Eric Peet, A Comparative Study of the Literature of Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, 1931 , pp. 1-2. Peet states that when the first fragments of the Old Testament took their present form about 850 B.C., “the literatures of Egypt and Babylonia were…already hundreds, one might almost say thousands, of years old.” Ecclesiastes was the object of much rabbinical animosity because of its Greek style and thought.

In classical times, as today, anti-Semitism stalked Semitism relentlessly. Long before the beginning of their official diaspora, the Jews had migrated throughout the Mediterranean and the Near East. Wherever they went, as the Book of Esther makes clear, the anti-Semite was soon a familiar figure. The first historically documented pogroms and antijewish bagarres took place in Alexandria, the capital of Ptolemaic Egypt, where there were many more Jews than in Jerusalem.[10]Anti-Semitic tracts abounded in Greek and Roman times and one work (no longer extant) by the Greek, Apion, was so well known and influential that Josephus devoted a whole book to its rebuttal. In A.D. 19, perhaps because of their abiding unfriendliness towards all things Roman, Tiberius expelled them from his capital.[11]“[T]hey alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies.” Diodorus of Sicily, trans. F. R. Walton, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1967, Vol. XII, p. 53. But the ban was only temporary. Less than a century later, Trajan was said to be surrounded by “unholy Jews.”[12]Oxyrhynchus Papyri, X, 1242, 42. In the second century A.D., Jews carried their traditional antiHellenism to the point of genocide. “In Cyrene,” wrote Gibbon, “they massacred 220,000 Greeks; in Cyprus 240,000; in Egypt a very great multitude. “[13]Gibbon, op. cit, Vol. 2, p. 4, including footnotes.

A chief source of anti-Semitism in the classical world was the high degree of Jewish participation in the field of banking and moneylending. In Egypt, in the words of E. M. Forster, They speculated in theology and grain….”[14]E. M. Forster, Pharos and Pharillon, Knopf, New York, 1961, p. 17. H Describing the economic conditions of Italy in the time of Julius Caesar, Theodor Mommsen, a specialist in this period of Roman history, wrote, “Alongside the estate husbandry unnaturally prospering over the ruin of the small farmers, private banking also assumed enormous proportions as the Italian merchants vying with the Jews spread over all the provinces and protectorates of the empire.”[15]Theodor Mommsen, The History of Rome, edited by Saunders and Collins, Meridian, New York, 1961, p. 539.

But it was the Jews’ religious practices and endemic clannishness, rather than their financial acumen, which brought forth acidic comments from such “Old Romans” as Cicero, Juvenal, Tacitus, and Seneca.[16]Seneca’s feelings about the great influence of Judaism on his fellow Romans were vented in his epigram, Victi victoribus leges dederunt Seneca, Opera, Teubner, Leipzig, 1878, Vol. HI, p. 427. The same criticism was leveled against Jews much later in the nascent Arabic civilization, where Mohammed borrowed so much from their religion, but harried them so mercilessly. In the larger suqs and trading centers of Arabia, however, where *Jews controlled many of the local banks,”[17]R. V. C. Bodley, The Messenger, Doubleday, New York, 1946, p. 166. the financial grounds for anti-Semitism probably outweighed all others.

The advent of Christianity was a mixed blessing for Jews. It gave them a special importance as the “People of the Book” as the physical and spiritual forefathers of Jesus. But it also made them accessories to the crucifixion. It was Caiaphas, the chief priests and the elders who stirred up the multitude to press for Christ’s death and the release of Barabbas. Today, Jewish participation in the execution of Jesus has been de-emphasized to the point where a papal encyclical has absolved the Jews from deicide. But the most solemn absolutions of the most solemn Holy Fathers are not likely to have much effect as long as Matthew (27: 24r25) quotes Pilate as declaring, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person,” and Jews as replying, “his blood be on us, and on our children.”

There was a possibility at the very beginning that Christianity and Judaism might merge, but the moment the early Jewish Christians admitted Gentiles to Christian services Jewish ethnocentrism forced a permanent cleavage of the two religions. At the time of Christ, Jews were longing for a Messiah to punish their enemies, not for a tolerant Son of Man to forgive everyone his sins and welcome everyone, Jew and nonjew alike, into a universal church. Within a century, the gulf between the two faiths was so wide that a few anti-Semitic allusions were incorporated into the Gospels. Even Jesus himself is made to say of Nathanael (John 1:47), “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”

All in all, Christianity provided nonjews with new reasons for respecting Jews and new reasons for persecuting them. Perhaps in the final balance, Jews gained more than they lost. Christianity was their passport to Western civilization, in which they periodically plummeted to the lowest depths of degradation and ascended to empyrean heights of preeminence. Moreover it was by appealing to the social and moral teachings of Jesus, principally to the democratic and liberal offshoots of the shattering message in the Sermon on the Mount, that Jews managed to break out of their European ghettos in the years between the French and the Russian revolutions.

Jews survived the fall of Rome as adeptly as they survived the fall of Jerusalem. In the Dark Ages they were alternately tolerated and persecuted by the invading Teutons. In Spain they obtained the highest public offices in the Moorish kingdom of Granada in the eleventh century, and dominated commerce and owned one-third of the real estate in Christian Barcelona in the twelfth century.[18]Durant, The Age of Faith, pp. 371-73. In England, Aaron of Lincoln, a medieval precursor of the Rothschilds, amassed enough wealth to finance the construction of nine Cistercian monasteries and the Abbey of St. Albans.[19]Ibid., pp. 377-78.
(Durant, The Age of Faith, pp. 371-73.)
But Jewish fortunes declined when Europe was seized by the fervor — often more Gothic than Christian — that built the great cathedrals and triggered the Crusades. From the German Rhineland, where overzealous Crusaders organized a series of pogroms, a violent antiJewish reaction spread irresistibly over medieval and renaissance Europe.[20]Generally in the Middle Ages, Jews supported monarchies because it was easier to deal with one king than scores of nobles. They were also partial to the papacy, which alternately protected and humiliated them. In 1215, Innocent III ordered all Jews, men and women, to wear a yellow badge. Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, p. 459. The tension between Jews and the English aristocracy was revealed by the Magna Carta, which contained specific restrictions concerning the payment of debts and interest to Jews. England expelled its Jews in 1290, France in 1306, Austria in 1420, Spain in 1492, Florence in 1495, Portugal in 1496-97, Naples in 1541, and Milan in 1597.[21]Dates of expulsion are taken from articles on the applicable countries and cities in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Ktav Publishing, New \brk, 1904.

Taking with them a rudimentary Teutonic dialect which later evolved into Yiddish, most German and Central European Jews moved east to Poland, the great medieval haven of Jewry. Those pushing farther east may have met and mixed with Jewish contingents who for centuries had been working their way north from the Caucasus, on the way intermarrying with non-Jews, whom they later converted to Judaism.

Jews of Eastern Europe, the Ashkenazim, are to be distinguished from the Sephardim, the purer-blooded Mediterranean Jews expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in the same year Columbus discovered America. The Sephardim found sanctuary in Holland, Leghorn (Italy), and Turkey, a few even getting as far as Brazil, from which they were later deported by the Portuguese. Twenty-four of these deportees, captured by the French on their way back to Holland, were deposited in Nieuw Amsterdam (New York) in 1654.[22]Peter Stuyvesant, the governor, did not want to let them remain, but Jewish directors of the Dutch West India Company caused him to change his mind. Howard M. Sachar, The Course of Modern Jewish History, World Publishing, Cleveland, 1958, p. 161. Also see Stephen Birmingham, The Grandees, Harper & Row, New York, 1971, Chap. 4.

The racial composition of the Ashkenazim and Sephardim has already been discussed, as have the many important genetic changes wrought by 2,500 years of intermittent miscegenation with nonJewish peoples.[23]See pp. 30-31. Nevertheless modern Jews of Sephardic or Ashkenazic origin — Jews of French, American, Russian, Iranian, Yemenite, or any other nationality — like to think they are all directly descended from the ancient Hebrews of Palestine. It is worth repeating that this belief in a common ancestry, reinforced by religious traditions handed down for thirty centuries, can overcome all manner of inherited biological differences in welding a strong race consciousness.

In the late Middle Ages most European Jews lived completely apart in walled ghettos. Association with Christians was limited mainly to economic matters. In many European countries and free cities there was a total ban against Jews for centuries. As a result, hardly an identifiable or professing Jew was to be found in Chaucer’s and Shakespeare’s England, Michelangelo’s Florence, and Cervantes’ and Velazquez’ Spain.

Jews were not permitted to return to England until Cromwell’s time. It was not until 1791 that the French Assembly granted French Jews full citizenship. From then on Jewish destiny brightened. Starting with the Napoleonic wars, Joseph Wechsberg writes,

“The supremacy of the Rothschilds in international finance lasted one hundred years.”[24]The Merchant Bankers, Little, Brown, Boston, 1966, p. 343. One aspect of Rothschild power was amply demonstrated during Wellington’s campaign against the French in Spain. The British general was badly in need of gold, which the British Rothschilds had difficulty in transmitting because of the French land and sea blockade. The French Rothschilds solved the problem for their British relations by arranging for the transshipment of Wellington’s gold through France. Nevertheless, Wechsberg praises the Rothschilds for their loyalty to the rulers of the countries in which they happened to reside. Ibid., pp. 338, 342.
(See pp. 30-31.)
In 1858, Lionel Rothschild was the first British Jew to be elected to Parliament. In 1868, Disraeli became Britain’s prime minister. As the liberalization and commercialization of the West continued through the latter part of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, Jewish emancipation kept pace.

By the 1920s it could be fairly said that Jews were setting the tone for much of Western culture. One has only to mention Marx, Freud, Einstein, the philosophers Bergson and Wittgenstein, and the anthropologist Boas. After 500 years of eclipse and a recovery that had required little more than a century, Jews had achieved more power and influence than ever before in their history.

Then came Hitler. Although World War II was another desperate attempt by Germany to set up a continental empire in Europe, it was also a bitter war between Germans and Jews. The number of European Jews actually killed by the Germans and their allies has never been correctly established. The accepted and widely quoted figure of 6 million is apparently based on hearsay evidence provided by an SS officer, Wilhelm Hottl, who declared Adolf Eichmann had informed him 4 million Jews had died in extermination camps and 2 million elsewhere.[25]Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, Vol. XXI, Doc. 2738-PS, p. 85. Another SS officer, Dieter von Wisliceny, said Eichmann had informed him that 4 million Jews had been killed. At other times, according to Wisliceny, Eichmann increased the total to 5 million. Hottl, who was expelled from the SS in 1942, worked for American counterintelligence after the war. In 1953 he was arrested in Vienna and charged with espionage. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1963) is more conservative and uses the phrase “more than 5 million.”[26]Vol. 13, p. 64. One Jewish historian has put the figure somewhere between 4,200,000 and 4,600,000, one-third of whom died of disease and hunger.[27]Sachar, op. ciL, p. 457. On the other hand, Paul Rassinier, a French socialist and onetime inmate of Buchenwald, wrote a series of books to the effect that there were only a million or so Jewish victims of Nazism. He specifically denied the existence of gas chambers and charged they were a deliberate hoax devised by Zionists to secure reparations from Germans, and obtain moral and military support for the State of Israel.

Robert Faurisson, a French professor of literature at the University of Lyon 2, Arthur Butz, an American professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University, Wilhelm Staglich, a retired West German judge, British historian David Irving and Fred Leuchter, an American expert in execution procedures (lethal injections, more efficient electric chairs, advanced gas chamber design) have defended the Rassinier thesis in books, articles, and lectures.[28]See Paul Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth, trans. Adam Robbins, Noontide Press, Torrance, Calif., 1978; Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Noontide Press, 1977; Wilhelm Staglich, Der Auschwitz Mythos, Grabert Verlag, Tubingen, 1979. A summary of Robert Faurisson’s arguments is given in Serge Thion’s Verite historique on verite politique?, La Vieille Taupe, Paris, 1980. The Institute for Historical Review, based in Torrance, Calif., publishes a journal that over the years has kept tabs on the travails of the more prominent Holocaust skeptics. It is probably the best source of Zundel’s and living’s experiences with law enforcement officers in three continents. Their work has not been well received. Butz’s car was fire-bombed, and his publisher’s offices and warehouse burned to the ground. Faurisson, driven out of his teaching post the victim of a bloody physical assault, was given a suspended 90-day prison sentence and fined. Staglich had his pension reduced, was stripped of his doctoral degree, and all unsold copies of his book were seized by the German police. David Irving was handcuffed and expelled from Canada, refused admittance to Australia, and ordered out of Germany and Austria. In early 1994, Leuchter spent nearly a month in prison in Germany for inciting racial hatred. He was arrested a few moments before he was to appear on a television interview program. Ernst Zundel, a German living in Canada, was given a 15month prison term for his publications questioning the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz. (The sentence was later reversed on appeal.) James Keegstra, a Canadian teacher, lost his job for denying the Holocaust in front of his students.

Since there has been no extensive public debate on what occurred in Nazi concentration camps in World War II, it may be some time before the facts are finally established. World War I propaganda of Huns mutilating nurses, cutting off the hands of Belgian babies, giving poison candy to children, desecrating altars, crucifying Canadian soldiers — all these atrocity tales, some accompanied by fake photographs, were debunked only a few years after the war, and laid to rest for all time in 1928 by the publication of Arthur Ponsonby’s Falsehood in Wartime. World War II propaganda, conversely and perversely, is still going strong after nearly fifty years, although all too much of it is based on forced confessions, forged evidence, and rehearsed witnesses.

World War II was disastrous for Jews in Germany and throughout most of Europe. But by strengthening Jewish unity outside areas of Axis control, Nazi anti-Semitism helped to seal Germany’s defeat The massive and wholehearted support of world Jewry, particularly of American Jewry, in the war against Hitler was an all-important factor in the ultimate Allied victory.[29]The prominent role played by American Jews in the development of the atom bomb, in the demand for Germany’s unconditional surrender in World War II, and in the staging of the Nuremberg trials will be treated later.

In the postwar period, Jews reached new levels of prosperity in the non-Communist world. In Spain, for the first time since 1492, Jews were permitted to open synagogues. Even in Germany, where 30,000 Jews still lived, Jewish communities sprang up again in many of the larger cities. The greatest triumph of modern Jewry, however, was the establishment of Israel, which provided Jews with a psychological lift they had not had since the days of Judah Maccabee and Bar Cocheba.[30]Israel’s influence on American foreign policy will be covered in Chapter 35. Judah Maccabee and Bar Cocheba were Jewish heroes who led armed rebellions against Greek and Roman occupying forces. To the amazement of non-Jews and Jews alike, the historic Jewish stereotype shifted almost overnight from the cringing, sly moneychanger to the fearless desert fighter.[31]The Zionist pioneers of Palestine were mostly Ashkenazim, a select group, as pioneers generally are, which helps account for their surprising display of martial valor. The “un-Jewish” temperament and character of many of these Zionists were illustrated by their “unjewish” appearance.^ But the settlement and conquest of Palestine brought with it a new rash of anti-Semitism in a region, the Middle East, which had been relatively free of it for ages.

Although Israel may be the spiritual home of Jewry, the United States remains the Jewish center of gravity. Just as no one can fully understand present-day world affairs without taking Jews into account, so no member of the American Majority can even begin to comprehend the pattern of American events in the 20th century without a rudimentary knowledge of the aims, habits, and political, economic and social status of American Jews.

It was during the Civil War that Jews first came to the attention of the American public at large. The first American Jew to attract international notice was Judah Benjamin, the confederate secretary of state, who fled to England after Appomattox.[32]Florida’s David Levy Yulee, elected in 1845, was the first Jewish senator. On the Northern side, while the Lincoln administration was leaning heavily on the Rothschilds for financial support,[33]August Belmont, the Rothschilds’ American agent, Vas able, thanks to the hugeness of the Rothschild reservoir of capital, to start out in America operating his own Federal Reserve System.” Belmont was one of the first Jews to crack the inner sanctum of American high society when he married the daughter of naval hero Commodore Perry. Birmingham, Our Crowd, pp. 27, 79-80, 101. General Grant generated an anti-Semitic furor by ordering his subordinate commanders to expel Jewish peddlers and commission merchants from behind the Union lines.[34]Ibid., p. 98. Up to the present, the story of American anti-Semitism has been unimpressive and inflated. There were a few notorious social incidents, such as the refusal of the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga to accommodate Joseph Seligman (1877); a few Dreyfus-accented trials in which American courts were accused of wrongly convicting Jews, such as the Leo Frank rape case, which led to his lynching in Atlanta (1913-15), and the Rosenberg atom spy case after World War II; a few anti-Jewish flare-ups, such as the resurrected Ku Klux Klan and Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent in the 1920s, and Father Coughlin’s radio oratory and Social Justice magazine in the late 1930s; a few anti-war movements, such as the Christian Front and the German-American Bund. Huey Long was the only American political leader of sufficient shrewdness to have carried anti-Semitism effectively into national politics, but he was assassinated by Dr. Carl Weiss in 1935. The late Gerald L. K. Smith, one of Long’s principal aides, published a wide range of anti-Semitic literature for several decades. In a nationwide radio address in 1941, Charles Lindbergh accused Jews of warmongering and repeated the charge in his war memoirs published 29 years later A few scattered organizations — some Klan groups, some American Nazi units — huckstered anti-Semitism in the post-World War II period. Liberty Lobby, a conservative organization based in Washington, D.C., and the tabloid Spotlight mounted strong anti-Zionist campaigns in the latter part of the century. David Duke, once associated with some Klan grouplets, after winning a seat in the Louisiana legislature, ran for senator and later for governor. In each case he made a fairly respectable showing although the political and media establishment attacked him unmercifully. In his bid for governor he won more white votes than the winner, former Governor Edwin Edwards.
(August Belmont, the Rothschilds’ American agent, Vas able, thanks to the hugeness of the Rothschild reservoir of capital, to start out in America operating his own Federal Reserve System.” Belmont was one of the first Jews to crack the inner sanctum of American high society when he married the daughter of naval hero Commodore Perry. Birmingham, Our Crowd, pp. 27, 79-80, 101.)
Yet it was Grant, when president, who had seriously considered appointing his close friend, Joseph Seligman, secretary of the treasury. When President Garfield was shot in 1881, he was taken to Elberon, New Jersey, where Jesse Seligman, Joseph’s brother, opened his house to the dying man’s family. At a Seligman Saturday get-together in Elberon, “it was never a surprise to find a former U.S. President, a Supreme Court Justice, several Senators and a Congressman or two.”[35]Birmingham, op. cit., pp. 126, 308-9.

The relatively few Sephardic Jews and the much greater number of German Jews viewed with mixed feelings the mass influx of Jews which began in the 1890s and which originated in large part from the extensive realm of the anti-Semitic Russian czars. But though they did not open their hearts to the newcomers or accept them socially, Jewish Old Immigrants did open their purses. This seed money, swiftly compounded by the New Immigrants’ financial flair, allowed most of them to escape their Lower East Side tenements within a generation. Today, while Jews of Western and Central European descent still retain much of their wealth, the Eastern European Jews, in addition to being affluent in their own right, have assumed the leadership not only of American Jewry, but of world Jewry as well.

The administration of Franklin Roosevelt was the first to introduce scores of Jews into the decision-making echelons of government.[36]Jews were especially conspicuous in the Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Social Security Board, and the Departments of Labor and Justice. Reader’s Digest, Sept, 1946, pp. 2-3. Three Jewish governors during the Roosevelt era were Henry Horner of Illinois, Julius Meier of Oregon, and Herbert Lehman of New York. When Roosevelt died, one rabbi compared him to Moses. Barnet Litvinoff, A Peculiar People, Weybright and Talley, New York, 1969, p. 41. It is true that Theodore Roosevelt made Oscar Straus secretary of commerce and labor, just as it is true that there were scattered appointments of Jews in the Wilson and Hoover eras, including such notable figures as Paul Warburg, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Felix Frankfurter.[37]Warburg was partly responsible for devising the Federal Reserve System and was made the Federal Reserve Board’s vice-chairman. But the roster of New Dealers contained many more, if less distinguished, Jewish names: Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Benjamin Cohen, Sol Bloom, Emanuel Celler, Herbert Lehman, David Niles, Samuel Rosenman, Isador Lubin, Mordecai Ezekiel, Anna Rosenberg, Morris Ernst, Nathan Straus, Donald Richberg, Lawrence Steinhardt, and Robert Nathan. Bernard Baruch, in whose New York apartment Winston Churchill was an overnight guest when making state visits to America in World War II, seemed to overlap all administrations, having been an adviser to five American presidents.[38]Baruch made most of his millions speculating in copper stocks. When America entered World War I, Wilson named him head of the War Industries Board. Like Baruch, bankers Alexander Sachs and Sidney Weinberg attended important policy sessions of both Republican and Democratic administrations.

After World War II, David Lilienthal and Lewis Strauss served as chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission and helped guide the United States into the nuclear age. In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy brought the public spotlight to bear on his two young Jewish assistants, David Schine and Roy Cohn.[39]For Cohn’s later career, see Chapter 30.

President Truman kept many of Roosevelt’s Jewish appointees on the federal payroll. But President Eisenhower, who only obtained a small fraction of the Jewish vote, let most of them go. Eisenhower, however, did appoint Douglas Dillon to a high State Department post. Meanwhile, Republican Senators Barry Goldwater and Jacob Javits, the former the party’s unsuccessful 1964 presidential candidate, achieved national and international prominence.[40]Is it really accurate to say that men like Dillon and Goldwater are Jews? Both had Polish Jews as paternal grandfathers — Samuel Lapowski (Dillon’s) came to Texas as a clothier and Michael Goldwasser (Goldwater’s) arrived in the Southwest as a peddler. Both Dillon and Goldwater, as their fathers before them, married non-Jews. Both led the life of well-to-do members of the Majority — Dillon, the banker, being more well-to-do than Goldwater. But the residue of Jewish race consciousness runs deep. It is extremely difficult in a milieu of intense racial divisions, as in present-day America, to determine exacdy when a Jew ceases to be a Jew. Even if an individual no longer wishes to consider himself a Jew, the world may force him to be one. Goldwater’s racial background, for instance, might help account for his mystifying friendships with Jewish gangsters. For Dillon’s and Goldwater’s antecedents, see Time, August 18, 1961, p. 13 and July 24, 1964, p. 22. For Goldwater’s gangster friends, see Chapter 30.

Jews returned to Washington in force when John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in 1961. Arthur Goldberg was appointed secretary of labor, and Senator Abraham Ribicoff, secretary of health, education, and welfare. When Goldberg moved up to the Supreme Court, Willard Wirtz succeeded him. Other Kennedy appointees included Newton Minow, head of the Federal Communications Commission; Mortimer Caplin, chief of the Internal Revenue Service, and Pierre Salinger, presidential press secretary. Dillon stayed on as Kennedy’s secretary of the treasury. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Theodore Chaikin Sorensen, and Richard Goodwin were among those who whispered most loudly in Kennedy’s ear.[41]In his capacity as Kennedy’s adviser on Caribbean affairs in the 1968 primary race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Goodwin, who had much to do with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, was torn between Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. ‘The trouble is, baby,” he explained, “I don’t know which one of them to make president.” He told Seymour Hersch, McCarthy’s press secretary, ‘Just you and me and two typewriters, Sy, and we’ll bring down the government. ” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, Sunday Punch, July 14, 1968, p. 2.

When Lyndon Johnson became president upon Kennedy’s assassination, he shifted Goldberg from the Supreme Court to the United Nations. Other Johnson appointments: Walt Rostow, chief presidential adviser on foreign affairs; Wilbur Cohen, secretary of health, education, and welfare; Abe Fortas, associate justice of the Supreme Court.[42]Both before and after Johnson took office, Abe Fortas was “on the telephone [with Johnson] at least once a day and often as many as three or four times.” Esquire, June, 1965, p. 86. The phone continued ringing after Fortas joined the Supreme Court. This close, somewhat unconstitutional relationship between the executive and the judiciary was one of the main reasons the Senate refused to confirm Johnson’s nomination of Fortas as Chief Justice. Whether Johnson was privy to Fortas’s monetary dealings with the convicted stock embezzler, Louis Wolfson, which later led to Fortas’s resignation, is not known. See Chapter 30. Edwin Weisl, chairman of the executive committee of Paramount Pictures, served as Johnson’s personal financial consultant.

Richard Nixon, in spite of his ambivalent attitude towards Jews, continued the practice of surrounding the presidency with Jewish cabinet members and high-level advisers. Henry Kissinger was secretary of state and practically assistant president at the high tide of Watergate; James Schlesinger, a convert to Lutheranism, was CIA chief and later secretary of defense; Arthur F. Burns,[43]“The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board has greater influence over the daily lives of all U.S. citizens than almost anyone except the President…” Time, Oct 24, 1969, p. 89. chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; Herbert Stein, chief economic adviser; Laurence Silberman, deputy attorney general; Leonard Garment, in charge of the White House civil rights department[44]Newsweek, Nov. 18, 1968, p. 44. Consequently, all communications concerning minority problems had to clear through Garment’s office.

As the first appointed president, Gerald Ford kept Kissinger, dismissed Schlesinger, brought in Edward Levi, an old Stalinist fellow traveler, as attorney general, and replaced Stein with Alan Greenspan.

In regard to the losers in the 1968 and 1972 presidential races, Hubert Humphrey had as his closest adviser, E. F. Berman, and his eleven largest campaign contributors were Jewish.[45]San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 23, 1968, p. 9. George McGovern’s 1972 presidential bid was also heavily financed by Jews. His chief aide was Frank Mankiewicz.

The Carter administration, though not all at the same time, had Harold Brown as secretary of defense, James Schlesinger as secretary of energy (like Dillon he served both parties), Michael Blumenthal, secretary of the treasury, Neil Goldschmidt, secretary of transportation, Philip Klutznick, secretary of commerce, Stuart Eizenstat, chief adviser on domestic affairs, Robert Strauss, who ran the 1980 Democratic presidential campaign, Robert Lipshutz, presidential counsel, and Gerald Rafshoon, media consultant. Sol Linowitz, driving force of the Panama Canal negotiations, was later put in charge of implementing the Camp David accords. At one time or another during the Carter presidency, Jews headed the Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of the Census, General Services Administration, Congressional Budget Office and the Library of Congress. Jews also filled the number two or number three positions in the Departments of State, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Commerce, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Health, Education and Welfare. Several federal agencies and government advisory groups were also in Jewish hands. The National Security Council was especially renowned for the number of Jews on its staff.

The results of the 1980 presidential election augured a sharp reduction in the proportion of minorities in the executive branch, although many Jews were attracted to the Republican platform which often outpromised the Democrats in respect to Israel. Only one person of Jewish background, Caspar Weinberger, an Episcopalian with a Jewish grandfather, was given a post (secretary of defense) in Reagan’s cabinet; Murray Weidenbaum was appointed chief economic adviser; Henry Kissinger was now America’s elder statesman. Reagan ended his second term with Kenneth Duberstein as his man Friday and chief of the White House staff.

The Bush administration also had relatively few Jews. Alan Greenspan stayed on as Federal Reserve Chairman, and Robert Mosbacher, a high-profile Republican fundraiser, 46 was appointed secretary of commerce.

The Jewish component of the American government leapt skyward with the advent of the Clinton administration. Robert Reich, an intensely liberal Harvard professor, became secretary of labor; Madeleine Albright, UN ambassador; Bernard Nussbaum (forced to resign later for trying to conceal the papers of Vincent Foster, Clinton’s close friend, who committed suicide); Abner Mikva, Nussbaum’s successor; Mickey Kantor, trade representative; Ruth Ginsburg, the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice since Fortas resigned in 1976; Stephen Breyer, Clinton’s second Jewish appointment to the High Bench; Robert Rubin, secretary of the treasury; John Deutch, head of the CIA. Clinton said he wanted to make his government “look more like America.” What he did, as far as his appointments were concerned, was to make it “look more like Israel.”

Since Jews claim to be only 2.3 percent of the population (1992 American Jewish Yearbook), their number in Congress (33 in the House, 11 in the Senate in 1994) is clearly out of proportion. But where Jewish overrepresentation is overwhelming is in the opinionforming sanctuaries of the American social order. Theoretically the politician is the servant of the public. In practice he is all too frequently the servant of the media.

Large newspaper chains and mass circulation tabloids bear some of the responsibility for shaping the public mind. But only a very few select newspapers, the so-called “high-impact” press, shape the minds of those who govern the public. By far the most important are the New York Times and the Washington Post. What they print and how they present it determines to a large extent what the leadership of America says, thinks and does. The controlling interest in both these publications is held by Jews. The New York Times, which prides itself on being the national newspaper of record,[47]Fifty copies of the Times go to the White House each day. It is distributed in 11,464 American cities. Talese, The Kingdom and the Power, pp. 72, 346. has been the cherished possession of the Ocheses and the Sulzbergers[48]George, the brother of Adolph Ochs, the founder of the dynasty, partly anglicized his name to Ochs-Oakes. John Oakes, his son, once supervised the Times‘ editorial page. When other editorial writers have ‘Views [which] conflict with his, they are not published.” Talese, op. cit., pp. 72, 79, 81. for several generations, as has the Chattanooga Times.[49]In 1970 the Chattanooga Times was the defendant in an antitrust suit for “unlawful attempts” to monopolize the newspaper business in the Tennessee city. New York Times, May 8, 1970, p. 9. Most of the voting stock of the Washington Post Co. is owned by Katharine Graham, the daughter of Eugene Meyer, a Jewish banker. Mrs. Graham, described as very much “the boss lady of the publishing monolith,” also controls Newsweek and a strategically situated Washington, D.C., television station.[50]The information concerning Mrs. Graham, like much other data on the news and communications media in these pages, was taken from the article, “America’s Media Baronies,” in Atlantic, July, 1969. The capital’s other daily newspaper, the Washington Times, although consistently conservative and at times even patriotic, is financed by the Korean evangelist and tax evader, Sun Myung Moon.

Less important newspapers, in the sense that their influence is more regional than national, include: the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, dominated by a grandson of Joseph Pulitzer, the Hungarian-Jewish publisher who is credited with inventing yellow journalism;[51]Beard, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 461. Harry Truman defined Joseph Pulitzer as “the meanest character assassin in the whole history of liars.” the San Francisco Chronicle, California’s second most influential newspaper, owned and operated by the Thieriot family, descendants of Charles and Michael de Jung, the paper’s Jewish founders; and Pittsburgh’s Post-Gazette and Press, and Toledo’s Blade and Times, owned by the Block family. The twenty-six daily newspapers of the two Newhouse brothers comprise a journalistic empire that is third in national circulation and first in profits. The New York Daily News, once the nation’s leading tabloid and a beacon of isolationism, was bought in 1992 by Mortimer Zuckerman and now beats the drums for Israel. Exercising an influence that stretches far beyond the business community, the Wall Street Journal (Peter Kann, publisher) is owned by Dow Jones & Co., whose chairman, Warren Phillips, born a Jew, is now a Christian.

Many smaller newspapers are owned, managed or edited by Jews, not to mention newspapers in Yiddish or English directed at specific Jewish communities. Also some of the biggest newspapers or newspaper chains not owned or controlled by Jews have Jewish executives, managers, editors, reporters or columnists. The International Herald-Tribune, published in Paris and read daily by many top-level officials of European governments, is owned by a consortium in which the New York Times and Washington Post have a significant investment.

The list of magazines controlled or edited by Jews is voluminous. It includes: Vogue, Glamour, Mademoiselle, House and Garden, New Yorker, Vanity Fair (all part of the Newhouse chain), American Home, Consumer Reports, Family Circle, Ladies 9 Home Journal, McCalls, Redbook, Seventeen, Woman’s Day, American Heritage, Atlantic, Commentary, Daedalus, Dissent, Esquire, Human Events, High Times, Ms., Nation, National Journal, New Republic, New York Review of Books, Newsweek, Partisan Review, The Public Interest, Rolling Stone, Village Voice, New York Observer and U.S. News & World Report. TV Guide, with America’s largest circulation (20,000,000) and largest yearly advertising revenue (nearly $200,000,000) was for years, until he sold it for an enormous sum to Rupert Murdoch, the property of Walter Annenberg.

In 1991, Time, Inc. (Time, Fortune, Sports Rlustrated, Money, People, 13 TV stations, Home Box Office, Little, Brown book publishers, and large holdings in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) merged with Warner Commu-nications, controlled by the late Jewish takeover artist, Steven Ross, to become Time Warner, currently the world’s second largest media and entertainment empire. CEO is Gerald Levin; editor-in-chief is Norman Pearlstine. In 1969, as managing editor of Time, Henry Grunwald, born in Germany of Jewish parents, was perhaps the “single most influential linear journalist in the world.”[52]Atlantic, July, 1969, p. 43.

Whether or not controlled by Jews, practically all leading publications compete for the services of Jewish pundits. At the literate or semiliterate level are or were such names as: Walter Lippman, David Lawrence, Max Lerner, Arthur Krock, David Broder, Richard Cohen, Anthony and Flora Lewis, Joseph Kraft, Midge Decter, Paul Goodman, Irving Howe, Barbara Ehrenreich, Irving and William Kristol, Victor Navasky, William Phillips, Norman and John Podhoretz, Philip Rahv, Susan Sontag, William Safire, Frank Rich, and Art Buchwald; at the peephole level, Walter Winchell, Drew Pearson, Leonard Lyons, Irv Kupcinet, and Herb Caen;[53]When a West Coast newspaper carried the headline, “Killer Hurricane Nearing Texas,” Caen set an all-time low for his profession by commenting, “Promises, promises.” San Francisco Chronicle, Sept 20, p. 24. at the lonely hearts level, Ann Landers and Abigail van Buren; at the sexology level, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, a former member of Haganah. One of the nation’s most influential — and most savage newspaper cartoonists — is Herblock (Herbert Block) of the Washington Post. One of the most popular comic strips: Al Capp’s L’il Abner.[54]By far the most amusing comic strip, UilAbner, was nevertheless a grinding, serialized attack on Majority folkways — an upside-down version of Aesop in which the city mouse triumphs over his country cousin. In the character of Daisy Mae, however, Capp is careful to render due obeisance to the Aesthetic Prop. In 1972 the cartoonist entered a plea of guilty to a charge of attempted rape and was fined $500 by a Wisconsin judge. Facts on File, 1972, p. 335.

In book publishing, the Newhouse empire owns Random House, The Modern Library, Knopf, Pantheon, and Ballantine Books. Columbia Broadcasting System owns Popular Library, Fawcett Publications, and Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Music Corporation of America owns G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Gulf and Western owns Simon and Schuster. Other Jewish publishing houses are Grosset and Dunlap, Lyle Stuart, Viking Press, Stein and Day, Grove Press, Crown, Schocken Books, and Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Nearly all leading publishers, Jewish and non-Jewish, promote works of Jewish authors and employ Jews in executive or editorial positions.

Henry Garfinkle’s Ancorp National Services has a near monopoly on the distribution of newspapers, magazines and paperback books in New York City, and receives what the Wall Street Journal has described as “bribes” of $30,000 and $26,000 a year from the New York Times and Daily News, respectively. A close associate of Mafia figures, Garfinkle has been known to boast about having “publishers in my hip pocket.”[55]Wall Street Journal, July 3, 1969, p. 43.

A powerful force in the book distribution field is the Book-of-theMonth Club, pioneered by the late Harry Scherman, born of Anglo-WelshJewish parents in Montreal. Now a part of the Time Warner conglomerate, the BOMC mailed out more than 250 million books in the first 40 years of its existence. Equally influential are the wholesale book firms, two of the most important being Bookazine and Diamondstein, both Jewish-owned. Literary critics also play a powerful role in the book business.[56]To simplify their accounting procedures, many of the larger bookstores will only order from book wholesalers. As might be expected, the New York Times Book Review and the New York Review of Books, the two leading publications of this genre, operate under the aegis of Jewish editors. Indeed Jewish literary criticism is a staple of nearly all the so-called intellectual magazines.

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence of their hold over the media is furnished by the Jews’ commanding position in the television, radio and motion picture industries. Laurence Tisch ran the Columbia Broadcasting System with an iron hand until he sold it to Westinghouse Electric in 1995. Capital Cities Communications Inc., a Majority company,, owned the American Broadcasting Co. until it was sold to the Jewish-controlled Disney entertainment colossus. General Electric, a Majority corporation, is the parent of the National Broadcasting Company, which often seems to be up for grabs. The Public Broadcasting System for the most part is federally funded, but that doesn’t remove it from significant Jewish influence over its entertainment and educational programs. Nor does the fact that the Fox Network belongs to the Australian-American, Rupert Murdoch, free it from an overwhelming amount of Jewish input. It hardly need be added that the producers and directors of all network and local entertainment, news, documentary and talk programs are disproportionately Jewish. Moreover it’s fair to say that

Jews are primarily responsible for most TV “specials,” documentaries, docudramas, and sitcoms, a preponderance of which depict minority members sympathetically and Majority members as villains, ignorant rednecks, or right-wing fanatics.[57]Ben Stein, a Jewish essayist who made an exhaustive study of television, points out that entertainment TV is in the hands of a few hundred bourgeois Jews, aided and abetted by a small number of Irish and Italians, all of whom are over thirty-five and practically all of whom come from New York and live on the west side of Los Angeles. Their salaries often average $10,000 a week, yet they lean heavily towards socialism, love the poor, and hate small towns, the military, businessmen, and policemen. In their sitcoms and adventure stories few minority members live on welfare and fewer commit crimes. The bad guy is almost always the white, the blonder and more WASP-like the better. These TV producer-writers actually “believe that the world is run by a consortium of former Nazis and executives of multinational corporations.” Ben Stein, The View from Sunset Boulevard, Basic Books, New York, 1979. Don Hewitt is the producer of the high-rated 60 Minutes whose standbys are Mike Wallace, Morley Safer and Leslie Stahl. Michael Kinsley, Robert Novak, Maury Povich, Geraldo Rivera, and Larry King hold forth on some of the more popular talk shows. Barbara Walters is the queen of the female interviewers. Daniel Schorr and Bob Simon are two of the busiest TV reporters.

Hollywood from its inception has been indisputably Jewish. One has only to mention such companies as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 20th Century-Fox, Paramount Pictures, Warner Brothers, Universal, Columbia Pictures, United Artists, and such mythic personalities as Samuel Goldwyn, William Fox, Carl Laemmle, Joe Schenck, Jesse Lasky, Adolph Zukor, Irving Thalberg, Harry Cohn, Louis Mayer, David Selznick and the three Warner brothers.[58]The few important non-Jewish decision makers of Hollywood also had minority backgrounds, e.g., Darryl Zanuck, of Hungarian descent, and Spyros Skouras, of Greek origin. However, one of the great film pioneers, D. W. Griffith, was not Jewish. Nor were the two other greats to emerge from Hollywood — Greta Garbo and Charlie Chaplin. The claim that Chaplin is part Jewish is a freewheeling fiction of the more garrulous pro- and anti-Semites. His mother was three-quarters Irish and one-quarter Gypsy. His father was a descendant of French Huguenots who had been in England for centuries. Charles Chaplin, My Autobiography, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1964, pp. 18-19, 37, 45, 109. Chaplin admitted he once pretended to be Jewish to advance himself in the film business. J. L. de Vilalengue, Gold Gotha, Paris, 1972.

These movie moguls, of course, belong to an older Hollywood generation. But the newer breed is also largely Jewish: Ted Ashley, Gordon Stulberg, Dan Melnick, Jennings Lang, Robert Evans and David Begelman. Among the leading producer-directors are Peter Bogdanovich, Sidney Lumet, Woody Allen, John Frankenheimer, Arthur Penn, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer, Oliver Stone, Mike Nichols, and Steven Spielberg.

Hollywood’s link to Broadway has always been close and here again there has been an almost fantastic overrepresentation of Jews.[59]Serious playwrights, Jewish and otherwise, will be discussed in Chapter 18. Writers of message plays and dramatized political and sociological tracts are not listed at all, but a quick reference to newspaper files will show that their producers and authors are almost all minority members, chiefly Jews. As for pornographic drama, it is sufficient to say that the dirtiest plays of recent decades — Che, Geese, and Oh, Calcutta!— were all written, directed or produced by Jews, as were many of the pornographic and black exploitation (“hate whitey”) films. A brief idea of the Jewish domination of American show business, past and present, is furnished by the roster of such entertainment “giants” as producers David Belasco, Daniel Frohman, Florenz Ziegfeld, Jed Harris, Billy Rose, Mike Todd, Hal Prince, David Merrick, and Joseph Papp;[60]“American show business…owes most of its wit, animation and emotional frankness to the ebullience of Jewish talent,” wrote the late Kenneth Tynan, Britain’s highest paid drama critic and himself part-Jewish, in Holiday magazine (June 1961). Tynan was the producer of Oh, Calcutta! such songsmiths as Irving Berlin, Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart, Oscar Hammerstein II, Ira Gershwin, Harold Arlen, Burton Lane, Burt Bacharach, E. Y Harburg, Jerry Bock, Sheldon Harnick, Stephen Sondheim, and Lemer and Loewe;[61]Tin Pan Alley is almost 100 percent Jewish. High Fidelity, July 1977, pp. 27-29. such rasping show business personalities as Al Jolson, Fanny Brice, Eddie Cantor, Sophie Tucker, Ethel Merman, Sammy Davis, Jr. (a convert), and Barbra Streisand; such celebrated comedians, most of the “standup” variety, as Jack Benny, Bert Lahr, George Jessel, Shelley Berman, Joey Bishop, Morey Amsterdam, Myron Cohen, Henny Youngman, Buddy Hackett, Victor Borge, Marx Brothers, Ed Wynn, George Burns, Don Rickles, Mort Sahl, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Red Buttons, Lenny Bruce, Milton Berle, Joan Rivers, Sid Caesar, Rodney Dangerfield, and Howard Stern. Thanks to the comedians listed above, Jewish jokes have become the touchstones of contemporary American humor.[62]Jews comprise 80% of the nation’s professional comics. Time, Oct. 2, 1978.

The publishing and entertainment industries feed on ideas as well as events, and in the realm of ideas American Jews are just as firmly embedded as elsewhere. What follows is a sampling of Jews who in the latter half of the century have figured prominently in the various social sciences and other academic disciplines. Some of these learned men concentrated their activities in foreign countries, mostly in Britain and pre- and post- Hitler Germany.

PHILOSOPHERS: Mortimer Adler, Hannah Arendt, Morris Cohen, Irwin Edman, Sidney Hook, Abraham Kaplan, Herbert Marcuse, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Paul Weiss, Walter Kaufman, Karl Popper, Leo Strauss, Nathaniel Brandon, Horace Kallen, Robert Nozick, Martin Buber, Jacob Bronowski, Ernest Cassirer.

HISTORIANS: Daniel Boorstin, Herbert Feis, Peter Gay, Eric Goldman, Oscar Handlin, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Richard Hofstadter, Bernard Lewis, Richard Morris, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Barbara Tuchman, Louis Hacker, Richard Pipes, Bertram Wolfe, Walter Laqueur, Arno Mayer, George Mosse, Allen Weinstein, Lewis Namier.

POLITICAL SCIENTISTS: Stanley Hoffman, Hans Kohn, Hans Morgenthau, Saul Padover, Adam Ulam, Paul Green, Michael Walzer, Morton Kaplan, Richard Neustadt, Isaiah Berlin, Max BelofF.

SOCIOLOGISTS: Daniel Bell, Peter Drucker, Amitai Etzioni, Nathan Glazer, Philip Hauser, Paul Lazarsfeld, Seymour Lipset, Robert Merton, David Riesman, Lewis S. Feuer, Arnold Ross, Theodor Adorno, Melville Tumin.

ECONOMISTS: Kenneth Arrow, Abraham Becker, Mordecai Ezekiel, Alfred Kahn, Ludwig von Mises, Arthur Okun, Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Morton Feldstein, Otto Eckstein, Arthur Burns, Robert Lekachman, Simon Kuznets, Leon Keyserling, Wassily Leonief, Murray Weidenbaum, Robert Heilbroner, Lawrence Klein, Robert Solomon, Peter Bernstein, Solomon Fabricant, Allan Meltzer, Herbert Stein.

PSYCHOLOGISTS OR PSYCHIATRISTS: Franz Alexander, Bruno Bettelheim, Eric Berne, Erik Erikson, Victor Frankl, Sigmund and Anna Freud, Erich Fromm, Haim Ginott, Robert Jay Lifton, Abraham Maslow, Thomas Szasz, Melanie Klein, Lawrence Kubie, Wilhelm Reich, Gregory Zilboorg Marvin Opler, Otto Rank, Theodor Reik.

ANTHROPOLOGISTS: Franz Boas, Melville Herskovits, Oscar Lewis, Ashley Montagu, Edward Sapir, Sol Tax, Lionel Tiger, Saul Riesenberg, Geza Roheim, Melford Spiro, Morton Freed, Robert Lowie, Morris Opler, David Mandelbaum, Paul Radin, Lucien Levy-Bruhl, Claude Levi-Strauss, Phillip Tobias.

Jews are also heavily represented in the professions and physical sciences, as their long string of Nobel Prizes attests.[63]In the period 1901-62, 16 percent of the 225 scientists who won Nobel prizes were Jews. Weyl and Possony, Geography of Intellect, p. 143. They are incredibly overrepresented in higher education, serving as presidents of the three most prestigious Ivy League colleges: Neil Rudenstine (Harvard), Richard G. Levin (Yale), Harold T. Shapiro (Princeton).

Before probing other areas of Jewish influence and power, it might be well to mention one of the many side effects of the Jewish ascendancy. This is the favorable tide of publicity which overflows on Jews, partly because of their strategic position in the media, partly because unfavorable publicity is often condemned as antiSemitism. The inevitable result of such protectionism and imagepolishing is that when a Jew and a nonjew have established a record of similar accomplishments in the same line of work, the former is likely to receive more attention and recognition than the latter.

A case in point is Max Planck and Albert Einstein, the two men who gave modern physics its two seminal hypotheses, the Quantum Theory and Relativity. Planck, a non-Jew, was scarcely known in America except in scientific circles, while Einstein, even when an uncritical supporter of Joseph Stalin, was the object of the American public’s warmest esteem.[64]For Einstein’s part in the promotion and building of the atom bomb, see Chapter 38. For some unsung criticism of Einsteinian physics, see Chapter 21. Another example of misplaced adulation is Sigmund Freud, considered a semi-charlatan in many parts of Europe, but until quite recently hailed so vigorously in the United States that public opinion deemed him a universal genius. Carl Jung, on the other hand, the most eminent non Jewish psychiatrist, has received only a fraction of Freud’s publicity, some of it extremely hostile. The wide acclaim given a Jewish anthropologist like Ashley Montagu and the narrow recognition granted a vastly greater nonjewish anthropologist, like Carleton Coon, is additional proof of the Semitic tilt in public information channels.[65]The Semitic “tilt” of present-day public relations is further illustrated by the outpouring of magazine articles and books stressing the Jewish enrichment of American culture but omitting such names as Arnold Rothstein, the Minsky brothers, Mickey Cohen, Meyer Lansky, Abe Fortas, Louis Wolfson, Fred Silverman, Serge Rubinstein, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Bugsy Siegel, Bernard Goldfine, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Jack Ruby, and the cohort of Jewish corporate raiders. Sometimes this one-sided approach dissolves into pure literary sycophancy, as in the case of a “biography” of Albert Lasker. One of the first advertising magnates, and certainly the richest, Lasker was the hero of a book-length encomium by an internationally known reporter, although the high points of Lasker’s career were organizing the first soap operas and introducing millions of women to the smoking habit (“Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet”). John Gunther, Taken at the Flood, The Story of Albert D. Lasker, Harper, New York, 1960, pp. 4-5.

This same bias has been carried over into the field of international relations — most noticeably in the “good press” accorded Israel, which was only mildly tempered by the repeated invasions of Lebanon, the bombings of Beirut, the devastating attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatilah camps by the Phalangists, allies of Israel and, perhaps most gruesome of all, the murder of 30 Muslims at prayer in the Hebron mosque by a Jewish settler from America.

Jewish ownership or control of many of the chief pipelines of modern thought may have superseded Judaism itself as the most important secondary cause of Jewish survival, unity and power. The primary cause remains, as always, Jewish wealth. Ever since the diaspora and even before, the Jewish financier, money-maker and moneylender have been identified by nonjews as quasi-biological types. For 2,000 years of Jewish history, survival of the fittest has often meant survival of the richest.[66]In Chapter 10 of this book, J. K. Galbraith was quoted as saying wealth is no longer equivalent to power. Insofar as he was referring to Majority wealth, he was correct. As stated previously, most of the great Majority fortunes have been scattered, wasted or handed down to foundations which support projects that often work against Majority interests. Most Jewish wealth, on the other hand, is pooled and concentrated on specific, ethnic goals — Israel, anti-anti Semitism, minority causes and political, economic and social campaigns to remove the last vestiges of Majority privilege. Professor Galbraith to the contrary, great wealth directed towards group advantage is not only equivalent to power, but to great power.

Jewish wealth is an extremely touchy issue. Not since Fortune somewhat half-heartedly examined the problem in February 1936 has there been a serious, objective, full-scale study of the subject in the United States. Even in 1936, Fortune found American Jews firmly established in certain economic areas. Now more than five decades later, it is time to take another look.

Some idea of Jewish wealth in America was furnished by a national poll which attempted to correlate income with religious denomination. It found that 18.9 percent of all Americans enjoying an annual income over $10,000 were Jews. Episcopalians accounted for 14.1 percent, individuals with no religious affiliation 11.6 percent, Presbyterians 8.7, Catholics 4.6, and Baptists 2.1.[67]D. J. Bogue, The Population of the U. S., The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois, 1959, p. 706. Translated into racial terms, the poll indicated that Jews were the most affluent Americans, Majority members next, Assimilated and Unassimilable White Minority members next, and Negroes, traditionally Baptists, the poorest

Similar findings were obtained by a special 1950 Federal Census report which revealed that of thirty-nine different U.S. population groups Toreign-born Russians” had the highest median income. The median income of Americans of native white parentage was 40 percent less. The Census report explained the economic success of the foreign-born Russians by saying, “the Russian group contains large refugee and Jewish components.”[68]Ibid., pp. 367-69, 371.
(D. J. Bogue, The Population of the U. S., The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois, 1959, p. 706.)

Since Jews are 2.3 percent of the American population, an unwary statistician might be foolish enough to predict that 2.3 percent of American millionaires would be Jewish and that Jews would own 2.3 percent of the country’s wealth. In 1955, Look magazine published a list of the 400 richest Americans (worth $100 million or more). Approximately 25 percent of the individuals who made the list bore identifiably Jewish names.

Perhaps the best proof of the constant expansion of Jewish financial power in the U.S is furnished by the activities of the great Jewish investment banking houses. Year by year, Goldman Sachs, Shearson Lehman, Lazard Freres, Salomon Bros., Warburg Paribas Becker, Wertheim & Co., Oppenheimer & Co., and others are extending their financial reach over larger segments of the economy. No one can determine the extent of this control, but some indication is obtained by examining the roster of directors of America’s leading corporations. Whenever a partner or officer of these investment firms appears as a director of a large corporation, it is a sign he is representing a significant, though not necessarily controlling, financial interest.[69]Henry Ford, a hard-shell Protestant, was averse to Wall Street, liberals, foreigners, Jews, and non-Protestants in general. One could well imagine his reaction if he returned to earth and found: (1) Joseph Cullman, a Jewish tobacco tycoon, a director of Ford Motor Co.; (2) the Ford Foundation, the world’s richest sponsor of liberal and minority causes; (3) his grandson, Henry Ford II, a Catholic convert, married for the second time to an Italian jet setter, who later divorced him; (4) his two great-granddaughters, Anne and Charlotte, wed at one time to foreigners, the former to a Greek shipping magnate, the latter to a Florentine Jew who is a Wall Street stockjobber; (5) great-grandson Alfred, a Hare Krishna devotee, married to a young lady from Bombay. It might be added that although these “merchant bankers,” as the British call them, may have several nonJewish partners, Jewish partners generally have the final say.[70]Standard and Poor’s Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives (1980) lists Goldman, Sachs partners as directors of the following corporations: Associated Dry Goods, Capital Holding Corp., Kraft, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Witco Chemical, TWA, Franklin Mint, Corning, Pillsbury, Brown Group, Eagle-Picher, B. F. Goodrich, Cluett Peabody, Cowles Communications, J. P. Stevens.

Lehman Brothers and Kuhn, Loeb merged in 1977 and were taken over by American Express in 1983. Sanford Weil was put in charge of what came to be called Shearson Lehman, which presumably inherited the old Lehman Brothers and Kuhn, Loeb directorships in the following corporations: Goebel Brothers, Twentieth Century-Fox, United Fruit, Commercial Solvents, Chesebrough Pond’s, Paramount Pictures, Beckman Instruments, Singer Sewing Machine, Bristol-Myers, General Cable, RCA, Federated Department Stores, Bulova Watch, Western Union, Shell Oil, General Analine and Film, Standard Oil of California, Greyhound, FMC, Jones 8c Laughlin Steel, Anchor-Hocking, Times-Mirror, United California Bank, Union Oil, Wells Fargo Bank, Hertz, Litton Industries, General Motors, Allied Chemical, Continental Can, United States lines, Caterpillar Tractor, IBM, Southern Pacific, Chase Manhattan Bank, Pacific Gas and Electric, Air Reduction, Northern Pacific, Bendix, Smith-Corona Marchant, Flintkote, Speny-Rand, Allied Stores.

In the 1960s, Kuhn, Loeb partners were directors of: Westinghouse Electric, Sears Industries, U.S. Rubber, Anglo-Israel Bank, Revlon, Benrus Watch, Tishman Realty, American Export Lines, Polaroid, C.I.T. Financial, Brush-Beryllium, Getty Oil, A 8c P, Kennecott Corp., Marine Midland Trust, Metromedia, Buckeye Pipe, General American Transportation.

The 1964 and 1968 Poors, which carried much more information about Lazard Freres than current editions, showed the firm’s partners to be directors of: Jones 8c Laughlin Steel, National Fire Insurance, Olivetti-Underwood, Owens-Illinois, Manufacturers Life Insurance, Chemical Bank-New York Trust, Harcourt Brace, Harper and Row, Libby-Owens-Ford Glass, Warner Lambert Pharmaceutical, Sun Insurance, RCA, Engelhard Minerals 8c Chemicals Corp., ITT.

It should now be evident that Jews have more than a foothold in automobile manufacturing, steel, public utilities, railroads, airlines, insurance, oil and chemicals — in many of the very same bluechip corporations that had supposedly been most successful in resisting Jewish infiltration.[71]In 1980 Wall Street rumors had it that the European Rothschilds held substantial interests in Kaiser Aluminum, Atlas Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Anaconda, U.S. Borax, Aetna Life, Litton Industries, Standard Oil of California, and Rand Corporation. In some cases Jews have actually become chief executive officers of the oldest or most innovative corporations^ — e.g., Irving Shapiro, for many years chief executive officer of Du Pont, and Michael Blumenthal, who first headed Bendix then Burroughs then Unisys. In some important corporate areas Jews exercise both managerial and financial control. The two largest distillers (Seagram and Schenley) belong to this category, as do some of the largest textile companies, shoe firms, producers of computers and computer software, two leading tobacco companies (P. Lorillard and Philip Morris), and one of the biggest breweries (Miller). The largest shareholder of Pabst Brewing is or was corporate raider Irwin Jacob. The clothing industry at the manufacturing, wholesale, and retail level is predominantly Jewish. Jews control or own many of the nation’s largest department stores, and have become a powerful force in advertising (Saatchi and Saatchi). Jewelry and precious stones are practically a Jewish monopoly, as are cosmetics and pet supplies.

The anonymity surrounding the operations of the investment banking houses and stockbroker firms is occasionally broken by effusive references to the wealth of their principal partners. Robert Lehman of Lehman Brothers, it was revealed before his death, had an art collection worth more than $150 million.[72]Joseph Wechsberg, The Merchant Bankers, Little, Brown, Boston, 1966, p. 333. Gustave Levy, a Goldman, Sachs partner, was once described as the “biggest money man on Wall Street”[73]Martin Mayer, Wall Street, Harper, New York, 1955, p. 193. The late Andre Meyer of Lazard Freres, founded more than one hundred years ago by a French-Jewish gold trader from New Orleans, did not even take up residence in the United States until 1940, yet was “the most important investment banker in the world.”[74]Fortune, Aug. 1968, p. 101.

Meyer was a director of RCA and Allied Chemical in the United States, and of Fiat and Montecatini Edison in Italy. President Kennedy appointed him to important government posts and his close friends included Robert McNamara, Henry Fowler, onetime secretary of the treasury, Eugene Black, former head of the World Bank, and Jacqueline Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson consulted Meyer regularly. David Rockefeller joined him in several real estate ventures. Lazard Freres* New York branch has participated in vast financial transactions involving American Metal Climax, Minnesota Mining, and Lockheed Aircraft In 1966 Lazard arranged the McDonnellDouglas merger for a fee of $1 million. Lazard has or had a $40 million interest in International Telephone and Telegraph, one of the nation’s largest conglomerates. Lazard’s New York, London and Paris branches have supervised investments totaling $3 billion.[75]In the article quoted in the previous footnote Fortune stated, The hard financial core of capitalism in the free world is composed of not more than 60 firms, partnerships and corporations owned or controlled by some 1,000 men.”

Although they do not have the power wielded by moneymen like Meyer, mutual funds, pension funds, and brokerage firms, which hold huge blocks of shares in the largest corporations, also exert a great deal of influence on the higher levels of American business. The Jewish position in this area of the financial community is very strong. There are huge Jewish-controlled money pools like the Dreyfus Fund, and big Jewish brokerage firms like Salomon Brothers, whose two top Jewish executives were removed for mismanagement in 1991 and temporarily replaced by Warren Buffet, a non-Jew. Jews are directors or officers of a few of the largest commercial banks, though here it must be admitted their influence is relatively weak. Jews have been presidents or chairmen of the New York Stock Exchange and of the smaller exchanges. Jews sit on the Senate and House committees that write legislation regulating corporate finance. Equally important, Jews often dominate the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has the power to make or break any corporation it deems has violated SEC rules and regulations. Without a doubt the most important job in the U.S. banking system belongs to Alan Greenspan, longtime chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. The television program “Wall Street Week,” presided over by Louis Rukeyser, is viewed by tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of investors or potential investors.

In the 1993 Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, at least 26 percent were Jews. Those who made the billionaire bracket included:

John W. Kluge ($7.05 billion). German-born convert to Catholicism. Donated $110 million to Columbia University for minority scholarships. What he was before his conversion is not known, but his business and political connections, his social life, and his marriages indicate at least one or two Jewish branches in his family tree. Made his money from films, radio, cellular phones.

Sumner M. Redstone ($5.6 billion) . Movie theaters, cable televison. His Viacom company was winner of bruising contest for Paramount Communications (movie studios, Simon 8c Shuster) in February 1994.

Ted Arison ($3.65 billion). Onetime Israeli lieutenant colonel. Cruise ships, Miami Heat basketball team.

Ronald Perelman ($3.6 billion). Revlon cosmetics, Marvel entertainment, outdoor equipment, S&L, health products.

Newhouse brothers, Donald and Samuel Jr. ($3.5 billion each). Twenty-one daily newspapers, five magazines, six television stations, four radio stations, twenty cable TV systems, Random House, Conde Nast

Edgar Bronfman ($2.3 billion). Liquor baron, son of Canadian bootlegger. Largest stockholder of The Seagram Co., Ltd., which owned 24.3% of Du Pont and has 5.7% of Time Warner. Son Edgar Jr., heir apparent, Hollywood mogul, married and divorced a Negro, who bore him three children.

Pritzker brothers, Jay Arthur and Robert Alan ($2.2 billion each). Hyatt Hotels, manufacturing and service companies, 33% of Royal Caribbean Cruises.

Lester Crown ($2.2 billion). General Dynamics, Material Service Corp., stakes in ski resorts, N.Y. Yankees, Chicago Bulls.

Walter Annenberg ($2.2 billion). Nixon’s ambassador to Britain, Triangle Publications, GM stock, sold TV Guide to Rupert Murdoch, paid $57 million for a Van Gogh. Father Moses once jailed for fraud.

Marvin H. Davis ($1.7 billion). Davis Oil Co., oil leases, real estate.

Lawrence J. Ellison ($1.6 billion). College dropout, son of Russian immigrants, computer software.

Leslie H. Wexner ($1.6 billion). Women’s wear, Victoria’s Secret, Lane Bryant, home builder, heavy supporter of Jewish causes.

William B. Ziff, Jr. ($1.5 billion). Trade and consumer magazines.

Peter E. Haas, Sr. ($1.4 billion). Levi Strauss 8c Co., world’s largest apparel firm.

Tisch brothers, Laurence Alan and Preston Robert ($1.3 billion each). CBS, Loews Corp., Bulova Watch, stakes in Macy’s Dept. Store, Lorillard tobacco, 50% of New York Giants.

Donald L. Bren ($1.3 billion). Real estate developer, part owner of Irvine Ranch.

Samuel J. LeFrak ($1.3 billion). Real estate and mall developer, largest private U.S. apartment landlord.

Milton Petrie ($1.1 billion). Son of Russian immigrants, 1,729 apparel stores in 50 states.

George Soros ($1.1 billion). Money manager, currency speculator, built Quantum Fund now worth $4.2 billion. Almost single-handedly succeeded in devaluating the British pound.

Lauder family, Estee, Leonard Alan and Ronald Steven ($1 billion each). Cosmetics.

Michel Fribourg ($1 billion). Grain trader.

Altogether exactly 100 billionaires were named in the Forbes list. As indicated previously, 26 percent were Jewish. The same percentage, give or take a few points, applies to the remainder of the Forbes 400 richest Americans. Jews have also been in the top ranks of those collecting the biggest salaries and annual bonuses. The most highly compensated American in 1943 was Louis Mayer of MGM ($949,765); in 1979 Frank Rosenfelt of MGM ($5.1 million); in 1981 Steven Ross of Warner Communications ($22.5 million).

Always to be found in the top echelons of American affluence are such old established Jewish families (some members of which have become Christians) as the Seligmans, Warburgs, and Kahns, and the more nouveaux Strauses, Gimbels, Kaufmanns and Magnins. The elite Jewish families of San Francisco — Hellmans (Wells Fargo Bank), Fleishhackers, Sutros, and Schwabachers — also deserve mention in any comprehensive census of inherited wealth.

As America’s giant industrial concerns grow unwieldy and operating costs go out of sight, as accounting, financing, labor and government relations, and affirmative action take precedence over invention, production and quality control, Jews have thronged to the lucrative pastures of arbitrage,[76]Most Wall Streeters found guilty of inside trading and other financial crimes, from Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky on down, are Jewish. land speculation, subdivisions, shopping malls, discount chains, credit cards, and various technological enterprises like computer chips and gene splicing. Among such are Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum, the Levitts of Levittown, Louis Aronson of Ronson lighters, Alfred Bloomingdale of the Diners Club, Eugene Ferkauf of E. J. Korvette Department Stores, Stanley Marcus of Nieman-Marcus, Herbert Siegel of ChrisCraft Industries, and Irving Feist, the Newark realtor who has served several terms as president of the Boy Scouts of America. One of the most meteoric of these wheeler-dealers is Meshulam Ricklis, born in Istanbul, raised in Israel, naturalized an American, who in one week made $2 million in the stock market[77]Schenley Industries, the giant distiller, is a subsidiary of Ricklis’s Rapid American Corp. Jewish multimillionaires with political ambitions include Republican Lew Lehrman of Rite-Aid Drugs, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey whose wealth comes from the Automatic Data Processing company, and Democratic Senator Herbert Koch of Wisconsin, a onetime insurance magnate. A politically inclined Jew who prefers to work behind the scenes is Felix Rohatyn, the Vienna-born Lazard Freres partner, who helped untangle the tangled finances of technically bankrupt New York City.[78]Nathan Ruck in Economic Trends in the American Jew, ed. Oscar Janovsky, Harper, New York, 1942, pp. 162, 165.

Another important source of Jewish wealth is the seemingly congenital preference of Jews for the most highly paid occupations. Some 35 to 40 percent of working Jewish adults are in commerce, as against 13.8 percent of nonjews; 10 to 12 percent in the professions compared to 6.8 percent of nonjews; 73 percent in Vhite collar” jobs versus 43 percent of Protestants and 33 percent of Catholics; 48 percent self-employed as against 19 percent of Protestants and 10 percent of Catholics.

Foreseeing a Jewish stranglehold on the professions, many American medical and law schools established a quota system at the turn of the century. Under the battering of liberal and minority pressure, the numerus clausus for Jews has now been largely abandoned.[79]With the rise of affirmative action, however, complications arose. Quotas once imposed against Jews were transformed into government-sponsored “goals” for nonwhites to the disadvantage of whites, a category which includes Jews. Jewish ambivalence towards this government racial preference program will be explored later in this book. At present, medical colleges receive about 14,000 entry applications a year, 5,000 to 7,000 from Jews.[80]Simpson and Yinger, op. cit, pp. 677-79. In New York City half of the 15,000 doctors are Jewish. The spiraling tuitions of medical and law schools have given Jews an additional advantage in the race for professional degrees. Belonging to the richest American population group, Jews can more easily afford the high costs of postgraduate education.

To sum up the phenomenon of Jewish affluence, what is happening in the United States today is what has been happening throughout much of Western history. Jews, finding themselves unrestricted and uncurbed in a land rich in resources and labor, are rapidly acquiring a wholly disproportionate share of its wealth. It is almost certainly the same historic process that took place in Visigothic, Arabic and Catholic Spain, in medieval England, France and Germany — and more recently in twentieth-century Germany. Yet hardly anyone cares — or dares — to notice it Those who are so concerned about oil cartels, proliferating conglomerates, the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, the military-industrial complex, AIDS, and racial and gender discrimination are strangely silent and utterly unconcerned about the activities of an ever more powerful, ever more dominant supranational ethnocentrism with unlimited financial resources at its command.

But the silence is not so strange when one reflects on what the late British political analyst R. H. S. Crossman described as “the antianti-Semitic veto which has successfully suppressed any candid and effective writing about the Jewish problem. . ,”[81]R. H. S. Crossman, Partisan Review, Fall, 1964, p. 565. Any critical discussion of Jewish wealth— or for that matter any objective criticism of any aspect of Jewish power — immediately exposes the speaker to charges of anti-Semitism. Since anti-Semitism is the great heresy of modern times, a person so accused is immediately subjected to such doses of social ostracism and economic attrition that a successful public career is forever closed to him. It is consequently small wonder that almost the entire Western intellectual establishment has shied away from such a thankless and unprofitable task. In the present-day West one can only be truly objective about Jews when one is a Jew. A very few anti-Zionist Jews, who believe Zionism harms Jewry by exposing bipolar Jewish loyalties, declaim against Israel. A very few Jewish thinkers and scientists, and a very few Jewish novelists who let their characters run away from them, occasionally show symptoms of the ancient Jewish neurosis of Selbsthass and vent their feelings in a manner inconsistent with the all-out Jewish effort to keep anti-Semitism under impenetrable wraps.[82]One such thinker was Simone Weil, the French-Jewish poetess-philosopher who equated the spirit of Judaism with the spirit of Nazism and complained that the worship of the “earthy, cruel and exclusive Jehovah had turned Jews into a nation of fugitive slaves.” One such scientist was Nobel laureate Dr. Karl Landsteiner, who unsuccessfully sought an injunction against Who’s Who in American Jewry for calling him a Jew. Sachar, The Course of Modern Jewish History, p. 404. One such novelist is Philip Roth, author of Portnoy’s Complaint,

The removal of all things Jewish from the arena of rational discussion automatically relegates unfriendly opinions of Jews to the hushed whispers of office, living room, and country club, to underground “hate sheets,” and to the verbal musings of crackpots haunted by visions of bearded elders plotting world conquest. All this lends an aura of mysticism and romantic obscurantism to antiSemitism, which it does not deserve and which endows it with a kind of kinetic and subterranean diabolism. The day anti-Semitism breaks out into the light again — as suppressed ideologies have the habit of doing — it cannot avoid becoming the stock-in-trade of the apocalyptic avenger who knows that emotion and dogma move more mountains than reason. The sudden release of tensions and hatreds pent up during decades of censorship and indoctrination may obviate any less explosive outcome.

Instead of submitting anti-Semitism to the free play of ideas, instead of making it a topic for public debate in which all can join, Jews and their liberal supporters have managed to organize an inquisition in which all acts, writings, and even thoughts critical of Jewry are treated as a threat to the moral order of mankind. The pro-Semite has consequently made himself a mirror image of the anti-Semite. The Tartuffe of the contemporary era turns out to be the Jewish intellectual who believes passionately in the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly for all, but rejoices when permits are refused for anti-Semitic meetings and rocks crack against the skulls of anti-Semitic speakers.

Admitting the almost incredible disparity between Jewish numbers and Jewish influence in the United States — and it is growing more difficult for anyone not to admit it — how does modern scholarship explain it? The immediate answer is that most modern scholars do not try to explain it at all or, if they do, simply deny that there is little more to the Jewish problem than a series of historical coincidences. Those with a more inquisitive mind or with a special ax to grind have proposed a few interesting theories on the subject — theories, however, which are basically apologies since they are circumscribed by the current caveat that any discussion of Jews must never put them in an unfavorable light.

One well-circulated theory, advanced by Jewish scholar Ludwig Lewisohn, is that Jews were primarily an agricultural people who were driven into banking and commerce by papal edicts forbidding all Christians to engage in usury.[83]Sachar, op. cit, p. 533. Lewisohn, who taught at several American universities before becoming professor of comparative literature at Brandeis, was a Jewish supremacist who inveighed against Germans, Slavs, Negroes, and Anglo-Saxon “barbarism.” One might speculate on the media’s reaction to a Majority professor who inveighed against Jewish “barbarism. n The implication is that Jews, against their natural inclinations, were forced to become rich by being compelled to set up an hereditary plutocratic caste. This proposition, however, is untenable for the obvious reason that Jews were very active in money-lending long before Christianity — not to mention the papacy — had entered the arena of history.

The late A. L. Kroeber, respected head of the University of California’s anthropology department, took an unruffled approach to the Jewish question. Pointing to the “exceedingly spotty Jewish participation in the great civilizations,” Kroeber defined the present Jewish ascendancy as a “transitional phenomenon.” It was, he said, the “released mobility” of the Jews that had the effect of propelling them forward “more quickly than Gentiles in fields which they enter newly, and temporarily with brilliant success.”[84]A.L. Kroeber, Configurations of Cultural Growth, University of California, Berkeley, 1969, p. 740. As the years go by, however, and the Jewish upward curve shows few signs of leveling off, Kroeber’s thesis is losing much of its cogency.

A more plausible thesis has a Darwinian base. It was the richest Jew who had the best chance of surviving the pogroms and lesser persecutions which have dogged Jewish footsteps over the centuries. In most cases he could buy his way out. But the richest Jew was generally the most adroit Jew, the one best suited and best adapted to the peculiar conditions and requirements of urban and ghetto life. The affluent, citified Jew of today is the end product of 2,000 years of a special form of natural selection, the fortunate possessor of an inbred cosmopolitanism which is a great competitive advantage in decadent, urbanized societies incapable of guarding their citizens against the racial dynamism of intruders.

Richard Swartzbaugh, assistant professor of anthropology at Eastern Illinois University, believes that a fragmented, divided, classridden multiracial society cannot survive without massive infusions of mediation. Since Jews have always been adept as mediators, since their status as outsiders highly qualifies them as professional gobetweens, especially in the areas of labor relations, law and politics, they have almost automatically been elevated to the top of a social order that must resolve its multiplying inner conflicts by arbitration and “deals” or dissolve into war and anarchy.[85]Richard Swartzbaugh, The Mediator, Howard Allen, Cape Canaveral, Florida, [1973]

Perhaps the most original theory that attempts to account for the current Jewish ascendancy in the social sciences has been advanced by John Murray Cuddihy, an assistant professor of sociology and a scion of a prominent Irish-American family. In Cuddihy’s view, the writings of Freud, Marx, Claude Levi-Strauss, and the other prominent Diaspora Jews who have done so much to bruise Western culture were not motivated by a love of truth or a desire to improve mankind, but by their fear and loathing of Western civility, the repressed and controlled behavior that is incomprehensible to an irrepressible people. Since they obviously could not get away with a direct attack on Gentile conduct, they consciously or unconsciously worked out highly ramified interpretations of history, economics, politics, psychology, and anthropology to undermine it. Communism was an ideal weapon to divide and destroy the Western political and economic order. Freudianism attacked Western morality by its neurotic emphasis on sex and by lending respectability to the promptings of the baser instincts. Levi-Strauss’s anthropology compared savage and civilized societies to the disadvantage of the latter. Cuddihy even hints that Einstein’s physics was inspired in part by a desire to shock and shatter rather than refine and advance Western science.[86]John M. Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility, Dell Publishing, New York, 1976.

It is only a short step from acknowledging that peoples or races have special aptitudes for high achievement in certain occupations to the development of theories of racial inferiority or superiority. An ardent contemporary advocate of Jewish supremacy, Nathaniel Weyl, alleges that Jews are inherently more intelligent than other peoples because they have been breeding for intelligence since the beginning of the Diaspora. Gentile churchmen, the cream of the nonjewish medieval intelligentsia, according to Weyl, were usually celibate and died without issue, while the less sexually inhibited rabbis and Talmudic scholars were eagerly sought after by the daughters of prominent Jewish merchants.[87]The Creative Elite in America, Chap. XVIII. Boccaccio and Rabelais would have smiled at Weyl’s assertions regarding the celibacy and intelligence of the clergy. Part of Weyl’s theme was taken from Sir Francis Galton, who was equally bitter about the dysgenics of religious bachelorhood. But in his own intelligence ratings Galton excluded Jews and gave first place to the Athenians, whom he placed two grades above the 19th-century British and four grades above Negroes. Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius, Macmillan, London, 1869, especially pp. 42, 257, 342, 357. Weyl’s point concerning the synergistic combination and recombination rather than the ascetic stultification of clever Jewish genes would have more validity if he did not confuse intelligence with verbalism and intellectual sheen.[88]“All intellectuality is in the long run shallowness; never does it allow of probing to the very roots of a matter, never of reaching down to the depths of the soul, or of the universe. Hence intellectuality makes it easy to go from one extreme to the other. That is why you find among Jews fanatical orthodoxy and unenlightened doubt side by side; they both spring from one source.” Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, trans. M. Epstein, Dutton, N.Y., 1914, p. 269. Were not most of the kings, artists, writers, architects, and warriors of the Middle Ages, as well as more than a few popes, as lusty and prolific as his rabbis and ghetto tycoons?

In The Geography of Intellect, which he wrote with Stefan T. Possony, Weyl supported his claims for Jewish intelligence by referring to seventeen studies: “Eleven found the Jews superior in mental test scores, four found them equal, and two found them inferior. “[89]One study that found Jews to be mentally inferior was Carl Brigham’s analysis of the Army’s World War I intelligence tests. For more on Brigham, see Appendix A. The authors only gave details on one study, a series of tests covering almost 2,000 Jewish and non Jewish children in three London schools: one upper class, one poor, and the third very poor. The Jewish scores were significandy higher.[90]Nathaniel Weyl and Stefan T. Possony, The Geography of Intellect, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1963, pp. 162-63. The authors also failed to mention a detailed study by Dr. Audrey Shuey, which showed that Protestant college students scored better than their Jewish counterparts in intelligence tests. See The Journal of Social Psychology, 1942, Vol. 15, pp. 221-43.

Weyl failed to mention it, but he must have been aware that tests seeking to compare Jewish intelligence with the intelligence of such broad spectrum groups as whites, Gentiles, or Christians are necessarily loaded in favor of Jews. Since the Jewish population is concentrated almost entirely in or around the largest cities, tests involving large numbers of Jews have to be conducted in areas where the white population is extremely heterogeneous, with a heavy emphasis on groups of other than Northern European origin. Many of these “whites” may in fact be nonwhites. When forced to classify Americans as either white or nonwhite, the Census Bureau often puts many Puerto Ricans and almost all Mexicans in the Caucasian category.

To obtain an accurate measurement of Jewish intelligence, it would seem reasonable to compare Jews, a select group within the white population, with other select white population groups, not with the white population as a whole. An intelligence test restricted to Jews and Americans of Northern European descent might produce results that differ significantly from the tests cited by Weyl. Also, since some I.Q. tests reveal as much information about verbal agility, quick recall, and educational levels as they do about intelligence itself, consideration should be given to the fact that Jews, being the wealthiest and most cosmopolitan population group, have readier access than other Americans to education and to such educational byproducts as memory training and vocabulary building. Although it may sound heretical in this day and age, a college degree, a subscription to the New York Times, and a fondness for forensics are not conclusive proof of higher intelligence.

It was educated city Jews, not hillbillies, who fueled the fires of world communism, a misbegotten creed that while promising equality and freedom set new records in inequality and oppression, transforming every country that espoused it into an economic basket case.

It was educated city Jews, not hillbillies who were largely responsible for foisting on the American population affirmative action, forced busing, integration of the work and learning place.

It was educated Jews, not hillbillies who composed, financed, and distributed the tasteless and soulless television sitcoms, and ran the business affairs and divided the rich take of the stoned Stone Age Negro rappers.

It was educated city Jews, not hillbillies, who persuaded the U.S. to contribute at least $50 billion to the Zionist conquest and occupation of Palestine, thereby making Americans, whether they like it or not, into arch enemies of a great part of the Arab and Muslim world and an automatic participant in past and future Middle East wars, wars that may one day go nuclear when the billion adherents of Islam launch their reconquista.

Despite these not exactly brilliant feats of statesmanship, the case for Jewish intellectual superiority continues to gather momentum. Ernest van den Haag devoted the opening chapter of his bestseller, The Jewish Mystique, to wide-ranging generalizations about the more finely tuned cerebral apparatus of Jews.[91]Van den Haag’s remarks about Jewish cultural domination have been quoted on p. 91. Although in only one instance did he supply any documentation for his allegations[92]The Jewish Mystique, p. 24. The author relied on an old study by Lewis Terman, who in tests of California school children found there were twice as many gifted Jewish students as their proportion of the population warranted. Here again, the tests were conducted in the largest cities — San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles — where California Jews were concentrated and where the Majority was underrepresented both in quantity and quality. Other population groups produced extremely high scores, but Van den Haag did not mention them. The Scots did even better than the Jews on a percentage basis. The most important lesson provided by the Terman study was the woefully poor performance of Negro and Mexican children. Lewis Terman, Genetic Studies of Genius, Stanford University Press, 1925, Vol. 1, pp. 55-56. and although he never once referred to Weyl by name, Professor van den Haag was obviously expanding on Weyl’s “breeding for intelligence” hypothesis and his writing breathed the spirit of the latter’s arguments.

Nevertheless the case for the genetically based superiority of Jewish intelligence did not receive national prominence until a 1969 press interview with the British scientist-turned-novelist, G. P. Snow. Quoting from a speech he was preparing to deliver to the Hebrew Union College, Snow stated that Jews were definitely brainier than other living peoples and attributed this superiority to inbreeding.[93]Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 1 , 1969, p. 26. In the same interview Snow refused to be drawn into a discussion of Negro intelligence. By side-stepping the Negro issue, Snow proved himself less courageous than Weyl, who after quitting the Communist party wrote profusely on the subject of Negro intellectual inferiority. Professor van den Haag, who also has definite ideas about black capabilities, testified for Southern white children in legal proceedings instituted in 1963 to overturn (unsuccessfully, one might add) the Supreme Court’s 1954 school desegregation ruling. Putnam, Race and Reality, pp. 87-88.

Ironically, theories of Aryan, Nordic, or Teutonic racial supremacy, which assigned Jews to the lower rungs of the white racial ladder, have now been completely reversed. Within fifty years of Adolf Hitler’s death and following the execution, imprisonment or social ostracism of all Northern European racial supremacists, in and out of Germany, an internationally known writer, like G. P. Snow, was given a handsome stipend and treated most generously by the American press after publicly proclaiming a theory of racial superiority. But all things considered, Snow, van den Haag, and Weyl’s reasoning does not prove Jewish intellectual preeminence as much as it proves the reshuffling of the West’s racial power structure.

When it is a matter of appraising racial intelligence, the historical record, the accumulated evidence of the entire human experience would seem to be more reliable than a few scattered, often self-serving academic obiter dicta and I.Q. scores. If Jews are truly superior to the rest of mankind, it might be asked why, with one or two exceptions, the greatest cultural achievements of Western man took place in exactly those areas where Jews were unknown, segregated, banned, or actively persecuted?[94]The list of countries and cities forbidden to Jews in different eras was given earlier in this chapter. Here the list may be lengthened by adding that there were no Jews of any influence in Pericles’s Athens and minor identifiable Jewish participation in the cultural life of the Roman Republic and Empire (in their great days). In Goethe’s Germany and Dostoyevsky’s Russia, Jews were just beginning to stir out of their ghetto cocoon. The single example of a great and uniquely Hebrew culture, though somewhat restricted in that Judaism specifically forbade painting and sculpture, evolved in ancient Palestine, where Hebrews were a majority in their own land. If superiority is to be measured in political and economic rather than cultural terms, how is it that the greatest and most enduring empires, republics, and city states of Western civilization were founded without Jewish assistance and reached their zenith before the appearance of influential Jewish establishments within their borders?[95]Zenith is not meant to signify the era of greatest territorial expansion or greatest wealth, but the moment of the cresting of national morale, purpose, and unity. In this sense the greatest days of England occurred in the sixteenth rather than the nineteenth century. America is either well past its zenith or a long way from it. No Jews signed the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence. No Jews were active in the Long Parliament, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia or in most of the other great deliberations which gave form and substance to man’s most successful experiments with representative government.

The few instances, at least in recent history, where bodies of Jews have assumed outright political control — the Kurt Eisner regime in Bavaria (in late 1919), the short-lived Spartacus uprising in Berlin (December 1918-January 1919), Bela Kun’s sadistic orgy in Budapest (March-August 1919) — could hardly be classified as golden ages of statesmanship. Neither could the Russian Revolution, in which Jews took a commanding role until the Stalin purges. The Jewish autonomous region of Birobidzhan in the late Soviet Union’s Far East fizzled out almost before it started.[96]For the Birobidzhan debacle, see Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961, p. 258. Israel has been in a state of war since its creation in 1948.

As for the economic advantages Jews are supposed to confer upon their host countries, there is no question that they bring with them a great deal of money and financial expertise. But an increasing flow of money is often accompanied by inflation, financial crime, and a flood of speculation. If Jews are as intrinsic to the good economic life as some economists claim, it seems odd that the Weimar Republic with its plethora of Jewish financiers was an economic miasma, while the economic miracle of West Germany took place in the one large Western nation almost free of Jewish financial domination and at the very time (1952-1962) it was paying $900 million to Israel in reparations and billions more to individual Jews throughout the world. A country with an equally dynamic economy in the post-World War II era, Japan, has no Jews at all.[97]Japan’s vastly profitable trade with the West, however, involves many Jewish import firms. In an attempt to explain why Jews have such enormous influence in the U.S., several anti-Semitic books were published in Japan in the mid-1980s.

Another way of measuring the Jewish contribution to civilization is to examine the political, economic, and social conditions of areas where Jews are heavily concentrated. The two main centers of Jewish power and population in the modern world are New York City and Israel. The former, financially as well as morally bankrupt, can only be described as one of the great municipal catastrophes of the day, a scabrous pile of ugliness, tastelessness, and lawlessness, certainly not the brilliant world capital of a people with superior civilizing gifts. Although they have failed to make New York bloom, Jews have nevertheless accomplished technological wonders in the Palestinian wilderness. But the true measure of a people’s genius is not determined by its ability to cultivate the land, build cities, and wage a series of successful wars. A nation’s ultimate place in history is determined by its statecraft, by its ability to create a special fertilizing environment in which the citizenry can develop its distinctive cultural resources to the highest possible pitch.

Modern Jews may be gifted above all other peoples. Or they may be, as Toynbee asserts, the remnants of a fossilized civilization.[98]For stating this idea, Toynbee was accused by Jewish historian Maurice Samuel of perpetuating “demonological anti-Semitism.” Toynbee, A Study of History, Vol. V, p. 76, and Samuel, The Professor and the Fossil, Knopf, N.Y., 1956, p. 194. Or they may even be, as anti-Semites assert, a parasitic social organism that survives by feeding off other social organisms. Which of these descriptions is most realistic it is too early to tell. Modern Jewry has been emancipated for less than two centuries and not enough data have been collected. But if it should turn out that Jews are superior beings, as many of them feel and as their more enthusiastic scholars and well-wishers are always attempting to prove, it is time for a more conclusive demonstration of their abilities.

It is one thing to reshape the thinking habits and living patterns of a decadent U.S. It is quite another to give the world a greater writer than Shakespeare, a greater composer than Mozart, a greater artist than Michelangelo. It is no easy task for Israel to exist as a minuscule military oasis in the midst of a hostile human and natural environment But it is a much more difficult task to undertake a civilizing mission in the Middle East comparable to Spain’s in Latin America, Britain’s in North America, and France’s in North Africa. As final proof of Jewish superiority, Einstein’s theories must become Einstein’s laws, and the net effect on the evolutionary process of Marx, Freud, and other modern Jewish prophets and sages must be positive not negative, constructive not destructive.

Until all the evidence is in, the most logical explanation for the Jewish hegemony in the United States is the simple truth that an organized minority with a given amount of intelligence can obtain supremacy over a disorganized majority of equal intelligence. A race-conscious population group is far more effective and successful in most forms of endeavor than a race-unconscious population group. Racial spirit, like team spirit, stimulates victory in all types of competition, athletic or political, intellectual or social. If the Majority were as race-conscious as the Jewish minority and had half as many organizations working for it, Jewish predominance in America would disappear overnight

Where Jews diverge most sharply from the Majority, aside from important personality differences,[99]According to James Yaffe, Jews have more interest in sex than non-Jews, less interest in athletics, less faith in an afterlife, a lower birthrate, take many more expensive vacations, live longer, spend more time in psychoanalysis, and are much more likely to be hippies. In Hollywood, Jews get more divorces, commit more adultery, and drink less than their non Jewish neighbors. Jews use Jewish doctors 95 percent of the time; Jewish lawyers 87 percent of the time. Although they sometimes try to force themselves into non Jewish country clubs, they are very exclusive about their own. One, the Hillcrest in Los Angeles, has the highest initiation fee ($22,000) of any golf club in the U.S. and bans non-Jews except for a few show business figures who are admitted as “honorary Jews.” Jews, continues Yaffe, are noted for their “fear, obsequiousness, isolationism and belligerence n — a psychological chasm between Jew and non-Jew that may never be bridged. Traditionally dogmatic themselves, they demand rationalism in others. For the Jew “the intellect can’t be just a tool … it has to be a weapon too. He doesn’t use it simply to discover what the world is like or to create something beautiful, or to communicate his ideas. He must use it to beat down his competitors, to prove his superiority. For him controversy is inseparable from intellectual activity. Watch him at a party; note the vicious delight with which he backs lesser intellects into a corner. He’s implacable; neither social decorum nor human compassion can soften his attack. If you want to observe this trait at a safer distance, read what he writes to the letters-to-the-editor pages. In all Jewish publications, from Commentary down to the most obscure Yiddish weekly, these pages bathe the reader in vitriol. Like his father, the garment manufacturer, the Jewish intellectual doesn’t trade easy.” The American Jews, pp. 38, 65, 68, 234-35, 268-69, 292-93. is in their higher degree of ethnocentrism, not higher degree of intelligence. To put it in a different perspective, Jewish power may derive as much or more from Majority weakness and disorganization as from Jewish strength.

Since the anti-Semitic taboo has made it impossible to submit the Jewish question to free discussion and open inquiry,[100]These conspiracies of silence also extend to schools of thought and avenues of research which might strengthen Majority unity and thereby ultimately work to the Jews’ disadvantage — i.e., racial interpretation of American history, genetic arguments for segregated education, statistical studies of financial crime, and so on. Jews have only themselves to thank for having set themselves above and outside the rules of conventional democratic conduct Considering their history and their memories, it is only human for Jews to have done so. But it is also only human on the part of Majority members to oppose the kind of organized group behavior for which their institutions were never designed. When the occasion arises, Jews may appeal to fair play and tolerance for themselves, but when the debate centers on Jewry they seldom extend these traditional democratic prerogatives to others. Should Majority members who think differently take even the first faltering step towards a racial protective group like the B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League,[101]On its 50th anniversary in 1963, the Anti-Defamation League could point with pride to a New York headquarters, regional offices in thirty cities, a staff of 150 full-time lawyers, social scientists, educators and public relations specialists. Its budget for 1960 was $3,940,000. Thomas B. Morgan, The Fight Against Prejudice,” Look, June 4, 1963. Although tax-exempt, the ADL plays a highly political role and occasionally usurps the power of the police. The New Orleans regional director of the ADL put up most of the money for the informers which the FBI used to entrap an alleged bomber of synagogues in Mississippi. A young female school teacher was shot to death during the arrest, but the ADL escaped the usual investigation given any individual or group involved in homicide. Los Angeles Times, Feb. 13, 1970. As for the B’nai B’rith itself, which was founded in 1843 and headed by a Grand Saar, it has 205,000 male members in 1,350 lodges in forty-three countries and 130,000 female members in 600 chapters. Edward Grusd, B’nai B’rith, Appleton-Century, New York, 1966, pp. 283, 286. The B’nai B’rith is the only private agency to have been given official “consultation status” by the United Nations, where it acts as a strong lobby for Israel and other Jewish interests, though it has never registered as the agent of a foreign government. New York Times, May 28, 1970, p. 21. In 1993 the ADL branch in San Francisco, barely escaping criminal prosecution, had to pay what amounted to a $50,000 fine for receiving confidential police files from one of its paid agents. they would be hounded out of public life overnight by the media, “private” investigators, law enforcement agencies and, if need be, congressional committees — all prodded into action by a nationwide avalanche of Jewish protests.

In the long run, the Jewish place in American life cannot rest on the sanctity of institutions, dated dogmas, argumenta ad misericardiam, or the divine right of minorities. It must rest on the cause and effect relationship between the rise of the Jewish establishment and the Majority’s disestablishment If Jews are chiefly responsible for the present grinding assault on the nation’s racial backbone, then the Jewish minority must come under public scrutiny. America could survive forever without Jews. It could not last a day without the Majority.

Meanwhile the cyclic reckoning which has marked the rhythm of Jewish survival in the past closes in on American Jewry. Although the accumulation and preservation of Jewish wealth is only feasible in an orderly society where private property is a right, not a crime, Jews seem bent on destroying the very political, economic, and social climate that has made their success possible.[102]The final effect of a state-owned and state-directed economy on Jewry has been largely misunderstood, not only by most Jews but by most anti-Semites. After the Communist regime in Russia had confiscated Jewish fortunes and outlawed finance capitalism, Russian Jews had none of the usual Jewish defenses to fall back on when Stalin decided to turn against them — no Jewish-owned press, no Jewishoriented public opinion, no lavishly financed network of Jewish lobbies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a Marxist state largely created by Jewish agit-prop, huge numbers of Jews fled to Israel and the United States. As if in the grip of a lemming-like frenzy, they have been in the forefront of every divisive force of the modern era, from class agitation to minority racism, from the worst capitalistic exploitation to the most brutal collectivism, from blind religious orthodoxy to atheism and psychoanalysis, from raging intolerance to total permissiveness.

Moreover, as Jewish domination has become more pronounced, so has Jewish separatism — a dangerous trend for a minority which prospers best by concealing its divergence from the racial norm. Such recent historical stimuli as Nazi anti-Semitism, the Israeli experience, Soviet anti-Zionism, and the stepped-up tempo of social disintegration have filled the Jewish stockpile of race consciousness to overflowing. The appearance of ever more Jews in the top strata of public life inevitably produces a greater amount of Jewish selfidentification, as well as a far greater awareness of Jews on the part of nonjews. Intensified publicity, while revealing the extreme cultivation of a few Jews, also focuses attention on such unattractive Jewish traits as intrusiveness, contentiousness, haggling, and on the eye-stinging garishness which permeates the Catskills, Miami Beach, Las Vegas, and other centers of Jewish resort life.

The same racial dynamics which has sporadically elevated Jews to the top of the social heap has also cast them down into the abyss. The penduluming, rags-to-riches swing of Jewish history has led both to the fairyland castles of the Rothschilds and the barbed wire of Buchenwald and Auschwitz. When viewed from Olympus, the story of Jewish wanderings through time and space is both fascinating and repulsive, ennobling and degrading — in part comic, in great part tragic.

The only last word that can be said about Jews is that there is no last word. Jews are such a mass of contradictions and encompass such extremes of human behavior that they are simply beyond the reach of pat formulas, casual generalizations, or prophetic cliches. They are both the “People of the Book” and the exploiters of striptease.[103]New York Times, Feb. 25, 1937, p. 10. They were and are champions of both plutocracy and socialism. They originated and live by the concept of the Chosen People, yet pretend to be the most vociferous of antiracists. They are the most God-fearing and most God-hating, most straitlaced and most hedonistic, most lavish givers and biggest scrimpers, most cosmopolitan and most narrow-minded, most cultivated and most vulgar of peoples. Jewish sabras in Israel fought (until the 1973 war) like 10,000 Lawrences of Arabia. In Europe, with a few exceptions, such as the Warsaw uprising, their brethren were herded like sheep into the pens of the concentration camps. 104 As a final paradox, it should be pointed out that many of the greatest Jews, perhaps the very greatest, have been Jewish renegades, half Jews or pseudo Jews.[105]Renegades in that they embraced Christianity (Berenson, Disraeli, Heine, Husserl, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Sts. Peter and Paul) or turned atheist (Marx, Trotsky, and other leading dialectical materialists). The possibility that Moses was an Egyptian and the fact that Josephus was a turncoat have been previously mentioned. Spinoza, the greatest Jewish philosopher, was expelled from the Jewish community in Amsterdam in 1656 by rabbinical order. Many Orthodox Jews and anti-Semites agree— or hope — that Jesus was not Jewish because he came from “Galilee of the Gentiles.” A prevailing Talmudic tradition has it that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Joseph Panthera, a Roman centurion, and Miriam, the wife of a carpenter. Judische Enzyklopadie, Judischer Verlag, Berlin, 1930, Band IV/I, pp. 772-73.

Through all this mountain of inconsistency there glimmers a thin, hardly visible vein of logic. The Jewish nervous system bears the load of many obsessions, a principal obsession being an implacable, almost innate hostility to the peoples who at different times have sheltered or persecuted them, enriched or impoverished them, deified or satanized them. The Jewish fascination for political, economic, and social experiments may not, as often supposed, be proof of a noble, unselfish desire to save mankind by a coterie of professional Messiahs, but evidence of a deeply rooted, semi-conscious, semi-coordinated vendetta — Francis Bacon called it a “secret inbred rancour” 106 — against all things nonjewish and, in the final countdown, possibly all things Jewish as well.

If the past is any indication, if what Lord Acton said about individuals is applicable to groups, a sharp reduction of the Jewish racial vector is in the offing. This could be achieved most easily and most painlessly by assimilation. But there are no convincing signs of this on the horizon, despite the falling birthrate and the higher incidence of Jewish outmarriages. The 3,000-year record of Jewish nonassimilation has only been broken once. 107 The alternative to assimilation is repression, of which history provides many models — Egyptian bondage, Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, mass deportations, forced baptism, quarantined ghettos, Russian pogroms, and German concentration camps.

When and if a resuscitated American Majority has the strength and the will to put a stop to the Jewish envelopment of America, history should not be repeated. The operation ought to be accomplished with a finesse that is a credit to both parties. The guiding purpose should be moral as well as cultural and political — to transcend, for the first time, the ancient racial infighting by facing the issue with the head and the heart, not the club and the knout.

Solutions to problems arising from massive racial confrontations within the borders of one country require every drop of reason and imagination that exists in the overbrimming well of the human spirit Separation is obviously part of the solution. But how can this most dangerous of all social operations be performed successfully? How can it be brought off without unbearable dislocations in the lands of exodus and intolerable sacrifices in the land of the ingathering?

Theoretically the answer is Israel. But Israel is the sputtering fuse of a Mideast holocaust.[108]The fuse sputtered a little more than usual on the occasion of the Israel air attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in June 1981, and the massacre of 29 Moslems at prayer by an obsessed Jewish fundamentalist in the Hebron mosque in early 1994.

Footnotes

[1] U.S. population from 1990 Census. Jewish population from 1992 American Jewish Yearbook. Like all statistics compiled by private groups whose methods of tabulation are not open to public scrutiny, these numbers must be accepted with some reservations, all the more so because organized Jewry has successfully opposed Census Bureau efforts to count Jews. New York Times, Dec. 13, 1957, p. 30.

[2] New York Post, March 20, 1962, p. 12.

[3] Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, trans. Katherine Jones, Hogarth Press, London, 1951. Concerning his Egyptification of Moses, Freud wrote (p. 11), ‘To deny a people the man whom it praises as the greatest of its sons is not a deed to be undertaken light-heartedly — especially by one belonging to that people.” Freud did not dwell on Moses’s murder of an Egyptian, his marriage to a Midianite woman, and his gory instructions to his Jewish followers on what to do with the Midianites (Numbers: 31,17-18): “Now therefore kill every male among the litde ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

[4] Jehovah spared the Jews by “passing over” their houses, which they had marked with lamb’s blood. As for the Egyptians, “there was not a house where there was not one dead.” Passover is celebrated each year as a high Jewish holy day, though it is difficult to find much religious content in an act of mass filicide. Exodus 12:35 also tells how the Jews, before leaving, “borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment.”

[5] It was the Jews’ intransigence towards Rome, and their rejection of the Pax Romana that led Gibbon to blame them for “their irreconcilable hatred of mankind” and to call them a “race of fanatics.” Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1878, Vol. 2, p. 4.

[6] Philo tried unsuccessfully to prove that Greek philosophers had plagiarized Jewish prophets. Although Josephus sided with Titus against his compatriots, he later tried to make up for his betrayal by writing phiknSemitic histories.

[7] In the Ency. Brit. (1 4th edition) there are separate articles on Greek Architecture, Art, Literature and Music. There are also separate articles on Roman Architecture, Roman Art and Latin Literature. The artistic activities of the Jews have been limited to one article, Hebrew Literature.

[8] P. E. Cleator, Lost Languages, Mentor Books, New York, 1962, pp. 109, 112.

[9] “[L]ittle in the Old Testament is more than a century or two earlier than the Homeric poems….Herodotus was contemporary with Malachi and Obadiah….Theocritus was singing in Sicily while the Song of Songs was being compiled in Palestine.” T. Eric Peet, A Comparative Study of the Literature of Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, 1931 , pp. 1-2. Peet states that when the first fragments of the Old Testament took their present form about 850 B.C., “the literatures of Egypt and Babylonia were…already hundreds, one might almost say thousands, of years old.”

[10] Anti-Semitic tracts abounded in Greek and Roman times and one work (no longer extant) by the Greek, Apion, was so well known and influential that Josephus devoted a whole book to its rebuttal.

[11] “[T]hey alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies.” Diodorus of Sicily, trans. F. R. Walton, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1967, Vol. XII, p. 53.

[12] Oxyrhynchus Papyri, X, 1242, 42.

[13] Gibbon, op. cit, Vol. 2, p. 4, including footnotes.

[14] E. M. Forster, Pharos and Pharillon, Knopf, New York, 1961, p. 17.

[15] Theodor Mommsen, The History of Rome, edited by Saunders and Collins, Meridian, New York, 1961, p. 539.

[16] Seneca’s feelings about the great influence of Judaism on his fellow Romans were vented in his epigram, Victi victoribus leges dederunt Seneca, Opera, Teubner, Leipzig, 1878, Vol. HI, p. 427.

[17] R. V. C. Bodley, The Messenger, Doubleday, New York, 1946, p. 166.

[18] Durant, The Age of Faith, pp. 371-73.

[19] Ibid., pp. 377-78.

[20] Generally in the Middle Ages, Jews supported monarchies because it was easier to deal with one king than scores of nobles. They were also partial to the papacy, which alternately protected and humiliated them. In 1215, Innocent III ordered all Jews, men and women, to wear a yellow badge. Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, p. 459. The tension between Jews and the English aristocracy was revealed by the Magna Carta, which contained specific restrictions concerning the payment of debts and interest to Jews.

[21] Dates of expulsion are taken from articles on the applicable countries and cities in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Ktav Publishing, New \brk, 1904.

[22] Peter Stuyvesant, the governor, did not want to let them remain, but Jewish directors of the Dutch West India Company caused him to change his mind. Howard M. Sachar, The Course of Modern Jewish History, World Publishing, Cleveland, 1958, p. 161. Also see Stephen Birmingham, The Grandees, Harper & Row, New York, 1971, Chap. 4.

[23] See pp. 30-31.

[24] The Merchant Bankers, Little, Brown, Boston, 1966, p. 343. One aspect of Rothschild power was amply demonstrated during Wellington’s campaign against the French in Spain. The British general was badly in need of gold, which the British Rothschilds had difficulty in transmitting because of the French land and sea blockade. The French Rothschilds solved the problem for their British relations by arranging for the transshipment of Wellington’s gold through France. Nevertheless, Wechsberg praises the Rothschilds for their loyalty to the rulers of the countries in which they happened to reside. Ibid., pp. 338, 342.

[25] Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, Vol. XXI, Doc. 2738-PS, p. 85. Another SS officer, Dieter von Wisliceny, said Eichmann had informed him that 4 million Jews had been killed. At other times, according to Wisliceny, Eichmann increased the total to 5 million. Hottl, who was expelled from the SS in 1942, worked for American counterintelligence after the war. In 1953 he was arrested in Vienna and charged with espionage.

[26] Vol. 13, p. 64.

[27] Sachar, op. ciL, p. 457.

[28] See Paul Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth, trans. Adam Robbins, Noontide Press, Torrance, Calif., 1978; Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Noontide Press, 1977; Wilhelm Staglich, Der Auschwitz Mythos, Grabert Verlag, Tubingen, 1979. A summary of Robert Faurisson’s arguments is given in Serge Thion’s Verite historique on verite politique?, La Vieille Taupe, Paris, 1980. The Institute for Historical Review, based in Torrance, Calif., publishes a journal that over the years has kept tabs on the travails of the more prominent Holocaust skeptics. It is probably the best source of Zundel’s and living’s experiences with law enforcement officers in three continents.

[29] The prominent role played by American Jews in the development of the atom bomb, in the demand for Germany’s unconditional surrender in World War II, and in the staging of the Nuremberg trials will be treated later.

[30] Israel’s influence on American foreign policy will be covered in Chapter 35. Judah Maccabee and Bar Cocheba were Jewish heroes who led armed rebellions against Greek and Roman occupying forces.

[31] The Zionist pioneers of Palestine were mostly Ashkenazim, a select group, as pioneers generally are, which helps account for their surprising display of martial valor. The “un-Jewish” temperament and character of many of these Zionists were illustrated by their “unjewish” appearance.^

[32] Florida’s David Levy Yulee, elected in 1845, was the first Jewish senator.

[33] August Belmont, the Rothschilds’ American agent, Vas able, thanks to the hugeness of the Rothschild reservoir of capital, to start out in America operating his own Federal Reserve System.” Belmont was one of the first Jews to crack the inner sanctum of American high society when he married the daughter of naval hero Commodore Perry. Birmingham, Our Crowd, pp. 27, 79-80, 101.

[34] Ibid., p. 98. Up to the present, the story of American anti-Semitism has been unimpressive and inflated. There were a few notorious social incidents, such as the refusal of the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga to accommodate Joseph Seligman (1877); a few Dreyfus-accented trials in which American courts were accused of wrongly convicting Jews, such as the Leo Frank rape case, which led to his lynching in Atlanta (1913-15), and the Rosenberg atom spy case after World War II; a few anti-Jewish flare-ups, such as the resurrected Ku Klux Klan and Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent in the 1920s, and Father Coughlin’s radio oratory and Social Justice magazine in the late 1930s; a few anti-war movements, such as the Christian Front and the German-American Bund. Huey Long was the only American political leader of sufficient shrewdness to have carried anti-Semitism effectively into national politics, but he was assassinated by Dr. Carl Weiss in 1935. The late Gerald L. K. Smith, one of Long’s principal aides, published a wide range of anti-Semitic literature for several decades. In a nationwide radio address in 1941, Charles Lindbergh accused Jews of warmongering and repeated the charge in his war memoirs published 29 years later A few scattered organizations — some Klan groups, some American Nazi units — huckstered anti-Semitism in the post-World War II period. Liberty Lobby, a conservative organization based in Washington, D.C., and the tabloid Spotlight mounted strong anti-Zionist campaigns in the latter part of the century. David Duke, once associated with some Klan grouplets, after winning a seat in the Louisiana legislature, ran for senator and later for governor. In each case he made a fairly respectable showing although the political and media establishment attacked him unmercifully. In his bid for governor he won more white votes than the winner, former Governor Edwin Edwards.

[35] Birmingham, op. cit., pp. 126, 308-9.

[36] Jews were especially conspicuous in the Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Social Security Board, and the Departments of Labor and Justice. Reader’s Digest, Sept, 1946, pp. 2-3. Three Jewish governors during the Roosevelt era were Henry Horner of Illinois, Julius Meier of Oregon, and Herbert Lehman of New York. When Roosevelt died, one rabbi compared him to Moses. Barnet Litvinoff, A Peculiar People, Weybright and Talley, New York, 1969, p. 41.

[37] Warburg was partly responsible for devising the Federal Reserve System and was made the Federal Reserve Board’s vice-chairman.

[38] Baruch made most of his millions speculating in copper stocks. When America entered World War I, Wilson named him head of the War Industries Board.

[39] For Cohn’s later career, see Chapter 30.

[40] Is it really accurate to say that men like Dillon and Goldwater are Jews? Both had Polish Jews as paternal grandfathers — Samuel Lapowski (Dillon’s) came to Texas as a clothier and Michael Goldwasser (Goldwater’s) arrived in the Southwest as a peddler. Both Dillon and Goldwater, as their fathers before them, married non-Jews. Both led the life of well-to-do members of the Majority — Dillon, the banker, being more well-to-do than Goldwater. But the residue of Jewish race consciousness runs deep. It is extremely difficult in a milieu of intense racial divisions, as in present-day America, to determine exacdy when a Jew ceases to be a Jew. Even if an individual no longer wishes to consider himself a Jew, the world may force him to be one. Goldwater’s racial background, for instance, might help account for his mystifying friendships with Jewish gangsters. For Dillon’s and Goldwater’s antecedents, see Time, August 18, 1961, p. 13 and July 24, 1964, p. 22. For Goldwater’s gangster friends, see Chapter 30.

[41] In his capacity as Kennedy’s adviser on Caribbean affairs in the 1968 primary race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Goodwin, who had much to do with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, was torn between Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. ‘The trouble is, baby,” he explained, “I don’t know which one of them to make president.” He told Seymour Hersch, McCarthy’s press secretary, ‘Just you and me and two typewriters, Sy, and we’ll bring down the government. ” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, Sunday Punch, July 14, 1968, p. 2.

[42] Both before and after Johnson took office, Abe Fortas was “on the telephone [with Johnson] at least once a day and often as many as three or four times.” Esquire, June, 1965, p. 86. The phone continued ringing after Fortas joined the Supreme Court. This close, somewhat unconstitutional relationship between the executive and the judiciary was one of the main reasons the Senate refused to confirm Johnson’s nomination of Fortas as Chief Justice. Whether Johnson was privy to Fortas’s monetary dealings with the convicted stock embezzler, Louis Wolfson, which later led to Fortas’s resignation, is not known. See Chapter 30.

[43] “The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board has greater influence over the daily lives of all U.S. citizens than almost anyone except the President…” Time, Oct 24, 1969, p. 89.

[44] Newsweek, Nov. 18, 1968, p. 44. Consequently, all communications concerning minority problems had to clear through Garment’s office.

[45] San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 23, 1968, p. 9.

[46] “[Jews] give more than half the money collected by the Democratic party and up to a quarter of Republican funds,” according to a 1985 study sponsored by the American Jewish Congress. Washington Post, March 6, 1985, p. A5.

[47] Fifty copies of the Times go to the White House each day. It is distributed in 11,464 American cities. Talese, The Kingdom and the Power, pp. 72, 346.

[48] George, the brother of Adolph Ochs, the founder of the dynasty, partly anglicized his name to Ochs-Oakes. John Oakes, his son, once supervised the Times‘ editorial page. When other editorial writers have ‘Views [which] conflict with his, they are not published.” Talese, op. cit., pp. 72, 79, 81.

[49] In 1970 the Chattanooga Times was the defendant in an antitrust suit for “unlawful attempts” to monopolize the newspaper business in the Tennessee city. New York Times, May 8, 1970, p. 9.

[50] The information concerning Mrs. Graham, like much other data on the news and communications media in these pages, was taken from the article, “America’s Media Baronies,” in Atlantic, July, 1969.

[51] Beard, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 461. Harry Truman defined Joseph Pulitzer as “the meanest character assassin in the whole history of liars.”

[52] Atlantic, July, 1969, p. 43.

[53] When a West Coast newspaper carried the headline, “Killer Hurricane Nearing Texas,” Caen set an all-time low for his profession by commenting, “Promises, promises.” San Francisco Chronicle, Sept 20, p. 24.

[54] By far the most amusing comic strip, UilAbner, was nevertheless a grinding, serialized attack on Majority folkways — an upside-down version of Aesop in which the city mouse triumphs over his country cousin. In the character of Daisy Mae, however, Capp is careful to render due obeisance to the Aesthetic Prop. In 1972 the cartoonist entered a plea of guilty to a charge of attempted rape and was fined $500 by a Wisconsin judge. Facts on File, 1972, p. 335.

[55] Wall Street Journal, July 3, 1969, p. 43.

[56] To simplify their accounting procedures, many of the larger bookstores will only order from book wholesalers.

[57] Ben Stein, a Jewish essayist who made an exhaustive study of television, points out that entertainment TV is in the hands of a few hundred bourgeois Jews, aided and abetted by a small number of Irish and Italians, all of whom are over thirty-five and practically all of whom come from New York and live on the west side of Los Angeles. Their salaries often average $10,000 a week, yet they lean heavily towards socialism, love the poor, and hate small towns, the military, businessmen, and policemen. In their sitcoms and adventure stories few minority members live on welfare and fewer commit crimes. The bad guy is almost always the white, the blonder and more WASP-like the better. These TV producer-writers actually “believe that the world is run by a consortium of former Nazis and executives of multinational corporations.” Ben Stein, The View from Sunset Boulevard, Basic Books, New York, 1979.

[58] The few important non-Jewish decision makers of Hollywood also had minority backgrounds, e.g., Darryl Zanuck, of Hungarian descent, and Spyros Skouras, of Greek origin. However, one of the great film pioneers, D. W. Griffith, was not Jewish. Nor were the two other greats to emerge from Hollywood — Greta Garbo and Charlie Chaplin. The claim that Chaplin is part Jewish is a freewheeling fiction of the more garrulous pro- and anti-Semites. His mother was three-quarters Irish and one-quarter Gypsy. His father was a descendant of French Huguenots who had been in England for centuries. Charles Chaplin, My Autobiography, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1964, pp. 18-19, 37, 45, 109. Chaplin admitted he once pretended to be Jewish to advance himself in the film business. J. L. de Vilalengue, Gold Gotha, Paris, 1972.

[59] Serious playwrights, Jewish and otherwise, will be discussed in Chapter 18. Writers of message plays and dramatized political and sociological tracts are not listed at all, but a quick reference to newspaper files will show that their producers and authors are almost all minority members, chiefly Jews. As for pornographic drama, it is sufficient to say that the dirtiest plays of recent decades — Che, Geese, and Oh, Calcutta!— were all written, directed or produced by Jews, as were many of the pornographic and black exploitation (“hate whitey”) films.

[60] “American show business…owes most of its wit, animation and emotional frankness to the ebullience of Jewish talent,” wrote the late Kenneth Tynan, Britain’s highest paid drama critic and himself part-Jewish, in Holiday magazine (June 1961). Tynan was the producer of Oh, Calcutta!

[61] Tin Pan Alley is almost 100 percent Jewish. High Fidelity, July 1977, pp. 27-29.

[62] Jews comprise 80% of the nation’s professional comics. Time, Oct. 2, 1978.

[63] In the period 1901-62, 16 percent of the 225 scientists who won Nobel prizes were Jews. Weyl and Possony, Geography of Intellect, p. 143.

[64] For Einstein’s part in the promotion and building of the atom bomb, see Chapter 38. For some unsung criticism of Einsteinian physics, see Chapter 21.

[65] The Semitic “tilt” of present-day public relations is further illustrated by the outpouring of magazine articles and books stressing the Jewish enrichment of American culture but omitting such names as Arnold Rothstein, the Minsky brothers, Mickey Cohen, Meyer Lansky, Abe Fortas, Louis Wolfson, Fred Silverman, Serge Rubinstein, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Bugsy Siegel, Bernard Goldfine, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Jack Ruby, and the cohort of Jewish corporate raiders. Sometimes this one-sided approach dissolves into pure literary sycophancy, as in the case of a “biography” of Albert Lasker. One of the first advertising magnates, and certainly the richest, Lasker was the hero of a book-length encomium by an internationally known reporter, although the high points of Lasker’s career were organizing the first soap operas and introducing millions of women to the smoking habit (“Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet”). John Gunther, Taken at the Flood, The Story of Albert D. Lasker, Harper, New York, 1960, pp. 4-5.

[66] In Chapter 10 of this book, J. K. Galbraith was quoted as saying wealth is no longer equivalent to power. Insofar as he was referring to Majority wealth, he was correct. As stated previously, most of the great Majority fortunes have been scattered, wasted or handed down to foundations which support projects that often work against Majority interests. Most Jewish wealth, on the other hand, is pooled and concentrated on specific, ethnic goals — Israel, anti-anti Semitism, minority causes and political, economic and social campaigns to remove the last vestiges of Majority privilege. Professor Galbraith to the contrary, great wealth directed towards group advantage is not only equivalent to power, but to great power.

[67] D. J. Bogue, The Population of the U. S., The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois, 1959, p. 706.

[68] Ibid., pp. 367-69, 371.

[69] Henry Ford, a hard-shell Protestant, was averse to Wall Street, liberals, foreigners, Jews, and non-Protestants in general. One could well imagine his reaction if he returned to earth and found: (1) Joseph Cullman, a Jewish tobacco tycoon, a director of Ford Motor Co.; (2) the Ford Foundation, the world’s richest sponsor of liberal and minority causes; (3) his grandson, Henry Ford II, a Catholic convert, married for the second time to an Italian jet setter, who later divorced him; (4) his two great-granddaughters, Anne and Charlotte, wed at one time to foreigners, the former to a Greek shipping magnate, the latter to a Florentine Jew who is a Wall Street stockjobber; (5) great-grandson Alfred, a Hare Krishna devotee, married to a young lady from Bombay.

[70] Standard and Poor’s Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives (1980) lists Goldman, Sachs partners as directors of the following corporations: Associated Dry Goods, Capital Holding Corp., Kraft, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Witco Chemical, TWA, Franklin Mint, Corning, Pillsbury, Brown Group, Eagle-Picher, B. F. Goodrich, Cluett Peabody, Cowles Communications, J. P. Stevens.

Lehman Brothers and Kuhn, Loeb merged in 1977 and were taken over by American Express in 1983. Sanford Weil was put in charge of what came to be called Shearson Lehman, which presumably inherited the old Lehman Brothers and Kuhn, Loeb directorships in the following corporations: Goebel Brothers, Twentieth Century-Fox, United Fruit, Commercial Solvents, Chesebrough Pond’s, Paramount Pictures, Beckman Instruments, Singer Sewing Machine, Bristol-Myers, General Cable, RCA, Federated Department Stores, Bulova Watch, Western Union, Shell Oil, General Analine and Film, Standard Oil of California, Greyhound, FMC, Jones 8c Laughlin Steel, Anchor-Hocking, Times-Mirror, United California Bank, Union Oil, Wells Fargo Bank, Hertz, Litton Industries, General Motors, Allied Chemical, Continental Can, United States lines, Caterpillar Tractor, IBM, Southern Pacific, Chase Manhattan Bank, Pacific Gas and Electric, Air Reduction, Northern Pacific, Bendix, Smith-Corona Marchant, Flintkote, Speny-Rand, Allied Stores.

In the 1960s, Kuhn, Loeb partners were directors of: Westinghouse Electric, Sears Industries, U.S. Rubber, Anglo-Israel Bank, Revlon, Benrus Watch, Tishman Realty, American Export Lines, Polaroid, C.I.T. Financial, Brush-Beryllium, Getty Oil, A 8c P, Kennecott Corp., Marine Midland Trust, Metromedia, Buckeye Pipe, General American Transportation.

The 1964 and 1968 Poors, which carried much more information about Lazard Freres than current editions, showed the firm’s partners to be directors of: Jones 8c Laughlin Steel, National Fire Insurance, Olivetti-Underwood, Owens-Illinois, Manufacturers Life Insurance, Chemical Bank-New York Trust, Harcourt Brace, Harper and Row, Libby-Owens-Ford Glass, Warner Lambert Pharmaceutical, Sun Insurance, RCA, Engelhard Minerals 8c Chemicals Corp., ITT.

[71] In 1980 Wall Street rumors had it that the European Rothschilds held substantial interests in Kaiser Aluminum, Atlas Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Anaconda, U.S. Borax, Aetna Life, Litton Industries, Standard Oil of California, and Rand Corporation.

[72] Joseph Wechsberg, The Merchant Bankers, Little, Brown, Boston, 1966, p. 333.

[73] Martin Mayer, Wall Street, Harper, New York, 1955, p. 193.

[74] Fortune, Aug. 1968, p. 101.

[75] In the article quoted in the previous footnote Fortune stated, The hard financial core of capitalism in the free world is composed of not more than 60 firms, partnerships and corporations owned or controlled by some 1,000 men.”

[76] Most Wall Streeters found guilty of inside trading and other financial crimes, from Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky on down, are Jewish.

[77] Schenley Industries, the giant distiller, is a subsidiary of Ricklis’s Rapid American Corp.

[78] Nathan Ruck in Economic Trends in the American Jew, ed. Oscar Janovsky, Harper, New York, 1942, pp. 162, 165.

[79] With the rise of affirmative action, however, complications arose. Quotas once imposed against Jews were transformed into government-sponsored “goals” for nonwhites to the disadvantage of whites, a category which includes Jews. Jewish ambivalence towards this government racial preference program will be explored later in this book.

[80] Simpson and Yinger, op. cit, pp. 677-79.

[81] R. H. S. Crossman, Partisan Review, Fall, 1964, p. 565.

[82] One such thinker was Simone Weil, the French-Jewish poetess-philosopher who equated the spirit of Judaism with the spirit of Nazism and complained that the worship of the “earthy, cruel and exclusive Jehovah had turned Jews into a nation of fugitive slaves.” One such scientist was Nobel laureate Dr. Karl Landsteiner, who unsuccessfully sought an injunction against Who’s Who in American Jewry for calling him a Jew. Sachar, The Course of Modern Jewish History, p. 404. One such novelist is Philip Roth, author of Portnoy’s Complaint,

[83] Sachar, op. cit, p. 533. Lewisohn, who taught at several American universities before becoming professor of comparative literature at Brandeis, was a Jewish supremacist who inveighed against Germans, Slavs, Negroes, and Anglo-Saxon “barbarism.” One might speculate on the media’s reaction to a Majority professor who inveighed against Jewish “barbarism. n

[84] A.L. Kroeber, Configurations of Cultural Growth, University of California, Berkeley, 1969, p. 740.

[85] Richard Swartzbaugh, The Mediator, Howard Allen, Cape Canaveral, Florida, [1973]

[86] John M. Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility, Dell Publishing, New York, 1976.

[87] The Creative Elite in America, Chap. XVIII. Boccaccio and Rabelais would have smiled at Weyl’s assertions regarding the celibacy and intelligence of the clergy. Part of Weyl’s theme was taken from Sir Francis Galton, who was equally bitter about the dysgenics of religious bachelorhood. But in his own intelligence ratings Galton excluded Jews and gave first place to the Athenians, whom he placed two grades above the 19th-century British and four grades above Negroes. Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius, Macmillan, London, 1869, especially pp. 42, 257, 342, 357.

[88] “All intellectuality is in the long run shallowness; never does it allow of probing to the very roots of a matter, never of reaching down to the depths of the soul, or of the universe. Hence intellectuality makes it easy to go from one extreme to the other. That is why you find among Jews fanatical orthodoxy and unenlightened doubt side by side; they both spring from one source.” Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, trans. M. Epstein, Dutton, N.Y., 1914, p. 269.

[89] One study that found Jews to be mentally inferior was Carl Brigham’s analysis of the Army’s World War I intelligence tests. For more on Brigham, see Appendix A.

[90] Nathaniel Weyl and Stefan T. Possony, The Geography of Intellect, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1963, pp. 162-63. The authors also failed to mention a detailed study by Dr. Audrey Shuey, which showed that Protestant college students scored better than their Jewish counterparts in intelligence tests. See The Journal of Social Psychology, 1942, Vol. 15, pp. 221-43.

[91] Van den Haag’s remarks about Jewish cultural domination have been quoted on p. 91.

[92] The Jewish Mystique, p. 24. The author relied on an old study by Lewis Terman, who in tests of California school children found there were twice as many gifted Jewish students as their proportion of the population warranted. Here again, the tests were conducted in the largest cities — San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles — where California Jews were concentrated and where the Majority was underrepresented both in quantity and quality. Other population groups produced extremely high scores, but Van den Haag did not mention them. The Scots did even better than the Jews on a percentage basis. The most important lesson provided by the Terman study was the woefully poor performance of Negro and Mexican children. Lewis Terman, Genetic Studies of Genius, Stanford University Press, 1925, Vol. 1, pp. 55-56.

[93] Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 1 , 1969, p. 26. In the same interview Snow refused to be drawn into a discussion of Negro intelligence. By side-stepping the Negro issue, Snow proved himself less courageous than Weyl, who after quitting the Communist party wrote profusely on the subject of Negro intellectual inferiority. Professor van den Haag, who also has definite ideas about black capabilities, testified for Southern white children in legal proceedings instituted in 1963 to overturn (unsuccessfully, one might add) the Supreme Court’s 1954 school desegregation ruling. Putnam, Race and Reality, pp. 87-88.

[94] The list of countries and cities forbidden to Jews in different eras was given earlier in this chapter. Here the list may be lengthened by adding that there were no Jews of any influence in Pericles’s Athens and minor identifiable Jewish participation in the cultural life of the Roman Republic and Empire (in their great days). In Goethe’s Germany and Dostoyevsky’s Russia, Jews were just beginning to stir out of their ghetto cocoon. The single example of a great and uniquely Hebrew culture, though somewhat restricted in that Judaism specifically forbade painting and sculpture, evolved in ancient Palestine, where Hebrews were a majority in their own land.

[95] Zenith is not meant to signify the era of greatest territorial expansion or greatest wealth, but the moment of the cresting of national morale, purpose, and unity. In this sense the greatest days of England occurred in the sixteenth rather than the nineteenth century. America is either well past its zenith or a long way from it.

[96] For the Birobidzhan debacle, see Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961, p. 258.

[97] Japan’s vastly profitable trade with the West, however, involves many Jewish import firms. In an attempt to explain why Jews have such enormous influence in the U.S., several anti-Semitic books were published in Japan in the mid-1980s.

[98] For stating this idea, Toynbee was accused by Jewish historian Maurice Samuel of perpetuating “demonological anti-Semitism.” Toynbee, A Study of History, Vol. V, p. 76, and Samuel, The Professor and the Fossil, Knopf, N.Y., 1956, p. 194.

[99] According to James Yaffe, Jews have more interest in sex than non-Jews, less interest in athletics, less faith in an afterlife, a lower birthrate, take many more expensive vacations, live longer, spend more time in psychoanalysis, and are much more likely to be hippies. In Hollywood, Jews get more divorces, commit more adultery, and drink less than their non Jewish neighbors. Jews use Jewish doctors 95 percent of the time; Jewish lawyers 87 percent of the time. Although they sometimes try to force themselves into non Jewish country clubs, they are very exclusive about their own. One, the Hillcrest in Los Angeles, has the highest initiation fee ($22,000) of any golf club in the U.S. and bans non-Jews except for a few show business figures who are admitted as “honorary Jews.” Jews, continues Yaffe, are noted for their “fear, obsequiousness, isolationism and belligerence n — a psychological chasm between Jew and non-Jew that may never be bridged. Traditionally dogmatic themselves, they demand rationalism in others. For the Jew “the intellect can’t be just a tool … it has to be a weapon too. He doesn’t use it simply to discover what the world is like or to create something beautiful, or to communicate his ideas. He must use it to beat down his competitors, to prove his superiority. For him controversy is inseparable from intellectual activity. Watch him at a party; note the vicious delight with which he backs lesser intellects into a corner. He’s implacable; neither social decorum nor human compassion can soften his attack. If you want to observe this trait at a safer distance, read what he writes to the letters-to-the-editor pages. In all Jewish publications, from Commentary down to the most obscure Yiddish weekly, these pages bathe the reader in vitriol. Like his father, the garment manufacturer, the Jewish intellectual doesn’t trade easy.” The American Jews, pp. 38, 65, 68, 234-35, 268-69, 292-93.

[100] These conspiracies of silence also extend to schools of thought and avenues of research which might strengthen Majority unity and thereby ultimately work to the Jews’ disadvantage — i.e., racial interpretation of American history, genetic arguments for segregated education, statistical studies of financial crime, and so on.

[101] On its 50th anniversary in 1963, the Anti-Defamation League could point with pride to a New York headquarters, regional offices in thirty cities, a staff of 150 full-time lawyers, social scientists, educators and public relations specialists. Its budget for 1960 was $3,940,000. Thomas B. Morgan, The Fight Against Prejudice,” Look, June 4, 1963. Although tax-exempt, the ADL plays a highly political role and occasionally usurps the power of the police. The New Orleans regional director of the ADL put up most of the money for the informers which the FBI used to entrap an alleged bomber of synagogues in Mississippi. A young female school teacher was shot to death during the arrest, but the ADL escaped the usual investigation given any individual or group involved in homicide. Los Angeles Times, Feb. 13, 1970. As for the B’nai B’rith itself, which was founded in 1843 and headed by a Grand Saar, it has 205,000 male members in 1,350 lodges in forty-three countries and 130,000 female members in 600 chapters. Edward Grusd, B’nai B’rith, Appleton-Century, New York, 1966, pp. 283, 286. The B’nai B’rith is the only private agency to have been given official “consultation status” by the United Nations, where it acts as a strong lobby for Israel and other Jewish interests, though it has never registered as the agent of a foreign government. New York Times, May 28, 1970, p. 21. In 1993 the ADL branch in San Francisco, barely escaping criminal prosecution, had to pay what amounted to a $50,000 fine for receiving confidential police files from one of its paid agents.

[102] The final effect of a state-owned and state-directed economy on Jewry has been largely misunderstood, not only by most Jews but by most anti-Semites. After the Communist regime in Russia had confiscated Jewish fortunes and outlawed finance capitalism, Russian Jews had none of the usual Jewish defenses to fall back on when Stalin decided to turn against them — no Jewish-owned press, no Jewishoriented public opinion, no lavishly financed network of Jewish lobbies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a Marxist state largely created by Jewish agit-prop, huge numbers of Jews fled to Israel and the United States.

[103] New York Times, Feb. 25, 1937, p. 10.

[104] Jewish docility in Hitler’s concentration camps has aroused the ire of militant Jews, particularly Israelis. “But why,” asks an article in Commentary (April 1962, p.354), Vas there no resistance?…At Auschwitz the ratio of prisoners to guards varied from 20 to 1 to 35 to 1 . [Yet] the Jews meekly accepted every successive order which rendered them impotent, they queued up for the deportation trains….”

[105] Renegades in that they embraced Christianity (Berenson, Disraeli, Heine, Husserl, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Sts. Peter and Paul) or turned atheist (Marx, Trotsky, and other leading dialectical materialists). The possibility that Moses was an Egyptian and the fact that Josephus was a turncoat have been previously mentioned. Spinoza, the greatest Jewish philosopher, was expelled from the Jewish community in Amsterdam in 1656 by rabbinical order. Many Orthodox Jews and anti-Semites agree— or hope — that Jesus was not Jewish because he came from “Galilee of the Gentiles.” A prevailing Talmudic tradition has it that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Joseph Panthera, a Roman centurion, and Miriam, the wife of a carpenter. Judische Enzyklopadie, Judischer Verlag, Berlin, 1930, Band IV/I, pp. 772-73.

[106] New Atlantis, Great Books, Chicago, 1952, Vol. 30, p. 209.

[107] See footnote 4, p. 64.

[108] The fuse sputtered a little more than usual on the occasion of the Israel air attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in June 1981, and the massacre of 29 Moslems at prayer by an obsessed Jewish fundamentalist in the Hebron mosque in early 1994.

Chapter 16 • Nonwhite Minorities • 5,700 Words

Hispanic is A rather loose term that the media and the Census Bureau have attached to minorities of any race or combination of races whose members are largely Spanish- or Portuguesespeaking and adhere to some form of Spanish culture. Almost all so-called Hispanics, except for a small contingent of whites who arrived directly from Spain, had their point of origin in Central and South America and the Caribbean, by far the greater number arriving after World War II. The Census Bureau states that as of 1990 22,354,059 Hispanics were to be found in the United States. The following pages will attempt to examine the Hispanics from a racial as well as a geographical perspective. The remainder of the chapter will be devoted to Asian minorities, followed by a separate chapter on the largest nonwhite minority of all — the Negroes.

 

MEXICANS: The typical, run-of-the-mill Mexican is neither Spanish nor Asian, neither white nor yellow.[1]Focus, a publication of the National Geographic Society, states the population of Mexico is 55 percent mestizo, 29 percent Indian, 15 percent European and under 1 percent Negro and Mulatto. To the casual visitor the European estimate appears high. Although Spanishspeaking and the heir of a laminate of Spanish culture, he dreams not of Spain and the glories of the Spanish past He is not conscious of any ties to northeast Asia, the jumping off point of his Mongoloid ancestors. Primarily a mestizo, a Spanish-Indian cross or hybrid, the Mexican considers himself a unique racial specimen.

Apart from the genetic distinction, where Mexicans differ most from Majority members is in the art of living. With its fiestas and flowers, its ancient and modern art forms, its rich and varied mineral and petroleum resources, its rugged mesetas and barrancas, and its flamboyant tropic beaches — the real Mexico, not the horrendous swarms of people that make human anthills out of the big cities, not the industrial pollution that makes the urban air unbreatheable and gray, but the real Mexico that adds grace and beauty to an increasingly drab world. After the revolutions and counterrevolutions of the early twentieth century, an intense wave of nativism swept over the country, bringing with it such cultural splendors as the mural paintings of Orozco, certainly the most magnificent and the most dazzling pictorial art to come out of the New World. The sworn enemy of this art is the Madison Avenue and Hollywood kitsch exported to Mexico from the United States, a spurious culture which vulgarizes and degrades exporters and importers alike.

The 1990 Census counted 13,495,938 people of Mexican ancestry in the U.S. The number represents 60 percent of all Hispanics scattered among the 50 states. Most of them live in California, Texas, Colorado, and the Southwest, though large concentrations are taking root in many northern cities.[2]Having come from Mexico several centuries ago, some 250,000 “Hispanos” in New Mexico, who look upon later arrivals as interlopers, are perpetuating a Spanish-speaking, assimilation-proof subculture of their own. The pochos or native-born citizens and the cholos or legal immigrants comprised a sizable part of the census count. No one knows how many illegals or “undocumented workers” were included. Members of the second largest nonwhite minority, Mexican Americans are often as poorly educated and economically disadvantaged as Negroes. Their school dropout rate is high; their per capita income low.[3]New York Times, April 20, 1969, p. 54. Even so, the living standard of most Mexican Americans is far superior to that of Mexicans in Mexico.

Forever unassimilable because of their coloration and their Mongoloid or Indian traits, Mexican Americans accentuate their minority status by holding fast to their language (vast stretches of the American Southwest are now bilingual), by voting the Democratic ticket,[4]A solid bloc of Mexican-American votes, some from voters long dead, won Lyndon Johnson the hotly disputed 1948 senatorial primary in Texas at a crucial moment in his political career. See pp. 428-29. by their unionizing and by their class and racialist agitation.

Emulating Negroes, Mexican Americans have taken to playing hardball ethnic politics. The California valleys and Texas plains, the Los Angeles and Denver barrios have already been the scene of a few serious confrontations with Anglos, although The Chicano [Mexican-American] revolt against the Anglo establishment is still in the planning stage.”[5]New York Times, April 20, 1969, p. 1. Mexican-American ethnocentrism is also nourished by constant reminders of American aggression against their homeland and by a demagoguery which holds that Mexican Americans are now second-class citizens in a region of North America that once belonged to their forefathers.

There is a distinct possibility that, if the constant legal and illegal influx of Mexican genes across the Rio Grande continues and if the Mexican-American and Mexican birthrates continue at their present high levels, Mexican Americans will regain their lost territories of Alta California and Texas — already denominated by fanatic irredentists as Aztlan — not by means of violence or minority politicking, but simply by exercising squatters’ rights.

 

CUBANS: In spite of its large Negro component and its enduring dictatorship, Cuba in its sloppy and dowdy fashion retains more of the old Spanish colonial ambience than any other country in Latin America. As for the island’s relations with the U.S., they have blown hot and cold. After the battleship Maine was sunk in Havana harbor in 1898, American troops actively helped Cuba win its independence from Spain. With the arrival on the scene of Fidel Castro, however, the country turned its back or was forced to turn its back on its giant neighbor to the north and moved to the red side of the political and economic spectrum. The disastrous failure of a motley band of anti-Communists and ragtag Castro enemies at the Bay of Pigs did nothing to improve Cuban-American relations. The unexpected appearance of Soviet atom bombs in the Pearl of the Antilles came as close as any other event up to that time to provoking a nuclear war, a war that was avoided when Khrushchev blinked and shipped his bombs home.

For several decades now Cuba and the United States, though only 90 miles apart, have been acting as if they were in two different worlds, their principal contact being the outflow of anti-Castroites to the U.S., mainly to south Florida, where most of the 1,043,932 Cubans remain and where they have established a thriving Cuban enclave. Since many Cubans belonged to the middle and even upper class and possessed various business skills, they have prospered in their new country. Unlike other Hispanic immigrants, most signed up with the Republican Party and have played politics so diligently they now are the leading political force in the Miami area. A Cuban American has been elected mayor, Congressman and police chief. It is difficult for any white or Negro politician to be elected to local or even statewide Florida office without Cuban support. Unlike most other Hispanic immigrants, a large portion of the Cuban immigration, particularly in its early stage, was white, which helped diminish the distrust accorded dark-skinned aliens. Only in its later stages was the immigrant flow composed largely of blacks and mulattos. The mestizos (Spanish-Indian crosses) and pure Indians, who comprise such a large part of the Mexicans in the U.S., were almost invisible in the Cuban immigration.

The first batch of Cubans fleeing from Castro were given a warm welcome in south Florida. They were considered refugees and thus outside the immigration quotas. Later arrivals included the refuse from Cuban prisons, which put a severe strain on law enforcement agencies. After long stints of negotiation, Castro agreed to take some of them back.

What will the Cubans in the U.S. do when Castro goes? Surely a lot of them will return home. But many more will stay, especially those who have been away for 30 years or more. The richer (whiter) elements will probably leave if the political and economic situation stabilizes. The poorer (blacker) elements, which now represent nearly half of the Cubans in the U.S., will probably stay. The remaining whites who are white enough may slowly slip into the ranks of the Majority. On the whole, however, Cuban families, no matter what their skin color, are so close-knit that their assimilation potential will probably remain low for some time to come.

 

PUERTO RlGANS: The original Puerto Ricans, 20,000 to 50,000 Arawak Indians, died off in the sixteenth century after a few unsuccessful revolts against the Spaniards, who had overworked them in the gold mines. The void in the labor supply was filled by Negro slaves from Africa. Since most Puerto Ricans in the U.S. came largely from the poorer elements of the population — in direct contrast to the first waves of the Cuban immigration — the high frequency of their Negroid traits not only renders them unassimilable, but makes it difficult not to confuse them with blacks.

As American citizens, Puerto Ricans come under no immigration quota. With few legal complications impeding their entry and with an extremely high birthrate, Americans of Puerto Rican birth or descent, according to the 1990 Census, total 2,727,754. More than half of them are concentrated in New York City and environs. Like the Mexicans, Puerto Ricans brought with them a skin-deep Spanish culture. Also like the Mexicans, Puerto Ricans have placed their political fortunes in the hands of the Democratic party. To lose no time in garnering these votes, New York politicians have changed the literacy test for voters by permitting it to be taken in Spanish. As a result, Puerto Ricans can arrive in New \brk City without knowing a word of English and almost immediately get on welfare.

Coming from one of the world’s most beautiful islands and friendliest climates, Puerto Ricans somehow manage to adapt to one of the world’s ugliest slum areas and crudest weather zones. Their economic status approaches that of the Negro, on whom they look down in spite of their own part-African ancestry. Those who break the language barrier, however, soon surpass native blacks in most levels of achievement.

Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, now a Commonwealth of the United States, have so far proved to be too proud for statehood, but not proud enough for independence or self-sufficiency (half the island is on food stamps). The streak of fervent nationalism that runs through some segments of the population motivated one band of “patriots” to attempt to assassinate President Truman in 1950, another to shoot five congressmen in 1954, and still another to launch terroristic bomb attacks in various U.S. cities in the 1970s. Whether the separatist feelings of Puerto Ricans will subside and result in the birth of the fifty-first state or whether Puerto Ricans like the Filipinos, will opt for independence cannot be forecast at this time. What can be predicted is that most of them stand no more chance of being assimilated than the inhabitants of other Caribbean Islands.

 

OTHER UNASSMIIABLE LATIN AMERICAN MINORITIES: The smaller Caribbean islands are peopled for the most part by Negroes and mulattos with a thin froth of whites at the top. The exception is Haiti, the western half of the large island of Hispaniola. Haiti is not only overwhelmingly black, but adheres to a distant French colonial heritage and a degraded French patois for a language. Many Haitians have set sail for Florida in overcrowded, leaking, homemade hulks, some of them drowning before they reached the beaches of the Promised Land. Altogether the Caribbean immigration, including Cuba and Puerto Rico, numbers well over 5 million. It has put such a tremendous burden on the Florida economy that Governor Lawton Chiles estimates the newcomers are costing his state $1 billion a year, an amount for which he is suing the federal government, on the grounds that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has failed to enforce immigration laws.

Central America has also furnished a large number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, most of them mestizos. In general the undiluted Indian population has stayed at home. The only country in Central America that has a preponderantly white population is Costa Rica, most of whose citizens are of the Mediterranean race, which means that most are too dark to qualify for Majority status. Revolutionary uprisings and guerrilla wars in some of these small nations have accelerated northward emigration, and there is nothing on the political horizon in those parts to indicate any longrange stability. Strategically and ideally, the Caribbean should be a well-policed American lake. The U.S. has a base at Guantanamo Bay on the eastern tip of Cuba. The Panama Canal will remain in U.S. hands until 1999. Nevertheless, the Caribbean has become a busy waterway for mestizos, mulattos and Mediterranean whites fleeing north. It would not be hard to interdict such traffic with the use of modern naval technology, but so far attempts to do so have been at best halfhearted. The picture is complicated by the fact that many Central American immigrants take the land route through Mexico. The more affluent pay “tour directors ” to bus them to the U.S. border.

The 1990 U.S. Census, leaving out Mexicans, Cubans and Puerto Ricans, lists 5,086,435 Hispanics of Central and South American origin. The nonwhites from the northern tier of South American states are mostly mestizos; those from Portuguese-speaking Brazil mainly mulattos. Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile have approximately the same racial make-up as the populations of Italy and Spain. Consequently a large proportion of immigrants from these countries would have to be allocated to the largely unassimilable Mediterranean racial category.

To sum up, Latin America, that is, the entire New World from the Rio Grande south, has relatively high birthrates that are putting severe demographic pressures for change in the U.S. racial composite.[6]One indirect way of comparing birthrates is to say that one-third of all babies born in the U.S. in 1993 were born courtesy of Medicaid. The Hispanics, who have already “taken over” large stretches of southern Florida, southern Texas, and southern California, are also becoming a political force in some of the bigger northern cities. When in these areas blacks and Hispanics combine their political and social muscle, whites can do litde but rely on old constitutional safeguards for protection.

Every day the Hispanics already here are outbreeding Majority whites. Every day countless mestizos and mulattos, coming by boat or by foot, are illegally entering the U.S., where many will soon setde down and raise their own crops of babies, who automatically become American citizens. No wonder that demographers are predicting that within another half century or so, the American white population, which already includes large numbers of unassimilables, will become a minority in what was once its own land.

 

CHINESE: The first large contingent of Chinese immigrants (13,100) arrived in California in 1854.[7]Davie, World Immigration, p. 308 Of an utterly alien civilization and totally unfamiliar with the American environment, the Chinese started out under the most severe cultural and economic handicaps. Members of a true 19th-century servile class, they laid down railroad tracks throughout the West, painstakingly worked placer mines, and provided much of the white settlers’ household help. The pigtailed Chinaman in the back room was an institution that endured in San Francisco for more than half a century.

Once the gold boom had subsided and the railroads were up and running, Congress responded to pressure from Westerners fearful of the competition of coolie labor and of the rising tide of color (123,201 Chinese arrived in California in the 1870s) by passing the Exclusion Act of 1882. It was Congress’s first try at immigration legislation, preceding the establishment of overall quotas by almost forty years. 8 The 1923 Act provided for an annual quota of 124.

The 1970 Census listed 435,062 Americans of Chinese extraction, of whom 52,039 resided in the Hawaiian Islands. The 1990 Census raised the figure to 1,645,472, which demonstrated that the Chinese population, concentrated largely in California, New York and Hawaii, almost tripled in size in three decades. If relations with mainland China stabilize, Chinese Americans may again begin their vintage-year, homebound voyages across the Pacific, a westward migration which once managed to keep their rate of growth below that of most other minorities.

Chinese Americans are the prime example of the self-sufficient, static minority. Although once the victims of almost intolerable persecution and discrimination,[9]The entire Chinese population of 1,000 was ruthlessly driven out of Truckee, California, in 1878. The previous year in San Francisco there was almost open warfare between the Irish and the Chinese. Davie, op. cit, pp. 318-21. they have now buried much of their resentment and eschewed resorting to racial agitation and minority lobbying.[10]In Hawaii, where nonwhites are in the majority, the Chinese are more politically active, as demonstrated by the presence in the Senate (1959-77) of millionaire Republican Hiram Fong. In the continental U.S., the Chinese minority stands apart from the liberal-minority coalition by often voting for conservative candidates and taking an aggressive stand against the busing of school children. Rather proud of their hyphenated status, they keep their family names, keep many of their Far Eastern ways, and keep to themselves. Their lives are characterized by a subdued middleclass morality and respectability. When most other nonwhite minorities move into an urban area, it usually deteriorates into a slum. Chinese enclaves, on the other hand, often become centers of attraction. San Francisco’s Chinatown, the largest in the New World, is one of the cleanest and best-maintained sections of the city. Once the battleground of rival tongs, it boasted a low incidence of violent crime and juvenile delinquency in the post-World War II years until the great increase in Asian immigration. In the 1970s gangs from Taiwan and Hong Kong began to terrorize law-abiding Chinese in California and New York. In 1983 mass murder erupted in a Chinese gambling den in Seattle.

The Chinese minority, at least on the mainland, is by any standard a reclusive minority. It preserves and develops its own culture without seeking to impose it on others, though like other Asian groups it is a “protected minority. ” In the crystal ball of the Chinese-American future one dark spot of gloom can be detected. If revolutionary or racial fervor should induce China to war once again against the United States — it fought an undeclared one in Korea in 1950-51 — the position of the Chinese minority might become as tenuous as that of the Japanese in World War II. Meanwhile population pressures in China and the existence of highly professional smuggling rings see to it that the number of Chinese in the U.S. is steadily on the increase.

 

JAPANESE: Much of what has been written about Chinese Americans applies to Japanese Americans, or at least to those Japanese Americans who do not reside in the Hawaiian Islands. The Japanese came to America later than the Chinese, but encountered the same degree of hostility. Although Japan itself had banned all foreigners, except for a few Dutch, for 230 years (1638-1868) and had forbidden its citizens to go abroad on pain of death, the Japanese government objected strongly to Congress’s plans to include Japanese in the ban on Chinese immigration.[11]Davis, op. cit, p. 321. To soothe Japanese pride President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated a “Gentleman’s Agreement” in 1907, by which Japan agreed to halt the Japanese exodus, provided Congress passed no restrictive immigration legislation that mentioned the Japanese by name. By 1940 some 140,000 Japanese were living on the U.S. mainland, 86 percent of them in the Far West, where many had become prosperous truck farmers. By 1990 the number of Japanese Americans had jumped to 847,562, most of them in California (312,959), Hawaii (247,486), New York (35,281) and Washington (34,366).[12]Ibid., p. 324. Population figures from the 1990 Census. The population increase is largely attributed to the family unification program.
(Davis, op. cit, p. 321.)

Shortly after Pearl Harbor, which displayed the dangers of Japanese military bravado, more than 110,000 West Coast Japanese, the majority of them U.S. citizens, were removed from their homes, farms and businesses, and transported to western “relocation camps,” at an average loss of $10,000 per family.[13]Simpson and Yinger, op. cit, pp. 132-33. After the war, claims were settled at an average rate often cents on the dollar. Washington Post, Oct 5, 1965, p. 1 . The Japanese in Hawaii, where they were more concentrated and their potential threat to national security much greater, were left in comparative peace. In 1944 the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, composed largely of Nisei, second-generation Japanese Americans from Oahu, fought valiantly against crack German troops in the Italian campaign and proceeded to rack up one of the finest records in American military annals.

Quiet and unobtrusive on the mainland, where some vote Republican, Japanese play racial politics with a vengeance in Hawaii. The most numerous population group in the islands, the Japanese vote Democratic. Hawaii’s two senators are Japanese, as is one of its two representatives and its governor. Such bloc-voting belies the claim of the absence of racial tensions in Hawaii.

To the despair of the older and more insular Japanese families, considerable numbers of their offspring, male and female, are intermarrying with whites. Orientals of all sizes and shapes are greatly attracted to blondes, an attraction that also motivates Japanese agents and pimps from the old country to recruit blonde showgirls for appearances in Japan, where some are later coaxed or forced into prostitution.

Japan is a terribly overcrowded nation, the first Asian country to recover from World War II, thanks in part to the industry of its people and constructive assistance from the U.S. military occupation. Its prosperity, however, is threatened by other Asian nations, particularly Korea and China, which also want to participate in the economic expansion. With a minuscule defense budget and protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella and friendly Western tariffs, Japan was able to build up an unparalleled trade surplus after copying and improving such products of Western ingenuity as cameras, automobiles, computer equipment, copiers and all sorts of home and office products. As Japanese quality went up, American quality fell.

But the end of the Japanese economic miracle is already in sight. Asian competition and sharp reductions in Japanese imports forced by huge trade imbalances, along with concomitant labor unrest, will eventually bring about domestic turmoil and increase emigration to other countries, especially to the United States.

The visit of Commodore Perry and his American flotilla in 1853 jolted feudal Japan into a frenzy of modernization. After winning the Russo-Japanese War, the first time a white nation was defeated by an Oriental nation in a full-fledged conflict, Japan joined the winning (Allied) side in World War I. Some years later it began to run wild over much of East Asia — South Korea, China, Indonesia, even to the frontiers of India — until it was finally brought to heel in World War II by two American fission bombs. The Rising Sun rose and the Rising Sun sank. But not for long. In only a few years the onetime Japanese military threat was transformed into an equally serious economic threat, though fortunately one that will be easier to contain. The economic powerhouse is bound to have difficulty maintaining its booming prosperity as Western nations, including the U.S., are forced to put higher tariffs on Japanese and other East Asian products to save their own manufacturing base.

 

OTHER PACIFIC OCEAN AND ASIAN MINORITIES: History reminds us that until quite recently, Hawaii, the 50th state, was a territory governed with a strong hand by white planters and the American armed forces. Because the more vociferous U.S. minorities are not found in large numbers in Hawaii,[14]The 1990 Census showed 1,108,229 people in the Hawaiian Islands divided as follows: White, 369,61 6; Japanese, 247,486; Hawaiian, 211,014 (less than 10% of pure blood); Filipino, 168,682; Chinese, 68,804; Negroes, 27,195; Other, 15,432. Many of the whites belong to military families. it does not follow that racism is nonexistent or that in the future the various ethnic groups will not engage in a bitter power struggle. Island paradises are not exceptions to the laws of racial dynamics.

Starting in 1979, racially motivated crime against white residents and tourists became a recurrent feature in Hawaiian news. Many white students stay away from class on the last day of the school year, which is observed by many Hawaiians with such threats and intimidations — so far largely limited to words not deeds — as “kill a haole [white] a day.”

Census statistics demonstrate the unfolding of a racial tragedy in Hawaii, the only state where nonwhites outnumber whites. One of America’s most colorful and romance-ridden minorities, the Polynesian, is rapidly becoming extinct Of the 211,014 Hawaiians or part-Hawaiians counted by the 1990 Census, perhaps only 10,000 or 15,000 “pure” specimens remain. A concerted effort is being made to save them by maintaining a subsidized refuge on the island of Niihau, where they live in voluntary quarantine, speak the old Hawaiian tongue, and are without benefit of television, automobiles, liquor stores, and fast-food outlets.

A nonwhite minority with large numbers in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as on the mainland, is the Filipino. In 1990 there were 1,406,770 people in the United States whose point of origin was the Philippine Islands — a jump of more than 600,000 in only twenty years. Filipinos had easy access to America when their country was an American possession, but were placed under a quota when given independence in 1946. For all practical purposes the 1965 Immigration Act lifted the quota.

Like Japan, South Korea has become a quasi-U.S. protectorate. American armed forces, having defended the country successfully against a North Korean and later Chinese onslaught in 1950-51, are prepared to do so again. This military collaboration, together with a radical change in immigration policy, triggered a massive transPacific migration of South Korean civilians. Once in the United States, Koreans specialized in opening small groceries near or in the inner cities, where many were mercilessly robbed and gunned down by blacks.

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the conquest of large parts of Indochina by Communist North Vietnam, the United States government was suddenly confronted with the “boat people,” hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese (many of Chinese origin) fleeing South Vietnam by sea. Having abandoned them on the battlefield, the Congress and the media felt duty bound to take them in — to the amount of more than 1 million by 1990 They were later joined by smaller numbers of Cambodians whose once placid nation was torn apart by Communist-inspired purges that approached the level of genocide. At this writing the rabble-rousing, Marx-worshipping Khmer Rouge have been pushed back into the jungle. For how long, no one knows.

Millions of Southeast Asians would like to follow in the footsteps of those who have already found refuge in this country. How many more will be permitted to settle here will depend on the demographic intentions of the various Indochinese governments and on the immigration policy, or lack of it, of the White House and Congress.

Other Asiatic or Mongoloid minorities include 62,964 Samoans, 49,345 Guamanians, 815,447 Asian Indians from the Indian subcontinent, 81,371 Pakistanis,[15]Pakistanis have gone into the motel business with a vengeance. 57,152 Eskimos, and 23,797 Aleuts[16]The Aleuts were members of the early migration from Siberia, but they never went further east than the Aleutian Islands. There, 200 or so years ago, Russian fur traders found 25,000 of their descendants. When the Russians departed, having sold Alaska to the U.S. in 1867, only 2,950 Aleuts remained alive. If the 1990 Census is correct, their number is now on the rebound. (ancient Asian immigrants). Questions concerning the assimilation probability of these groups are best answered by Kipling’s wellknown lines.

 

AMERICAN INDIANS: Several theories have been developed to explain the racial origins of the oldest New World inhabitants. The one most acceptable to contemporary anthropology is that they are descendants of fur-wearing, spear-carrying, mammoth-eating Mongolian tribesmen who island-hopped or perhaps walked across the Bering Strait some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, when most of it was a grassy plain. A few dissident anthropologists allude to the possibility of a partial descent from Polynesians and Melanesians who may have reached South America from Easter Island. There are also legends of refugees from Atlantis and the lost continent of Mu, and of shipwrecked sailors from Chinese junks washed ashore on the Pacific coast.[17]The American Heritage Book of Indians, American Heritage Publishing Co., New York, 1961, pp. 9, 25. Puzzling pockets of Aj blood group may be accounted for by Australoid elements, and there is even a remote possibility of far-off kinship with the Ainus of Japan.

In the year 1500, North America (above the Rio Grande) contained an estimated 850,000 Indians.[18]Our American Indians at a Glance, Pacific Coast Publications, Menlo Park, California., 1961, p. 6. By 1900 the Indian population of the United States had decreased to 237,196,[19]Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, pp. 58-59. Today the most numerous Indian tribe is the Navajo, with a population of 160,000. In the seventeenth century the Navajos numbered 9,000. a decline that seemed to bear out the theory of the Vanishing American and historian Arnold Toynbee’s half-truth that the English-speaking peoples colonized by dispossession and genocide.[20]A Study of History, Vol. V, p. 46. In the same exaggerated vein Toynbee could have described the eternal warfare between nomadic Indian tribes as equally genocidal. But the 1990 census counted 1,878,285 Indians, many hundreds of thousands more than existed before the arrival of the Europeans. Some 70 percent of these Indians live on 399 government reservations.[21]Time, Sept 3, 1965, p. 72. An Indian author, Vine Deloria, Jr., disagrees with these figures. He estimates that half of all the Indians in the U.S. live in eastern cities and that another 100,000 are scattered throughout eastern rural areas. New York Times Magazine, Dec. 7, 1969.

The Indians of the United States and Canada never became a mestizo population as did so many Latin American Indians. The English settler, who often brought his family with him, was not as prone to miscegenation as the lonely Spanish soldier. Moreover, North American Indians were hunters, nomads, isolated farmers and fisher folk — less adept at socializing than Mongoloids in the more urban agglomerates of the Aztec and Incan empires. This is not to suggest that there was no interbreeding of Indians with trappers, traders, and other white “squaw men” in the West, and with Negro slaves in Southern states.[22]At least 200 communities in the eastern U.S. consist largely of triracial hybrids of mixed Indian, Negro, and white ancestry. Coon, op. cit, p. 307. Madison Grant believed that half the American Indian population has some white blood. In Latin America, Southern European miscegenation diluted the Indian and Negro stock. In North America, Northern European miscegenation was largely with Southern blacks.

In frontier days, despite Rousseau’s well-publicized notion of the “noble savage ” and Cooper’s Plutarchan Mohicans, Indians were regarded as the lowest and most debased of humanoids.[23]In 1866, three years after Lincoln had freed the slaves, an Arizona county was still offering $250 for an Apache scalp. American Heritage Book of Indians, p. 384. Francis Parkman’s detailed description of Indian cannibalism and Indian habits of torturing white prisoners of both sexes makes the fierce reactions of frontiersmen more understandable. The Works of Francis Parkman, Little Brown, Boston, 1892, Vol. III, especially Chapter XVIII. Now that both sides have quit the warpath and there is little direct contact between them, except in their tribal gambling dens, they are flattered and cozened by their new white friends, the modern generation of eleemosynary ideologues, and forgotten by their erstwhile foes. Indeed, it has become commonplace — and a measure of their declining race consciousness — for some whites to boast of their “Indian blood.” Not too much, of course, but enough to conjure up visions of wide open spaces and Remington scouts. Halfbreed, at one time the most contemptuous expression in American English, has been watered down to so anemic a pejorative that it hardly raises an eyebrow.

If minority vociferousness was proportionate to past suffering, Indians would be quite justified in being the most clamorous of all American population groups. Once the sole and undisputed ruler of all he surveyed, the redman has both fallen and been lowered to the bottom of the American social scale, where he remains. He was herded onto reservations, dosed with alcohol, decimated by smallpox, and only given full citizenship rights in 1924. In 1966 the average Indian had the lowest income of any American and an unemployment rate of nearly 40 percent. Ninety percent of his housing was below acceptable standards. His life expectancy was twentyone years less than that of the general population.[24]Time, March 15, 1968, p. 20. Reservation Indians are still the wards of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an organization of 16,000 government functionaries distinguished by a long record of administrative ineptitude.[25]San Francisco Examiner, This World, April 14, 1968, p. 19.

Taking their cue from more dynamic minorities, Indians have recently made some efforts to close ranks, a somewhat formidable task in that they still speak more than a hundred different languages and belong to more than 250 tribes. As they were seldom able to unite when whites were evicting them from their fields and hunting grounds, their endemic tribalism will surely continue to hamper the organization of any effective national lobby. The last major attempt at an Indian revival was the Ghost Dance religion (1889-90) when Wovoka, a Paiute medicine man, promised the return of the Golden Age. Million-footed herds of bison would repopulate the prairies. Dead braves would rise up with their great chiefs and go on one final warpath, which would root the palefaces out of the land. The movement was easily put down by the Seventh Cavalry.[26]American Heritage Book of Indians, p. 371 . Latter-day Indian stirrings, such as the sacking of the Indian Bureau office in Washington and the 1973 “uprising” at Wounded Knee, while proving Indian racism was on the upswing, are more accurately described as media events than serious attempts at independence.

Noblesse oblige demands that a certain respect, even if their present acts and behavior do not deserve it, be accorded the oldest Americans, the onetime majority that centuries ago become a minority, the sole American population group with a largely nonderivative culture. The Indian, although he has seldom measured up to his role, is the tragic hero of the American epic. He was the enemy for more than 250 years.[27]The Indian wars came to an end in 1891 with the final pacification of the Sioux. Ibid., p. 400. Compared to the centuries-long struggle with the Indians, America’s wars against France in the colonial period, Britain in revolutionary times, Mexico and Spain in the nineteenth century, Germany, Japan, North Korea, North Vietnam and Iraq in the twentieth century were relatively brief.
(American Heritage Book of Indians, p. 371 .)
It is only fitting that the honors of defeat should provide both for his physical survival and his spiritual continuity.

Footnotes

[1] Focus, a publication of the National Geographic Society, states the population of Mexico is 55 percent mestizo, 29 percent Indian, 15 percent European and under 1 percent Negro and Mulatto. To the casual visitor the European estimate appears high.

[2] Having come from Mexico several centuries ago, some 250,000 “Hispanos” in New Mexico, who look upon later arrivals as interlopers, are perpetuating a Spanish-speaking, assimilation-proof subculture of their own.

[3] New York Times, April 20, 1969, p. 54.

[4] A solid bloc of Mexican-American votes, some from voters long dead, won Lyndon Johnson the hotly disputed 1948 senatorial primary in Texas at a crucial moment in his political career. See pp. 428-29.

[5] New York Times, April 20, 1969, p. 1.

[6] One indirect way of comparing birthrates is to say that one-third of all babies born in the U.S. in 1993 were born courtesy of Medicaid.

[7] Davie, World Immigration, p. 308

[8] Ibid., p. 313. For more about quotas see Chapters 5 and 6.

[9] The entire Chinese population of 1,000 was ruthlessly driven out of Truckee, California, in 1878. The previous year in San Francisco there was almost open warfare between the Irish and the Chinese. Davie, op. cit, pp. 318-21.

[10] In Hawaii, where nonwhites are in the majority, the Chinese are more politically active, as demonstrated by the presence in the Senate (1959-77) of millionaire Republican Hiram Fong. In the continental U.S., the Chinese minority stands apart from the liberal-minority coalition by often voting for conservative candidates and taking an aggressive stand against the busing of school children.

[11] Davis, op. cit, p. 321.

[12] Ibid., p. 324. Population figures from the 1990 Census. The population increase is largely attributed to the family unification program.

[13] Simpson and Yinger, op. cit, pp. 132-33. After the war, claims were settled at an average rate often cents on the dollar. Washington Post, Oct 5, 1965, p. 1 .

[14] The 1990 Census showed 1,108,229 people in the Hawaiian Islands divided as follows: White, 369,61 6; Japanese, 247,486; Hawaiian, 211,014 (less than 10% of pure blood); Filipino, 168,682; Chinese, 68,804; Negroes, 27,195; Other, 15,432. Many of the whites belong to military families.

[15] Pakistanis have gone into the motel business with a vengeance.

[16] The Aleuts were members of the early migration from Siberia, but they never went further east than the Aleutian Islands. There, 200 or so years ago, Russian fur traders found 25,000 of their descendants. When the Russians departed, having sold Alaska to the U.S. in 1867, only 2,950 Aleuts remained alive. If the 1990 Census is correct, their number is now on the rebound.

[17] The American Heritage Book of Indians, American Heritage Publishing Co., New York, 1961, pp. 9, 25.

[18] Our American Indians at a Glance, Pacific Coast Publications, Menlo Park, California., 1961, p. 6.

[19] Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, pp. 58-59. Today the most numerous Indian tribe is the Navajo, with a population of 160,000. In the seventeenth century the Navajos numbered 9,000.

[20] A Study of History, Vol. V, p. 46. In the same exaggerated vein Toynbee could have described the eternal warfare between nomadic Indian tribes as equally genocidal.

[21] Time, Sept 3, 1965, p. 72. An Indian author, Vine Deloria, Jr., disagrees with these figures. He estimates that half of all the Indians in the U.S. live in eastern cities and that another 100,000 are scattered throughout eastern rural areas. New York Times Magazine, Dec. 7, 1969.

[22] At least 200 communities in the eastern U.S. consist largely of triracial hybrids of mixed Indian, Negro, and white ancestry. Coon, op. cit, p. 307. Madison Grant believed that half the American Indian population has some white blood.

[23] In 1866, three years after Lincoln had freed the slaves, an Arizona county was still offering $250 for an Apache scalp. American Heritage Book of Indians, p. 384. Francis Parkman’s detailed description of Indian cannibalism and Indian habits of torturing white prisoners of both sexes makes the fierce reactions of frontiersmen more understandable. The Works of Francis Parkman, Little Brown, Boston, 1892, Vol. III, especially Chapter XVIII.

[24] Time, March 15, 1968, p. 20.

[25] San Francisco Examiner, This World, April 14, 1968, p. 19.

[26] American Heritage Book of Indians, p. 371 .

[27] The Indian wars came to an end in 1891 with the final pacification of the Sioux. Ibid., p. 400. Compared to the centuries-long struggle with the Indians, America’s wars against France in the colonial period, Britain in revolutionary times, Mexico and Spain in the nineteenth century, Germany, Japan, North Korea, North Vietnam and Iraq in the twentieth century were relatively brief.

Chapter 17 • The Negroes • 7,100 Words

The negro minority, the largest and most violent minority, merits a special chapter because it presents the United States with a problem that often seems beyond solution. Fanned and overheated by both black and white agitators for different ideological purposes, Negro racism has now reached the point where it has literally grounded the once soaring American Zeitgeist and threatens to mutilate it beyond recognition. For the first time since the pacification of the Indians, who themselves are now resorting to infrequent fits of localized resistance, self-anointed leaders of an American minority are seriously talking about taking up arms against the authority of the state. Simultaneously, a large criminal caste is multiplying within the Negro community along with an even larger caste of welfare recipients and dehumanized drug addicts. A black middle class has also taken shape, but so has a ghetto population of fatherless families whose illegitimate children now outnumber the children of two-parent Negro families.

The first Negroes to arrive in the British possessions in North America were twenty indentured servants who disembarked from a Dutch ship in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619. Blacks, be it known, have been in America as long as the Majority and longer than all other minority members except Indians. Overwhelmed by white culture, Negroes quickly traded their tribal dialects for English, their tribal gods for Christianity, and their tribal names for those of their white masters. But they could never trade their skin.

Negro slavery, one of the oldest and most enduring of human institutions, was introduced into the New World at the behest of the pious Christian bishop, Bartolome de las Casas, who sermonized that only Negroes could survive the yoke of peonage the Spaniards had fastened on the Indians.[1]Davie, op. cit, p. 587. De las Casas’s proposal was adopted too late. Almost all the natives of the large West Indian islands were wiped out before the arrival of their black replacements. Although the “peculiar institution” was firmly established in the Southern colonies by the end of the 17th century, slavery did not become big business until the stirrings of the Industrial Revolution. When cotton became king and Blake’s “dark Satanic mills” began to scar the landscapes of New and Old England, only Negroes were able, and available, to endure the rigors of field work on Southern plantations.

Contrary to conspiratorial theories of Negro history that blame black misfortunes entirely on whites, African tribal chiefs played a key role in the slave trade. They were the procurement agents who rounded up neighboring tribesmen, as well as many of their own subjects, and marched them off to the slave ships.[2]Negro historian John Hope Franklin points out, “Slavery was an important function of African social and economic life.” From Slavery to Freedom, Knopf, New York, 1967, p. 31. One of the favorite roundup methods was to set fire to a village by night and capture the fleeing inhabitants. Ency. Brit., Vol. 20, p. 780. Rum was the staple of this dubious commerce and passed for currency on the African west coast. There, writes Charles Beard, “to slake their fierce appetite, [Negroes] would sell their enemies, their friends, their mothers, fathers, wives, daughters, and sons for New England’s scalding potion.”[3]Beard, Rise of American Civilization Vol. I, pp. 93-94. The slaves were transported in ships from which the hogsheads had been temporarily removed.

Slavery was the inhumanity of white to black. But it was also the inhumanity of blacks to their own kind. For many Negroes transportation to America was simply giving up one form of servitude for another. Often it was a fortuitous escape from starvation, disease, human sacrifice, and cannibalism. Whites guilt-ridden about slavery should take into account that, although it has been proscribed for more than a century in the United States, it is still prevalent in Africa. In the 1960s, $5.60 would buy a healthy half-caste baby in Somalia; $2,200 an attractive young girl in the Sudan.[4]Sean O’Callaghan, The Slave Trade Today, as reviewed in San Francisco Chronicle, This World, May 27, 1962. In recent years in the U.S., Negroes, not whites, have been arrested for committing the crime of peonage. Miami Herald, March 22, 1973, p. 1. In 1980 the government of Mauritania passed a law abolishing slavery, as it had done several times previously, with little effect. The slavery question began to divide Americans from the very moment of their independence. The best minds of the day — Franklin, Patrick Henry, Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison — were opposed to slavery but unwilling to come to grips with it because of the greater urgency of unifying the young republic. Opposition to slavery, it should be noted, did not necessarily signify a belief in the equality preached so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, the author of most of that document, suggested that “blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind.”[5]The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Modern Library, N.Y., 1944, p. 262. Jefferson favored Negro emancipation, but warned that the black, “When freed … is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture….” Ibid. How Jefferson’s ideas were edited to fit modern liberal notions of equalitarianism is shown by the inscription on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, which reads, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” The stonemason put a period in place of the original semicolon. Jefferson’s sentence continued, “nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government ” George Washington, whose concern for Negroes was not as verbal as Jefferson’s, but perhaps more generous, arranged for his slaves to be freed at his death. Jefferson, who at one time had as many as 212, did not.
(Sean O’Callaghan, The Slave Trade Today, as reviewed in San Francisco Chronicle, This World, May 27, 1962. In recent years in the U.S., Negroes, not whites, have been arrested for committing the crime of peonage. Miami Herald, March 22, 1973, p. 1.)
Jefferson was particularly pessimistic about Negro intellectual proficiency.

Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous….They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory….But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration….”[6]Ibid., pp. 257-58.
(Sean O’Callaghan, The Slave Trade Today, as reviewed in San Francisco Chronicle, This World, May 27, 1962. In recent years in the U.S., Negroes, not whites, have been arrested for committing the crime of peonage. Miami Herald, March 22, 1973, p. 1.)

After the issue of slavery had reached the inflammatory stage, Maryland-born Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing the majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision (1857), took judicial notice that Negroes were “beings of an inferior order.” Abraham Lincoln, another nonbeliever in the genetic equality of Negroes, was firmly committed to the separation of the two races and a strong supporter of the Illinois law which made marriage between whites and Negroes a crime.[7]Benjamin Quarles, Lincoln and the Negro, Oxford University Press, N.Y., 1962, pp. 36-37. In one of his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln was quoted as saying, “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” In 1862, Lincoln invited some free Negroes to the White House to explain the reasons behind one of his pet projects, the repatriation of American blacks to Africa. “We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races…this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both….Your race suffers very greatly…by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. … If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.” Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln, The War Years, Harcourt Brace, N.Y., 1939, Vol. 1, p. 574. For a summary of Lincoln’s attitudes towards Negroes, see the statement of Ludwell H. Johnson, an associate professor at the College of William and Mary, in Putnam’s Race and Reality, pp. 134-37.

As pointed out earlier in this study, blacks in the United States increased from about 750,000 to nearly 4,500,000 in the years (17901860) when almost 90 percent of Negroes were slaves.[8]Franklin, op. cit, pp. 186, 217. Slavery was abominable to the body and spirit, but as an almost sixfold boost in the black population in seventy years demonstrated, it was hardly genocide. Since Congress had outlawed the slave trade in 1808, most of the increase could only be ascribed to Negro fecundity.

The enormous casualties of the Civil War are proof that the curse of slavery descended on whites as well as blacks. After the war had ended and slavery had been abolished by the 13th Amendment, twenty Negro representatives and two Negro senators were sent to Congress. At the same time, Southern state capitals were crowded with Negro officeholders and office seekers. For a while it appeared that Yankee military power and vindictiveness plus Negro numbers and Southern demoralization might change the color and character of Southern civilization. But Southern whites went underground and organized the Ku Klux Klan, whose night riders taught the occupation forces and their white and black collaborators a few points about terror tactics and guerrilla warfare.

The North, ever more immersed in financial speculation and industrial expansion, finally grew weary of trying to enforce equality where none existed. President Rutherford B. Hayes, a moderate Republican, removed the last federal troops in 1877, and the South was returned to the Southerners. As the Negro sank back into serfdom and sharecropping, the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutionality of postbellum segregation in the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

A casual visitor to Mississippi or Alabama at the end of the century might have come to the conclusion that except for a few legal formalities slavery had been reinstituted. He would have been correct, but not for long. The Industrial Revolution, now in its middle stages, was preparing to wrench Negro destiny in a new direction. America’s entry into World War I was accompanied by a great shortage of factory workers. Tens of thousands of Negro tenant farmers and hired hands heard the call and began a mass migration to northern cities which only stopped in the late 70s. In 1900, 90 percent of the Negro population lived below the Mason-Dixon line; in 1950, 70 percent. Today, of the 29,986,060 blacks listed in the 1990 Census, slightly more than half live in the South.

The transformation of the Negro minority into an urban population ended the blacks’ political isolation and brought them for the first time within reach of the liberal-minority coalition, which has dominated American politics for most of this century. In the North, and later in the South, Negroes were taught the secret of bloc voting.[9]In the 1964 presidential election, Negroes voted 95 percent for Lyndon Johnson. Time, Nov. 4, 1964, p. 4. Twenty-eight years later in the 1992 presidential race, Clinton, the Democratic winner, received 83 percent of the black vote. Eleven percent of blacks chose Bush; seven percent voted for Perot. Voter Research and Survey, ABC study of 15,214 voters. As political careers became more dependent on these votes, citadel after citadel of white resistance began to crumble. Principal keys to the success of the civil rights movement were the huge financial contributions of the foundations, churches, and affluent white minority organizations, as well as the legal maneuvering and lobbying of Negro organizations financed and in large part directed by white liberals and Jews.[10]Julius Rosenwald of Sears, Roebuck was for many years the biggest financial contributor to Negro causes. The first president of the Urban League, the second largest Negro organization, was New York banker Edwin Seligman. For a quarter of a century the presidents of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (400,000 members and $13 million annual budget, as of 1992) were Jewish, the last being Kivie Kaplan, fifty-eight members of whose family held $500 life memberships. Perennial head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund is Jack Greenberg. Yaffe, The American Jews, p. 257, and Arnold Rose, The Negro in America, Beacon, Boston, 1961, p. 267. Before he was assassinated by black separatists, Negro activist Malcolm X wrote, “I gave the Jew credit for being among all other whites the most active, and the most vocal, financier, ‘leader’ and ‘liberal’ in the Negro civil rights movement.” Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 372. Jewish intellectual and financial support was just as generous to radical Negro organizations as it had been to the Urban League and the NAACP. Such groups as CORE and SNCC practically lived off Jewish contributions. In January 1970, Leonard Bernstein held a party in his Park Avenue apartment and raised $3,000, to which he added the fee from his next concert, for twenty-one Black Panthers arrested for plotting to kill policemen and dynamite a police station, department stores, and a railroad right-of-way. Time, Jan. 26, 1970, p. 14. A week later former Supreme Court Justice Goldberg helped form a special commission to investigate whether Chicago police had violated the rights of Black Panthers. Previous to this, the press reported that the Panthers had killed five policemen and wounded forty-two more in “shoot-outs” in twenty states. Human Events, Feb. 7, 1970, p. 10. Jewish money was all-important in the election campaigns of Negro Mayors Carl Stokes of Cleveland and Richard Hatcher of Gary, Indiana. Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 350. The Supreme Court lent a hand by striking down the poll tax and literacy tests, two political safeguards which the South had erected against any recurrence of the Black Power of Reconstruction days. By the late 1950s it appeared the Civil War was going to be fought over again in miniature. Freedom marchers, federal marshals, Department of Justice attorneys, preachers, teachers, kibitzers, liberals, ultraliberals — in short a whole new generation of carpetbaggers — converged on the South to heighten the tension and fuel the violence that greeted the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision (1954). But times and geopolitics had changed. The squalid desolation of the northern ghettos was a daily reminder that the Negro problem could no longer be relegated to the lower half of a neat geographical bisection.

The white liberals and minority members who in the tradition of nineteenth-century abolitionists had enthusiastically used Negro deprivation as a political and economic club with which to beat the hated South, the last stronghold of Majority racism, were not so wildly enthusiastic when they came face to face with southern Negroes migrating en masse to northern cities. It is more comforting to tell others how to remedy their errors than to correct one’s own. Part of the liberal-minority solution for the Negroes’ predicament was to inculcate them with a hatred of Southern whites. But to the Northern Negro all whites looked the same. Ironically the scapegoaters were becoming the scapegoats.

The wind had been sown and the whirlwind reaped when Negroes finally sensed the hypocrisy and cowardice of their white allies. From 1964 through the first half of 1968, Negro race riots, 11 most of them in large Northern cities, accounted for 215 dead, 8,950 injured, and $285 million in insurance claims.[12]U.S. News & World Report, July 15, 1968, p. 31. Other outbursts of looting and killing took place in the 1970s. The Miami riot, one of the bloodiest, occurred in 1980. The 1992 Los Angeles riot was the biggest to date, costing upwards of $1 billion and 58 lives. Although not so reported in the media, the riots, a few of which could be more accurately described as insurrections, were not always mad, irrational acts of self-immolation. They could also be regarded as a well-conceived strategy of burning out the merchants, especially Koreans, who in the view of ghetto residents had been gouging and overcharging them.[13]At the end of 1968, after several years of exposure to arson and looting, 39 percent of the stores in the fifteen largest ghettos were still Jewish-owned. Wall St. Journal, Dec. 31, 1968, pp. 1,12. Black militants accompanied their attacks on Jewish business with occasional flare-ups of anti-Semitism. Will Maslow, then executive director of the American Jewish Congress, resigned from CORE’s Executive Committe after attending a school meeting in Mount Vernon N.Y., in the course of which a Nego educator stated that Hitler had not killed enough Jews. Most Jews were far too committed to the Negro cause to cheer Maslow’s act. Yaffe, op. cit, p.[261] It was not until Negro leaders openly attacked Zionism in 1979, after Carter’s dismissal of U.N. Ambassador Andrew \bung for talking to a P.L.O. member, that the rift in the black-Jewish alliance became a topic on the television evening news. Also not generally known was the fact that the riots were not led by the poor or disadvantaged, but by the higher-income, better-educated Negroes.[14]Suspects in the police lineup following the 1968 Washington riots were found to be “amazingly respectable.” Most had never been in trouble with the law. More than half were family men. U.S. News & World Report, April 22, 1968, p. 29.

In 1969 black paramilitary cadres endeavoring to establish themselves as the elite guard of racial revolution launched attacks against policemen, ambushing them in ghetto streets or gunning them down at point-blank range when they stopped black militants for traffic violations. Armed Negro bands occupied buildings or classrooms of several colleges, held administrative officials and professors hostage, and were later amnestied after forcing tremulous presidents, deans, and faculties to bow to their demands. Other Negro groups levied tribute on churches as “reparations” for mistreatment in the slavery era.[15]The reparations issue has been taken up by black congressmen who introduced into the House of Representatives H.R. 40, a bill to establish a commission to recommend, among other things, the amount of reparations owed Negroes for the time their ancestors spent as slaves from colonial days until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment The sins of the fathers were being visited upon the children well beyond the third and fourth generations. Majority liberals and minority racists who could not abide Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws were being asked to agree — and many did agree — to a moral law holding races accountable for acts committed by individuals long since dead.

When not attributed to the purposeful malevolence of “white racism,”[16]White racism was specifically named as the chief villain in the plight of the American Negro by the government-sponsored Kerner Report (1967), compiled by Federal Judge Otto Kerner who, with his former associate, Theodore Isaacs, was later found guilty of bribery, fraud, and extortion. Time, Dec. 13, 1971, p. 15. Such official denouncements inevitably intensify hatred of whites as a group, which in turn hardens white feelings towards Negroes. Malcolm X exemplified the endpoint of aroused racial hostility when he said of a plane crash that killed some thirty white Americans, mostly from Atlanta, “I’ve just heard some good news!” Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 394. Such racial vehemence, of course, is not the sole property of Negroes. A similar strain was noticeable in the late Ben Hecht who wrote he had a “holiday in his heart” every time a Zionist killed a British soldier. New York Times, May 20, 1947, p. 1. black militancy is often explained as the expected and excusable outgrowth of the Negro’s low economic status. Reference is made to government statistics that show the presence of a huge, growing black underclass.[17]Nevertheless the income of the average Negro family in the U.S. exceeds the income of the average British family. Economist, London, May 10, 1969, p. 19. Statistics for 1978, however, demonstrate black economic advances that would have been unthinkable a few decades earlier. Black employment in the professional and technical fields rose to 8.7 percent (from 6.7 percent in 1970). Median income for working black women was $8,097, compared to $8,672 for working white women. In clerical work black women were actually earning more than white women ($169 weekly vs. $165). Black high-school graduates were making 77 percent of the income of their white counterparts (up from 69 percent in 1967). Black college graduates were earning 80 to 85 percent of the income of white graduates (up from 54 percent in 1967). Two-income black families in the North and West were making more than two-income white families ($14,995 vs. $14,030 in 1974).[18]The Sunday Oregonian, Sept. 14, 1980. These gains are offset, of course, by high white — and higher black — unemployment and by the deteriorating social conditions of the ghetto Negro. In 1992, 67 percent of all black babies were born to unwed mothers. More than half the female-headed families lived below the poverty line. As for black unemployed youth, some studies indicated that if offered jobs, a large number of young Negroes would either turn them down or would soon be fired for incompetence or absenteeism. Negro militancy, it turns out, is as much a function of Negro economic progress as it is of Negro deprivation.

There is also an abundance of historical proof that Negro violence and Negro poverty have no strong causal links. No one can deny that the economic status of blacks was much worse in slavery and sharecropping eras than today. Yet in all that time only three Negro revolts were known to have taken place, and even these were of little consequence. The biggest was led by Nat Turner in Southhampton County, Virginia, in 1831. If this rather ignoble event — white deaths totaled ten men, fourteen women, and thirty-one children — was the greatest explosion of Negro fury on the North American mainland in three centuries, it could be safely concluded that blacks were not roused to violence by WASP slave owners.[19]Two of these three rebellions were betrayed by Negro household slaves. Each was inspired by the French Revolution or by appropriate passages from the Old and New Testaments. Franklin Frazier, The Negro in the United States, Macmillan, New York, 1957, pp. 87-91.

Elsewhere the Negro record was different. The French experience in Haiti, where the massacre of the white population was almost total, and the recent war between Nigeria and Biafra, in which a million blacks died, hardly indicate a Negro proneness to pacifism. Nor does the 1994 intertribal bloodbath in Rwanda, where more than 500,000 men, women and children were slaughtered. What is indicated, however, is that Negroes are more likely to revolt or riot, not when they are oppressed, but when they are stirred up by tribal fervor, racist speeches by black and white radicals, and beckoning opportunities for mass looting.

An undeniable cause of black violence has been the weakening of white resistance. Throughout American history white supremacy has been a basic premise of the country’s social relationships. Even the most fiery abolitionists exuded the air of the Great White Father. In fact, white supremacy had such overwhelming acceptance, was so firmly entrenched and so thoroughly institutionalized that Negroes scarcely dared to criticize it, let alone take more forceful measures. Today, however, white supremacy or to give it its modern name, white racism, is so debilitated that Negro militancy is not only possible but profitable. That it would come to a halt once Negroes achieved both equal opportunity and equal results is the purest form of wishful thinking. Who would be the judges? Black activists? Militant black politicians? And how are equal results to be measured?

If Majority members would only comprehend that the whole point, the whole drive, the very essence of minority racism is not to obtain equality but to obtain superiority, most of the misunderstandings and misinterpretations of contemporary Negro behavior would be avoided. Racism simply cannot be bought off by token cabinet appointments, Supreme Court seats, or racial quotas. In its dynamic stages racism can only be controlled or suppressed by superior force, a force most effectively provided by an opposing or countervailing racism. What is indisputable is that the one way not to stop Negro militancy is to reward it.

There is no better evidence of the decline of the American Majority than the continuing successes of black racism. Negroes belong to the most backward of the world’s major races and to the most backward of America’s large population groups. Nevertheless in the past few decades they have managed to erect a kind of state within a state and in the name of equality have achieved a kind of superequality which has led to the establishment of a double standard — one for themselves, one for whites — in the judicial, educational, and economic sectors of American society. That what has come to be known as affirmative action has been accomplished so quickly is vivid confirmation of the power of racism. Negroes, as some of their own leaders will admit in private, have little else working for them. Several theories have been advanced to account for Negro backwardness. One of the most publicized was put forward by Arnold Toynbee, whose monumental Study of History logs twenty-one civilizations, most of them created by white men, some by yellow men, none by black men.[20]Vol. 1 , p. 232. 21 . Vol. 2, pp. 26-29. Toynbee explained the Negro’s civilizing deficiency by the theory of challenge and response. Surrounded by nature’s bounty in the lush African tropics, the Negro, Toynbee postulated, only had to lift his hand to gather in his subsistence. With a minimum of challenge there was a minimum of response. Being, so to speak, spoon-fed by Mother Nature, the Negro was not sufficiently stimulated to develop his mental apparatus to its full potential.[21]

Another hypothesis, based on what the late A. L. Kroeber called cultural diffusion, asserted that the Negro, having been shunted off the main track of social progress by geography, suffered from lack of contact with other civilizations and consequendy was programmed for enduring barbarism. A neater theory, so neat that it is practically unanswerable, states that the Negro’s predicament is simply due to bad luck, that the fate of all races is the result of nothing more than blind chance and historical accident, that if fortune had not been so kind to whites, they would still be living in caves. Still another viewpoint, more rationalizing than rational, alleges that the present condition of Negroes is due to a cleverly rigged white plot. White slave traders are blamed for deliberately wiping out thriving Negro civilizations in Africa, and the white empire builders who followed them are accused of transforming the surviving tribal states into sordid financial enclaves and boss-ridden plantations.

As expected, some or all of these conjectures have found favor with the environmentalist schools of social science, notwithstanding that they are loaded with non sequiturs, guesswork and racial axgrinding. Toynbee’s challenge and response hypothesis loses much of its credibility when it is recalled that many geographical zones occupied by African Negroes — such as the East African highlands — are quite untropical and similar in climate, flora and fauna to areas which produced some of Toynbee’s twenty-one civilizations.[22]It may have been disease, not insufficient challenge, that has made the Negro so lethargic. Half of all African blacks suffer from sickle cell anemia, an endemic malady that helps immunize them against malaria, but slows down bodily and mental functions. Sickle cell anemia afflicts 50,000 Americans, most of whom are Negroes. With respect to the cultural diffusion theory, since great numbers of Negroes lived from time immemorial on the southern border of ancient Egypt, they were consequently the most proximate of all peoples^ — just a short sail down the Nile — to one of the world’s earliest and greatest civilizations. Given this head start, Negroes should be far ahead of other races in cultural attainments. As for the historical accident theory, all one can say is that in 6,000 years Negro luck should have changed at least once.

Those who find genetic grounds for Negro backwardness seem to have a much stronger case than the behaviorists and equalitarians. They point to Garleton Coon’s thesis that the Negro race is younger in evolutionary grade than other races.[23]See p. 19. They produce medical research to demonstrate that Negro infants have a faster maturation rate than white infants, just as animals have a faster maturation rate than human beings. In regard to fissuration, supragranular layer thickness and number of pyramidal neurons, they found the frontal lobe and cortex of the brain are less developed in the Negro than in the white.[24]For maturation rates, see Marcelle Geber, The Lancet, June 15, 1957, Vol. 272, No. 6981, pp. 1216-19. For frontal lobe and cortex studies, see C.J. Connolly, External Morphology of the Primate Brain, 1950, Springfield, Illinois, pp. 146, 205-4; C. W. M. Pynter and J. J. Keegan, “A Study of the American Negro Brain,” 1915; Journal of Comparative Neurology, Vol. 25, pp. 183-212; Ward C. Halstead, Brains and Intelligence, 1947, Chicago, p. 149; F. W. Vint, “The Brain of the Kenya Native,” 1934, Journal of Anatomy, Vol. 68, pp. 216-23.

Those who put more faith in genes than environment also submit a mass of documentation derived from decades of intelligence testing to show that the average I.Q. score of the Negro is from 15 to 20 points below that of the white.[25]Audrey M. Shuey, The Testing of Negro Intelligence, Social Science Press, New York, 1966. The book analyzes 380 such tests accumulated over a forty-year period. They refer to studies attributing consistent Negro underachievement in education to inherent learning disabilities.[26]The most notable of these studies are those of Dr. Arthur R. Jensen, who found that white students had a “significantly greater ability to grasp abstract concepts.” See Chapter 20. They juxtapose the emancipation of Negroes in the United States with the contemporaneous emancipation of the Russian serfs, contrasting the social mobility of the latter’s descendants to the prolonged postslavery sluggishness of American blacks.[27]Discussing the posterity of Russian serfs, Pitirim Sorokin wrote, they “yielded a considerable number of geniuses of the first degree, not to mention the eminent people of a smaller calibre…the American Negroes have not up to this time produced a single genius of great calibre.” Contemporary Sociological Theories, p. 298, footnote 162. They cite the success story of Chinese coolies who, upon their arrival in America, were as illiterate and penniless as postbellum Negroes and far less familiar with American ways. Nevertheless, they needed no more than a century to reach and exceed the median income level. They quote Hegel, Conrad, Schweitzer, and Faulkner to suggest that Negro differences are due to nature not nurture.[28]Hegel, Marx’s pet philosopher, put blacks on a par with animals. Vorlesungen fiber die Philosophie der Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1971, pp. 137-44. For Conrad’s illumination of the dark crannies of the Negro psyche, see Heart of Darkness. Schweitzer, who spent much of his life in Africa, said the white man was the Negro’s “elder brother.” He considered the average Negro a child, adding that “with children nothing can be done without the use of authority.” Putnam, Race and Reason, p. 76, and Newsweek, April 8, 1963, p. 21. Much as he liked and respected Negroes, Faulkner said that if antiwhite racial agitation increased he would be forced to join his native state of Mississippi against the United States and shoot Negroes in the street. Reporter, March 22, 1956, pp. 18-19.

The upholders of heredity further substantiate their case by referring to the Negro’s political and cultural record. They point out that neither in the Old World nor in the New has the Negro ever produced a system of government that went one step beyond the most elementary forms of absolutism; that indigenous Negro societies have left behind no literature, no inscriptions or documents, no body of law, no philosophy, no science — in short, no history. Even in those fields of art where Negroes have displayed some creativity and originality, the ultimate effect, at least on the West, has been anticultural — the contorted ugliness of modern painting and sculpture, the jungle screech of jazz and rock music, the grotesque shuffling and weaving of the latest dance crazes.

It would be superfluous to say that Negro intellectuals and their white partisans disagree with these biologically tilted arguments. In rebuttal, however, they are not above retouching history. The stone ruins of Zimbabwe in Southern Rhodesia are held up as proof that an ancient and sophisticated Negro civilization was in full flower when Europeans were groping their way through the Dark Ages. A little later the “kingdoms” of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai purportedly inaugurated a golden age in West Africa, where two new emerging nations have been named in their honor. That the Zimbabwe stone “fortress” was probably built by Arab traders in the eleventh century with Hottentot labor should not be permitted to spoil a good legend. In regard to Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, they were founded by Hamitic Berbers and Semitic Arabs and were not in West Africa, but located further east.[29]R. Gayre, “Negrophile Falsification of Racial History,” The Mankind Quarterly, Jan .-March, 1967, pp. 131-43. Also see “Zimbabwe” by the same author in the April-June, 1965, issue. Actually the most evolved, all-Negro cultural enclaves were in western Nigeria and need no embroidered history by those who insist on measuring black accomplishments by white standards.

In an overzealous attempt to raise Negro pride to the boiling point, one Ghanian historian has written that Moses and Buddha were Egyptian Negroes, that Christianity originated in the Sudan, and that the writings of Nietzsche, Bergson, Marx, and the Existentialists were reflections of Bantu thought. In the same vein, the “original Hebrews” and St. Paul are described as black, and Spinoza is called a “black SpanishJew.”[30]Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 180, 190. The Nubian or 25th dynasty, which appeared in the twilight of Ancient Egypt’s history (730-663 B.C.), is taken as evidence that the brilliant Egyptian civilizations of the Old and Middle Kingdoms were the work of blacks.[31]The Old Kingdom constructed forts to repel Nubians. The Middle Kingdom prevented the entry of all but slaves from Nubia. Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, p. 121. To television audiences Cleopatra is sometimes depicted as a Negress,[32]Cleopatra was not even a native Egyptian, “being by descent half-Greek and half-Macedonian.” John Buchan, Augustus, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1937, p. 77. and a black TV program informed its viewers that a West African king sent a hundred ships to South America 200 years before Columbus.[33]From the program, Soul, WNET, New York, Aug. 21, 1969. As for U.S. history, Crispus Attucks, who may have been a Negro or may have been an Indian, has become a black hero, celebrated as the first patriot to give his life in the battle for American independence.[34]In the 1770 Boston massacre. New York Times Magazine, April 20, 1969, pp. 33,109-110.

Perhaps the most farfetched example of Negro historical revisionism is the version of Genesis by Elijah Muhammad, the defunct prophet of the Black Muslims, who asserts that 6,600 years ago, when all men were Negroes, a black scientist named Yacub was exiled from Mecca with 59,999 followers. Embittered towards Allah, Yacub decided to create a devil race of “bleached-out whites.” Scientifically bred for blondness, Yacub’s followers became, in successive 200-year stages, brown, red, yellow and finally “blond, paleskinned, cold blue-eyed devils — savages, nude and shameless; hairy, like animals [walking] on all fours and [living] in trees. n Later these whites were rounded up by Negroes and sent to European caves where, after 2,000 years, Moses went to tame and civilize them. They then set forth to rule the earth for 6,000 years. The white interregnum was scheduled to end when a savior, Master W. D. Fard, a half-white, half-black silk salesman, brought Allah’s mes^ sage and divine guidance to Elijah Muhammad in 1931.[35]Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 164-67. Upon Elijah Muhammad’s death his son, Wallace, inherited the leadership of the Black Muslims and toned down the antiwhite rhetoric.

The gilding of the Negro past by religious and historical enthusiasts throws little constructive light on the great debate about Negro racial differences. If the environmentalists are correct, then Negroes ought to catch up with whites as soon as they are given equal political and legal rights, and equal educational and economic opportunities. If, as the late Marshall McLuhan contended, the Negro is actually a superior being, the time lag should be very short[36]McLuhan’s racial theories give first place to the Indian as well as to the Negro. The Canadian-born social critic has written, the “Negro and Indian…are actually psychically and socially superior to the fragmented, alienated and disassociated man of Western civilization. … It has been the sad fate of the Negro and the Indian to be…born ahead of rather than behind their time. “Julius Lester, Search for the New Land, Dial Press, New York, 1969, pp. 57-58. Yet every day the Negro problem increases in gravity. The more Negroes are helped, the more they seem to need help, and the louder they demand it. The more they progress, the more America as a nation appears to retrogress.

If, on the other hand, those who advance the genetic argument are right, then all the short-term gains Negroes have made in the last several decades will add up to a long-term disaster. Instead of trying to be the equals of whites, Negroes should try to be better Negroes. Instead of playing the white man’s game with dice that heredity has loaded against them, they should develop their own special talents in their own special ways. Negro frustrations, say the hereditarians, will only vanish when American Negroes lead a black rather than a white life.

Some of the most ardent support for the belief that Negro racial differences are so distinct as to make integration all but impossible has come from American Negroes themselves. Booker T. Washington warned his people to accept segregation and to remain well apart from the main currents of white civilization.[37]“In all things purely social,” Washington said, “we can be separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” Putnam, Race and Reason, p. 90. Marcus Garvey, who after World War I organized the first authentic Negro mass movement, decided the solution was to return to Africa.[38]It is significant that Garvey was a full-blooded Negro who directed his appeal to the blacker elements of the Negro population. He was an exception to the doubtful rule that the leaders of black movements must be mulattoes, whose hybrid status makes them ideal mediators between whites and Negroes. Father Divine, although Mother Divine was a Canadian blonde, insisted on moving his congregation into walled-off communities beyond the reach of white contamination.

The most recent advocates of black separatism are Black Muslims and a few black nationalist groups, who either demand a return to Africa or the establishment of one or more independent Negro states on American soil. But in aligning themselves with white fringe groups and hostile foreign regimes, black leaders are only compounding their troubles.

The great deterrent to black separatism is not the integrationist aspirations of assorted black Marxists and black social climbers but the whole superstructure of modern liberal thought. If the notion of racial equality is surrendered to separatism, which recognizes and institutionalizes racial differences, environmentalism, behaviorism, economic determinism, and even democracy itself would soon be called into question. The prevailing Western orthodoxies might then dissolve into thin air, and the occidental mind might have to set off on an entirely new path or find its way back to an old one.

From a political standpoint black separatism would be an overwhelming loss to the liberal-minority coalition. Racial separation of any kind being not at all uncongenial to racially minded whites, it is not inconceivable that hard-pressed Majority members, especially in the Deep South, together with harder-pressed Assimilable Minority members in the nation’s largest cities, would join black separatists in a pact to free both whites and blacks from an integrationist liberal administration in Washington. Also, if Negro separatism should ever become the order of the day, other Unassimilable Minorities might take the hint, leaving liberalism an ideology in search of a party. At the other extreme, total integration would deal an equally lethal blow to leftist political power by spelling the doom of all minorities and with them present-day liberalism’s principal raison d’etre[39]“What we arrive at is that ‘integration/socially, is no good for either side. ‘Integration,’ ultimately, would destroy the white race…and destroy the black race.” Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 276. It is only in the boundary zone between the segregated and the integrated society, between reality and Utopia, that today’s liberal feels truly at home.

Because so much more is at stake than the fate of American Negroes, the liberal-minority coalition, abetted by a sizable contingent of so-called conservatives, presses forward with integration at all costs. As always, those who have the courage to air opposing views are either ignored or subjected to instant character assassination.

But while liberalism still rules the country’s thinking in the matter of social policy, it has little control over the organic processes of society. As a tribesman, the Negro was a member of the tribal family. As a slave, he had his master’s family. As a sharecropper, he had his own family. As an industrial peon or one of the hard-core unemployed, he has no family at all, since the present welfare system provides financial sweeteners for fatherless households and for each illegitimate child. The upshot is that the urban Negro has now reached an impasse where he has little left but his color and sense of oppression. Having lost his hearth, his roots, his religion, and his way, he is rapidly losing the few social commitments he still retains.[40]Charles Murray in Losing Ground (Basic Books, 1984) has analyzed the federal programs which, he claims, led directly to the Negroes’ contemporary plight

The worst having been done, the more dynamic Negroes are demanding redress, somewhat as undisciplined children who have lost their innocence might seek redress from parents who abandoned them. To these demands whites have a choice of four responses: oppression, which is immoral; 41 integration without intermarriage, which is impossible; integration with intermarriage, which is inconceivable; and separation, which is impractical.

Of these four untenable courses of action the last, which would involve repatriation to Africa or the establishment of independent Negro communities tangential to white communities in states with large numbers of blacks, is perhaps the most nearly tenable. Whatever betides, the American Negro will sooner or later be out of his private wilderness. He will either return to his Old World homeland or be assigned a homeland in the New, or there will be no homeland for anyone, white or nonwhite, in urban America.

Footnotes

[1] Davie, op. cit, p. 587. De las Casas’s proposal was adopted too late. Almost all the natives of the large West Indian islands were wiped out before the arrival of their black replacements.

[2] Negro historian John Hope Franklin points out, “Slavery was an important function of African social and economic life.” From Slavery to Freedom, Knopf, New York, 1967, p. 31. One of the favorite roundup methods was to set fire to a village by night and capture the fleeing inhabitants. Ency. Brit., Vol. 20, p. 780.

[3] Beard, Rise of American Civilization Vol. I, pp. 93-94. The slaves were transported in ships from which the hogsheads had been temporarily removed.

[4] Sean O’Callaghan, The Slave Trade Today, as reviewed in San Francisco Chronicle, This World, May 27, 1962. In recent years in the U.S., Negroes, not whites, have been arrested for committing the crime of peonage. Miami Herald, March 22, 1973, p. 1.

[5] The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Modern Library, N.Y., 1944, p. 262. Jefferson favored Negro emancipation, but warned that the black, “When freed … is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture….” Ibid. How Jefferson’s ideas were edited to fit modern liberal notions of equalitarianism is shown by the inscription on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, which reads, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” The stonemason put a period in place of the original semicolon. Jefferson’s sentence continued, “nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government ” George Washington, whose concern for Negroes was not as verbal as Jefferson’s, but perhaps more generous, arranged for his slaves to be freed at his death. Jefferson, who at one time had as many as 212, did not.

[6] Ibid., pp. 257-58.

[7] Benjamin Quarles, Lincoln and the Negro, Oxford University Press, N.Y., 1962, pp. 36-37. In one of his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln was quoted as saying, “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” In 1862, Lincoln invited some free Negroes to the White House to explain the reasons behind one of his pet projects, the repatriation of American blacks to Africa. “We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races…this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both….Your race suffers very greatly…by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. … If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.” Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln, The War Years, Harcourt Brace, N.Y., 1939, Vol. 1, p. 574. For a summary of Lincoln’s attitudes towards Negroes, see the statement of Ludwell H. Johnson, an associate professor at the College of William and Mary, in Putnam’s Race and Reality, pp. 134-37.

[8] Franklin, op. cit, pp. 186, 217.

[9] In the 1964 presidential election, Negroes voted 95 percent for Lyndon Johnson. Time, Nov. 4, 1964, p. 4. Twenty-eight years later in the 1992 presidential race, Clinton, the Democratic winner, received 83 percent of the black vote. Eleven percent of blacks chose Bush; seven percent voted for Perot. Voter Research and Survey, ABC study of 15,214 voters.

[10] Julius Rosenwald of Sears, Roebuck was for many years the biggest financial contributor to Negro causes. The first president of the Urban League, the second largest Negro organization, was New York banker Edwin Seligman. For a quarter of a century the presidents of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (400,000 members and $13 million annual budget, as of 1992) were Jewish, the last being Kivie Kaplan, fifty-eight members of whose family held $500 life memberships. Perennial head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund is Jack Greenberg. Yaffe, The American Jews, p. 257, and Arnold Rose, The Negro in America, Beacon, Boston, 1961, p. 267. Before he was assassinated by black separatists, Negro activist Malcolm X wrote, “I gave the Jew credit for being among all other whites the most active, and the most vocal, financier, ‘leader’ and ‘liberal’ in the Negro civil rights movement.” Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 372. Jewish intellectual and financial support was just as generous to radical Negro organizations as it had been to the Urban League and the NAACP. Such groups as CORE and SNCC practically lived off Jewish contributions. In January 1970, Leonard Bernstein held a party in his Park Avenue apartment and raised $3,000, to which he added the fee from his next concert, for twenty-one Black Panthers arrested for plotting to kill policemen and dynamite a police station, department stores, and a railroad right-of-way. Time, Jan. 26, 1970, p. 14. A week later former Supreme Court Justice Goldberg helped form a special commission to investigate whether Chicago police had violated the rights of Black Panthers. Previous to this, the press reported that the Panthers had killed five policemen and wounded forty-two more in “shoot-outs” in twenty states. Human Events, Feb. 7, 1970, p. 10. Jewish money was all-important in the election campaigns of Negro Mayors Carl Stokes of Cleveland and Richard Hatcher of Gary, Indiana. Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority, p. 350.

[11] Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal, whose two-volume integrationist tract, An American Dilemma (1944), ignited the intellectual fuse of Black Power, predicted no “further riots of any significant degree of violence in the North.” His coauthor, Arnold Rose, said in 1962 that all formal segregation and discrimination would end in one decade and informal segregation would “decline to a shadow” in two. New York Times Magazine, Dec. 7, 1969, p. 152.

[12] U.S. News & World Report, July 15, 1968, p. 31. Other outbursts of looting and killing took place in the 1970s. The Miami riot, one of the bloodiest, occurred in 1980.

[13] At the end of 1968, after several years of exposure to arson and looting, 39 percent of the stores in the fifteen largest ghettos were still Jewish-owned. Wall St. Journal, Dec. 31, 1968, pp. 1,12. Black militants accompanied their attacks on Jewish business with occasional flare-ups of anti-Semitism. Will Maslow, then executive director of the American Jewish Congress, resigned from CORE’s Executive Committe after attending a school meeting in Mount Vernon N.Y., in the course of which a Nego educator stated that Hitler had not killed enough Jews. Most Jews were far too committed to the Negro cause to cheer Maslow’s act. Yaffe, op. cit, p.[261] It was not until Negro leaders openly attacked Zionism in 1979, after Carter’s dismissal of U.N. Ambassador Andrew \bung for talking to a P.L.O. member, that the rift in the black-Jewish alliance became a topic on the television evening news.

[14] Suspects in the police lineup following the 1968 Washington riots were found to be “amazingly respectable.” Most had never been in trouble with the law. More than half were family men. U.S. News & World Report, April 22, 1968, p. 29.

[15] The reparations issue has been taken up by black congressmen who introduced into the House of Representatives H.R. 40, a bill to establish a commission to recommend, among other things, the amount of reparations owed Negroes for the time their ancestors spent as slaves from colonial days until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment

[16] White racism was specifically named as the chief villain in the plight of the American Negro by the government-sponsored Kerner Report (1967), compiled by Federal Judge Otto Kerner who, with his former associate, Theodore Isaacs, was later found guilty of bribery, fraud, and extortion. Time, Dec. 13, 1971, p. 15. Such official denouncements inevitably intensify hatred of whites as a group, which in turn hardens white feelings towards Negroes. Malcolm X exemplified the endpoint of aroused racial hostility when he said of a plane crash that killed some thirty white Americans, mostly from Atlanta, “I’ve just heard some good news!” Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 394. Such racial vehemence, of course, is not the sole property of Negroes. A similar strain was noticeable in the late Ben Hecht who wrote he had a “holiday in his heart” every time a Zionist killed a British soldier. New York Times, May 20, 1947, p. 1.

[17] Nevertheless the income of the average Negro family in the U.S. exceeds the income of the average British family. Economist, London, May 10, 1969, p. 19.

[18] The Sunday Oregonian, Sept. 14, 1980. These gains are offset, of course, by high white — and higher black — unemployment and by the deteriorating social conditions of the ghetto Negro. In 1992, 67 percent of all black babies were born to unwed mothers. More than half the female-headed families lived below the poverty line. As for black unemployed youth, some studies indicated that if offered jobs, a large number of young Negroes would either turn them down or would soon be fired for incompetence or absenteeism.

[19] Two of these three rebellions were betrayed by Negro household slaves. Each was inspired by the French Revolution or by appropriate passages from the Old and New Testaments. Franklin Frazier, The Negro in the United States, Macmillan, New York, 1957, pp. 87-91.

[20] Vol. 1 , p. 232. 21 . Vol. 2, pp. 26-29.

[22] It may have been disease, not insufficient challenge, that has made the Negro so lethargic. Half of all African blacks suffer from sickle cell anemia, an endemic malady that helps immunize them against malaria, but slows down bodily and mental functions. Sickle cell anemia afflicts 50,000 Americans, most of whom are Negroes.

[23] See p. 19.

[24] For maturation rates, see Marcelle Geber, The Lancet, June 15, 1957, Vol. 272, No. 6981, pp. 1216-19. For frontal lobe and cortex studies, see C.J. Connolly, External Morphology of the Primate Brain, 1950, Springfield, Illinois, pp. 146, 205-4; C. W. M. Pynter and J. J. Keegan, “A Study of the American Negro Brain,” 1915; Journal of Comparative Neurology, Vol. 25, pp. 183-212; Ward C. Halstead, Brains and Intelligence, 1947, Chicago, p. 149; F. W. Vint, “The Brain of the Kenya Native,” 1934, Journal of Anatomy, Vol. 68, pp. 216-23.

[25] Audrey M. Shuey, The Testing of Negro Intelligence, Social Science Press, New York, 1966. The book analyzes 380 such tests accumulated over a forty-year period.

[26] The most notable of these studies are those of Dr. Arthur R. Jensen, who found that white students had a “significantly greater ability to grasp abstract concepts.” See Chapter 20.

[27] Discussing the posterity of Russian serfs, Pitirim Sorokin wrote, they “yielded a considerable number of geniuses of the first degree, not to mention the eminent people of a smaller calibre…the American Negroes have not up to this time produced a single genius of great calibre.” Contemporary Sociological Theories, p. 298, footnote 162.

[28] Hegel, Marx’s pet philosopher, put blacks on a par with animals. Vorlesungen fiber die Philosophie der Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1971, pp. 137-44. For Conrad’s illumination of the dark crannies of the Negro psyche, see Heart of Darkness. Schweitzer, who spent much of his life in Africa, said the white man was the Negro’s “elder brother.” He considered the average Negro a child, adding that “with children nothing can be done without the use of authority.” Putnam, Race and Reason, p. 76, and Newsweek, April 8, 1963, p. 21. Much as he liked and respected Negroes, Faulkner said that if antiwhite racial agitation increased he would be forced to join his native state of Mississippi against the United States and shoot Negroes in the street. Reporter, March 22, 1956, pp. 18-19.

[29] R. Gayre, “Negrophile Falsification of Racial History,” The Mankind Quarterly, Jan .-March, 1967, pp. 131-43. Also see “Zimbabwe” by the same author in the April-June, 1965, issue.

[30] Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 180, 190.

[31] The Old Kingdom constructed forts to repel Nubians. The Middle Kingdom prevented the entry of all but slaves from Nubia. Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society, p. 121.

[32] Cleopatra was not even a native Egyptian, “being by descent half-Greek and half-Macedonian.” John Buchan, Augustus, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1937, p. 77.

[33] From the program, Soul, WNET, New York, Aug. 21, 1969.

[34] In the 1770 Boston massacre. New York Times Magazine, April 20, 1969, pp. 33,109-110.

[35] Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 164-67. Upon Elijah Muhammad’s death his son, Wallace, inherited the leadership of the Black Muslims and toned down the antiwhite rhetoric.

[36] McLuhan’s racial theories give first place to the Indian as well as to the Negro. The Canadian-born social critic has written, the “Negro and Indian…are actually psychically and socially superior to the fragmented, alienated and disassociated man of Western civilization. … It has been the sad fate of the Negro and the Indian to be…born ahead of rather than behind their time. “Julius Lester, Search for the New Land, Dial Press, New York, 1969, pp. 57-58.

[37] “In all things purely social,” Washington said, “we can be separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” Putnam, Race and Reason, p. 90.

[38] It is significant that Garvey was a full-blooded Negro who directed his appeal to the blacker elements of the Negro population. He was an exception to the doubtful rule that the leaders of black movements must be mulattoes, whose hybrid status makes them ideal mediators between whites and Negroes.

[39] “What we arrive at is that ‘integration/socially, is no good for either side. ‘Integration,’ ultimately, would destroy the white race…and destroy the black race.” Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 276.

[40] Charles Murray in Losing Ground (Basic Books, 1984) has analyzed the federal programs which, he claims, led directly to the Negroes’ contemporary plight

[41] It is much too late for the tactics Tacitus put in the mouth of a Roman general endeavoring to suppress a revolt of the Gauls. “Nunc hostis, quia molle servitium; cum spoliati exutique fuerint, amicos fore.” Historiarum, IV, lvii. “Now they are our enemies because the burden of their servitude is light; when we have despoiled and stripped them they will be our friends.”

Part V • The Cultural Clash

Chapter 18 • The Dissolution of Art • 9,500 Words

The major theme of Parts I-IV was the decline of the Majority and the rise of the Unassimilated Minorities. The minor theme was the Majority-minority conflict itself, including the origins, motivations, and numbers of the combatants. The remainder of this study will examine the extension of this conflict into the realms of art, religion, education, politics, economics, law, and foreign policy. This chapter, the first of three to deal with minority inroads into the nation’s culture, will be concerned with the artistic phase of the struggle.[1]Culture is “a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know…the best which has been thought and said in the world; and through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically, vainly imagining that there is a virtue in following them staunchly, which makes up for the mischief of following them mechanically.” Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy, Cambridge University Press, England, 1961, p. 6. In the dispossession of the Majority, it is the Majority artist who has been the greatest casualty.

A basic assumption of contemporary Western thought is that democracy is the political form and liberalism the political ideology most generative of art The more there is of both, it is generally conceded, the greater will be the artistic outpouring, both quantitatively as well as qualitatively. The corollary assumption is that once art has been liberated from the dead weight of caste, class, and religious and racial bigotry, its horizon will become limitless.

Of all modern myths, perhaps this is the most misleading. If anything, art, or at least great art, seems to be contingent on two social phenomena poles apart from democracy and liberalism. They are:

(1) a dominant, homogeneous population group which has resided long enough in the land to raise up from its ranks a responsible and functioning aristocracy;[2]Aristocracy is here meant to designate the rule of the well-born. Its meaning is not restricted to families of high social standing or to the products of one or two generations of political or financial preeminence. Aristocrats of the latter sort can be found in all states, including proletarian and plutocratic societies. For those convinced there is an unbridgeable gap between aristocracy and freedom, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the following words of caution: “parmi toutes les societes du monde, celles qui auront toujours le plus de peine a echapper pendant longtemps au gouvernement absolu seront precisement ces societes ou l’aristocratie n’est plus et ne peut plus etre.” L’ancien regime et la revolution. Michel Levy Freres, Paris, 1856, p. xvi (2) one or more schools of writers, painters, sculptors, architects, or composers who belong to this population group and whose creative impulses crystallize the tastes, tone, and manners of the aristocratic leadership into a radiating cultural continuity.

Few will dispute that the societies of Homeric Greece, Augustan Rome, Medieval Western Europe, Elizabethan England, sixteenthand seventeenth-century Spain, Louis XIV’s France, Mozart’s Vienna, Goethe’s Weimar, and nineteenth-century Russia had an aristocratic base. Fewer will dispute that great art was produced in these societies.[3]Great art in this context is considered timeless, not dated; great artists to be creative, not interpretative geniuses. But what of Athens, scene of the most magnificent artistic efflorescence of all time, and of Florence, with the highest per capita genius of the Renaissance? Did not these city states lack a nobility or formal aristocracy? Is it not true that neither Pericles nor Cosimo de’ Medici was a prince?

Before any conclusions are reached, these two cities and their two greatest statesmen should be placed in a sharper historical focus. If Athens was the glory of Greece, the Age of Pericles — artistically speaking — was the glory of Athens. In 431 B.C., two years before the death of Pericles, the adult male population of Athens consisted of 50,000 citizens, 25,000 metics or resident aliens, and 55,000 slaves.[4]Cyril Robinson, A History of Greece, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1957, p. 83. Since the slaves had few or no rights, since metics and women could not vote, and since citizenship was limited to those with Athenian parents on both sides, one historian, Cyril Robinson, has described Athens as a an aristocracy of a half-leisured class.”[5]Ibid., p. 82.
(Cyril Robinson, A History of Greece, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1957, p. 83.)
This aristocracy, of which Pericles was a prominent member, traced its ancestry back to the Trojan War.[6]The mother of Pericles was descended from an ancient Athenian family, the Alcmaeonidae, and his father was a victorious naval commander.

In regard to Florence, one should not be surprised to learn that in 1494, when the city’s most liberal constitution was in force, there were not more than 3,200 citizens out of a total population of 90,000.[7]Pasquale Villari, Life and Times of Machiavelli, Fisher, Unwin, London, p. 4. From Dante’s day until the rise of the Medici, with the exception of a few brief attempts at popular government by the merchants and guilds, Florence was largely the political plaything of two rival aristocratic factions, the Guelphs (pro-pope) and the Ghibellines (pro-emperor). As for Cosimo de’ Medici, the patron of Donatello, Ghiberti, Brunelleschi, and Luca della Robbia, he could pride himself on a lineage that stretched back through ten generations of Florentine history. Though Cosimo himself shunned titles, cardinals, princes, reigning dukes, and even two popes later bore the Medici name.

If Florence and Athens are admitted to be semi-aristocracies or at least aristocratic republics, it is evident that all the great artistic epochs of the West have taken place in aristocratic societies. There has been art in non-aristocratic societies, often good art, but never anything approaching Greek sculpture and drama, Gothic cathedrals, Renaissance painting, Shakespeare’s plays, German music, or Russian novels.

The mere existence of an aristocracy does not guarantee great art. It has to be a vital aristocracy with its attitudes, manners, and ways of life firmly imprinted on the society in which it functions. It need not be, in fact it should not be, too wealthy. More important is the possession of a cultural conscience, plus the leisure and will to express this conscience in the form of art. To the artist an aristocracy is of immense practical value because it provides a cultivated and discriminating audience to keep him on the creative qui vive, as well as a sense of refinement and a set of critical standards that are both a model and an incentive for the highest quality of artistic craftsmanship.

Paradoxically, relations between artist and patron are generally more “democratic” in an aristocracy than in a democracy.[8]Pericles, Augustus, and the Medici freely mixed with the great artists of their time. Virgil read Augustus his completed Georgics on the latter’ s return from Egypt in 30 B.C. The meeting was momentous because Virgil’s lines may have revived Augustus’s latent Italian ism. Buchan, Augustus, p. 124. Lincoln, beyond a brief handshake at a White House reception, never met Melville. Raymond Weaver, Herman Melville, Pageant Books, N.Y., 1961, p. 375. Nor did Franklin D. Roosevelt ever meet Faulkner or T. S. Eliot John F. Kennedy may have bestowed a few minutes of friendship on Robert Frost, but this could hardly be compared to the attention Louis XIV lavished on Racine and Moliere. At one time the Sun King acted as “advance man” for Racine’s Esther and actually played a role in one of Moliere’s productions. Racine, Theatre complet, Edition Gamier Freres, Paris, 1960, p. 598; H. C. Chatfield-Taylor, Moliere, Duffield, New York, 1906, pp. 189-90. The aristocrat, having both by birth and upbringing acquired an easy familiarity with art, is quite at home in the company of artists and generally makes a practice of seeking them out The self-made man, on the other hand, no matter how high he climbs in politics or business, can never quite shed his native philistinism. He may take an interest in art, often surreptitiously to avoid accusations of effeminacy, but he will always have difficulty moving freely in artistic circles.

The close alliance between art and aristocracy is also advantageous to the artist in that it facilitates personal acquaintance with many of the leading men of his day. Aristotle tells us that tragedy only really succeeds when it concerns the fall of a great or noble man — a theory still uncontradicted by the most valiant efforts of liberal and Marxist dramatists. History or current events may provide names and plots, but only close contact with the ruling strata of his time furnish the playwright who tackles high tragedy with the meat and sinew of believable portrayal and characterization.

That great artists must belong to the dominant population group of a nation seems to be as unassailable as the law that great art grows best in aristocratic soil. A racial and cultural background similar to that of his patron makes it possible for the artist to avoid the usual psychological and social hurdles that often slow or break down communication between members of racially and culturally differentiated human groups.

The fatal flaw that denies the minority artist a place among the artistic great is his inherent alienation. Because he does not really belong, because he is writing or painting or composing for “other people,” he pushes a little too hard, raises his voice a little too high, makes his point a little too desperately. He is, inevitably, a bit outre — in the land, but not of the land. His art seems always encumbered by an artificial dimension — the proof of his belonging.[9]A few examples that come quickly to mind are Heine’s super-romantic German lieder, Mendelssohn’s thumping Christian hymns, El Greco’s hyperbolic Spanish landscapes and elongated holy men, Jakob Wasserman’s souped up Christian Wahnschaffe, Siegfried Sassoon’s synthetic Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man, and Rodgers and Hammerstein’s totally counterfeit Oklahoma. For a better understanding of the difference between the authentic and the unauthentic in art, compare Goethe’s Faust with Heine’s Doktor Faust.

In a non-aristocratic, heterogeneous, fragmented society, in an arena of contending cultures or subcultures, the minority artist may concentrate on proving his “non-belonging.” Instead of adopting the host culture, he now rejects it and either sinks into nihilism or returns to the cultural traditions of his own ethnic group. In the process his art becomes a weapon. Having sacrificed his talent to immediacy and robbed it of the proportion and subtlety which make art art, the minority artist not only lowers his own artistic standards, but those of society as a whole. All that remains is the crude force of his stridency and his “message.”[10]Examples of contemporary minority stridency are the music of Darius Milhaud, the sculpture of Jacques Lipchitz, the poetry of Allen Ginsberg, and the plays of LeRoi Jones.

Perhaps the clearest proof of the art-building and art-nourishing qualities of aristocracy and racial homogeneity can be found in the history of those nations which have passed through both aristocratic and democratic, homogeneous and heterogeneous phases. It was not in the First, Second, Third, or Fourth French Republic that the cathedrals of Chartres and Rheims were constructed, but in feudal France, when there was a dominant ethnic group (the Teutonic) and the structure of society was aristocratic. The highest flights of English genius took place in the reigns of absolute, not constitutional, monarchs — well before the English were absorbed in the enlarged and more heterogeneous citizenry of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Rome of Augustus, who favored and enriched the patricians and heaped restrictions upon plebeians, non-Romans, and slaves, brought forth the Golden Age of Latin literature. The Rome of Caracalla, who in A.D. 211 extended citizenship to all the free inhabitants of the Roman Empire, left little of artistic consequence. The Spain of Philip II, III, and IV, with all its religious bigotry and inquisitional zeal, was the era of Cervantes and Calderon, artists of a caliber that were not to be found in more liberal eras of Spanish history. Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, the culmination of Russian literary genius, flourished under the czars, not minority commissars.

Liberal dogma to the contrary, such popular goals as universal literacy are not necessarily conducive to great literature. The England of Shakespeare, apart from having a much smaller population, had a much higher illiteracy rate than present-day Britain. 11 Nor does universal suffrage seem to raise the quality of artistic output When Bach was Konzertmeister in Weimar and composing a new cantata every month, no one could vote. Some 220 years later in the Weimar Republic there were tens of millions of voters, but no Bachs.

Great drama, which usually incorporates great poetry, is the rarest form of great art. Art critics and historians have been at some loss to explain why great plays have appeared so infrequently in history and then only in clusters — fifth-century (B.C.) Athens, late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, seventeenth-century Spain and France. The answer may be that conditions for great drama are only ripe when artist and audience are in biological as well as linguistic rapport. Such rapport, unfortunately, is bound to be short-lived because the era of great drama is usually accompanied by large-scale economic and material advances which tend to soften national character, sharpen class divisions, and attract extraneous racial and cultural elements from abroad. To the great playwright a heterogeneous or divided audience is no audience at all.

Not only high art but all art seems to stagnate in an environment of brawling minorities, diverse religions, clashing traditions, and contrasting habits. This is probably why, in spite of their vast wealth and power, such world cities as Alexandria and Antioch in ancient times and New York City and Rio de Janeiro in modern times have produced nothing that can compare to the art of municipalities a fraction of their size. The artist needs an audience which understands him — an audience of his own people. The artist needs an audience to write up to, paint up to, and compose up to — an aristocracy of his own people. These seem to be the two sine qua nons of great art. Whenever they are absent great art is absent.

How else can the timeless art of the “benighted” Middle Ages and the already dated art of the “advanced” twentieth century be explained? Why is it that all the cultural resources of a dernier cri superpower like the United States cannot produce one single musical work that can compare with a minor composition of Mozart? Why is it that perhaps the greatest contribution to twentiethcentury English literature has been made not by the English, Americans, Australians, or Canadians, but by the Irish — the most nationalistic, most tribal, most religious and most racially minded of all present-day English-speaking people. Modern England may have had its D. H. Lawrence and the United States its Faulkner, but only Ireland in this century has assembled such a formidable literary array as Yeats, Synge, Shaw, Joyce, O’Casey, Elizabeth Bowen, Paul Vincent Carroll, Joyce Carey, and James Stephens. If, as current opinion holds, liberal democracy, internationalism, and cultural pluralism enrich the soil of art, then these Irish artists bloomed in a very unlikely garden.

The historical sequence of human communities seems to be race-building, nation-building, art-building, and empire-building. As the country moves closer to imperialism, the people move farther apart. The binding forces of the state are weakened by war, civil strife, and entropy, as the cultural shell is penetrated by outsiders. The aristocracy withdraws into an isolated decadence, its place taken by a plutocracy. Members of the once dominant population group mix with the newcomers and in order to compete are forced to adopt many of their habits. Art becomes multiracial, multinational, multidirectional, and multifarious.

Much of Western art, particularly in the United States, is now in such a stage of dissolution. The surrealist painters, atonal jazz musicolgists, prosaic poets, emetic novelists, crypto-pornographers, and revanchist pampheleteers say they are searching for new forms because the old forms are exhausted. Actually they are exhuming the most ancient forms of all — simple geometric shapes, color blobs, drum beats, genitalia, four-letter words, and four-word sentences. The old forms are not exhausted. The minority artist simply has no feeling for them, for they are not his forms. Since style is not a commodity that can be bought or invented, the avant-garde, having no style of its own, can only retreat to a styleless primitivism.

The dissolution of art is characterized by the emergence of the fake artist[12]The fake artist is not unrelated to the antiartist — the type of individual who blew up The Thinker outside the Cleveland Museum in the spring of 1970. It was one of the eleven castings made under the personal supervision of Rodin. New York Times, July 17, 1970. — the man without talent and training who becomes an artist by self-proclamation and self-promotion. He thrives in a fissiparous culture because it is child’s play to bemuse the artistic sensibilities of the motley nouveaux riches, assorted culture vultures, sexually ambivalent art critics, and minority art agents who dictate the levels of modern taste. It is not so easy to deceive those whose standards of taste were developed in the course of generations.

In a homogeneous society the artist has to contend with fewer sets of prejudices. He does not have to weigh and balance his art in order to be “fair.” He need not be mortally afraid of wounding the religious and racial feelings of others. Though his instincts, opinions, and judgments often add up to bias, to the artist himself they may be the driving forces of his creativity. What really limits and devitalizes art are not the artist’s prejudices but his audience’s prejudices, an infinite variety of which exists in a vast heterogeneous society like the United States. The artist has trouble enough with one censor. When he has twenty his art is transformed into a day-to-day accommodation.

Aristocracies have been sharply criticized for freezing commoners into castes and classes. Yet artists almost certainly stand a better chance in a state directed by a cultivated nobility than in one directed by a congress of Babbitts. By no means to the manor born, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Moliere, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and Dostoyevsky managed to acquire enough social mobility in aristocratic societies to climb to the summit of artistic perfection. How many of these geniuses would have been flattened by the leveling pressures of late twentieth-century America is an open question.

Aristocracies have been attacked for stultifying art, even though artists working in or believing in tradition-oriented societies have made many more artistic breakthroughs than soi-disant liberal or progressive artists. Aristophanes, who revolutionized comedy, Wagner, who revolutionized music, Dostoyevsky, who revolutionized the novel, and T. S. Eliot, who revolutionized modern poetry,[13]Compare the startlingly new effect of the poetry of Eliot, who declared himself a royalist and Anglo Catholic, with the almost classical verse of the best work of the French Marxist poet, Louis Aragon. William Butler Yeats, the other great poet of modern times, can hardly be described as a leftist. were certainly not liberals. The proletarian or equalitarian artist, on the other hand, hardly goes beyond photographic naturalism or childish doodling — the mandatory tractor art of the late Soviet Union, and the op art, pop art, and spray-paint art of the “free world.”[14]The painting of a Campbell Soup can by Andy Warhol, a Polish-American homosexual, was sold for $60,000 at a New York City auction in 1970, and increased in price thereafter. The late British art critic, Herbert Read, owned two paintings by a couple of chimpanzees who, he explained, allowed “their brushes to be guided by instinctive gestures, just like the action painters of America.” Times Literary Supplement, Aug. 28, 1970.

No great art ever emerged from isolation and no great artists ever sprang full-blown from the forehead of Zeus. Great artists are the products of schools of art. Their works are the peaks rising above a high cultural plateau. “First families,” whose attitudes and tastes have been shaped by centuries of participation in the higher reaches of national life, are not merely content to collect old art They keep schools of artists busy elaborating and improving on what has been done before — the surest approach to artistic evolution. Conversely the present-day ragtag collection of semiliterate millionaires, who speculate in art as they would in copper or cattle futures,[15]Regarding Joseph Hirshhorn, the uranium king, James Yaffe wrote, “When he likes the painter’s work, he often buys it in bulk and insists on a reduction in the price, just like any garment manufacturer buying fabrics.” Yaffe, The American Jews, p. 233. spend their money on old masters and “name” artists whose works can be resold at a handsome profit or given away in order to obtain a handsome tax deduction. With no more demand for continuity in art, schools of artists soon disappear, to be replaced by artistic cliques. 16 The arbiter of taste is no longer the art lover, but the art dealer. 17 Art is transformed into artiness.

The patterns of artistic growth and decline outlined in the preceding paragraphs have already snuffed out most of the creativity of Majority artists. Today the Jewish American writes of the Jew and his heritage, the Negro of the Negro, the Italian American of the Italian, and so on. But of whom does the American American, the Majority writer, write? Of Nordics and Anglo-Saxons? If he did and if he portrayed them as fair-haired heroes, he would be laughed out of modern American literature. Consciousness of one’s people, one of the great emotional reserves, one of the great artistic stimulants, is denied the Majority artist at the very moment the minority painter, composer and writer feed upon it so ravenously. Besides its other psychological handicaps, this one-sided selective censorship obviously builds a high wall of frustration around the free play of the imagination.

Aware or unaware of the forces working against them, many Majority artists have fled abroad to seek the cultural kinship they miss at home. Stephen Crane died in England. Eliot became a British citizen. Robert Frost was first discovered and published while living in the Sceptred Isle. Pound, who probably exercised more influence on modern English literature than anyone, setded down in Rapallo, Italy, where he dabbled in right-wing politics. Hemingway moved to France, Italy, Spain, Africa and Cuba, before committing suicide in Idaho. Thomas Wolfe and F. Scott Fitzgerald spent many of their most creative years abroad. Finally returning home, both met early deaths that were either helped along or brought about by alcohol poisoning. Film genius D.W. Griffith was another casualty of the bottle.

Some Majority artists tried to escape the dilemma of deracination by a form of spiritual emigration. Poet Robert Lowell, of the Boston Lowells who spoke only to the Cabots, converted to Roman Catholicism.[18]Time, June 17, 1965, p. 29. Others took more desperate measures. Hart Crane, a poet of promise, jumped off a ship and drowned in the Caribbean.[19]New York Times, April 28, 1932, p. 4. Ross Lockridge, Jr., wrote an excellent first novel, Raintree County, then shut his garage door, got in his car, and started the engine.[20]New York Times, March 8, 1948, p. 1. Other majority writers who took their own lives: poets John Benyman and Sylvia Plath; Laird Goldsborough, Time foreign affairs writer; Parker Lloyd-Smith, genius of Fortune. Thomas Heggen, another young author who learned the hollowness of success in an alien society, wrote Mister Roberts and then took an overdose of sleeping pills in a rented New York apartment.[21]New York Times, May 20, 1949, p. 1. F. O. Matthiesen, a brilliant modern literary critic, heard the siren wail of communism and leapt to his death from a Boston hotel room.[22]Time, April 10, 1950, p. 43. Another gifted writer who heard the same song and who perhaps symbolized better than anyone the tragic fate of the Majority artist in a minority-obsessed society was Howard Rushmore. A tenth-generation American born in South Dakota, Rushmore first wrote for the Daily Worker, eventually losing his job for refusing to inject Negrophile sentiments in his film reviews. He then switched to anti-Communist bombast for Hearst newspapers. His last job was with the libelous gossip magazine, Confidential, for which, unbeknownst to himself and to his publisher, he wrote some of the finest satire in American literature. In 1958 he shot and killed himself and his wife in the back seat of a taxicab. Newsweek, Jan. 13, 1958, pp. 19-20. W. J. Cash, a Carolina-born essayist with a fine intelligence, lambasted his native South to the delight of liberal critics, but apparently not to his own delight. He was found hanging by his necktie in the bathroom of a hotel in Mexico City.[23]W.J. Cash, The Mind of the South, Knopf, New York, 1941. Also see Joseph L. Morrison, W.J. Cash, Knopf, New York, 1967, p. 131. Other talented Majority writers retreat to the sterilities and barbarities of college campuses where they avoid the problem of content by concentrating on form, in a hopeless and fruitless attempt to separate the inseparable.

All Majority artists necessarily experience the wrenching depression that comes from enforced cultural homelessness. Of all people the artist is the least capable of working in a vacuum. Prevented from exercising his own “peoplehood,” the Majority artist looks for substitutes in minority racism, in exotic religions and Oriental cults, in harebrained exploits of civil disobedience, in African and pre-Columbian art, psychoanalysis, narcotics, and homosexuality. On the latter subject Susan Sontag, the noted Jewish pundit had this to say.

Jews and homosexuals are the outstanding creative minorities in contemporary urban culture. Creative, that is, in the truest sense: they are creators of sensibilities. The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aesthetics and irony.[24]Susan Sontag, “Notes on Camp” in Against Interpretation, Dell, New York, 1969, pp. 291-92.

George Steiner, a Jewish pundit, couldn’t agree more:

Judaism and homosexuality (most intensely where they overlap, as in a Proust or a Wittgenstein) can be seen to have been the two main generators of the entire fabric and savor of urban modernity in the West[25]George Steiner, The Cleric of Treason,” New Yorker, Dec. 8, 1980, p. 180.

The ban on displays of Majority ethnocentrism in art — a ban written in stone in present-day American culture — also reaches back to the Majority cultural past Chaucer and Shakespeare have been cut and blue-penciled, and some of their work put on the minority index.[26]After the New York Board of Rabbis protested the television showing of the Merchant of Venice, it was removed from the English curriculum of New York City high schools. Time, June 29, 1962, p. 32. An ABC television presentation of The Merchant of Venice (Nov. 16, 1974) ended with Rachel turning away from her husband’s house as a Jewish cantor sings in the background. Shakespeare had her walking into the house. A 1941 Simon and Schuster edition of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales appeared with a foreword by Mark Van Doren, but without The Prioresses Tale, which recounts a heinous murder committed by Jews. Oberammergau’s Passion Play, a fixture of European culture since 1634, has been under constant attack by the American Jewish Congress for its “notoriously anti-Semitic text In 1980 organized tours to the play for servicemen stationed in West Germany were forbidden by the Secretary of the Army. The motion picture of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist had a hard time being released because of the recognizably Jewish traits of Fagin.[27]The Saturday Review of Literature, Feb. 26, 1949, pp. 9-10. The masterpiece of American silent films, The Birth of a Nation, can no longer be shown in public without the threat of picket lines, while Jewish-produced black “sexploitation” films like Mandingo (1975), replete with the crudest racial slurs against whites, are exhibited nationwide. Huckleberry Finn was removed from the library — of all places — of the Mark Twain Intermediate School in Virginia.[28]Hie Philadelpia Board of Education banished Huckleberry Finn from the city’s public school system and replaced it by a version in which all derogatory references to Negroes were deleted. San Francisco Chronicle, This World, May 27, 1962, p. 16 and April 27, 1963, p. 8.

Henry Miller’s Tropic of Capricorn was attacked by millionaire novelist Leon Uris as “anti-Semitic. “[29]Los Angeles Times, Feb. 16, 1962, Letter Section. Uris’s attack was particularly ungracious because he is the minority racist writer par excellence. His bestseller, Exodus, cheering the Israeli conquest of Palestine, is fifth-rate Kipling. Southern high-school and college bands have been forbidden to play Dixie at public gatherings. Even nursery rhymes and Stephen Foster’s songs are being rewritten and bowdlerized.[30]In My Old Kentucky Home, the state anthem of Kentucky, such expressions as < Massa, w "Darkies," and 'Mammy* have been carefully deleted. The Virginia state anthem, Carry Me Back to Old Virginny, has been attacked by a Negro state senator as “abhorrent to his race.” One Southern congressman has predicted, not altogether facetiously, that minority lobbying will eventually bring about the renaming of the White House. U.S. News & World Report, Aug. 9, 1957, p. 43 and New York Times, March 2, 1970, p. 28. A private school in Chicago actually changed the title of the theatrical performance of Snow White to Princess of the Woods for fear of being accused of racism. Meanwhile a tireless, clandestine literary vendetta is still being waged against such towering modern writers, composers, and scholars, both American and European, as Eliot, Dreiser, Pound, Toynbee, Ernst Junger, D. H. Lawrence, Celine, Roy Campbell, Wyndham Lewis, Kipling, Knut Hamsun, Franz Lehar, and Richard Strauss. Their crimes have been to have let slip some chance remark, written some poem,[31]Random House barred all works of Pound from a poetry anthology, even though Conrad Aiken, one of the editors, had specifically chosen twelve Pound poems for inclusion. Charles Norman, Ezra Pound, Macmillan, N.Y., 1960, p. 416. novel or essay, joined, or at least not opposed, some political movement offensive to one or more minorities. Needless to report that there has been no noticeable counter-vendetta of Majority literary critics against artists who indulge in minority racism.

It might be added at this point that practically all the leading conductors, musicians, and operatic performers who remained in Germany or performed in Germany during World War II were victims of Jewish boycotts after the war came to an end. The list includes: Wilhelm Furtwangler, Herbert von Karajan, Walter Gieseking, and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf.[32]For years Jewish “monitors” in the post-World War II period were also responsible for depriving American audiences of the renowned Bolshoi Ballet, whose American tour was cancelled in 1970 after a series of Zionist attacks, including a bombing, against Soviet installations in New \brk City. The plan was to punish the Russians for the alleged anti-Semitism of some high Kremlin functionaries and for giving aid and comfort to the Palestinian cause. Perhaps the most bigoted censorship was exercised by refugee academicians who for years successfully “shut out” or demeaned Martin Heidegger, one of the most original and disturbing thinkers of the modern era. They only permitted the ideas of the German philosopher to seep through in the thinned-down and mimetic adaptations of Sartre.

To return to the main theme of this chapter, the power and sustenance that an artist derives from being part of a racially and culturally homogeneous community helps explain the success of William Faulkner, the one first-rate Majority writer who survived both as an individual and an artist the nationwide uprooting of his cultural heritage. Faulkner was born, lived, flourished, and is buried in Mississippi, adjudged to be the fourth most illiterate state.[33]1960 estimate by Bureau of Census. Because they must ignore the communal nature of art, liberals and Marxists can only treat Faulkner as a paradox.[34]Just as they treat as a paradox the fact that a disproportionate number of all modern Majority literary lights are Southerners: James Agee, Flannery O’Connor, {Catherine Anne Porter, John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren, Thomas Wolfe, Walker Percy, James Dickey, Stark Young, Carson McCullers, Eudora Welty, Allen Tate, Tom Wolfe, to name a few. Environmentalist logic can no more explain why a supposedly backward state in the Deep South should produce America’s greatest twentieth-century novelist than why the most literate nation in Europe succumbed to Hitler.

Outside the South, American art has been overwhelmed by members of minorities. To lend substance to the allegation that the basic tone of American creative intellectual life has become Jewish, one has only to unroll the almost endless roster of Jews and partJews in the arts.[35]Writers: Edna Ferber, Gertrude Stein, Fannie Hurst, Mary McCarthy, Nathanael West, Bruce Jay Friedman, J. D. Salinger, Herbert Gold, Harvey Swados, Bernard Malamud, Saul Bellow, Norman Mailer, Irving Stone, Jerome Weidman, Irwin Shaw, Howard Fast, Budd Schulberg, Ben Hecht, Irving Wallace, Harold Robbins, Philip Roth, Joseph Heller, Herman Wouk, Meyer Levin, S.J. Perelman, Alexander King, E. L. Doctorow, Rona Jaffe, William Goldman.

Poets: Louis Untermeyer, Dorothy Parker, Delmore Schwartz, Kenneth Fearing, Babette Deutsch, Karl Shapiro, Allen Ginsberg, Joseph Auslander, Howard Nemerov, Muriel Rukeyser.

Playwrights: Elmer Rice, Ceorge S. Kaufman, Moss Hart, Lillian Hellman, Sidney Kingsley, Clifford Odets, Sam and Bella Spewack, Arthur Miller, J. Howard Lawson, Neil Simon, Jack Gerber, Arthur Kopit, Paddy Chayefsky, Abe Burrows, Murray Schisgal, S. N. Behrman.

Critics: Charles Angoff, Clifton Fadiman, Leslie Fiedler, John Gassner, Milton Hindus, Alfred Kazin, Louis Kronenberger, Norman Podhoretz, George Steiner, Diana Trilling, Lionel Trilling, Irving Kristol, Paul Goodman, Paul Jacobs, William Phillips, Irving Howe, Joseph Wechsberg, Midge Decter.

Painters and Sculptors: George Grosz, Saul Steinberg, Moses and Raphael Soyer, Leon Kroll, Saul Raskin, Jacques lipchitz, Jacob Epstein, Larry Rivers, Chaim Gross, Helen Franken thaler, Mark Rothko, Jack Levine, Ben Shahn, Abraham Walkowitz, Milton Avery, Leonard Baskin, Eugene Berman, Leonid Berman, Hyman Bloom, Jim Dine, Louis Eilshemius, Adolph Gottlieb, Philip Guston, Hans Hoffman, Morris Louis, Louise Nevelson, Barnett Newman, Jules Olitski, Philip Pearlstein, George Segal.

Composers: Aaron Copland, Ernest Bloch, Darius Milhaud, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein, Jerome Kern, Sigmund Romberg, Andre Previn, Marc Blitzstein.

Orchestra Conductors, Virtuosos, and Singers: Bruno Walter, Serge Koussevitsky, Pierre Monte ux, Erich Leinsdorf, Eugene Ormandy, George Szell, Mischa Elman, Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, Rudolf Serkin, Artur Schnabel, Alexander Kipnis, Nathan Milstein, Artur Rubinstein, Jan Peerce, George London, Robert Merrill, Vladimir Horowitz, Gregor Piatorgorsky, Arthur Fiedler, George Sold, Richard Tucker, Michael Tilson-Thomas, James Levine, Antal Dorati, Otto Klemperer, Roberta Peters, Regina Resnik, Beverly Sills, Wanda Landowska, Emil Gilels, Dame Myra Hess, Isaac Stern, Joseph Szigeti.
The contingent of Negro and other minority artists, writers,[36]Negro novelists and poets include: Ralph Ellison, Frank \ferby, Langston Hughes, Countee Cullen, Claude McKay, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Lorraine Hansberry, Claude Brown, James Weldon Johnson, Maya Angelou, and Poet Laureate, Rita Dove. Although they could hardly be considered Majority members, Time (Mar. 17, 1980, p. 84) has called Russian-born Vladimir Nabokov, who ended up in Switzerland, America’s greatest living novelist, and Isami Noguchi, “the preeminent American sculptor. ” and composers, though it cannot compare to the Jewish aggregate, grows larger every day.

The minority domination of the contemporary art scene is complicated by the presence of another, as yet unmentioned minority, unique in that it is composed of both Majority and minority members. This is the homosexual cult Homosexuals, as is well known, are one of the two principal props of the American theater, the second being Jews.[37]“Without either [Jews or homosexuals] Broadway would be desperately enfeebled; without both, it would be a clear case of evisceration.” William Goldman, The Season, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1969, p. 12. In his statistical analysis of the fifty-eight plays of the 1967-68 Broadway season, Goldman stated that homosexuals produced eighteen and directed twenty-two. Ibid., p. 237. The Jewish share of Broadway was indicated by the fact that of the thirty members of the Dramatist’s Guild Council at least two-thirds were Jews. Ibid., p. 148. Regarding David Merrick and Hal Prince, the Jewish producers who raked in 40 percent of the season’s gross, Goldman wrote, The point is this: neither of them has the least interest, time, taste, skill or knowledge to produce an original American play.” Ibid., p. 111.
(Negro novelists and poets include: Ralph Ellison, Frank \ferby, Langston Hughes, Countee Cullen, Claude McKay, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Lorraine Hansberry, Claude Brown, James Weldon Johnson, Maya Angelou, and Poet Laureate, Rita Dove. Although they could hardly be considered Majority members, Time (Mar. 17, 1980, p. 84) has called Russian-born Vladimir Nabokov, who ended up in Switzerland, America’s greatest living novelist, and Isami Noguchi, “the preeminent American sculptor. ”)
Jews own almost all the large theater houses, comprise most of the producers and almost half the directors, and provide half the audience and playwrights. The other playwrights are mostly well-known Majority homosexuals.[38]The chief dramatic contribution of the homosexual playwright has been the sensitive heroine in an insensitive society, and the bitchy heroine in a depraved society, the former representing how the author feels, the latter how he acts. Homosexuals devise most of the flashy sets and fancy dance routines of the musical extravaganzas. Combine these two ingredients, add the payroll padding, kickbacks, ticket scalping, and union featherbedding which plague all Broadway producers, and it is readily understandable why in New York, still the radiating nucleus of the American theater, the greatest of all art forms has degenerated into homosexual or heterosexual pornography,[39]Che, by minority playwright Lennox Raphael, was the first American play to present the act of copulation on stage. leftist and Marxist message plays, foreign imports, and blaring, clockwork musical comedies.[40]The American musical comedy…sometimes seems to be largely the invention of Jews.” Yaffe, op. cit., p. 225. Owen Wister, describing the Boston musical offerings of the late 1870s and contrasting them with those of New York fifty years later, wrote, “Pinafore had recently blazed its trail of tune and laughter all over our map, pretty and witty comic operas from Paris and Vienna drew crowded houses, not a musical show had yet been concocted by the Broadway Jew for the American moron….” Owen Wister, Roosevelt, The Story of a Friendship, Macmillan, New York, 1930, pp. 17-18. It is doubtful if a new Aeschylus, Shakespeare, or Pirandello could survive for one minute in the Broadway of today.

The minority penetration of the communications media greatly reinforces minority cultural domination because the press, magazines, and TV are the transmission belts of art and, as such, its supreme arbiter. By praising, condemning, featuring, underplaying, or ignoring books,[41]Speaking of books, more than half of the major American publishing houses now have Jewish owners or Jewish chief editors. paintings, sculpture, music, and other artistic works the media decide, in effect, what will be distributed (and become known) and what will not be distributed (and remain unknown). A book reviewed unfavorably or not reviewed at all in the influential, opinion-shaping columns of the New York Times, the New York Times Book Review, Time, Newsweek, and a few so-called cocktail-table publications[42]“American literary and political ‘highbrow* magazines offer the clearest example we have of this [Jewish] predominance. Here a bias, oddly enough quite unconscious, selects the subject matter, the treatment, and the authors most appealing to the Jewish sensibility (or which can best be fitted into it). It can be fairly said that these magazines are dominated by what may be called the Jewish cultural establishment” Van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique, p. 129. has little or no chance of getting into libraries or the better bookstores.

This literary winnowing process also extends to advertising. Ads for books promoting minority racism are accepted by most newspapers and magazines. Ads for books promoting Majority racism are not Not only would no major newspaper or magazine review The Dispossessed Majority, none of the leading weekly newsmagazines would accept paid advertising for it.[43]See Wilmot Robertson, Ventilations, Chapter 3. Some newspapers took a watered-down ad once but would not allow it to be repeated. Press-agentry in the form of praise from columnists and television personalities is another tested means of lending a helping hand to minority artists or to the Majority artists who specialize in minority themes. Perhaps the most banal example of the minority mutual admiration society in the arts is the practice adopted by the New York Times Book Review of having books espousing Negro racism reviewed by Negro racists. Die Nigger Die! by H. Rap Brown, a fugitive from justice rearrested after holding up a New \brk saloon, received a generally favorable review, although Brown wrote that he “saw no sense in reading Shakespeare,” who was a “racist” and a faggot.”[44]New York Times Book Review, June 15, 1969, pp. 6, 38. Brown, the reviewer seemed happy to report, stole a few articles from the White House during a meeting with President Johnson. He wanted to filch a painting, but was unable to figure out how to conceal it under his coat

Throughout his life and career the minority-conscious artist identifies with one group of Americans — his group. In so doing he will frequently attack the Majority and Northern European cultural tradition for the simple reason that Majority America is not his America. The Puritans are reduced to witch-hunters, reactionary pietists, and holier-than-thou bigots. The antebellum and postbellum South is turned into a vast concentration camp. The giants of industry are described as robber barons. The earliest pioneers and settlers are typecast as specialists in genocide. The police are “pigs.” Majority members are a goys, rednecks, honkies,” or just plain “beasts.”

To accommodate the minority Kulturkampf, a Broadway play transforms Indians into a race of virtuous higher beings, while whites are portrayed as ignoble savages, and the quondam heroic figure of Custer struts about the stage as a second-rate gangster.[45]Arthur Kopit’s Indians. A Hollywood film shows American cavalrymen raping and mutilating Indian maidens.[46]Soldier Blue. A television play set in the depression years of the 1930s puts the blame for America’s ills squarely on the Majority and ends with a specific tirade against “Anglo-Saxons.”[47]Millard Lampell’s Hard Travelin’s WNET, New York, Oct 16, 1969.

But it goes far beyond this. A principal theme of modern Negro writing is the rape of Majority women. In his bestseller, Soul on Ice, required reading in the English courses of hundreds of colleges, Negro militant Eldridge Cleaver, a bail-jumping black who at last report was working the born-again Christian circuit, tells how he feels about “consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically” despoiling white women. a It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law…that I was defiling his women….1 felt I was getting revenge….1 wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.”[48]Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968, p.14.

On the same page Cleaver quotes approvingly some lines from a poem by Negro LeRoi Jones: “Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut their mothers’ throats.” Intercourse with Majority females, although on a somewhat more sedate and controlled scale, is a theme that also appears frequently in the writings of the socalled Jewish literary renaissance. Heroes of Jewish fiction often seek out Gentile girls because “there is less need for respect, and thus more possibility…to do things that could not be done with a person one has to respect.”[49]Van den Haag, op. cit., p. 217. The author refers in particular to Philip Roth’s novel, Portnoy’s Complaint (Random House, New York, 1969), in which this passage appears (pp. 143-44): “But the shikses ah, the shikses are something else again….the sight of their fresh cold blond hair spilling out of their kerchiefs and caps….How do they get so gorgeous, so healthy, so blond! My contempt for what they believe in is more than neutralized by my admiration of the way they look…r

Contemporary white artistic efforts are dismissed as “pimp art” by LeRoi Jones on the front page (second section) of the Sunday New York Times[50]Nov. 16, 1969, Sec. 2, p. 1. One Jewish author states, The family is American fascism.” A Jewish literary critic calls the late Thomas Wolfe, who equalled or surpassed the talent of any minority novelist, a “professional hillbilly.” A leading Negro writer labels America, “the Fourth Reich.” As mentioned previously, a literary Jewess describes the white race as “the cancer of human history.”[51]Originators of these quotations are in order: Paul Goodman, Alfred Kazin, James Baldwin and Susan Sontag. See Benjamin De Mott, Supergrow, pp. 74-75 and Partisan Review, Winter, 1967. James Agee, a Truckler of some talent, preferred Chinese and Negroes to his own people, despised Irishmen and Germans, and married a Jewess, Letters of James Agee to Father Flye, G. Braziller, N.Y., 1962, p. 151.

But the ultimate objective goes beyond the deep-sixing of Majority culture. There is an increasing tendency in minority writing to inject subtle and not so subtle appeals for the physical molestation and even the outright massacre of whites. Such was the message of LeRoi Jones’s play, Slave Ship.[52]See footnote 23, p. 92. With the same vitriolic splash, Eldridge Cleaver writes approvingly of “young blacks out there right now who are slitting white throats.”[53]Cleaver, op. cit, p. 15. A black poetess, Nikki Giovanni, has a poem in a popular black anthology which contains these lines: “Can you kill/Can you run a Protestant down with your/’68 El Dorado/….Can you [obscenity] on a blond head/ Can you cut it off.”[54]The Black Poets, Bantam Books, New York, 1971, pp. 318-19. Ice-T, a sterling example of what is known as a “gangsta* rapper, wrote a hit song for Time Warner, his paymaster, entitled Cop Killer, in which he urged his fans to start “dustin* off cops.”[55]Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1993, p. D6. The remarks of a female black rapper, Sister Souljah, were aimed not just at policemen but at whites in general. “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people.”[56]USA Today, June 15, 1992, p. 2A. In the same vein, but switching from the verbal to the pictorial, the nonwhite, Andres Serrano, financed by a $15,000 National Endowment for the Arts grant, dunked a crucifix in a glass of urine, captioned his photographic chef d’oeuvre “Piss Christ” and passed it on to slavering exhibitors.[57]Washington Times, Feb., 22, 1992, p. A7. Among other grantees was one Annie Sprinkle ($60,000), a Jewish performer whose act climaxed when she urinated on stage; homosexual Robert Mapplethorpe, given $30,000 by the NEA for a touring exhibit of his sadistic and homoerotic photos; $15,000 for a Tongues of Flame traveling art show (the program notes categorized Jesus as a drug addict and described Cardinal John O’Connor as a “fat cannibal from that house of walking swastikas up on Fifth Avenue”[58]Ibid.
(Washington Times, Feb., 22, 1992, p. A7.)
).

What has been described above, of course, has little to do with art. It could better be defined as anti-art People incapable of producing or appreciating high art envy those who can. But instead of developing their rudimentary art into higher forms they concentrate on perverting and banalizing whatever art they can get their hands on. It is their way of showing their hatred for the authentic artist and all his works. Julius Lester, a much applauded Negro literary elder, identified, perhaps unknowingly, the minority artist’s real grudge — the radiant Western artistry that seems forever beyond the Negroes’ reach — when, ranging as far afield as Paris, he called for the destruction of Notre Dame “because it separated man from himself.”[59]Lester, Search for a New Land, p. 144.

The communications media and principal academic forums being largely closed to him, the Majority artist has no adequate defense against the blistering minority assaults on his culture. He must avoid praising his own people as a people — and he must avoid castigating other peoples, particularly the more dynamic minorities. The minority artist, on the other hand, wears no such cultural straitjacket. He freely praises whom he likes and freely damns whom he dislikes, both as individuals and as groups. The Majority artist, with a narrower choice of heroes and villains, has a narrower choice of theme. Lacking the drive and brute force of minority racism, Majority art tends to become bland, innocuous, emotionless, sterile, and boring.[60]An art historian of the future, having only at his disposal lists of bestsellers, art expositions, and musical recitals for the latter third of the twentieth century, might conclude that the American Majority had ceased to exist As reported by Time (May 19, 1969, p. 12), the nation’s five leading fiction bestsellers were: #1, Portnoy’s Complaint, which has a Jewish hero or antihero; #2, The Godfather, an Italian-American novel about Italian Americans and the Mafia; #3, The Salzburg Connection, a spy tale with stock Nazi villains by an Englishwoman; #4, Slaughterhouse Five, a World War II novel by a Majority Truckler; #5, Sunday the Rabbi Came Home. The three top fiction bestsellers as reported by the New York Times (Sept 5, 1976) were: #1, Trinity by Leon Uris; #2, Dolores by Jacqueline Susann; #3, The Lonely Lady by Harold Robbins. All three authors are Jewish. When it is realized that only 17 percent of American adults read one book a year, that 50 percent of American college graduates do not read one book a year, that 50 percent of Americans have never read one book through, American reading habits are even more of a tragedy than indicated by bestseller lists. See Nancy Polette and Marjorie Hamlin, Reading Guidance in a Media Age, Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1976. Forbidden to explore the text and context of his collective consciousness, the Majority artist retreats to surrealism, science fiction, murder mysteries, fantasy, travel guides, and pornography.[61]Pornography assumes an ever greater place in eras of cultural breakdown, not, as some apostles of permissiveness like to pretend, because it expands artistic horizons but because it shrinks them. As bad money drives out good, the art of the private parts drives out the art of the heart and mind. Of all man’s artistic activities pornography, if it can be called an art, requires the least amount of mental effort Perhaps nothing has done more harm to the torn fabric of American civilization than the Supreme Court’s 1957 ruling in Roth v. U.S., which defined obscenity as something “utterly without redeeming social importance.” Since a sharp lawyer can find at least a trace of “social importance” in any kind of trash, Pandora’s Box was opened, and the minority tycoons of Hollywood, Broadway, and Publishers* Row were quick to seize the opportunity — and the profits. In the process he becomes the punching bag of the minority activist, who views “man’s essential struggle as social, against other men, rather than the moral one against himself.”[62]John Leggett, The Wasp Novel,” New York Times Book Review, Nov. 30, 1969, p. 2.

Many potential Majority artists[63]The genius bathed in what Matthew Arnold has called “the national glow” has a less difficult row to hoe than the genius in a fragmenting culture, which forces partisanship of one kind or another on everyone. As Goethe put it, “Bedauert doch den ausserordentlichen Menschen, dass er in einer so erbarmlichen Zeit leben, dass er immerfort polemisch wirken musste.” Eckermann, Gesprache mit Goethe (Feb. 7, 1827). probably sense well in advance the roadblocks in the way of a successful artistic career and turn to science, where their creativity is less hampered. Similar situations in the past may illustrate why in the life span of nations the artistic efflorescence has generally preceded the scientific — why Sophocles came before Archimedes, Dante before Galileo, Shakespeare before Newton and Faraday, Goethe before Planck. Mathematics, physics, and chemistry, but not the life sciences, are less controversial than art.[64]The least controversial art is music and consequendy the last to be devitalized by censorship. The only art that still remains in Majority hands is country music, and even this is falling under the triple assault of Negro jazz, drugs and cynical show business promoters. Critic Richard Goldstein, writing for the young female readers of Mademoiselle (June 1973), charged that country music was “threatening” to Jewish sensibilities. In its stead he recommended the lubricious lilt of Negro rhythms. The rock festivals, which draw gigantic audiences and gigantic attention from the media, are in part a confused attempt to rescue popular music from Tin Pan Alley. But they are by no means as impromptu as the press makes them appear. The Woodstock Festival had an advance ticket sale of $1,400,000, generated by the $200,000 its two Jewish producers, John Roberts and Mike Lang, spent in radio and newspaper ads. New York Times Magazine, Sept 7, 1969, pp. 122, 124. In a divided, pluralistic society they may be the last refuge of free expression and free inquiry. It has been said by Ortega y Gasset that “people read to pronounce judgment ” The aphorism might be expanded by saying that as nations become older and more divergent in politics, religion, class, and race, people read to soothe or excite their prejudices.

The glimmering of a great artistic era appeared in the United States in the first half of the nineteenth century. In New England, New York, Philadelphia, and the South, a native American aristocracy was evolving out of generations of landowners, shipping magnates, army and navy officers, and government, church, and educational leaders. At the same time, schools of Majority artists were emerging, their growth rate synchronized with that of the budding aristocracy. It was perhaps no coincidence that the Hudson River Valley, the stamping ground of the first American aristocrats, produced the first great American writer, Washington Irving, the greatest American writer, Herman Melville, and the first American school of painting. The Dutch patroons of New Amsterdam had carved out their riverine estates decades before the founding of the Virginia plantations and while Boston was still a log-cabin theocracy.[65]Significantly, Melville’s mother, Maria Gansevoort, a descendant of an old Dutch family, was a “cold, proud woman, arrogant in the sense of her name, her blood and the affluence of her forebears.” Raymond M. Weaver, Herman Melville, p. 34. Also see Morison, Oxford History of the American People, pp. 177, 487, for a chronological comparison of the New York and New England aristocracies.

The traumatic experience of the Civil War was not entirely responsible for putting an end to America’s great artistic promise. There was the overflowing social fluidity which followed the war and made possible the settlement of the West. There were fortunes to be won — in commerce, in industry, in mining, in land — and as plutocracy waxed, art waned. 66 There was also the New Immigration, which played havoc with the normal, organic processes of artistic evolution.

In the last moment of the Roman Republic, when Roman culture was displaying signs of rigor mortis, Augustus halted the dissolution of Roman art by halting the dispossession of the Roman Majority. The outcome was the Golden Age of Latin literature. It was not until Rome’s decline properly began — according to Gibbon, at the accession of Commodus in A.D. 180 — that Roman art and the Roman Majority were on an irreversible path to extinction.

For the sake of the American Majority and of American art, it is to be hoped that the United States is in its pre-Augustan, not its pre-Commodan stage.[67]The ways and means adopted by Augustus in his rehabilitation of the “Old Romans’* should provide those interested in reversing the dispossession of the Majority with ample food for thought Augustus’s point of departure was “that the Italian race was immeasurably the superior of any other, and he did not wish to see it lost in a polyglot welter.” Buchan, Augustus, p. 20. “Considering it also of great importance to keep the people pure and unsullied by any taint of foreign or servile blood, he was most chary of conferring Roman citizenship and set a limit to manumission.” Suetonius, Divus Augustus, trans. J. C. Rolfe, XL, 3.

Footnotes

[1] Culture is “a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know…the best which has been thought and said in the world; and through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically, vainly imagining that there is a virtue in following them staunchly, which makes up for the mischief of following them mechanically.” Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy, Cambridge University Press, England, 1961, p. 6.

[2] Aristocracy is here meant to designate the rule of the well-born. Its meaning is not restricted to families of high social standing or to the products of one or two generations of political or financial preeminence. Aristocrats of the latter sort can be found in all states, including proletarian and plutocratic societies. For those convinced there is an unbridgeable gap between aristocracy and freedom, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the following words of caution: “parmi toutes les societes du monde, celles qui auront toujours le plus de peine a echapper pendant longtemps au gouvernement absolu seront precisement ces societes ou l’aristocratie n’est plus et ne peut plus etre.” L’ancien regime et la revolution. Michel Levy Freres, Paris, 1856, p. xvi

[3] Great art in this context is considered timeless, not dated; great artists to be creative, not interpretative geniuses.

[4] Cyril Robinson, A History of Greece, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1957, p. 83.

[5] Ibid., p. 82.

[6] The mother of Pericles was descended from an ancient Athenian family, the Alcmaeonidae, and his father was a victorious naval commander.

[7] Pasquale Villari, Life and Times of Machiavelli, Fisher, Unwin, London, p. 4.

[8] Pericles, Augustus, and the Medici freely mixed with the great artists of their time. Virgil read Augustus his completed Georgics on the latter’ s return from Egypt in 30 B.C. The meeting was momentous because Virgil’s lines may have revived Augustus’s latent Italian ism. Buchan, Augustus, p. 124. Lincoln, beyond a brief handshake at a White House reception, never met Melville. Raymond Weaver, Herman Melville, Pageant Books, N.Y., 1961, p. 375. Nor did Franklin D. Roosevelt ever meet Faulkner or T. S. Eliot John F. Kennedy may have bestowed a few minutes of friendship on Robert Frost, but this could hardly be compared to the attention Louis XIV lavished on Racine and Moliere. At one time the Sun King acted as “advance man” for Racine’s Esther and actually played a role in one of Moliere’s productions. Racine, Theatre complet, Edition Gamier Freres, Paris, 1960, p. 598; H. C. Chatfield-Taylor, Moliere, Duffield, New York, 1906, pp. 189-90.

[9] A few examples that come quickly to mind are Heine’s super-romantic German lieder, Mendelssohn’s thumping Christian hymns, El Greco’s hyperbolic Spanish landscapes and elongated holy men, Jakob Wasserman’s souped up Christian Wahnschaffe, Siegfried Sassoon’s synthetic Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man, and Rodgers and Hammerstein’s totally counterfeit Oklahoma. For a better understanding of the difference between the authentic and the unauthentic in art, compare Goethe’s Faust with Heine’s Doktor Faust.

[10] Examples of contemporary minority stridency are the music of Darius Milhaud, the sculpture of Jacques Lipchitz, the poetry of Allen Ginsberg, and the plays of LeRoi Jones.

[11] Literacy here signifies the simple ability to read and write. The rich language of Elizabethan literature and drama would indicate that if fewer people could write in those times, those able to write wrote much better than contemporary Englishmen. Even the “illiterates” of that day seemed to have a deeper appreciation and better understanding of literature than their literate successors.

[12] The fake artist is not unrelated to the antiartist — the type of individual who blew up The Thinker outside the Cleveland Museum in the spring of 1970. It was one of the eleven castings made under the personal supervision of Rodin. New York Times, July 17, 1970.

[13] Compare the startlingly new effect of the poetry of Eliot, who declared himself a royalist and Anglo Catholic, with the almost classical verse of the best work of the French Marxist poet, Louis Aragon. William Butler Yeats, the other great poet of modern times, can hardly be described as a leftist.

[14] The painting of a Campbell Soup can by Andy Warhol, a Polish-American homosexual, was sold for $60,000 at a New York City auction in 1970, and increased in price thereafter. The late British art critic, Herbert Read, owned two paintings by a couple of chimpanzees who, he explained, allowed “their brushes to be guided by instinctive gestures, just like the action painters of America.” Times Literary Supplement, Aug. 28, 1970.

[15] Regarding Joseph Hirshhorn, the uranium king, James Yaffe wrote, “When he likes the painter’s work, he often buys it in bulk and insists on a reduction in the price, just like any garment manufacturer buying fabrics.” Yaffe, The American Jews, p. 233.

[16] Picasso, often considered the greatest twentieth-century painter, is alleged to have said this about his role in modern art: “I am only a public entertainer who has understood his times and has exhausted as best he could the imbecility, the vanity, the cupidity of his contemporaries. Mine is a bitter confession, more painful than it may appear, but it has the merit of being sincere.” Whether Picasso really uttered these words has not been verified. Nevertheless, Life, at a time when it was America’s largest-circulation magazine, attributed them to Picasso (Dec. 27, 1968, p. 134). Also see Picasso, Order and Destiny by Michael Huffington.

[17] Frank Lloyd, an oil entrepreneur from Vienna, operated a chain of art galleries in London, Rome, and New York, which in the art world stood out “like U.S. Steel [in] a community of blacksmiths.” A competitor said of Mr. Lloyd, who does not collect pictures himself, Tie might as well be in the used car business….” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 31, 1968, pp. 1, 10. When last heard of, Lloyd was a fugitive from justice living in the Bahamas. For the art rackets of Bernard Berenson and Lord Duveen, both of whom happened to be Jewish, see Colin Simpson, The Partnership, Bodley Head, London, 1987.

[18] Time, June 17, 1965, p. 29.

[19] New York Times, April 28, 1932, p. 4.

[20] New York Times, March 8, 1948, p. 1. Other majority writers who took their own lives: poets John Benyman and Sylvia Plath; Laird Goldsborough, Time foreign affairs writer; Parker Lloyd-Smith, genius of Fortune.

[21] New York Times, May 20, 1949, p. 1.

[22] Time, April 10, 1950, p. 43. Another gifted writer who heard the same song and who perhaps symbolized better than anyone the tragic fate of the Majority artist in a minority-obsessed society was Howard Rushmore. A tenth-generation American born in South Dakota, Rushmore first wrote for the Daily Worker, eventually losing his job for refusing to inject Negrophile sentiments in his film reviews. He then switched to anti-Communist bombast for Hearst newspapers. His last job was with the libelous gossip magazine, Confidential, for which, unbeknownst to himself and to his publisher, he wrote some of the finest satire in American literature. In 1958 he shot and killed himself and his wife in the back seat of a taxicab. Newsweek, Jan. 13, 1958, pp. 19-20.

[23] W.J. Cash, The Mind of the South, Knopf, New York, 1941. Also see Joseph L. Morrison, W.J. Cash, Knopf, New York, 1967, p. 131.

[24] Susan Sontag, “Notes on Camp” in Against Interpretation, Dell, New York, 1969, pp. 291-92.

[25] George Steiner, The Cleric of Treason,” New Yorker, Dec. 8, 1980, p. 180.

[26] After the New York Board of Rabbis protested the television showing of the Merchant of Venice, it was removed from the English curriculum of New York City high schools. Time, June 29, 1962, p. 32. An ABC television presentation of The Merchant of Venice (Nov. 16, 1974) ended with Rachel turning away from her husband’s house as a Jewish cantor sings in the background. Shakespeare had her walking into the house. A 1941 Simon and Schuster edition of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales appeared with a foreword by Mark Van Doren, but without The Prioresses Tale, which recounts a heinous murder committed by Jews. Oberammergau’s Passion Play, a fixture of European culture since 1634, has been under constant attack by the American Jewish Congress for its “notoriously anti-Semitic text In 1980 organized tours to the play for servicemen stationed in West Germany were forbidden by the Secretary of the Army.

[27] The Saturday Review of Literature, Feb. 26, 1949, pp. 9-10.

[28] Hie Philadelpia Board of Education banished Huckleberry Finn from the city’s public school system and replaced it by a version in which all derogatory references to Negroes were deleted. San Francisco Chronicle, This World, May 27, 1962, p. 16 and April 27, 1963, p. 8.

[29] Los Angeles Times, Feb. 16, 1962, Letter Section. Uris’s attack was particularly ungracious because he is the minority racist writer par excellence. His bestseller, Exodus, cheering the Israeli conquest of Palestine, is fifth-rate Kipling.

[30] In My Old Kentucky Home, the state anthem of Kentucky, such expressions as < Massa, w "Darkies," and 'Mammy* have been carefully deleted. The Virginia state anthem, Carry Me Back to Old Virginny, has been attacked by a Negro state senator as “abhorrent to his race.” One Southern congressman has predicted, not altogether facetiously, that minority lobbying will eventually bring about the renaming of the White House. U.S. News & World Report, Aug. 9, 1957, p. 43 and New York Times, March 2, 1970, p. 28.

[31] Random House barred all works of Pound from a poetry anthology, even though Conrad Aiken, one of the editors, had specifically chosen twelve Pound poems for inclusion. Charles Norman, Ezra Pound, Macmillan, N.Y., 1960, p. 416.

[32] For years Jewish “monitors” in the post-World War II period were also responsible for depriving American audiences of the renowned Bolshoi Ballet, whose American tour was cancelled in 1970 after a series of Zionist attacks, including a bombing, against Soviet installations in New \brk City. The plan was to punish the Russians for the alleged anti-Semitism of some high Kremlin functionaries and for giving aid and comfort to the Palestinian cause.

[33] 1960 estimate by Bureau of Census.

[34] Just as they treat as a paradox the fact that a disproportionate number of all modern Majority literary lights are Southerners: James Agee, Flannery O’Connor, {Catherine Anne Porter, John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren, Thomas Wolfe, Walker Percy, James Dickey, Stark Young, Carson McCullers, Eudora Welty, Allen Tate, Tom Wolfe, to name a few.

[35] Writers: Edna Ferber, Gertrude Stein, Fannie Hurst, Mary McCarthy, Nathanael West, Bruce Jay Friedman, J. D. Salinger, Herbert Gold, Harvey Swados, Bernard Malamud, Saul Bellow, Norman Mailer, Irving Stone, Jerome Weidman, Irwin Shaw, Howard Fast, Budd Schulberg, Ben Hecht, Irving Wallace, Harold Robbins, Philip Roth, Joseph Heller, Herman Wouk, Meyer Levin, S.J. Perelman, Alexander King, E. L. Doctorow, Rona Jaffe, William Goldman.

Poets: Louis Untermeyer, Dorothy Parker, Delmore Schwartz, Kenneth Fearing, Babette Deutsch, Karl Shapiro, Allen Ginsberg, Joseph Auslander, Howard Nemerov, Muriel Rukeyser.

Playwrights: Elmer Rice, Ceorge S. Kaufman, Moss Hart, Lillian Hellman, Sidney Kingsley, Clifford Odets, Sam and Bella Spewack, Arthur Miller, J. Howard Lawson, Neil Simon, Jack Gerber, Arthur Kopit, Paddy Chayefsky, Abe Burrows, Murray Schisgal, S. N. Behrman.

Critics: Charles Angoff, Clifton Fadiman, Leslie Fiedler, John Gassner, Milton Hindus, Alfred Kazin, Louis Kronenberger, Norman Podhoretz, George Steiner, Diana Trilling, Lionel Trilling, Irving Kristol, Paul Goodman, Paul Jacobs, William Phillips, Irving Howe, Joseph Wechsberg, Midge Decter.

Painters and Sculptors: George Grosz, Saul Steinberg, Moses and Raphael Soyer, Leon Kroll, Saul Raskin, Jacques lipchitz, Jacob Epstein, Larry Rivers, Chaim Gross, Helen Franken thaler, Mark Rothko, Jack Levine, Ben Shahn, Abraham Walkowitz, Milton Avery, Leonard Baskin, Eugene Berman, Leonid Berman, Hyman Bloom, Jim Dine, Louis Eilshemius, Adolph Gottlieb, Philip Guston, Hans Hoffman, Morris Louis, Louise Nevelson, Barnett Newman, Jules Olitski, Philip Pearlstein, George Segal.

Composers: Aaron Copland, Ernest Bloch, Darius Milhaud, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein, Jerome Kern, Sigmund Romberg, Andre Previn, Marc Blitzstein.

Orchestra Conductors, Virtuosos, and Singers: Bruno Walter, Serge Koussevitsky, Pierre Monte ux, Erich Leinsdorf, Eugene Ormandy, George Szell, Mischa Elman, Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, Rudolf Serkin, Artur Schnabel, Alexander Kipnis, Nathan Milstein, Artur Rubinstein, Jan Peerce, George London, Robert Merrill, Vladimir Horowitz, Gregor Piatorgorsky, Arthur Fiedler, George Sold, Richard Tucker, Michael Tilson-Thomas, James Levine, Antal Dorati, Otto Klemperer, Roberta Peters, Regina Resnik, Beverly Sills, Wanda Landowska, Emil Gilels, Dame Myra Hess, Isaac Stern, Joseph Szigeti.

[36] Negro novelists and poets include: Ralph Ellison, Frank \ferby, Langston Hughes, Countee Cullen, Claude McKay, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Lorraine Hansberry, Claude Brown, James Weldon Johnson, Maya Angelou, and Poet Laureate, Rita Dove. Although they could hardly be considered Majority members, Time (Mar. 17, 1980, p. 84) has called Russian-born Vladimir Nabokov, who ended up in Switzerland, America’s greatest living novelist, and Isami Noguchi, “the preeminent American sculptor. ”

[37] “Without either [Jews or homosexuals] Broadway would be desperately enfeebled; without both, it would be a clear case of evisceration.” William Goldman, The Season, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1969, p. 12. In his statistical analysis of the fifty-eight plays of the 1967-68 Broadway season, Goldman stated that homosexuals produced eighteen and directed twenty-two. Ibid., p. 237. The Jewish share of Broadway was indicated by the fact that of the thirty members of the Dramatist’s Guild Council at least two-thirds were Jews. Ibid., p. 148. Regarding David Merrick and Hal Prince, the Jewish producers who raked in 40 percent of the season’s gross, Goldman wrote, The point is this: neither of them has the least interest, time, taste, skill or knowledge to produce an original American play.” Ibid., p. 111.

[38] The chief dramatic contribution of the homosexual playwright has been the sensitive heroine in an insensitive society, and the bitchy heroine in a depraved society, the former representing how the author feels, the latter how he acts. Homosexuals devise most of the flashy sets and fancy dance routines of the musical extravaganzas.

[39] Che, by minority playwright Lennox Raphael, was the first American play to present the act of copulation on stage.

[40] The American musical comedy…sometimes seems to be largely the invention of Jews.” Yaffe, op. cit., p. 225. Owen Wister, describing the Boston musical offerings of the late 1870s and contrasting them with those of New York fifty years later, wrote, “Pinafore had recently blazed its trail of tune and laughter all over our map, pretty and witty comic operas from Paris and Vienna drew crowded houses, not a musical show had yet been concocted by the Broadway Jew for the American moron….” Owen Wister, Roosevelt, The Story of a Friendship, Macmillan, New York, 1930, pp. 17-18.

[41] Speaking of books, more than half of the major American publishing houses now have Jewish owners or Jewish chief editors.

[42] “American literary and political ‘highbrow* magazines offer the clearest example we have of this [Jewish] predominance. Here a bias, oddly enough quite unconscious, selects the subject matter, the treatment, and the authors most appealing to the Jewish sensibility (or which can best be fitted into it). It can be fairly said that these magazines are dominated by what may be called the Jewish cultural establishment” Van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique, p. 129.

[43] See Wilmot Robertson, Ventilations, Chapter 3. Some newspapers took a watered-down ad once but would not allow it to be repeated.

[44] New York Times Book Review, June 15, 1969, pp. 6, 38. Brown, the reviewer seemed happy to report, stole a few articles from the White House during a meeting with President Johnson. He wanted to filch a painting, but was unable to figure out how to conceal it under his coat

[45] Arthur Kopit’s Indians.

[46] Soldier Blue.

[47] Millard Lampell’s Hard Travelin’s WNET, New York, Oct 16, 1969.

[48] Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968, p.14.

[49] Van den Haag, op. cit., p. 217. The author refers in particular to Philip Roth’s novel, Portnoy’s Complaint (Random House, New York, 1969), in which this passage appears (pp. 143-44): “But the shikses ah, the shikses are something else again….the sight of their fresh cold blond hair spilling out of their kerchiefs and caps….How do they get so gorgeous, so healthy, so blond! My contempt for what they believe in is more than neutralized by my admiration of the way they look…r

[50] Nov. 16, 1969, Sec. 2, p. 1.

[51] Originators of these quotations are in order: Paul Goodman, Alfred Kazin, James Baldwin and Susan Sontag. See Benjamin De Mott, Supergrow, pp. 74-75 and Partisan Review, Winter, 1967. James Agee, a Truckler of some talent, preferred Chinese and Negroes to his own people, despised Irishmen and Germans, and married a Jewess, Letters of James Agee to Father Flye, G. Braziller, N.Y., 1962, p. 151.

[52] See footnote 23, p. 92.

[53] Cleaver, op. cit, p. 15.

[54] The Black Poets, Bantam Books, New York, 1971, pp. 318-19.

[55] Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1993, p. D6.

[56] USA Today, June 15, 1992, p. 2A.

[57] Washington Times, Feb., 22, 1992, p. A7.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Lester, Search for a New Land, p. 144.

[60] An art historian of the future, having only at his disposal lists of bestsellers, art expositions, and musical recitals for the latter third of the twentieth century, might conclude that the American Majority had ceased to exist As reported by Time (May 19, 1969, p. 12), the nation’s five leading fiction bestsellers were: #1, Portnoy’s Complaint, which has a Jewish hero or antihero; #2, The Godfather, an Italian-American novel about Italian Americans and the Mafia; #3, The Salzburg Connection, a spy tale with stock Nazi villains by an Englishwoman; #4, Slaughterhouse Five, a World War II novel by a Majority Truckler; #5, Sunday the Rabbi Came Home. The three top fiction bestsellers as reported by the New York Times (Sept 5, 1976) were: #1, Trinity by Leon Uris; #2, Dolores by Jacqueline Susann; #3, The Lonely Lady by Harold Robbins. All three authors are Jewish. When it is realized that only 17 percent of American adults read one book a year, that 50 percent of American college graduates do not read one book a year, that 50 percent of Americans have never read one book through, American reading habits are even more of a tragedy than indicated by bestseller lists. See Nancy Polette and Marjorie Hamlin, Reading Guidance in a Media Age, Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1976.

[61] Pornography assumes an ever greater place in eras of cultural breakdown, not, as some apostles of permissiveness like to pretend, because it expands artistic horizons but because it shrinks them. As bad money drives out good, the art of the private parts drives out the art of the heart and mind. Of all man’s artistic activities pornography, if it can be called an art, requires the least amount of mental effort Perhaps nothing has done more harm to the torn fabric of American civilization than the Supreme Court’s 1957 ruling in Roth v. U.S., which defined obscenity as something “utterly without redeeming social importance.” Since a sharp lawyer can find at least a trace of “social importance” in any kind of trash, Pandora’s Box was opened, and the minority tycoons of Hollywood, Broadway, and Publishers* Row were quick to seize the opportunity — and the profits.

[62] John Leggett, The Wasp Novel,” New York Times Book Review, Nov. 30, 1969, p. 2.

[63] The genius bathed in what Matthew Arnold has called “the national glow” has a less difficult row to hoe than the genius in a fragmenting culture, which forces partisanship of one kind or another on everyone. As Goethe put it, “Bedauert doch den ausserordentlichen Menschen, dass er in einer so erbarmlichen Zeit leben, dass er immerfort polemisch wirken musste.” Eckermann, Gesprache mit Goethe (Feb. 7, 1827).

[64] The least controversial art is music and consequendy the last to be devitalized by censorship. The only art that still remains in Majority hands is country music, and even this is falling under the triple assault of Negro jazz, drugs and cynical show business promoters. Critic Richard Goldstein, writing for the young female readers of Mademoiselle (June 1973), charged that country music was “threatening” to Jewish sensibilities. In its stead he recommended the lubricious lilt of Negro rhythms. The rock festivals, which draw gigantic audiences and gigantic attention from the media, are in part a confused attempt to rescue popular music from Tin Pan Alley. But they are by no means as impromptu as the press makes them appear. The Woodstock Festival had an advance ticket sale of $1,400,000, generated by the $200,000 its two Jewish producers, John Roberts and Mike Lang, spent in radio and newspaper ads. New York Times Magazine, Sept 7, 1969, pp. 122, 124.

[65] Significantly, Melville’s mother, Maria Gansevoort, a descendant of an old Dutch family, was a “cold, proud woman, arrogant in the sense of her name, her blood and the affluence of her forebears.” Raymond M. Weaver, Herman Melville, p. 34. Also see Morison, Oxford History of the American People, pp. 177, 487, for a chronological comparison of the New York and New England aristocracies.

[66] The real revolution [in the U.S.] was not what is called the Revolution in history books, but is a consequence of the Civil War; after which arose a plutocratic elite.” T. S. Eliot, Notes towards the Definition of Culture, Harcourt Brace, New York, 1949, p. 44.

[67] The ways and means adopted by Augustus in his rehabilitation of the “Old Romans’* should provide those interested in reversing the dispossession of the Majority with ample food for thought Augustus’s point of departure was “that the Italian race was immeasurably the superior of any other, and he did not wish to see it lost in a polyglot welter.” Buchan, Augustus, p. 20. “Considering it also of great importance to keep the people pure and unsullied by any taint of foreign or servile blood, he was most chary of conferring Roman citizenship and set a limit to manumission.” Suetonius, Divus Augustus, trans. J. C. Rolfe, XL, 3.

Chapter 19 • The Secularization of Religion • 10,400 Words

Art is one of the battlegrounds of the cultural clash now taking place in the United States. Religion is another. The intention of this chapter, however, is not to indulge in theological speculations or question the truth or error of any particular faith, but to examine the purely social and pragmatic side of religion and its appositeness to the present tides of political, economic, and social change.

God may be dead, as it was once announced that Great Pan was dead, and as many twentieth-century churchmen, echoing the wishful thinking of Nietzsche, proclaim. But the religious instinct is very much alive. Though science is a long way from confirming it, it often seems that men are born with a religious gene. There may have been an alarming decrease in the spiritual magnetism and uplift of formal religion in modern times, but men have made up for it by shifting their innate religiosity to more mundane creeds — democracy, liberalism, capitalism, nationalism, fascism, socialism, and communism. If an abundance of saints, devils, martyrs, and prophets is a sign of religious zeal, the twentieth century ought to rank as the most religious of all centuries. Never since the days of Rome have so many heads of state, both living and dead, been deified or diabolized on such a grand scale. Belief in the old gods may be flickering, but belief in the more worldly deities of the present is laser bright.

A review of organized religion in America should begin with a discussion of Christianity. Until quite recently, the United States was called a Christian nation and statistically about 60 percent of all Americans still belong to a Christian church.[1]The 1980 World Almanac lists 169 religious denominations in the United States with a total membership of 170,185,693 or 78% of the population. Of these, 49,836,176 are Roman Catholics, 3,970,735 Eastern Orthodox, 1,850,000 Jews, 2,000,000 Moslems and 21,000 Buddhists. Of the remaining 112,507,782 most are Protestants, quasi-Protestants, and members of unaffiliated Christian sects. The number of Roman Catholics is quite misleading because the Catholic Church counts as members all who are baptized. The Jewish figure was inexplicably increased to 3,985,000 in the 1981 World Almanac, though Jews are known to be the most irreligious American population group. Many of the larger Protestant churches, on the other hand, only count active churchgoers and communicants. The breakdown of the larger Protestant denominations is as follows: 15,862,749 Baptists, 12,486,912 Methodists, 10,331,405 Lutherans, 3,745,526 Presbyterians, 2,818,130 Episcopalians, 2,237,721 Pentecostals. But what exactly is a Christian? The definition seems to depend on the religious denomination of the definer. In Roman Catholic eyes, St. Francis, one of the few who ever took Christ literally, and Boniface VIII, more Caesar than pope, were both Christians. In Protestant eyes so was Captain (later Reverend) John Newton, who composed the ever popular hymn, “How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds, * while the vessel he commanded waited off the Guinea coast to pick up a cargo of slaves from the interior.[2]Times Literary Supplement, Jan. 9, 1964, p. 25. Other Christians have included column-sitting Syrians, sword-wielding Norsemen, cannibalistic blacks, lust-ridden empresses, and piety-stricken nuns.

The difficulty of defining a Christian stems in part from the massive polarizations and cyclic reconciliations of Christianity in the nearly two millennia of its existence. No religion has been so many things to so many believers and so many theologians. None has provoked so many heresies and schisms, so much war and so much peace, so much animosity and so much love, so much nitpicking and so much ecstasy. Perhaps the only time that Christianity was truly unified and truly one religion was in its infancy, when it was a simple offshoot of Judaism— one of the many sects that flourished in the spiritual ferment stirred up by Roman encroachments on Jewish statehood.

The first great problem of Christianity was a purely racial one. Would it be a religion for Jews or for Gentiles? Jesus himself was a a Galilean from “Galilee of the Gentiles.” There is no definite proof that he was a Jew, but it is almost certain he was brought up in a Jewish cultural ambiance.[3]“Galilee of the Gentiles” is found in Matthew 4:15. At the time of Jesus’ birth, Galilee, a Roman province in northern Palestine, had a mixed Jewish and Assyrian population and had been considered Jewish for less than a century. Toynbee, Study of History, Vol. II, pp. 73-74, and Ency. Brit., Vol. 9, p. 978. Both ultra- and anti-Semites have occasionally tried to make Jesus something other than a Jew. The Talmudic tradition of a part-Roman ancestry has been noted in footnote 105, p. 199. One Aryanizer of Jesus points to a descent from “Proto-Nordics” who once lived in and about Galilee. C. G. Campbell, Race and Religion, Peter Nevill, London, 1973, p. 151. Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his Foundations of the Nineteenth Century also questioned the Jewishness of Jesus. At first many Jews looked upon him as a possible Messiah come to satisfy their craving for a return to the temporal glories of Solomon. Later, when the ministry of Jesus began to appeal to outsiders and when he demonstrated more interest in an otherworldly than in a worldly kingdom, the Jews quickly closed their hearts and their purses.[4]The Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno gave another reason why Jews turned their backs on Jesus. He preached immortality, in which Jews have scant interest Unamuno, Del Sentimiento Trdgico de la Vida, Las Americas Publishing, New York, 1966, Chapter HI. In the words of Arnold Toynbee, “this inspired Jewish scion of forcibly converted Galilean Gentiles was then rejected and done to death by the Judaean leaders of the Jewry of his age.”[5]A Study of History, Vol. V, p. 658.

The next problem facing Christianity, once it moved away from Jewry, was how much of its original Jewish background and tradition would or should be preserved. One faction, the Marcionites, attempted to purge the early church of all Jewish influence, going so far as to brand the Old Testament the work of the devil. The Petrine Church took the opposite tack of accepting the Jewish Bible, canonizing a great deal of Jewish theology and law, and treating Jews as midwives of Christianity. Indeed the Catholic Church in Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church in Constantinople absorbed almost everything Jewish except the Jews themselves. Eventually the Judaizers overcame practically all their rivals, though remnants of Marcionite influence persisted until the Cathars of Southern France were liquidated by papal auxiliaries in the twelfth century.[6]Ency. Brit, Vol. 5, p. 72, and Vol. 14, p. 868. If the Marcionites had prevailed, there would have been no Judeo in the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western civilization.[7]Certain racial manifestations can be detected in this divided inheritance. Marcion, a native of northern Asia Minor, was born outside the Semitic ecumene. Saints Peter and Paul and many other leaders of the Petrine Church were converted Jews. An important Jewish legacy to Christianity was the doctrine of original sin, strongly supported by St Augustine, a North African, and strongly opposed by Pelagius, a native of the British Isles, in one of Christianity’s most serious theological feuds. Alien to Hebrew thought and tradition, but too well established to be purged by the more fanatic Judaizers, were the New Testament’s three wise men, the temptation on the mountain, baptism, paradise, and the resurrection. This non-Jewish side of Christianity, according to one view, was originated by the Persian prophet, Zoroaster, whose teachings had become familiar to Jesus as a result of his association with and perhaps blood relationship to the Amorites, who had close contacts with the Persians. C. G. Campbell, op. cit, Chapter II. In regard to the seemingly congenital differences in the religious sensibilities of Semites and non-Semites, T. E. Lawrence had this to say: “I had believed Semites unable to use love as a link between themselves and God….Christianity had seemed to me the first creed to proclaim love in this upper world, from which the desert and the Semite (from Moses to Zeno) had shut it out. … Its birth in Galilee had saved it from being just one more of the innumerable revelations of the Semite. Galilee was Syria’s non-Semitic province, contact with which was almost unclean ness for the perfect Jew….Christ by choice passed his ministry in its intellectual freedom….” Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Doubleday, Doran, Garden City, N.Y., 1935, p. 356. There might also have been a racial repulsion on the part of Gentiles for some Jewish religious practices, in particular that aspect of the circumcision ritual in which a “venerable and honored guest is asked to apply his mouth to the penis, and suck up the first drop of blood.” Ernest Van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique, p. 160.

One of the principal themes of Gibbon’s magnificent obituary of the Roman Empire was the important role of Christianity in its decay and dissolution.[8]Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapters 15 and 16. If the great historian had explored the workings of the Early Church more penetratingly, he might have found the real culprit was not the Christian religion as such, but those who played up the equalitarian and insurrectionary elements of Christianity at the expense of the more fundamental Christian concept of immortality. On the one side, the power and privilege of the dwindling Roman elite were undermined by the New Testament’s accent on brotherhood and renunciation. On the other, the subject races were aroused to violence by the inflammatory sermons of the Early Fathers, whose strictures against Roman paganism demanded the destruction of everyone and everything connected with the old religion. In A.D. 310 there was one last flare-up of pagan repression when Emperor Galerius poured molten lead down Christian throats and fed the lions a final meal of martyrs in the Coliseum. Two years later, Constantine saw the blazing cross, and Rome soon had a Christian Emperor.

When Christianity became a state religion, the bishops changed their tune. Instead of opposing the government, the Church became its guardian. Instead of attacking military service, it advocated it. Once the oppressed, Christians were now the oppressors. The flames of Greek and Roman temples lit the night sky of dying Rome. Although it was too late to prevent the Empire’s collapse, the bishops did manage to convert, in a fashion, the conquering Teutons, who later saved Western Christianity from the Huns, Arabs, Turks, and other heathen marauders.

By the time of the Crusades, Christianity had split into the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. It split again when Northern Europe, incited by princes and potentates coveting the wealth going to the Holy See, broke away from the spiritual absolutism and temporal Realpolitik of the Latinized Popes. The Reformation drew the religious frontiers which still separate Protestant from Catholic Europe and the racial frontiers which in many areas still separate Nordics from Alpines.

The late Professor Guignebert of the University of Paris, an expert in biblical scholarship, has provided an interesting sidelight on the development of Christianity by noting the changing “appearance” of Jesus through the ages.[9]Charles Guignebert, Jesus, Le Renaissance du Livre, Paris, 1933, pp. 189-96. In The Everlasting Gospel, Blake expatiated on two different faces of Jesus: The Vision of Christ that thou dost see/ Is my vision’s greatest enemy./ Thine has a great hooked nose like thine;/ Mine has a snub nose like to mine.” The first depictions of Jesus had him hairy, ugly, and abject Later in Gothic rose windows and statuary, and in Renaissance paintings and frescoes, Christ was endowed with Nordic features and at times looked more like Siegfried than the son of a Mediterranean carpenter. Many paintings of the Holy Family portrayed the Virgin and the Christ Child with blond hair and blue eyes. The Aesthetic Prop was everywhere visible in the greatest masterpieces of Christian art.

Christianity was transported to the United States by members of practically every Christian denomination — Anglicans and Anabaptists, Catholics and Mennonites, Lutherans, Quakers and Shakers, Greek Orthodox and Doukhobors. The Episcopal Church — two thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Episcopalians[10]Ency. Brit., Vol. 18, p. 612. — and Calvinist churches (principally Congregational and Presbyterian) remained dominant until the rise of the revivalist and evangelical sects in the early nineteenth century. The slavery issue dissolved whatever Christian unity existed between North and South, turning many Yankees from the eye-for-an-eye morality and ironbound predestination of Calvinism[11]The late eighteenth-century New England Calvinist was typified by Samuel Adams, who Vas no revolutionist, but a racist, anti-Catholic — with no favor for minorities.” Samuel Morison, Oxford History of the American People, p. 211. to Unitarianism and other less rigorous and less selective faiths. In the same years, Southern churches fastened a stratified, racially separate Christianity on the slave states, justifying their actions by murky biblical passages on human bondage.[12]The most quoted was Genesis 9:22-27. Ham, considered by some theologians to be the progenitor of the Negro race, sees his father, Noah, naked in his drunkenness. When Noah hears about it, he lays a curse on Canaan, the son of Ham, destining him to be a “servant of servants.” Shem (the first Semite) and Japheth (the first non-Semite?) , Ham’s two brothers, were thereafter to be served through all eternity by Canaan, according to proslavery interpreters of the Old Testament

Shortly before the Civil War, Roman Catholicism commenced to assume some prominence in national affairs. In addition to its religious function, the Catholic Church served as an immense social service organization for the massive influx of hungry, homesick Irish immigrants. Decades later, it became the spiritual and, on occasion, the political shepherd for the millions of Central and Southern European Catholics who supplied the bulk of the New Immigration. By the early 1930s the Catholic Church was the largest and most powerful religious body in the United States. In 1928, Alfred E. Smith lost the presidential election pardy because he was a Catholic. In 1960, John F. Kennedy won the presidency partly because he was a Catholic. In the 97th Congress (1981-82), more congressmen belonged to the Catholic Church than to any other religious denomination.

Today, Christianity in the United States — the fundamentalists excepted — has turned its attention from God to man and become the champion of the minorities. Many Protestant ministers take the money from their collection plates and spend it on projects for blacks and Hispanics that are often more political than charitable. Churches are transformed into meeting places for black gangs.[13]All in vain, as Nietzsche predicted a century ago: There is nothing more terrible than a barbaric slave class, who have learned to regard their existence as an injustice, and now prepare to avenge, not only themselves, but all future generations. In the face of such threatening storms, who dares to appeal with any confidence to our pale and exhausted religions….” The Birth of Tragedy from The Philosophy of Nietzsche, trans. Clifton Fadiman, Modern Library, New York, p. 1048. Clergymen record their “deep appreciation* to the black militant who stormed into Manhattan’s Riverside Church and demanded $500 million in “reparations.”[14]Time, May 16, 1969, p. 94. Long tolerant of communism in its various Stalinist, Titoist, and Maoist guises,[15]According to congressional investigator J. B. Matthews, 7,000 American clergymen once espoused the Communist party line. As the Soviet Union became more grasping and bellicose, many of them adopted safer and more acceptable brands of Marxism. For Matthews’ estimate, see Walter Goodman, The Committee, Farrar Straus, New York, 1968, p. 335. many churchmen now openly endorse revolution in Central America,[16]A London conclave organized by the World Council of (Protestant) Churches released a report which stated, “guerrilla fighters struggling against racist regimes must be given the support of the church if all else has been seen to fail.” It also stated that in certain circumstances, The church must support resistance movements, including revolutions, which are aimed at the elimination of political or economic tyranny that makes racism possible.” The conference was chaired by Senator George McGovern, a Methodist lay delegate. Time, June 6, 1969, p. 88. Over the years the World Council, to which most American Protestant denominations belong, has continued to support black terrorist groups in Africa with sermons and cash. smuggle in illegal aliens, propagandize for unilateral disarmament,[17]As did the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1985. raise bail for Black Panther thugs,[18]New York Times, Jan. 31, 1970, p. 9. In September 1970, black militant Angela Davis, while on the FBI’s ten most wanted list for owning the guns that killed a California judge, was honored by having her portrait prominently displayed in the annual Liberation Sunday of St Stephen’s Episcopal Church in St Louis. Miami Herald, Sept 27, 1970, p. 30A. Miss Davis, a raging Stalinist, was later exonerated by an all-white jury. and conspire against a future draft as they conspired against the United States war effort in Vietnam.[19]Yale University Chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Jr., once married to the ballerina daughter of Artur Rubinstein, was sentenced to two years in prison in 1968 for conspiring to counsel young Americans to evade the draft The jury’s verdict was later thrown out by a higher court 1970 World Almanac, p. 922. Some Catholic priests have been active in inciting strikes of MexicanAmerican migrant farm workers against California farmers.[20]Time, Dec. 10, 1965, p. 96. Others, notably the Berrigan brothers, have broken into Selective Service offices and destroyed draft records.[21]New York Times, Aug. 9, 1970, Sec. 4, p. 7. In January 1971, the Berrigans were charged with plotting to blow up the heating systems of five government buildings in Washington and kidnap Henry Kissinger. According to Time, the two brothers were “cradle rebels.” Their father, Tom Berrigan, a trade union organizer, was the son of Irish immigrants who had fled to the U.S. to escape the poverty of the Ould Sod. Time, Jan. 25, 1971, pp. 14-15. Still others have taken to the streets and led mass sit-ins in open defiance of state and local laws, and Pope John Paul IPs strictures against priests in politics.

For various reasons the current liberal-minority version of Christianity in America lacks credibility and smacks of dilettantism. Jesus was an underdog. His poverty and minority status stimulated an honest concern for the oppressed and downtrodden. The well-fed, well-funded cleric, who walks a mile or two in a “freedom march, ” is given the red-carpet treatment in Hanoi, and drops in from time to time to see how his Negro friends in the slums are doing, seems a little counterfeit. So does the “social conscience” of the Vatican ($80 billion in assets, including a $5.6 billion stock portfolio)[22]Nino Lo Bello, The Vatican Empire, Fireside, Simon and Schuster, New \fork, 1970, pp. 23, 135. The Holy See, which has had its share of financial scandals, formally denied these estimates, though admitting it is so enmeshed in high finance it has established close relations with the Rothschilds. New York Times, July 22, 1970, p. 8. Pope John Paul II revealed the Church had a $20 million budget deficit in 1979. UPI report, Nov. 10, 1979. and the American religious establishment (property alone valued at $102 billion).[23]Time, May 18, 1970, p. 44. Of the $17.6 billion that American individuals or organizations contributed to charity in 1969, $7.9 billion was earmarked for religious purposes. U.S. News & World Report, July 13, 1970, p. 65. Charitable giving rose to $124.3 billion in 1992. Such a vast hoard of wealth, which is nothing new in church history, has always made Christianity suspect in the eyes of leftist radicals. It helps to explain why, despite all that Christian liberals did to prepare the way, in the three great revolutions of modern history — French, Russian, and Chinese — Christianity was officially or unofficially proscribed.

Though Christians are almost a billion strong, their faith is cooling.[24]According to the 1994 World Almanac, there are 1,833,022,100 Christians, as compared to 971,328,000 Moslems, 732,812,000 Hindus, 314,939,000 Buddhists, 187,107,000 Chinese folk religionists, 18,800,000 Sikhs, 17,822,000 Jews, 10,493,000 Shamanists, 6,028,000 Confucians, and 6,028,000 Baha’is. Despite the huge number of Christians, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, president of the American Jewish League, is known to have said, “I think Christianity is dead.” New York Daily News, May 13, 1975, p. 44. Popes no longer command armies, excommunicate kings, execute heretics, and organize crusades. There are no more Sainte Chapelles abuilding and no more artists with one iota of the religious intensity found in a Fra Angelico painting. The pens of Luther and Milton are still. The rousing Protestant hymns of yesteryear have lost their Sunday punch and are increasingly unsung. Revival meetings in tents and on television continue to draw large crowds, though more lips are converted than hearts. The old-time religion is still alive and well in some areas, but it has more relevance to the temporal ambitions of pulpit-pounding evangelists than to God. Catholic and Protestant preachers may get reams of favorable publicity in the press when they abandon their flocks to spread their “glad tidings” among the minorities, but it wins them few points with their hometown congregations. The leaders of the so-called Moral Majority have won a certain amount of acclaim, not, however, for preaching the gospel but for attacking the pandemic corruption and immorality of the worldly powers that be. Ironically some of this corruption can be ascribed to the priests and preachers who rail vociferously against it

The deformation of religion in America, the shift from the Old Testament stamp of the original white settlers to the permissive social Christianity of the present, raises the age-old question of how effectively religion shapes character and how effectively character shapes religion. According to modern standards, the colonial American, his rifle in one hand, his Bible in the other, was a caricature of a Christian. He may have read the Good Book to his family once a week, but he seldom went to church. The Pilgrims, it is known, had no pastor for nine years after their arrival. In Virginia fewer than one out of nineteen were church members. Among Massachusetts Bay colonists only one-fifth were even professing Christians. 25 Joshua, though perhaps not the late Bishop Pike, 26 would have been proud of the Pilgrims. When they did manage to go to Plymouth Church, they marched in three abreast with their muskets and firelocks at the ready, as other members of the congregation manned six cannon on the roof, each capable of shooting iron balls of four to five pounds. 27 Was this a different kind of Christianity? Or was it a different kind of Christian?

Many other aspects of early American Christianity are equally abhorrent to modern church leaders. John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, probably spoke for all the Puritan elders when he said that democracy “has always been counted the meanest and worst of all forms of government” 28 In Connecticut and Massachusetts the right to vote was restricted to church members, upsetting as this may be to those who believe that the American political tradition is unalterably bound to the separation of church and state. 29 Equally upsetting is the fact that the New England church thrived on the slave and rum trade, and that many well-known Congregational ministers were slave owners.[30]Ibid., pp. 285-86. There were 6,000 slaves in Massachusetts in 1776.
(Sweet, op. cit, pp. 46-47.)

The Protestant religion has passed through its Old Testament pioneering phase and, despite a lot of noisy fundamentalists, its New Testament evangelical phase. It is now well into its liberal phase. The Catholic religion in America is on a somewhat similar, but later starting, timetable. 31 The burning faith brought over by immigrants from Ireland and Central and Southern Europe has gradually cooled. Many of their descendants now obey a less rigid and more tolerant code, which permits them to defy their Church’s ban on contraceptives and divorce, skip mass for golf, and escape or think about escaping from the warm protection of their religious cocoon into the uncharted spaces of agnosticism.

Priests and even some nuns are marrying, not always within the Church.[32]Sister Jacqueline Grennan married Jewish widower Paul Wexler. Mrs. Wexler became president of Hunter College. Philip Berrigan, the radical defrocked priest, married a nun who was later arrested for shoplifting. Time, Sept. 18, 1973, p. 46. Parochial schools are shutting down for lack of funds. Members of the hierarchy are challenging papal infallibility. As the possibility of another great schism looms, the Church is having an increasingly difficult time keeping its decreasingly devout communicants under one roof. If the Church moves too far to the left to appease its growing Hispanic contingent, it alienates its Irish and other assimilated white Catholics. As racial divisions within its ranks sharpen, as the old external battle against the Protestants turns into an internal struggle for power, Catholic unity, once such a strong political force in the United States, may soon decline to the point where Catholics will no longer vote according to their religion but according to their race.[33]A 1992 survey by the Princeton Religion Research Center found that 26 percent of Americans adhered to the Roman Catholic Church; 56 percent to various Protestant denominations.

Judaism in America has fo